[gwnn]

1m-p-1h-2s
p-p-x

is still defined as penalty.

Meanwhile GIB appears to think 99% doubles are for takeout, regardless of how obviously better it is to play as penalty. This position should definitely be for takeout so please change this.

[cloa513]

I'm am confused about what you are saying here- Do you think the double should be for penalty or not?

[gwnn]

I think it should be for takeout. I thought the thread title made it clear what I was saying? And that I am describing a GIB penalty double situation and the last sentence "in this situation it is clearly better to play it as takeout so please change this" ? I guess not.

All I was saying is that this is even more annoying because GIB pulls basically every penalty double because it thinks it is takeout, but it thinks this one is for penalty, even though it is clearly better to play it as penalty. It looks as if GIB had been programed to take every double as takeout except a few situations and so why is this one of the situations? Also I am used to GIB pulling every double because he thinks every double is for penalty so it happened to me more than a few times that I doubled here and GIB just passed it so it is confusing and annoying. Saying "well why don't you look at the description" is OK but making the system consistent and logical would be better than something that makes little sense and that requires the user to check at every turn.

[helene_t]

My impression is that plenty of doubles are defined as "just what I already told you" and then GIB usually pulls it, presumably because in most of the simulations you have a t/o-ish hand.

It's probably difficult to make a generic algorithm that decides whether a double is t/o or penalty or w/e but these reopening doubles is a basic situation so I think it should just be hardcoded, if it can't follow from a general principle, that this double is t/o.

[barmar]

It seems to me that this double should be "cards". Opener has denied support for responder's suit, since GIB plays support doubles. If responder has a two-suiter, he can bid the 2nd suit.

Humans would probably call this a DSIP double. If opener is the bot, I guess that makes it a DSAIP.

[gwnn]

Does GIB double for support irregardless of strength? If so, that too should be changed along with this double promising "biddable S".

Quote

If opener is the bot, I guess that makes it a DSAIP.

nice one