Gib shows 6S5H when has 6H5S and P pref H

[gwnn]

Stephen Tu: you are still misreading the stats. GIB always bid 2♠ over 2♥. Only after:

 

1NT-2♦-p-2♥ (2♦=majors)

p-?

 

Did it pass 2♥. So all lycier's point really only was that GIB does not produce bugs on every single auction.

[steve2005]

Stephen Tu: you are still misreading the stats. GIB always bid 2♠ over 2♥. Only after:

 

1NT-2♦-p-2♥ (2♦=majors)

p-?

 

Did it pass 2♥. So all lycier's point really only was that GIB does not produce bugs on every single auction.

Most people didn't open 1N on this hand I did cause i had 16 pts and didn't think i could describe my strength otherwise so 1N. So probably scared Gib out of game.

One person opened 1♦ and same sort of Michaels auction occurred

Where the auction differed was when Human player south rebids 3♣ or 3♦. That 3♥ is now the cheapest bid may be a coincidence but in any case now Gib always bids 3♥

[Stephen Tu]

How could it be using different version of Gib is in a regular tournament not an instant.

 

Stephen Tu: you are still misreading the stats. GIB always bid 2♠ over 2♥. Only after:

1NT-2♦-p-2♥ (2♦=majors)

p-?

Did it pass 2♥. So all lycier's point really only was that GIB does not produce bugs on every single auction.

 

My bad!!!! I didn't carefully read lycier's wall of examples and notice the auction was different since I've mostly been in the habit of ignoring his walls of examples since they are also usually irrelevant in the other posts of this forum which are not always tournaments with identical GIBs.

 

So here it's instant tournament, GIB's are all the same, and lycier was only pointing out GIB did something different when the humans made the auction different by opening 1nt super off shape or bidding again the 2nd time or something. That just makes lycier's arguments even more totally ridiculous. "GIB doesn't display bug on another sequence, therefore it's not a bug on this sequence??" Lycier, basically you are arguing that if GIB doesn't screw up every single sequence, nothing it does can ever be considered a bug. Don't you see how insane you are being?

[gwnn]

No he doesn't see it. Well, maybe he's more open to understand if you are the one who says it as he thinks you are the only person on this subforum worth listening to.

[Stefan_O]

- The worst things Gibs did is that Gibs shouldn't rebid 2♠ after responding 2♥, there are 6 hands in total.

 

Yes, THAT one certainly IS an error/bug/defect in the bidding-logic, EVEN if ALL the other sequences are OK.

 

Such obvious errors should be CORRECTED.

 

Somehow, I start to believe you don't know what the word "bug" means....

It does NOT mean that EVERYTHING is wrong.

It CAN mean there is an error ONLY in a very specific situation or detail.

 

"Bug" simply means "SOMETHING that needs to be CORRECTED".

The robot should NOT bid 2♠ over 2♥ here -- that's all it means.

 

The simple reason is that 2♠ here DEVIATES from what the EVERY 2/1 player expect for that bid.

[Stefan_O]

Actually about a bug, it is a very complex issue

 

NO, a bug in the bidding does NOT HAVE to be a "very complex issue".

 

If the robot bids something that NO 2/1 players would agree with,

and which most likely ends up in a WORSE result, it certainly IS a BUG,

simply because 2/1 is the system we have AGREED upon.

 

In BIDDING, it is as SIMPLE as that.

 

 

Card-play issues, on the other hand, MIGHT be very complex, because the robot uses VERY different methods from humans,

and you may have to use a lot of mathematics to tell what is right or wrong and ALSO understand the robots algorithms and especially their LIMITATIONS.

 

But OBVIOUS bidding errors are always VERY EASY to spot.