[lycier]

---

Result : 7♠N=
Basic Gibs

Now you see Gibs played so well.
However you can have a look at the explanations on 6♣,it is " Cuebid-- 3-5♣,2-3♦,2-4♥,3♠ ", you never see " ♣K " since Gibs often cut off a generous piece of its important explanations.
I strongly think " Cuebid-- 3-5♣,2-3♦,2-4♥,3♠ " are useless exlanations, for example, you play against me at the table, you are sure to explain 6♣ as " ♣K,3♠ with all key cards,7♠ try." Such explanations are correct and useful.

[Bbradley62]

At the table, you get a full explanation that includes ♣K. It is only the hand record that comes later that truncates the explanation. BBO has known about the truncation since the beginning of time, and basically has said that they are not going to do anything about it.

[lycier]

Yes, now you have a look at the explanations on 4♣, " Cuebid -- 5+♠,♣A,12+TPs.” Is a very good , very simple and standart explanation .

[Bbradley62]

GIB is programmed to provide its information in a specific order:

• comment about the current bid
  
• known suit lengths
  
• specific honors
  
• HCP and total points
  
• comment about forcingness

The reason the 4♣ explanation looks better is because North has only given suit-length information about one suit, not all four like South has.

[lycier]

Bbradley62, on 2016-February-15, 07:58, said:

GIB is programmed to provide its information in a specific order:

• comment about the current bid
• known suit lengths
• specific honors
• HCP and total points
• comment about forcingness

Very good, even so, I think that Gibs should keep simple and useful instead of cut off some important piece of explanations, just like human Vs human.

[cloa513]

lycier, on 2016-February-15, 08:39, said:

Very good, even so, I think that Gibs should keep simple and useful instead of cut off some important piece of explanations, just like human Vs human.

The output should be relevant to the format that its display. The display is very limited so the output needs to be brief. They replace cue-bid with C, not include suit lengths which are 2 or 3 unless bid specifically specifies like a few do. 1 and 4+ are much more useful.

[1eyedjack]

I don't know all of the situations where the explanation is truncated (reproduction in forum posts being one), but I do know that the only critical time when a full explanation is required, ie during the play of the hand, it is not truncated. So, irritating but not such a major issue as is being blown up in this thread.

There is of course an absolute limit on the number of characters that can be included in the explanation, whether or not subsequently restricted further in reproduction elsewhere, and that limit could be more intelligently used. Leaving out such random comments as "one over one" being a prime example. Or simply increasing the limit.

[cloa513]

1eyedjack, on 2016-February-16, 01:54, said:

I don't know all of the situations where the explanation is truncated (reproduction in forum posts being one), but I do know that the only critical time when a full explanation is required, ie during the play of the hand, it is not truncated. So, irritating but not such a major issue as is being blown up in this thread.

There is of course an absolute limit on the number of characters that can be included in the explanation, whether or not subsequently restricted further in reproduction elsewhere, and that limit could be more intelligently used. Leaving out such random comments as "one over one" being a prime example. Or simply increasing the limit.

Some bid titles are so bloated that you get little explanation at all.

[lycier]

cloa513, on 2016-February-16, 08:29, said:

Some bid titles are so bloated that you get little explanation at all.

Yes, this is just what I mean. thank you.

[manudude03]

I wonder if it can be made such that the description only includes a title and features that have changed since the previous description. It would mean that users would have to click through every bid to get a complete picture of the hand though.

[iandayre]

lycier, on 2016-February-15, 07:15, said:

---

Result : 7♠N=
Basic Gibs

Now you see Gibs played so well.
However you can have a look at the explanations on 6♣,it is " Cuebid-- 3-5♣,2-3♦,2-4♥,3♠ ", you never see " ♣K " since Gibs often cut off a generous piece of its important explanations.
I strongly think " Cuebid-- 3-5♣,2-3♦,2-4♥,3♠ " are useless exlanations, for example, you play against me at the table, you are sure to explain 6♣ as " ♣K,3♠ with all key cards,7♠ try." Such explanations are correct and useful.

They "play so well"?? Because this time you can make 7 on a finesse AND a squeeze against East? LOL. And in fact GIB does bid better in no trump auctions.