[thomas c]

ive been playing the bots a long time now but they ae the worst ive ever seen. they just wont stop and let me play game . i play the acbl tourneys mostly and i can afford it but damm. it just makes me
furious when i bid game in a major and the bot bids 4nt or 5 something with CRAP!

[johnu]

thomas c, on 2019-February-20, 17:40, said:

ive been playing the bots a long time now but they ae the worst ive ever seen. they just wont stop and let me play game . i play the acbl tourneys mostly and i can afford it but damm. it just makes me
furious when i bid game in a major and the bot bids 4nt or 5 something with CRAP!

Add a link to the board(s) in question, or use the hand editor to input the hand from memory.

Without seeing any cards or any auction, I would guess this is normal GIB behavior that hasn't changed from before.

[laboche]

I think the bots moderate these complaints. They always ask for examples, acting as if it's shocking that the bots are awful. Just look at what's going on in these games. Here's one that I suffered. I opened 1 spade with both majors. Bot 1 NT. I bid 2 hearts. Bot bids 3NT and we go down 3. Bot had 2 spades 5 hearts 4 clubs and 2 diamonds. I'm still scatching my head.

[smerriman]

laboche, on 2024-March-07, 16:14, said:

I think the bots moderate these complaints. They always ask for examples, acting as if it's shocking that the bots are awful. Just look at what's going on in these games. Here's one that I suffered. I opened 1 spade with both majors. Bot 1 NT. I bid 2 hearts. Bot bids 3NT and we go down 3. Bot had 2 spades 5 hearts 4 clubs and 2 diamonds. I'm still scatching my head.

The bots do make many mistakes; nobody denies this. The reason we ask you to share the original hand diagram is because, despite this, humans also make many mistakes. You won't believe how many times a human claims the bot made a mistake, when it was actually a clear-cut human mistake (either in their own bidding, or memory of the events), or even a reasonable bid based on the exact cards held - these are actually far more common than the robot errors.

I would love to see your hand diagram; it's easy to share through the BBO interface, just find it under the history tab, click the menu icon to export it, and paste it here. I'm not saying you're wrong, but with no hand diagram, the odds favor it, and there's no way of knowing otherwise until you share it.

[msheald]

Hello! I consider the following three hands to be examples of puzzling bidding by the robot. They all occurred in the free game today.

My goal when playing the free games is to enjoy the game and learn a bit, so I am grateful to BBO providing these games. As a result, I don't study the robot's bidding and play patterns since I would rather spend the time studying the bridge I play with humans.



https://tinyurl.com/2bnxc7d6

The bots 2H bid is fourth suit forcing and says nothing about hearts (to my understanding). I expected my 3NT bid to be interpreted as bidding completion unless slam is in order or some very strange disto. However, I don't care if partner has a void or two one-card suits (unless slam is in the offering in the minor suit). I feel that returning to diamonds is a less than optimal bid. I've always been taught that 3NT makes more often than 5 of a minor, and this bid illustrates why.


https://tinyurl.com/24hnv6wn


The second hand is puzzling to me. After I showed support for robot's heart suit from its negative double, it then returned to my opening diamond bid. The bid explanation said that it was a "cue bid with 3+ hearts, 3+ spades, less than 11 HCP and 8-12 total points." Now, I'm really stuck. It appears that the bot may not have had diamonds support. If it was asking me to choose between diamonds and hearts, why was it not going to accept my initial support of its hearts from its negative double suit (since major game is always better than a minor game)? If it wanted diamonds all along, it should have simply supported my diamond suit opening. Perhaps the only reason not to stay in hearts was that it wanted to go to a minor suit slam regardless of my response? Perhaps it was the bid explanation that was unclear as opposed to the bidding itself? This bid progression was so unusual for me compared to that which I would expect with my human partner that I decided not to play the hand after it was laid down.


https://tinyurl.com/23lcu46s


I always get stuck on this robot bid progression. Robot passes. I bid to try to steal a partscore or sacrifice so that I get a better score going down than ops part-score. A gamble, but I like to gamble. The next thing I know, the bots think I've got 20 points and cue bid me up to one or two levels over what I would have played if the bots had let my sacrifice stand. This has occurred frequently enough after the bot initially passes so that I know I should expect the bots to do this, but it is still surprising to me when it happens.


In any case, since I only play free robot games because I enjoy bridge and for the play of the hand experience that helps me with my human play, I am grateful to BBO for providing these games. I realize that if I chose to study the bots play and bidding manual, my scores would go up, but I prefer to study such that my human play improves rather than my robot play since I find robot play rather different than human play. As a result, I hope that my comments are not taken as criticisms, but as explanations of things I find puzzling during robot play. Thank you and best regards.

Mike

[smerriman]

The first one is mainly on you I'm afraid - even playing with humans, a jump to 3NT after fourth suit forcing shows extra values. You don't have "fast arrival" bids when it comes to 3NT. Having shown extras, it's understandable that North would want to look for slam in diamonds (though its definitions after that are very poor).

I have no idea how to bid the second one in either seat, though note that you are cold for 6♥ despite the fact your hand is much weaker than the description of 4♥ "promises", so it would be strange for North to make anything but some slam try in hearts, which it did. Its descriptions are all pretty poor here, as they always are when it comes to slam bidding. Would be interested in knowing how humans would bid it though; definitely doesn't seem easy for me.

In the third one in my opinion you simply *must* double instead of bidding 3♦; I would expect many humans in North would be very upset if you failed to do so with that sort of hand - to me it's one of those golden rules of bridge that you can't break. But perhaps others would disagree; I've been wrong about this before.

Aside from that, I agree 3♠ by GIB is very bad - 3NT is far more logical, though hopeless here. Consider it from this perspective though - your partner hasn't denied values by passing; they could have a very good hand with spades (even much stronger than the one they have here) or other hand types with no clear bid. If you held 16 points (like the description suggests), you have combined values for game, and would be unhappy if your partner left you in a part score - so how would you have bid differently?

My preference is that 2NT is artificial, so you can use that to show a weaker hand with diamonds, and 3♦ with the stronger one. But GIB doesn't play that, and if you have to choose between the two, it's far more costly losing the ability to get to game.

[pescetom]

FWIW I have always been and remain in favour of a new thread for each hand.

My thoughts on your first hand:

msheald, on 2024-March-10, 04:47, said:

The bots 2H bid is fourth suit forcing and says nothing about hearts (to my understanding). I expected my 3NT bid to be interpreted as bidding completion unless slam is in order or some very strange disto. However, I don't care if partner has a void or two one-card suits (unless slam is in the offering in the minor suit). I feel that returning to diamonds is a less than optimal bid. I've always been taught that 3NT makes more often than 5 of a minor, and this bid illustrates why.

The explanation "fourth suit forcing" is inadequate (BBO's fault), but whether or not it is GF or says anything about hearts, I imagine the robot would expect 2NT with your hand rather than 3NT, no fast arrival here. So 4♦ still has some justification (although pushing things) and your 4NT is legitimate (according to explanation of agreements) and 5♦ out of the bucket, but 6♦ rather than pass still looks like a frustration bid, not that it matters much here.

[pescetom]

msheald, on 2024-March-10, 04:47, said:

https://tinyurl.com/24hnv6wn

The second hand is puzzling to me. After I showed support for robot's heart suit from its negative double, it then returned to my opening diamond bid. The bid explanation said that it was a "cue bid with 3+ hearts, 3+ spades, less than 11 HCP and 8-12 total points." Now, I'm really stuck. It appears that the bot may not have had diamonds support. If it was asking me to choose between diamonds and hearts, why was it not going to accept my initial support of its hearts from its negative double suit (since major game is always better than a minor game)? If it wanted diamonds all along, it should have simply supported my diamond suit opening. Perhaps the only reason not to stay in hearts was that it wanted to go to a minor suit slam regardless of my response? Perhaps it was the bid explanation that was unclear as opposed to the bidding itself? This bid progression was so unusual for me compared to that which I would expect with my human partner that I decided not to play the hand after it was laid down.

I'm already not a fan of the initial pass, which set this ball rolling.
The agreement about the negative double of minors is crucial IMO. If it promises only 3+ hearts without sure diamonds support (as in the explanation) then 4♥ seems reasonable but I can't see how it could promise 5 cards as explained.
I hate the idea that 5♦ can be a control-bid if the double did not promise 4 hearts and nobody fixed trumps: it has to be an explosive fit in the context nevertheless.
Not an easy hand for two humans to bid opposite another two with all those clubs, but I would expect at least 5♦+1.

[pescetom]

msheald, on 2024-March-10, 04:47, said:

https://tinyurl.com/23lcu46s


I always get stuck on this robot bid progression. Robot passes. I bid to try to steal a partscore or sacrifice so that I get a better score going down than ops part-score. A gamble, but I like to gamble. The next thing I know, the bots think I've got 20 points and cue bid me up to one or two levels over what I would have played if the bots had let my sacrifice stand. This has occurred frequently enough after the bot initially passes so that I know I should expect the bots to do this, but it is still surprising to me when it happens.

I imagine that this time you actually are msheald in S (I hate the way BBO will invert this without explanation and wish posters would disambiguate it in any case). In that case I am comfortable with pass of N. Your second call is difficult, but I would prefer pass or double rather than 3♦.

[msheald]

Thank you, all, for your comments. I appreciate them. Best regards.

Mike

[thepossum]

the cue bidding and unnecessary forcing past part scores to games can be annoying

I have found though that sometimes those issues relate to my own preference on when to stay in part score and when to risk game

Just because game can be made does not always mean I want to risk bidding it

You can almost guarantee that invitation at the 3 level will never be passed lol

I have all those frustrations too and seem to come across it so often I can't even be bothered to look for examples