[Stephen Tu]

---

Amusingly, if South rebids 2D instead of 2c, NOW North bids 3c instead of 2nt, and the fit is found. Totally backwards.

[jdonn]

I think the reason for the odd bid in both cases is overcounting for the diamond shortness, so on the shown auction GIB thought he was too good for 3!C but not enough HCP for 4th suit. Obviously diamond shortness should be a negative adjustment if partner rebids diamonds, and not a major plus even when he rebids clubs.

[Bermy]

jdonn, on 2017-August-05, 12:26, said:

I think the reason for the odd bid in both cases is overcounting for the diamond shortness, so on the shown auction GIB thought he was too good for 3!C but not enough HCP for 4th suit. Obviously diamond shortness should be a negative adjustment if partner rebids diamonds, and not a major plus even when he rebids clubs.

What a load of garbage! Bidding like this I wouldn't expect from a beginner, never mind a robot that thousands pay for every day. How can anyone make excuses for such rubbish? Surely these robot have to show some consistency. One of hundreds of examples of robot incompetence on bidding. Why do we make excuses for this? What we need is better programs and better programmers for our money. Surely a consistent 2/1 or simpler Sayc is really what is required, certainly not this version that these programmers aspire to.

[cloa513]

Stephen Tu, on 2017-August-02, 23:05, said:

---

Amusingly, if South rebids 2D instead of 2c, NOW North bids 3c instead of 2nt, and the fit is found. Totally backwards.

2NT is OK as it has spade reasonably well covered and NT is better than a minor suit- not correcting after the diamonds bid is inexcusable as there could be game.

[jdonn]

Bermy, on 2017-August-05, 21:38, said:

What a load of garbage! Bidding like this I wouldn't expect from a beginner, never mind a robot that thousands pay for every day. How can anyone make excuses for such rubbish? Surely these robot have to show some consistency. One of hundreds of examples of robot incompetence on bidding. Why do we make excuses for this? What we need is better programs and better programmers for our money. Surely a consistent 2/1 or simpler Sayc is really what is required, certainly not this version that these programmers aspire to.

I explained what caused GIB to misbid this hand (arguably - see post above mine). I don't believe I made excuses for anything. Perhaps if you take a deep breath you can participate in a more productive conversation, rather than spewing nonsense about the bidding system being the problem or what you think the programmers aspire to.

[Bermy]

jdonn, on 2017-August-08, 10:28, said:

I explained what caused GIB to misbid this hand (arguably - see post above mine). I don't believe I made excuses for anything. Perhaps if you take a deep breath you can participate in a more productive conversation, rather than spewing nonsense about the bidding system being the problem or what you think the programmers aspire to.

"I think the reason for the odd bid in both cases is overcounting for the diamond shortness, so on the shown auction GIB thought he was too good for 3!C but not enough HCP for 4th suit. Obviously diamond shortness should be a negative adjustment if partner rebids diamonds, and not a major plus even when he rebids clubs."

With that attitude and if that is your bidding logic....and excuse......that says it all!

[Bermy]

This rather reminds me of sitting at a table with a moderate player who has a high opinion of his own ability to bid. He then insists on playing his own system his own way, which you think is ridiculous. Nevertheless you do so only to find out that he cant even bid his own poor system properly and makes excuses all night. Then a fit like this happens and you wonder what you paying $0.25 for?

[iandayre]

Bermy, most of the regulars here share your frustration with GIB's bidding deficiences. You are not the first to notice them.

JDonn does an excellent job of responding to questions here. He is not a programmer nor is he responsible for BBO's decisions about how much time and money to invest in GIB. He is however a true expert player, and his participation is welcomed.

If you read the system notes to GIB, it is a solid version of 2/1 in my opinion. Obviously, when it comes down to evaluating actual hands and bidding according to that system, GIB needs much improvement. It is indeed frustrating that improvements are slow in coming. When I first started playing with GIB a few years ago, system upgrades came out 3-4 times a year. Recently we are lucky to get one per year. It would be nice if JDonn or, better, Fred Gitelman himself, were to post here to explain this delay. Mr. Gitelman has posted here exactly once, 2-3 years ago. He was not happy with my criticisms, and he promised that resources would be invested to improve GIB. I am sorry to say, despite my overall respect for him, that the promise has not been kept.

I am hopeful that now that there has been an ACBL National event conducted using GIB, that improvement of the product will become a higher priority. We shall see.

[Bermy]

iandayre, on 2017-August-09, 11:08, said:

Bermy, most of the regulars here share your frustration with GIB's bidding deficiences. You are not the first to notice them.

JDonn does an excellent job of responding to questions here. He is not a programmer nor is he responsible for BBO's decisions about how much time and money to invest in GIB. He is however a true expert player, and his participation is welcomed.

If you read the system notes to GIB, it is a solid version of 2/1 in my opinion. Obviously, when it comes down to evaluating actual hands and bidding according to that system, GIB needs much improvement. It is indeed frustrating that improvements are slow in coming. When I first started playing with GIB a few years ago, system upgrades came out 3-4 times a year. Recently we are lucky to get one per year. It would be nice if JDonn or, better, Fred Gitelman himself, were to post here to explain this delay. Mr. Gitelman has posted here exactly once, 2-3 years ago. He was not happy with my criticisms, and he promised that resources would be invested to improve GIB. I am sorry to say, despite my overall respect for him, that the promise has not been kept.

I am hopeful that now that there has been an ACBL National event conducted using GIB, that improvement of the product will become a higher priority. We shall see.

Finally a more satisfying answer, thank you for that. I look forward to these improvements. I hope the new popularity of these robots get you the investment we deserve.