system played by robot in tournaments

[dunraven]

will start here n if this isn't the place to find the answer maybe someone can refer me. have played a few tournaments in bbo, with some modest success. much of the time i am frustrated and confused by the robots' bidding system. eg, if i think we're playing my system, 2/1, the robot will pass me out beneath game, when, in fact, 7 might be makeable. is there a way to find out the robot bidding system?

[johnu]

GIB only plays the GIB system, never your system. See this thread, GIB CC

[1eyedjack]

In addition to the system notes linked by johnu, you can usually get a description of historical GIB calls in a live auction by clicking on, or (depending on interface) hovering your mouse on, bids that you want described (including your partner GIB) and also, at your turn to bid, get descriptions of all legal alternative calls that you might make before committing, again by hovering.

 

These descriptions are not always accurate nor always complete, but better than nothing. Also the process is occasionally broken (no explanation provided). I have never seen any feedback from BBO obout how or why it breaks. I think it happens more with the mobile interface.

 

Re. your 2/1 comment, as you might expect, a 2/1 response by a passed hand is NF. Also what catches some out is that 1D-2C is not GF even by non-passed hand (there being no forcing 1N response to 1D)

[barmar]

I've moved this thread to the General BBO Forum. Please use General Bridge Forum for discussions about bridge in general, not specific to BBO.

[Bbradley62]

I've moved this thread to the General BBO Forum. Please use General Bridge Forum for discussions about bridge in general, not specific to BBO.

Looks more like a GIB discussion than a general BBO discussion.

[barmar]

Looks more like a GIB discussion than a general BBO discussion.

I prefer to use the GIB forum to be for questions about specific robot actions (bids and plays), not general questions about the system and where it's documented.

[1eyedjack]

I expect that this is one of the hands that prompted the thread:

[hv=lin=pn|dunraven,~~M45619,~~M45617,~~M45618|st%7C%7Cmd%7C3S6AH5D2357AC58TKA%2CS2TJKH239JKD9C237%2CS48H47QAD48QKC49Q%2C%7Crh%7C%7Cah%7CBoard%205%7Csv%7Cn%7Cmb%7C1D%7Can%7CMinor%20suit%20opening%20--%203%2B%20D%3B%2011-21%20HCP%3B%2012-22%20total%20points%20%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C2C%7Can%7CForcing%20two%20over%20one%20--%2011%2B%20HCP%3B%20biddabl%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C2N%7Can%7C2-3%20C%3B%203-5%20D%3B%202-4%20H%3B%202-4%20S%3B%2011-14%20HCP%3B%2012%2B%20total%20points%20%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C3D%7Can%7C5%2B%20C%3B%2011%2B%20HCP%3B%20biddable%20D%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cpc%7CH6%7Cpc%7CH5%7Cpc%7CHK%7Cpc%7CHA%7Cpc%7CHQ%7Cpc%7CHT%7Cpc%7CS6%7Cpc%7CH3%7Cpc%7CDK%7Cpc%7CD6%7Cpc%7CD2%7Cpc%7CD9%7Cpc%7CDQ%7Cpc%7CDT%7Cpc%7CD3%7Cpc%7CC2%7Cpc%7CS4%7Cpc%7CS3%7Cpc%7CSA%7Cpc%7CS2%7Cmc%7C13%7C]380|470[/hv]

I sympathise.

While 2C response is not itself GF, there are some who might play that the only non-GF followup rebid by responder would be 2N or 3C, and the subsequent 3D rebid in this case sets up a GF.

GIB's explanation of 3D is "11+ HCP". While the lower limit of 11 is not sufficient to GF, the absence of an upper limit is inconsistent with a non-forcing bid. This is an example of how the in-line explanations of GIB bids are short of ideal. Given the number of sequences that need to be explained this is not that surprising and I suspect something that will never be eliminated. It would be nice if every bid were programmed to show GF, F, NF etc in the explanation as applicable. Ain't gonna happen.