GIB won't bid a cold grand

[broze]

Okay we know that GiB's slam bidding is bad but it doesn't seem to want to bid a grand even when it "knows" it is ice cold as in this hand.

[pescetom]

Maybe he noticed he had written "overbid" in your profile ? B-)

 

Seriously, stopping in small slam after that reply makes no sense at all.

[nige1]

[hv=lin=pn%7Cbroze%2CRobot%2CRobot%2CRobot%7Cst%7C%7Cmd%7C1SA652HA52DA98CAKT%2CSQ7HQT94DJ652CJ98%2CSKJT984HK63DKQ3C7%2CS3HJ87DT74CQ65432%7Csv%7C0%7Cah%7CBoard%2011%7Cmb%7C2N%7Can%7CTwo%20NT%20opener.%20Could%20have%205M.%20--%202-5%20%21C%3B%202-5%20%21D%3B%202-5%20%21H%3B%202-5%20%21S%3B%2020-21%20HCP%7Cmb%7CP%7Cmb%7C4H%21%7Can%7CTexas%20--%206%2B%20%21S%3B%205%2B%20total%20points%7Cmb%7CP%7Cmb%7C4S%7Can%7C2-5%20%21C%3B%202-5%20%21D%3B%202-5%20%21H%3B%202-5%20%21S%3B%2020-21%20HCP%7Cmb%7CP%7Cmb%7C4N%7Can%7CBlackwood%20%28S%29%20--%206%2B%20%21S%3B%2012%2B%20total%20points%7Cmb%7CP%7Cmb%7C5D%7Can%7COne%20or%20four%20key%20cards%20--%202-5%20%21C%3B%202-5%20%21D%3B%202-5%20%21H%3B%202-5%20%21S%3B%2020-21%20HCP%7Cmb%7CP%7Cmb%7C5H%7Can%7C%3F%20queen%20--%206%2B%20%21S%3B%2012%2B%20total%20points%7Cmb%7CP%7Cmb%7C6C%7Can%7CQueen%20and%20king%20--%202-5%20%21C%3B%202-5%20%21D%3B%202-5%20%21H%3B%202-5%20%21S%3B%2020-21%20HCP%3B%20%21CK%3B%20%21SQ%7Cmb%7CP%7Cmb%7C6S%7Can%7CSignoff%20--%206%2B%20%21S%3B%2012%2B%20total%20points%7Cmb%7CP%7Cmb%7CP%7Cmb%7CP%7Cpc%7CHT%7Cpc%7CH3%7Cpc%7CH7%7Cpc%7CHA%7Cpc%7CS2%7Cpc%7CS7%7Cpc%7CSK%7Cpc%7CS3%7Cmc%7C13%7C]300|300|

BRoze "Okay we know that GiB's slam bidding is bad but it doesn't seem to want to bid a grand even when it "knows" it is ice cold as in this hand."

 

Recent upgrades seem to have broken GIB in fundamental ways. Here you would expect a crude simulation to reveal 13 sure tricks in ♠ or notrump.

 

Regression testing might confirm this hypothesis :( [/hv]

[johnu]

Are you guys joking? How can you possibly bid a grand slam with a maximum 33 HCP??? All the books say you need 37+ HCP to make a grand. Are you reading "Fake" bridge books? :lol:

[zhasbeen]

Okay we know that GiB's slam bidding is bad but it doesn't seem to want to bid a grand even when it "knows" it is ice cold as in this hand.

 

I can tell you haven't played with Gib very much. This is spectacular bidding for him. You got to slam and played in your best suit. What do you want?

 

How about this one?

 

https://tinyurl.com/y8zfebrw

 

The 2S bid shows "constructive 4th suit...(clubs)and 10-12 total points. Of course I was tempted to rebid my diamonds, but he could have passed with some hands he's allowed to have. Not taking me back to diamonds is yet another example of badly broken robot. I don't see how BBO can continue to put it on the playing field.

[smerriman]

How about this one?

 

https://tinyurl.com/y8zfebrw

 

The 2S bid shows "constructive 4th suit...(clubs)and 10-12 total points. Of course I was tempted to rebid my diamonds, but he could have passed with some hands he's allowed to have. Not taking me back to diamonds is yet another example of badly broken robot. I don't see how BBO can continue to put it on the playing field.

I don't see how this is even remotely related to the OP. The OP shows broken simulations, given every single dealable hand should result in 13 tricks.

 

In yours, GIB's system thinks that if you've found a guaranteed club fit, a further suit bid is a cuebid. Is that rule so wrong?

 

These aren't even on the same planet, so I'm not sure why they're in the same thread.

[nige1]

[hv=lin=st||pn|zhasbeen,~~M20186,~~M20184,~~M20185|md|2SAK2H74DAKJ743CA8,SJ98654HAKJ86D9C5,ST3HDQT862CKQ9762,SQ7HQT9532D5CJT43|sv|b|rh||ah|Board%204|mb|P|mb|P|mb|P|mb|1D|an|Minor%20suit%20opening%20--%203+%20!D;%2011-21%20HCP;%2012-22%20total%20points|mb|2D!|an|Michaels%20--%203-%20!C;%203-%20!D;%205+%20!H;%205+%20!S;%2011-%20HCP;%2012%20total%20points;%20forcing%20|mb|2S|an|Constructive,%204th%20suit%20--%205+%20!C;%2011-%20HCP;%2010-12%20total%20points%20|mb|4H|an|4+%20!H;%2011-%20HCP;%207-12%20total%20points%20|mb|5C|an|3+%20!C;%203+%20!D;%2014-21%20HCP;%2015-22%20total%20points|mb|P|mb|P|mb|P|pc|HK|pc|C2|pc|H2|pc|H4|pc|C6|pc|CT|pc|CA|pc|C5|pc|C8|pc|S6|pc|CK|pc|C4|pc|CQ|pc|C3|pc|S2|pc|H8|pc|C9|pc|CJ|pc|D3|pc|D9|pc|H5|pc|H7|pc|HJ|pc|C7|mc|12|]300|300|

Zhasbeen writes " can tell you haven't played with Gib very much. This is spectacular bidding for him. You got to slam and played in your best suit. What do you want? How about this one? https://tinyurl.com/y8zfebrwThe 2S bid shows "constructive 4th suit...(clubs)and 10-12 total points. Of course I was tempted to rebid my diamonds, but he could have passed with some hands he's allowed to have. Not taking me back to diamonds is yet another example of badly broken robot. I don't see how BBO can continue to put it on the playing field.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

Gib North has 6 ♣s and you showed 3+ card support :) [/hv]

[zhasbeen]

I don't see how this is even remotely related to the OP. The OP shows broken simulations, given every single dealable hand should result in 13 tricks.

 

In yours, GIB's system thinks that if you've found a guaranteed club fit, a further suit bid is a cuebid. Is that rule so wrong?

 

These aren't even on the same planet, so I'm not sure why they're in the same thread.

 

I agree that it was debatable whether the hand I submitted was appropriate for this thread. However, I believe that “not even on the same planet” is a bit harsh. Both hands can make 13 tricks but getting there was made more difficult by Gib. They at least had that much in common.

 

Before posting I checked my records that include every ACBL Daylong matchpoint game played since Jan 1, 2019. There was nobody with handle “broze” (or “merriman”) in there, so I thought I would prepare him for something worse than the hand he submitted if he hasn’t played much with Gib. I had no doubt that he was a good player. I meant it jokingly when I said “you got to slam and played in your best suit. What do you want?”

I played the hand I submitted only an hour or so before posting it, thinking it was a worse case of being “Gibbed”.

 

Whether you agree with my bidding or not, I doubt that you’ll find many players who would say that Gib should not have correct to diamonds. I find it mind boggling, and a solid example of one of Gib’s many glitches.

 

“In yours, GIB's system thinks that if you've found a guaranteed club fit, a further suit bid is a cuebid. Is that rule so wrong?”

 

Yes, I believe it is terribly wrong. I would think that holding Q10862 support for suit that partner’s first bid suit would override that rule. Despite BBO’s reputation of having the best online bridge service, Gib is not in the top 5. I assume that the better robots also use simulations, and most of them would know that diamonds should be trump on this hand if the final contract is to be in a minor suit. Whatever the reason, I consider this to be a serious Gib flaw.

 

Btw, I consider BBO to be a great web site other than the big elephant in the living room named Gib. It would be so much more enjoyable for robot players if they could come up with a meaningful upgrade. Hopefully they will consider it with all the money they have been raking in since the Covid-19 pandemic began.

 

Bidding addressed with reply to nige1

[2200]

Seriously，as a bidding problem, suppose South does not have the ♣K, is there another way to check ♥Q, or AJxx in diamonds?

[smerriman]

Seriously，as a bidding problem, suppose South does not have the ♣K, is there another way to check ♥Q, or AJxx in diamonds?

Not with GIB, but if South responds 5NT to deny a king, then 6♥ is a reasonable way to ask for the queen of hearts, at least.

[zhasbeen]

[hv=lin=st||pn|zhasbeen,~~M20186,~~M20184,~~M20185|md|2SAK2H74DAKJ743CA8,SJ98654HAKJ86D9C5,ST3HDQT862CKQ9762,SQ7HQT9532D5CJT43|sv|b|rh||ah|Board%204|mb|P|mb|P|mb|P|mb|1D|an|Minor%20suit%20opening%20--%203+%20!D;%2011-21%20HCP;%2012-22%20total%20points|mb|2D!|an|Michaels%20--%203-%20!C;%203-%20!D;%205+%20!H;%205+%20!S;%2011-%20HCP;%2012%20total%20points;%20forcing%20|mb|2S|an|Constructive,%204th%20suit%20--%205+%20!C;%2011-%20HCP;%2010-12%20total%20points%20|mb|4H|an|4+%20!H;%2011-%20HCP;%207-12%20total%20points%20|mb|5C|an|3+%20!C;%203+%20!D;%2014-21%20HCP;%2015-22%20total%20points|mb|P|mb|P|mb|P|pc|HK|pc|C2|pc|H2|pc|H4|pc|C6|pc|CT|pc|CA|pc|C5|pc|C8|pc|S6|pc|CK|pc|C4|pc|CQ|pc|C3|pc|S2|pc|H8|pc|C9|pc|CJ|pc|D3|pc|D9|pc|H5|pc|H7|pc|HJ|pc|C7|mc|12|]300|300|

Zhasbeen writes " can tell you haven't played with Gib very much. This is spectacular bidding for him. You got to slam and played in your best suit. What do you want? How about this one? https://tinyurl.com/y8zfebrwThe 2S bid shows "constructive 4th suit...(clubs)and 10-12 total points. Of course I was tempted to rebid my diamonds, but he could have passed with some hands he's allowed to have. Not taking me back to diamonds is yet another example of badly broken robot. I don't see how BBO can continue to put it on the playing field.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

Gib North has 6 ♣s and you showed 3+ card support :) [/hv]

 

Nige-

 

I assumed that Gib had clubs that were at least as long and strong as what “he” actually held, considering that I had the ace. Although my diamonds were good, I believed that there was a better chance of having a diamond loser than club. Still, I thought for a while before finally opting for clubs.

Not the right hand for “invitational” jump shift, imo. With a weaker hand and diamonds I could have passed with x or xx of clubs, and a known diamond fit. My choices would have between inverted 2D and splinter, with splinter getting the nod. What do you think?

 

I see that you have played only one ACBL Daylong game this year. Does Gib have anything to do with why you stopped? It would be hard for me to imagine quitting after a 78% and first overall, Gib or no Gib.

[nige1]

Not the right hand for "invitational" jump shift, imo. With a weaker hand and diamonds I could have passed with x or xx of clubs, and a known diamond fit. My choices would have between inverted 2D and splinter, with splinter getting the nod. What do you think?

Thank you, ZHasBeen. I would prefer a more modern robot but can forgive GIB's idiosyncrasies because everybody suffers the same handicap.

 

When partner bids a minor, I prefer fit-jumps to splinters. Here, with GIB's hand, i would bid 3♣. My agreement is that this shows 5 + ♣s, 4+ ♦ support, and raise to at least 3♦s.

[zhasbeen]

[/size]

Thank you, ZHasBeen. I would prefer a more modern robot but can forgive GIB's idiosyncrasies because everybody suffers the same handicap.

 

When partner bids a minor, I prefer fit-jumps to splinters. Here, with GIB's hand, i would bid 3♣. My agreement is that this shows 5 + ♣s, 4+ ♦ support, and raise to at least 3♦s.

 

The jump shift is fine if it promises a fit. In fact, I like it best of all possibilities for the hand I held. I thought splinter would be lesser of evils if jump shift doesn't promise diamond fit. However, I prefer that a splinter promises specifically a singleton and not a void.

 

"I would prefer a more modern robot but..."

 

My guess is that all the complaints bothers management too, but so long as the players keep paying to play they go with Gib. I think everyone would feel better, including management, if they at were at least working on a plan to replace or do what it takes to fix Gib. Thus far the "upgrades" have not improved it, and might even have made it worse.

 

The fact that so many of us continue to play says a lot for the rest of what the tournaments have to offer--large fields with many strong players to compare results with, interesting hands, and video replays of any hand that we or opponents have played, to name a few. I also like the fact that everyone plays the same convention card. So, we all have the same partner and opponents, playing the same card. It all comes down to playing the cards and making decisions. What could be a truer test?

 

That said, the Gib antics probably narrow the advantage that the elite players have over the others in "real bridge".

[nige1]

Good points, Zhasbeen. My last reply was too hasty. I failed to notice the Michaels cue-bid by West. After 1♦ (2♦) ?? I prefer ...

• Double = NEG.( I used to play it as PEN but John Matheson persuades me that NEG is more efficient).
• 2♥ = ART FG 5+ ♣s.
• 2♠ = ART FG 4+ ♦s (The more expensive cue-bid shows a fit).
• 2N = NAT over a minor.
• 3♣ = NAT NF
• 3♦ = PRE.
• 4♣ = FIT jump
• And I agree that 3♥ and 3♠ should be splinters agreeing ♦s.

Something similar after an unusual 2NT

[pescetom]

"I would prefer a more modern robot but..."

 

My guess is that all the complaints bothers management too, but so long as the players keep paying to play they go with Gib. I think everyone would feel better, including management, if they at were at least working on a plan to replace or do what it takes to fix Gib. Thus far the "upgrades" have not improved it, and might even have made it worse.

 

The fact that so many of us continue to play says a lot for the rest of what the tournaments have to offer--large fields with many strong players to compare results with, interesting hands, and video replays of any hand that we or opponents have played, to name a few. I also like the fact that everyone plays the same convention card. So, we all have the same partner and opponents, playing the same card. It all comes down to playing the cards and making decisions. What could be a truer test?

The fact that a significant many of us do *not* play with GIB but only with other humans should bother the management too, but they seem completely deaf in that ear, even now that the parent company has a better robot in house.

[zhasbeen]

The fact that a significant many of us do *not* play with GIB but only with other humans should bother the management too, but they seem completely deaf in that ear, even now that the parent company has a better robot in house.

 

The ignore button seems to be working for them, so why change? I've seen you mention that "better robot in house" before. Must be too expensive to put enough of them in action to handle all the traffic.

[johnu]

The ignore button seems to be working for them, so why change? I've seen you mention that "better robot in house" before. Must be too expensive to put enough of them in action to handle all the traffic.

I don't have any firsthand knowledge that the other company's robot is better than GIB. Since it is a much more recent development, and presumably still have actual development to improve it going on as opposed to GIB's very minor bug fixes and changes in the user interface, I agree that that is a reasonable conjecture.

 

As long as they "own" the robot code which it sounds like they do, it doesn't cost any license fees to run thousands of tables of instances of the robot. You just need servers, and BBO has already added lots of servers with the COVID-19 increase in users. The problem is moving the bidding and play engine code over to work with BBO's new HTML5 interface which apparently is quite a complex task with lots of moving parts. Especially since they are still trying to add features to the HTML5 version that were available in the Flash version.