http://tinyurl.com/q764rn9
It happens all the time, GIB go to slam with close to nothing. This is the extreme example.
Page 1 of 1
Bug, or it's just stupid?
#2
Posted 2015-January-12, 19:38
If you look at the description of your 4♠ bid, it says 25+ total points.
Opposite 25+ total points with a double fit and adequate controls, I think slam is probably pretty likely to be good even with zero points.
You don't have 25+ total points.
I agree that saying that that bid requires 25+ total points is absolutely stupid, but there's no good way of fixing it without having the robot bid some ridiculous games when it's in your position.
Opposite 25+ total points with a double fit and adequate controls, I think slam is probably pretty likely to be good even with zero points.
You don't have 25+ total points.
I agree that saying that that bid requires 25+ total points is absolutely stupid, but there's no good way of fixing it without having the robot bid some ridiculous games when it's in your position.
#3
Posted 2015-January-12, 19:46
Well, but it at least knows that I have two key cards and it has zero and still bid 6. knowing that we are missing three... And yes I saw that 25 points, it is an absurd.
Edit: Ah it probably counts five key cards in my hand.
So I have no other option but to pass 4 diamonds with that hand... Sorry to say that but that's not bridge..
Edit: Ah it probably counts five key cards in my hand.
So I have no other option but to pass 4 diamonds with that hand... Sorry to say that but that's not bridge..
#4
Posted 2015-January-12, 20:40
akwoo, on 2015-January-12, 19:38, said:
I agree that saying that that bid requires 25+ total points is absolutely stupid, but there's no good way of fixing it without having the robot bid some ridiculous games when it's in your position.
The initial Michaels showed 14+. Bidding 4S showed 25+. I kind of think there is some middle ground between those two total point levels that could be utilized that would be a "good way of fixing it". Like having 4S show 18-19+ total points instead of 25. Personally I think they need to comb the database for all references to "25+ total points" in competition and fix them to something more sensible. The only place 25+ TP should ever appear in the DB IMO is after 2c openings. Most "bid game unilaterally in comp when partner could theoretically be broke" should be around 20+ total points IMO, with maybe some more generous point allocation to distribution and long suits than GIB is currently using.
I don't think it means bidding "ridiculous" games. Bidding games that go down sometimes, sure, sometimes doubled to boot. But one has to do that vs. preempts, play partner for a useful card or two, and occasionally pay the price when he doesn't have them. In comp you often are bidding as a two way shot, maybe if you don't make your contract the opps were making theirs and you have a good sac. Requiring game in own hand when bidding game on one's own vs. preemption is just unplayable.
#5
Posted 2015-January-13, 12:36
Stephen Tu, on 2015-January-12, 20:40, said:
The initial Michaels showed 14+. Bidding 4S showed 25+. I kind of think there is some middle ground between those two total point levels that could be utilized that would be a "good way of fixing it". Like having 4S show 18-19+ total points instead of 25. Personally I think they need to comb the database for all references to "25+ total points" in competition and fix them to something more sensible. The only place 25+ TP should ever appear in the DB IMO is after 2c openings. Most "bid game unilaterally in comp when partner could theoretically be broke" should be around 20+ total points IMO, with maybe some more generous point allocation to distribution and long suits than GIB is currently using.
I don't think it means bidding "ridiculous" games. Bidding games that go down sometimes, sure, sometimes doubled to boot. But one has to do that vs. preempts, play partner for a useful card or two, and occasionally pay the price when he doesn't have them. In comp you often are bidding as a two way shot, maybe if you don't make your contract the opps were making theirs and you have a good sac. Requiring game in own hand when bidding game on one's own vs. preemption is just unplayable.
I don't think it means bidding "ridiculous" games. Bidding games that go down sometimes, sure, sometimes doubled to boot. But one has to do that vs. preempts, play partner for a useful card or two, and occasionally pay the price when he doesn't have them. In comp you often are bidding as a two way shot, maybe if you don't make your contract the opps were making theirs and you have a good sac. Requiring game in own hand when bidding game on one's own vs. preemption is just unplayable.
I could not agree more, thank you. Also, for those of us who play mostly or exclusively in the "human best hand" tournaments, what GIB does with 20+ HCP hands is no concern because it's impossible for it to hold one. So yes, let GIB be able to bid 4S on a hand like this example. It isn't a perfect fix but all in all it would be a major improvement if GIB were barred from bidding Blackwood or voluntarily bidding slam without some minimum number of HCP. An exception could be made for hands where partner opens 2C. The occasional slam missed with wild distributional fits would be much more than offset by the silly slams avoided.
Page 1 of 1