GIB passes 2 forcing cue bids

[TheoKole]

[hv=pc=n&s=skqjhkj65dcakj754&n=sat87hqt8daq6cqt8&d=n&v=b&b=13&a=1c3d4d(Cue%20bid%20forcing%20to%204%20spades)dppr(Cue%20bid%20forcing%20to%204%20spades)ppp]266|200|So GIB passes 2 cue bids when we are almost cold for 6 clubs :angry:

I checked the GIB meaning for bidding the cue bids before making them [/hv]

 

No, I did not play the contract.

 

Truly this bug is truly incomprehensible. Unless I was teaching beginning students I really wouldn't play with this type of player in a live game. Other times GIB has been unable to count to 13 tricks literally in their own hand after knowing that all key cards were present, or misplayed a suit slam that I think absolutely no one would ever do literally taking a 8% line of play instead of a 60% line of play (see my thread GIB Grrrrr below this one).

 

I've been unable to find the advanced GIB robot for renting on the site, is it still available? Do these types of mistakes happen with the advanced GIB?

 

Thanks

[Stephen Tu]

The bug isn't really all that incomprehensible. Yes, it's ridiculous for GIB to pass, but you have to remember that computers don't really have anything resembling "common sense". Each and every sequence more or less has to be explicitly defined. It has some defaults to try and fall back on to interpret rare sequences, but they are far from perfect.

So the problems here are:

1. Your second call is technically a redouble, not a second cue bid.
2. Redouble sequences are in general very rare, and GIB is fairly notorious for not handling them particularly well because of this (you get "out of book", so to speak). When it has no rules to define any of its bids, no matching rules, sometimes it comes up with passes that make zero sense to humans, but it has no way to really figure out that it makes no sense to pass.
3. When the description is exactly the same as your previous bid, the second bid is just carrying over descriptions from previous bids, second bid is essentially undefined.

Basically making redoubles with GIB, or two cue bids of the same suit in a row, in general, is playing with fire. If it didn't have well defined bids over the first cue bid it probably have even worse options over the redoubled, so you might as well just bid 6c or something at that point, as you aren't likely to get it to bid anything helpful.

[TheoKole]

The bug isn't really all that incomprehensible. Yes, it's ridiculous for GIB to pass, but you have to remember that computers don't really have anything resembling "common sense". Each and every sequence more or less has to be explicitly defined. It has some defaults to try and fall back on to interpret rare sequences, but they are far from perfect.

So the problems here are:

1. Your second call is technically a redouble, not a second cue bid.
2. Redouble sequences are in general very rare, and GIB is fairly notorious for not handling them particularly well because of this (you get "out of book", so to speak). When it has no rules to define any of its bids, no matching rules, sometimes it comes up with passes that make zero sense to humans, but it has no way to really figure out that it makes no sense to pass.
3. When the description is exactly the same as your previous bid, the second bid is just carrying over descriptions from previous bids, second bid is essentially undefined.

Basically making redoubles with GIB, or two cue bids of the same suit in a row, in general, is playing with fire. If it didn't have well defined bids over the first cue bid it probably have even worse options over the redoubled, so you might as well just bid 6c or something at that point, as you aren't likely to get it to bid anything helpful.

 

The bids were from the GIB explanation of what they mean to GIB. They were NOT my interpretation of the bids but GIB's As I stated in the post, I read the explanation of the bids, before I made them.

[smerriman]

The bids were from the GIB explanation of what they mean to GIB. They were NOT my interpretation of the bids but GIB's As I stated in the post, I read the explanation of the bids, before I made them.

It sounds contradictory, but the description of the bid is not necessarily how GIB interprets them. Some descriptions are automatically generated, based on earlier ones and the level of the bidding. If you see a description identical to a previous one, it usually means GIB doesn't understand the bid and will pass.

[johnu]

When the description is exactly the same as your previous bid, the second bid is just carrying over descriptions from previous bids, second bid is essentially undefined.

Basically making redoubles with GIB, or two cue bids of the same suit in a row, in general, is playing with fire.

 

If the 2nd bid is really undefined, why can't the programmers add "Undefined" to the description of the bid??? Don't worry, that's just a rhetorical question. And if the 2nd bid is undefined, why doesn't GIB interpret it as the last "good" description. Again, just a rhetorical question for GIB programmers.

 

While what you say may be true, it truly is unbelievably bad programming that this is the default programming after all the years of GIB development.

[TheoKole]

It sounds contradictory, but the description of the bid is not necessarily how GIB interprets them. Some descriptions are automatically generated, based on earlier ones and the level of the bidding. If you see a description identical to a previous one, it usually means GIB doesn't understand the bid and will pass.

 

Wouldn't this be defined as a "bug" if GIB doesn't understand the bids that the program description registers? Anyways I still haven't been able to find the place where I can rent the advanced GIB to see if it is better. Is it still available to rent? I'm sure it was in the past, any help is appreciated.

 

 

Thanks