[Antrax]

iandayre, on 2014-November-03, 12:48, said:

I think it is remarkable that that programmers have taken the time to give GIB the ability (one which no human defender possesses) to accurately double-dummy analyze a hand such as this at Trick 1. Yet they can't teach it to take simple preferences, stop introducing new 3 and 4 card suits at high levels, or to not pass cue bids. They can't even teach it that, in a recent hand posted here - I believe it was KQ, x, AKJTxxxxxx, V - that 11 tricks are nearly assured and to not stop bidding at the 3 level. Or there was that recent hand where both minors were unbid and it held 6 Diamonds and 2 Clubs, but it bid Clubs.

Also I wonder how if it can analyze this hand a Trick 1, why it misdefends so many much simpler hands.

You were probably sarcastic, but I really think it's remarkable. Computers are very good at some things and very bad at others. Let's go over your suggestions:
1. Take a simple preference. This is a change to GIB's system, which they can easily do.
2. Introducing short suits at high levels. I'm pretty sure they can fix that too. Note the result might be that GIB would pass more forcing bids.
3. Not pass cue bids. This goes against #2 - it means GIB would make more nonsensical bids. Sometimes GIB will get "confused", until all possible bidding sequences by all four players have been gone over and cleared of bugs.
4. Sample hand has a lot of playing strength. That's easy to teach, but it won't mesh well with the rest of GIB's system. You'll have all sorts of two-way bids, "either a lot of playing strength or a lot of HCP" which would cause more holes in the bidding database, or require making the system more complex. We all know how GIB chokes when you double-then-bid holding a one-suited monster, anything to fix hands like the above would worsen this issue.

[iandayre]

Fine. Correct the bidding deficiencies I listed and I will stop complaining about the card play.

I disagree with #2. Often GIB introduces these short suits over non-forcing calls, such as when we rebid a long, strong suit. Often the descriptions foolishly state that the call could have been on "4+" when in reality the bid showed 6 or 7 card length. And most examples we see when GIB passed a forcing bid, it has a perfectly viable option of raising or bidding NT.

I also disagree with #3. Taking action over a cue bid is not the same as introducing a new suit when partner has not shown interest in suits other than the one he has bid.

Perhaps you are correct about #4, but this is necessary to make GIB a viable bridge option rather than a laughing stock.

And no, I wasn't being sarcastic.

[TylerE]

I've given up hope with GIB, honestly. Maybe BBO will see the light and license Jack one of these days, which is FAR FAR better, and which I would rather partner than most humans.