pottsca Posted October 23, 2011 Report Share Posted October 23, 2011 I'm not sure this is a bug but it isn't how I expected the robot to bid. (1S) 2H (2S) 3C -- the robot bids 3C here having 3 little hearts and a KJTxxx club suit; I would have expected 3H. Did the robot consider this bid forcing? Exact hand was: A98T73TKJT542 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cloa513 Posted October 23, 2011 Report Share Posted October 23, 2011 http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/35879-when-reporting-gibs-bugs/ Read my post and post your hand By the way if it forcing it should say that when you mouse over the 3C bid. If true, typical crap GIB bid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calm01 Posted October 23, 2011 Report Share Posted October 23, 2011 GIB sometimes passes partners bids described as forcing even with silent opponents. GIB descriptions must be seen as just descriptions, nothing more. The descriptions are not a reflection of what GIB 'understands' let alone honours. So whether the 3C bid may be described as forcing or not forcing on you, GIBs partner, is not necessarily what GIB understands by its 3C bid. Your overcall of 2H is probably described as 5+ H, but GIB might not understand your 2H call as being a 5 card or longer suit despite the description. So the failure to raise to the clearly superior 3H may follow from a failure to recognise an 8 card or longer fit is held by the partnership. If you have ever taught palookas to learn bidding at bridge you will recognise this as classic palooka bidding: "I can see my hand, I cannot see yours.". When it comes to upgrading the bidding of GIB, perhaps the joke about an Irishman, on being asked the way to Tipperary, replies "I would'nt start from here."! Updating a fundamentally flawed bidding approach just makes for even more convoluted code - an exercise in futility perhaps. Maybe this is why a man-years effort every year (according to an earlier reply from Fred to one of my posts) goes on to yields such limited returns on BBOL investment. What appears to be required is to restart the GIB bidding approach from scratch: 1) update the descriptions of all bids made by GIB, or its partner, to make bridge sense in terms of length/distribution and strength and forcing implications promised...,2) the descriptions need to consider any variations required according by the four types of relative vulnerability,3) ensure GIB 'understands' the same as the descriptions in all four situations,4) ensure GIB honours the decriptions in terms of supporting and raising partner and preempting opponents, using fast and slow arrival ... Only then will there be any hope of getting any real productivity out of the man-years work spent on GIB each year by BBOL and/or getting GIB past the palooka bidding stage it is clearly stuck in. Anyone who has taught bridge to beginners knows all this is just common sense - not rocket science. The trouble with accepting common sense is that it requires us to admit we have got it wrong all these years. Delusions about the quality of GIB's bidding held by even one or more BBOLers will most often be born of a refusal to admit that "we got it wrong all these years" in terms of the current bidding approach programmed into GIB. "Flogging a dead horse" rather than getting a new one is another way of saying the same thing. Sometimes we don't notice the horse is dead as we are too busy flogging it! This particularly true if it was our pony when we were younger. I continue to smile and occasionally belly laugh - human nature is so strange - and continues to make fools of us all - but where would humour be without our own crazy human nature to laugh at? calm01 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antrax Posted October 23, 2011 Report Share Posted October 23, 2011 Another problem with common sense is that it's incredibly hard to teach to a computer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cloa513 Posted October 23, 2011 Report Share Posted October 23, 2011 The descriptions could be direct translated memory dump from the GIB memory register (this is what I think you have and this is what I have limited by the bid)- then it wouldn't matter so much that GIB's thought processes were strange but obviously the descriptions are totally written by the programmers with no reference to actual thinking by GIB. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bbradley62 Posted October 23, 2011 Report Share Posted October 23, 2011 Welcome to the forum, Paul. Of course, giving the entire auction (including initial passes) is sometimes helpful. [hv=lin=pn|pottsca,~~M47105,~~M47103,~~M47104|st%7C%7Cmd%7C2S5TH2468KAD789KCA%2CS26QH5D2345JQC389%2CS89AH37TDTC245TJK%2C%7Crh%7C%7Cah%7CBoard%208%7Csv%7Co%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C1S%7Can%7CMajor%20suit%20opening%20--%205%2B%20S%3B%2011-21%20HCP%3B%2012-22%20total%20points%20%7Cmb%7C2H%7Can%7CTwo-level%20overcall%20--%205%2B%20H%3B%2010%2B%20HCP%3B%2011-%7Cmb%7C2S%7Can%7CFree%20major%20raise%20--%203%2B%20S%3B%206-10%20total%20points%20%7Cmb%7C3C%7Can%7C5%2B%20C%3B%202-%20H%3B%2011-%20HCP%3B%2012%20total%20points%20%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cpc%7CHQ%7Cpc%7CHA%7Cpc%7CH5%7Cpc%7CH3%7Cpc%7CCA%7Cpc%7CC9%7Cpc%7CC2%7Cpc%7CC6%7Cpc%7CS5%7Cpc%7CS2%7Cpc%7CS8%7Cpc%7CSJ%7Cpc%7CS3%7Cpc%7CST%7Cpc%7CSQ%7Cpc%7CSA%7Cpc%7CCK%7Cpc%7CC7%7Cpc%7CH6%7Cpc%7CC3%7Cpc%7CCJ%7Cpc%7CCQ%7Cpc%7CH4%7Cpc%7CC8%7Cpc%7CSK%7Cpc%7CD7%7Cpc%7CS6%7Cpc%7CS9%7Cpc%7CS7%7Cpc%7CH2%7Cpc%7CD5%7Cpc%7CCT%7Cpc%7CDT%7Cpc%7CDA%7Cpc%7CD8%7Cpc%7CD4%7Cpc%7CS4%7Cpc%7CH8%7Cpc%7CD3%7Cpc%7CC4%7Cpc%7CH7%7Cpc%7CH9%7Cpc%7CHK%7Cpc%7CD2%7Cpc%7CDK%7Cpc%7CDJ%7Cpc%7CHT%7Cpc%7CD6%7Cpc%7CD9%7Cpc%7CDQ%7Cpc%7CC5%7Cpc%7CHJ%7C]360|270[/hv]Apparently, even GIB thinks this denies having 3 hearts... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.