[calm01]

http://tinyurl.com/7z66yv3

The bidding GIB to GIB goes something like this:

GIB 1 GIB 2
----------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------
I have an opening hand with at least three diamonds partner I have 5 spades or more

I have at least 6 good diamonds and a near game hand in
diamonds and no real interest in spades I don't care, I have 7 spades

I still do not have even 1 spade but my diamonds are I still have 7 spades and can only see my cards,
self-supporting at 5 level so shut up partner

OK partner, good luck, one of us to know when to stop.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please refrain GIB from appearing to be the most contemptuous bidder known to computer science. The only consolation is that GIB appears to be contemptuous of all its partners equally and often!

I assume BBO does not wish to be associated with such behaviour by its computer program, so fix it please if only for your own self-respect.

[billw55]

lol.

It seems this GIB is also reluctant to bring out its forcing opening.

[barmar]

GIB's requirement for 2♣ is 23+ total points with an unbalanced hand, this hand only has 22.

calm01, your frequent nasty comments ("most contemptuous bidder", "nail in GIB's coffin", etc.) are making it really hard for me to respond calmly (your handle is ironic that way).

[Yu18772]

barmar - irrespective of calms01 style - he has a point. GIB does get into these type of auctions frequently, usually for a disastrous result insisting on a not so good but long suit. To be fair he does it as frequently with a human partner as in GIB-GIB auctions. Imho GIB just should not be allowed to insist on a suit not headed by AKJ at the 5 level or higher when partner shows self sufficient suit, or just have a weighing mechanism where lacking 2 top honors outweighs the fact that he didnt show an additional card.

Calm01 - although I understand your frustration (believe me I do, if GIB was human I would make him an enemy long time ago), and I make several months breaks sometimes because the robot is sooo dumb at certain things. Yet, you have to understand that there only limited number of people working to improve GIB on bbo. They are doing the best they can, and it is kind of rude to be so aggressive towards them all the time. The nice thing is that they are really trying, the not so nice thing is that there plenty of bugs, much more than they can handle.....so GIB is just GIB, it is not a star player, but it becomes better and better with time, so one day it may make a decent partner. Till then, it would be nice if we all can have an intelligent dialogue about GIBs mistakes.....they are pretty funny at times.

[gwnn]

If the criteria make this a non 2♣ opener, change the criteria. Maybe to 20+ or 21+ or something more refined, such as "23+ or 21+ one suited".

Now that we're talking about tones of voice, barmar, it might be more productive if you could make clear in your replies whether you really think GIB's rules are good or bad, such as "GIB's rules say this is not a 2♣ opener, but it does look absurd. We will try to come up with a better rule" vs "GIB's rules say this is not a 2♣ opener and indeed why should it?".

[cloa513]

barmar, on 2011-December-27, 16:48, said:

GIB's requirement for 2♣ is 23+ total points with an unbalanced hand, this hand only has 22.

calm01, your frequent nasty comments ("most contemptuous bidder", "nail in GIB's coffin", etc.) are making it really hard for me to respond calmly (your handle is ironic that way).

Doesn't GIB have a playing tricks calculator so that 8 playing trick and 19+TP can be the ancillary requirement for 2♣?

[helene_t]

if this hand was just one TP short of a 2♣ opening then I think it is not too bad, especially when the long suit is a minor.

The 5♠ bid is not great but if the simulations show that it is the winning action then I am not too surprised. I think it is reasonable to use simulations in this kind of auctions.

basically, if this thread is about the biggest GIB issue then GIB is a great.

[xxhong]

The constraint for 5D is wrong. It not only shows a strong rebiddable suit, but also shows a void in S, or a singleton but really long D suit.

With the wrong constraints, of course no simulation can get you to the right spot.

calm01, on 2011-December-26, 17:58, said:

http://tinyurl.com/7z66yv3

The bidding GIB to GIB goes something like this:

GIB 1 GIB 2
----------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------
I have an opening hand with at least three diamonds partner I have 5 spades or more

I have at least 6 good diamonds and a near game hand in
diamonds and no real interest in spades I don't care, I have 7 spades

I still do not have even 1 spade but my diamonds are I still have 7 spades and can only see my cards,
self-supporting at 5 level so shut up partner

OK partner, good luck, one of us to know when to stop.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please refrain GIB from appearing to be the most contemptuous bidder known to computer science. The only consolation is that GIB appears to be contemptuous of all its partners equally and often!

I assume BBO does not wish to be associated with such behaviour by its computer program, so fix it please if only for your own self-respect.

[Yu18772]

helene_t, on 2011-December-28, 08:41, said:

if this hand was just one TP short of a 2♣ opening then I think it is not too bad, especially when the long suit is a minor.

I think that opening 1♦ is not as bad as rebidding passable 4♦ with 11 tricks in the hand.

helene_t, on 2011-December-28, 08:41, said:

The 5♠ bid is not great but if the simulations show that it is the winning action then I am not too surprised. I think it is reasonable to use simulations in this kind of auctions.

Insisting on a suit where you have 2 sure trump losers and an aceless hand at 5 level doesnt seem right to me, and would you bid the 5♠? Do you know of any good player that would?
Simulations (as much as we like them) are not a god given answer - they are a calculation based on a set of mathematically expressed assumptions, approximations and ignoring certain parameters that are deemed negligible. If these are not close enough to reality the answer a simulation gives is plain wrong. To the best of my understanding this forum is all about trying to post hands where simulations clearly led to the wrong conclusion, so the people behind the screen could fix some of the assumptions in these situations.

helene_t, on 2011-December-28, 08:41, said:

basically, if this thread is about the biggest GIB issue then GIB is a great.

This is by far not the major GIB issue, there are many others....but it does get better with time!

[Bbradley62]

barmar, on 2011-December-27, 16:48, said:

GIB's requirement for 2♣ is 23+ total points with an unbalanced hand, this hand only has 22.

Is this the way "we" like it, or will it be reviewed for updating?

[barmar]

cloa513, on 2011-December-28, 08:36, said:

Doesn't GIB have a playing tricks calculator so that 8 playing trick and 19+TP can be the ancillary requirement for 2♣?

No, there's no playing tricks calculator, except as a side effect of its simulations. But the bidding rules for opening 2♣ don't allow simulations.

Bbradley62, on 2011-December-28, 17:55, said:

Is this the way "we" like it, or will it be reviewed for updating?

Haven't thought hard about exactly where the cutoff for 2♣ should be. Lots of players have different criteria, I'm not sure that a point one way or the other makes a huge difference, so I'm not really inclined to worry about it.

FYI GIB's exact criteria currently are:

18+ HCP, 23+ TP with a 5+ suit
or
18+ HCP, 24+ TP with no 5+ suit
or
Balanced hand too strong for 2NT opening.

[helene_t]

Yu18772, on 2011-December-28, 16:08, said:

I think that opening 1♦ is not as bad as rebidding passable 4♦ with 11 tricks in the hand.

Is 4♦ passable? I don't think so. It shows 19-22 TP. I.e. it is the the top range of a 1-level opener. I think it is forcing.

[Bbradley62]

In another thread, http://www.bridgebas...age__mode__show , I asked how people would open this hand. The two common answers were 2♣ and 4NT (asking specific aces). Any chance of teaching GIB to play the latter?

[georgi]

2♣ looks more rational with such hand which doesn't have 5♦ in just 10% (4-0) but two voids is rather unlucky and partner not having ♣Q or ♥A.

4NT doesn't look much convenient as you need Q♣ to bid 7 even if partner has the priceless ♥A. You could bid 6 directly just to respect the hand you've got.

There are hands like this hard to explore everything, but usually going slow is the best way.

I've saw in team match at BBO hand like:

♠AQJTxxx
♥AKQxxx
♦-
♣-

played 6♠/6♥ at both tables.

Only 16HCP, but again 22TP, just like the hand with the diamonds. But here 4NT wouldn't help, only spade establishment as trump and inquiry the spade support if any.

So 2♣ looks acceptable to accept such hands, but the continuation after doesn't guarantee grands will be reached with volley.