What cue-bids does GIB robot play

[Justus65]

Hi,

 

Does anyone know whether the GIB robots play (or are supposed to play) mixed cue-bids, or first round control cue-bids? My robot-partner bid a cue-bid, which the 'hover-over' explanation claimed was an Ace. He turned out to have Kx, and the small slam went down one. So an obvious mismatch. Moreover, the "standard GIB" system card downloaded from the BBO websites doesn't mention anything on cue-bids (could be I missed it: I'm not from the US and always get a bit lost on those US-style convention cards.....)

 

It's the kind of misunderstanding I prefer to have only once with any partner....

 

(sorry, I ended up in the wrong forum category. Don't know how to fix).

 

Thanks!

 

JR

[smerriman]

GIB is meant to bid first round controls (and when the description says ace, that could mean a void).

 

However, it doesn't really work:

 

- Often the descriptions say a control in another suit is denied, even though there was no way of showing that control because bidding that suit earlier would have been natural

- Often GIB skips a suit because it thinks it is too weak, vs not having a control (which then leads to future bids saying it didn't have the ace it skipped, etc)

- Occasionally, as in the situation you mentioned, GIB cuebids a suit it shouldn't because it thinks it is too strong for any other bid

- And usually, when you cuebid to pinpoint a weakness, GIB has no idea what that means and jumps straight to slam / Blackwood despite two quick losers in the problem suit. Though that often fools the opponents into not leading it.

 

So yeah, witih GIB it's probably safest to ignore cuebidding and bid 4NT when you shouldn't or just jump to slam and hope.

[Justus65]

Thanks for the great clarification!

[tritonium]

Programming for the Robot is intentionally deficient so they can rent better Robots. It is kind of sleazy.

[PhilG007]

I've always found GIB bidding to be erratic but than again they are programmed by humans who can also be erratic. :)

Just be sceptical and bid sensibly.

[ehonor]

I find that the explanations are often misleading. It often says forcing to 3nt without a vital stopper.

I also don't understand, especially in the :classic" game when the entire field is in 3n for example and all are down one except for 1 or 2 tables. Doesn't the robot make the same opening lead all the time. I am talking about a game when it was 1nt 3nt

[zhasbeen]

So far as I can see, BBO isn't likely to do much about these problems until customers start hitting the door.

[pescetom]

GIB is meant to bid first round controls (and when the description says ace, that could mean a void).

 

However, it doesn't really work:

 

- Often the descriptions say a control in another suit is denied, even though there was no way of showing that control because bidding that suit earlier would have been natural

- Often GIB skips a suit because it thinks it is too weak, vs not having a control (which then leads to future bids saying it didn't have the ace it skipped, etc)

- Occasionally, as in the situation you mentioned, GIB cuebids a suit it shouldn't because it thinks it is too strong for any other bid

 

Bidding only first round controls is questionable, but at least logical.

Skipping suits with a control that are "weak" or bidding suits without a control that are "strong" is madness that ignores the whole point of control-bidding, IMO.

[smerriman]

Skipping suits with a control that are "weak" or bidding suits without a control that are "strong" is madness that ignores the whole point of control-bidding, IMO.

Sorry, to clarify, I wasn't meaning a strong/weak suit - just that in the former case, GIB often requires extras to cuebid (Example), while I think the latter comes from the "if no bid matches your hand, choose the closest lie" type logic.

[pescetom]

Sorry, to clarify, I wasn't meaning a strong/weak suit - just that in the former case, GIB often requires extras to cuebid (Example), while I think the latter comes from the "if no bid matches your hand, choose the closest lie" type logic.

 

Yes I see what you mean. But in the former case / Example I find the arguments against your 2♠ bid or in favour of GIB very dubious, and in general I find the logic of "if no bid matches your hand, choose the closest lie" inapplicable to control-bids: it is impossible that no bid matches your hand, either you have the control (show it) or you don't (return to trumps). That's simple stupid and exactly how the convention works: anything else invalidates it.