[mata2015]

My link

How GIB could not pass for 4♠x ??

[1eyedjack]

mata2015, on 2016-July-01, 23:53, said:

My link

How GIB could not pass for 4♠x ??

You started off by showing your hand.

Then you showed 16-20 total points when you only have 14

Then you showed 18+ HCP when you only have 13.

North probably thought that a shoe-in slam in a 10 card fit would do better than defending 4S opposite a likely spade void. Not saying that I agree, but it is arguable.

To my mind North's worst decision was 2H, and I think it more important for the programmers to devote resources to these more frequent lower level deviations.

What is the difference between idiocy and idiotism, by the way?

[mata2015]

In my opinion Gib does not differentiate values offensive from defensive of the holding. I'm not saying that it is easy to programme but it seems to be not very difficult.

[Stefan_O]

mata2015, on 2016-July-01, 23:53, said:

My link

How GIB could not pass for 4♠x ??

Yeah, this is a good example how broken Gib really is when bidding moves "out of book"

Why does East suddenly throw 4S into the fire, after E-W passing the previous round?

[Stefan_O]

mata2015, on 2016-July-02, 05:54, said:

In my opinion Gib does not differentiate values offensive from defensive of the holding. I'm not saying that it is easy to programme but it seems to be not very difficult.

AFAIU, Gib does not even have any concepts of "offensive" or "defensive" values -- it just searches a (huge) set of rules based on HCP, total-points and distribution and picks whatever bid they dictate.

If you examine the scary structure of gib's bidding database, http://orig.gibware.com/bidding/
you will realize that fixing defects in this area must be extremely hard, particularly in exotic sequences like your example here.

After seeing this, I no longer think we will ever see much of improvement in gib's general bidding,
unless the whole monstrosity is rewritten from scratch in a much more readable and maintanable way.

[1eyedjack]

It does (at least the so called advanced version supposedly does) run simulations in judgement situations. Assuming proper random sampling, any effects of this nature should come out in the wash.

[Stefan_O]

1eyedjack, on 2016-July-02, 11:15, said:

It does (at least the so called advanced version supposedly does) run simulations in judgement situations. Assuming proper random sampling, any effects of this nature should come out in the wash.

Mmm, yeah, forgot abt that, sorry...

But looking closely, it looks like the 4♠ description somehow comes out of the bidding-database,
because the 4♠ bid has a different description than the previous North bid (4+♣ vs 3+♣, 14+HCP vs 11+HCP, etc).
But "14+HCP" is also a blatant lie, since East evidently has only 11HCP.
Hard to understand what is actually going on inside the robot-brain...

If a bid is based on simulation, it would be better if the description could say so (or just "natural/competitive" or similar), rather than attaching an incorrect description.
It's quite common that Gib does not have what the description says (for example "4+♥" when it has only 3♥, etc)

[cloa513]

Stefan_O, on 2016-July-02, 10:45, said:

AFAIU, Gib does not even have any concepts of "offensive" or "defensive" values -- it just searches a (huge) set of rules based on HCP, total-points and distribution and picks whatever bid they dictate.

If you examine the scary structure of gib's bidding database, http://orig.gibware.com/bidding/
you will realize that fixing defects in this area must be extremely hard, particularly in exotic sequences like your example here.

After seeing this, I no longer think we will ever see much of improvement in gib's general bidding,
unless the whole monstrosity is rewritten from scratch in a much more readable and maintanable way.

Then it would unable to penalise ever. Rather sims are supposed to cover the defensive evaluation.

[lycier]

mata2015, on 2016-July-01, 23:53, said:

How GIB could not pass for 4♠x ??

---

1- I much dislike your wording " Extreme Idiotism". I think our fans duties are mainly reporting - let the programmers know Gibs' issue. Telling " Extreme Idiotism" isn't our goal.
2- I think it is very difficult for Gibs to handle with so complicated hand especially with 6-5 extreme contributions on two suits since the Gib programmers have not yet established its bidding rules related.
We can be easy to see that the definition of 3nt is same with your double :
3nt says 4-5♥,4-♠,18+hcp,20-TPs,stop in ♣,stop in ♠.
Your double says 4-5♥,4-♠,18+hcp,20-TPs,stop in ♣,stop in ♠.
So I suggest you should read carefully the bidding definition related, then decide your next step. That's to say you also cheated your Gib partner at first,after 3♠, rebid-4♥ is a your only choice instead of rebid-3nt.

I have been wondering that why many people wouldn't try to be a Gib's good partner.

[lycier]

---

This is a normal Gibs bidding sequence, the programmers need to fix its issue in the future.

[cloa513]

lycier, on 2016-July-03, 04:05, said:

---

This is a normal Gibs bidding sequence, the programmers need to fix its issue in the future.

clearly exceeds the requirements for 2H. Why can`t GIB correctly calculate and apply total points?

[lycier]

cloa513, on 2016-July-03, 06:48, said:

clearly exceeds the requirements for 2H. Why can`t GIB correctly calculate and apply total points?

I agree.
I think it should be just time for Gib programmers to answer this question.

[Bbradley62]

cloa513, on 2016-July-03, 06:48, said:

clearly exceeds the requirements for 2H. Why can`t GIB correctly calculate and apply total points?

And, why does North show first-round control of spades when he doesn't have it?