[fuburules3]

Maybe this is only a "basic" robot problem, but it seems to be frequent:

http://tinyurl.com/c67c4na
and
http://tinyurl.com/7ln82pk

[cloa513]

fuburules3, on 2012-April-01, 15:07, said:

Maybe this is only a "basic" robot problem, but it seems to be frequent:

http://tinyurl.com/c67c4na
and
http://tinyurl.com/7ln82pk

Just more sloppy programming- as far as choosing a suit the second is nowhere as bad (East's spades suit is so freestanding that sometime excellent players prefer their own suit to a fit with partner) as the first just that the level is too low coming back to the poor Total Points calculator- a good one would have boosted East's hand value and they would have been propelled into game.

[barmar]

I really wish you would stop using inflamatory words like "sloppy". The way the bidding DB is written makes it very hard to keep track of all the relationships between rules (there's no visible tree structure), so it's hard to avoid errors like this.

The priority of the relevant rules that could apply in this case are:

Bid 3♥ with support and 11-12 TP
Bid 2♠ with 6+♠ and 8-10 TP (or 6-10 with a ♥ void)
Pass with 3+♥ and <9 TP

Since rebidding the suit has higher priority than passing with support, that's what it does. We could easily flip the priorities of these rules.

Maybe the justification for the original priorities is the rule of thumb that it's better to play in the suit of the weaker hand. But that shouldn't take precedence over playing in a known 9-card fit.

[georgi]

Next update contains some changes and distinguish between the rebidded suit by opener and responder rebid after depend on whether it's minor or hearts opening and rebidding later.

So in both examples GIB won't consider rebid in its spades, but it will consider pass or raise in partner's suit.

[barmar]

Good catch, Georgi, I hadn't even noticed that the rule didn't distinguish majors versus minors. It makes sense that you would rebid a 6-card major even after finding a fit in a minor.

[cloa513]

barmar, on 2012-April-02, 01:33, said:

I really wish you would stop using inflamatory words like "sloppy". The way the bidding DB is written makes it very hard to keep track of all the relationships between rules (there's no visible tree structure), so it's hard to avoid errors like this.

The priority of the relevant rules that could apply in this case are:

Bid 3♥ with support and 11-12 TP
Bid 2♠ with 6+♠ and 8-10 TP (or 6-10 with a ♥ void)
Pass with 3+♥ and <9 TP

Since rebidding the suit has higher priority than passing with support, that's what it does. We could easily flip the priorities of these rules.

Maybe the justification for the original priorities is the rule of thumb that it's better to play in the suit of the weaker hand. But that shouldn't take precedence over playing in a known 9-card fit.

You call it inflammatory but what the hundreds of posts before me- did those encourage Fred to say we've got to seriously look at the basics and basic bidding of GIB because the basic mistakes are embarassing. No instead it was add more "features" and paper over the faults. The features whether it be Michaels, Soloway are no good because GIB can't handle them right- its a lot of work to get any system convention right with human even more with humans. No one should expect BBO to add more conventions to GIB and them to be perfect. I'd have left the overbidding of preempts to your simulated bids- its just as difficult for humans to decide what to bid in those cases so no reason to expect to GIB to know what to do.