[Stephen Tu]

Partner reported gambling 6♠ overcall of 2♥ on something approximating
AKQJxxxx - xx AKQ.

This is defined as 33+ total points, probably not a great idea. GIB partner with x Qxxx KQxxxx xx bids 6nt and goes down 6.

Can GIB be adjusted to just always pass these suit slam overcalls and openings?

[ArtK78]

You have to be very careful playing with GIB. Many times a jump to game is defined as 25 HCP and a jump to slam is defined as 33 HCP. You need to check the explanation of your proposed bid before you make it.

[billw55]

ArtK78, on 2013-February-19, 12:34, said:

You have to be very careful playing with GIB. Many times a jump to game is defined as 25 HCP and a jump to slam is defined as 33 HCP. You need to check the explanation of your proposed bid before you make it.

That sounds like a definite infraction in a competitive event.

[Stephen Tu]

ArtK78, on 2013-February-19, 12:34, said:

You have to be very careful playing with GIB. Many times a jump to game is defined as 25 HCP and a jump to slam is defined as 33 HCP. You need to check the explanation of your proposed bid before you make it

I don't know why you keep on making these silly comments on my posts. Of course I know that GIB has poorly defined bids and that if one is solely looking to maximize score that you look at the explanation first and avoid those bids. I am posting here so that BBO/georgi will see the bugs and fix them. I want GIB to continually improve as a practice opponent and occasional partner.

I am not posting here asking your advice on how to improve scores with GIB assuming GIB bugs will never ever be fixed, I already know how to accomplish this. Your post is not helpful at all. I know the bid is defined as 33 total points. I want georgi to change it so that it *doesn't* show 33 total points, and that partner opposite basically is forced to pass. My partner made the bid, not me, and he's not the only one who runs into trouble on this sort of hand not knowing the hover over bid trick. I am posting so GIB itself gets fixed for the benefit of all BBO users, not for you to tell me to use the hover trick.

[ArtK78]

billw55, on 2013-February-19, 13:58, said:

That sounds like a definite infraction in a competitive event.

No, the explanations are available to everyone. You should check to see what GIB expects a bid to mean. It may not be explicitly stated, but it is in reality a part of the conditions of contest.

Stephen Tu, on 2013-February-19, 14:28, said:

I don't know why you keep on making these silly comments on my posts. Of course I know that GIB has poorly defined bids and that if one is solely looking to maximize score that you look at the explanation first and avoid those bids. I am posting here so that BBO/georgi will see the bugs and fix them. I want GIB to continually improve as a practice opponent and occasional partner.

I am not posting here asking your advice on how to improve scores with GIB assuming GIB bugs will never ever be fixed, I already know this.

And I don't understand why you play with GIB and keep making silly bids knowing that GIB will interpret your bids according to its own definitions. If you have a problem that you would like to point out to the programers, fine. But if you make a bid that GIB will interpret as showing 33 HCP, don't be surprised when it acts as if you have 33 HCP.

[Stephen Tu]

ArtK78, on 2013-February-19, 14:34, said:

And I don't understand why you play with GIB and keep making silly bids knowing that GIB will interpret your bids according to its own definitions. If you have a problem that you would like to point out to the programers, fine. But if you make a bid that GIB will interpret as showing 33 HCP, don't be surprised when it acts as if you have 33 HCP.

1. In this case it was a partner of mine who made the bid, not me, along with other people.
2. My bids aren't (usually) silly, it's GIB's interpretation of them that's silly.
3. Why do I make such bids knowing that that GIB may get them wrong? Because:
- often they are in a context of a robot race, where speed is critical, taking time to see if every bid is going to be interpreted correctly by GIB is totally impractical
- often the bid is just very wide ranging, mostly undefined, you can't really anticipate how GIB will respond without trying it. Plus, in some cases any other bid you try may also work out badly.
- sometimes I'm just curious to see how GIB will handle the continuation

I am not playing trying to maximize useless, worthless masterpoints, obtain maximum possible score in these BBO tourneys. I am either practicing, playing for entertainment/time wasting, or playing to win BBO$ off of other people so I never have to buy any ever again. While I am doing this I want the robots to be as tough opponents as possible, thus i make the effort to submit reports.

4. I did not post that I was "surprised" that GIB acts if I had 33 pts. I posted that GIB interprets this as 33 pts, which is a mistake that ought to be fixed. I have never reported things as "why does GIB do this?" They are all bug reports, asking GIB to be adjusted. Why are you assuming that I was surprised? Where in my initial post did I indicate surprise or confusion?

5. I am a f*king software engineer. Forcing software into problematic areas and exposing problems is how things get fixed! Would you like GIB to gradually get fixed and bid better or not? Or do you think all of us should just avoid all bid sequences where GIB is out of its mind, never report problems, and these bids GIB misuses or misunderstands just stay that way forever????


Criticizing me for this is beyond ludicrous IMO.

Quote

If you have a problem that you would like to point out to the programers, fine.

That's pretty much exactly every thread I start in this section of the forums! If you are fine with that, why post this other garbage?

[lalldonn]

Gib always passing these bids would be a big improvement over the current situation, but I don't think it's best. But maybe programming in proper evaluation in this type of spot is just too hard, idunno. At least having it show fewer 'total points' would be a reasonable start.

Stephen I agree with you about Art's post(s?) but I don't see what you had to gain by replying, let alone angrily ranting. BBO forums is hardly a place where we lack unhelpful posts.