[Stefan_O]

If this 4S bid isn't a bug in the bidding-db or algorithm, I don't know what is

[weejonnie]

Looks like all doubles below 4♠ are for takeout - even if on the third round one of them is for penalties. (When playing hands on BBO e.g. the infinite stream where you can look at what the call means, I find it incredible at how few are the occasions when it is penalty.)

Lucky you weren't doubled by North - I suppose that would have been for takeout as well

[lycier]

Stefan_O, on 2016-April-22, 14:00, said:

If this 4S bid isn't a bug in the bidding-db or algorithm, I don't know what is

Hello, welcome to Gib robot forum.
I never open your posted image, if you can post your hand diagram, I would be glad.

[lycier]

---

Result : 4♠-3

Is that right?

[manudude03]

I can actually understand the 4S bid, West thinks that N/S have a 9 card or even possibly a 10 card diamond fit and East is unlikely to have 3 strong trumps given the bidding, so 4S looks like it might stand a chance.

[Stefan_O]

lycier, on 2016-April-22, 15:52, said:

Result : 4♠-3
Is that right?

yes --- not that it matters...

[Stefan_O]

lycier, on 2016-April-22, 15:36, said:

Hello, welcome to Gib robot forum.
I never open your posted image, if you can post your hand diagramm, I would be glad.

Does this work better?

http://s31.postimg.o...b0yob/image.png

...

[lycier]

Stefan_O, on 2016-April-22, 17:15, said:

Does this work better?

http://s31.postimg.o...b0yob/image.png

...

In fact, I never open many links, including this.
I meant I only want to know if your hand is my posted hand diagram.

[Stefan_O]

lycier, on 2016-April-22, 17:25, said:

In fact, I never open many links, including this.
I meant I only want to know if your hand is my posted hand diagram.

OK, I see...
just curious... what browser are u using that doesnt even display inlined images? ... Lynx?

[johnu]

manudude03, on 2016-April-22, 16:06, said:

I can actually understand the 4S bid, West thinks that N/S have a 9 card or even possibly a 10 card diamond fit and East is unlikely to have 3 strong trumps given the bidding, so 4S looks like it might stand a chance.

LOL. East couldn't double 1NT, couldn't raise to 2 or 3 spades on the first round, couldn't support to 3♠ the 2nd round. N/S are in a misfit auction, West has clubs covered, has ♦A and 3 small hearts. Yes, 4♠ is an absolute textbook bid

[manudude03]

johnu, on 2016-April-22, 17:39, said:

LOL. East couldn't double 1NT, couldn't raise to 2 or 3 spades on the first round, couldn't support to 3♠ the 2nd round. N/S are in a misfit auction, West has clubs covered, has ♦A and 3 small hearts. Yes, 4♠ is an absolute textbook bid

I said I can understand it, not that I agree with it. Besides, East could have something like QJx xx Qxx xxxxx where pass is reasonable, 4S has reasonable play and 4D is perilously close to making. There is probably more of a case to be made for pulling to 5C, but I've seen a lot worse.

[lycier]

Stefan_O, on 2016-April-22, 14:00, said:

<br style="font-size: 17.9104px;">If this 4S bid isn't a bug in the bidding-db or algorithm, I don't know what is <br style="font-size: 17.9104px;"><br style="font-size: 17.9104px;">

Stefan_O, on 2016-April-22, 17:31, said:

OK, I see...
just curious... what browser are u using that doesnt even display inlined images? ... Lynx?

Thank you for your reply in time.
You are a newcomer, I honestly tell you that your topic is wrong - that's to say you really can't titled " BUG" since you should know you have no ability to confirm if it is a BUG,so your comments are unfair, for your newcomer, only reporting insted of self identification.

- Now you see your hand traveller :

---

Result : 4♠-3
Only occasional one hand, I guess your robot partner is a temporary substitute, so this is merely a happenstance.

- This hand still is a classic unfair happenstance.

Here, I would want to ask you a question.
What's the meanings of responding 3♣?
Why does north Gib rebid 3♦ then 4♦ after partner 3♣?

Now I can give you a hand evidence to answer this question.

---

Now you can see 3♣ is a minor transfer bid, but a pity that south human player don't know how to stop in 3♣ correctly, so here there is a psycho bid.
Of course, I admit that Gib is really not good at such psycho bid.
If you want to stress on the Gibs mistakes, how many bad hands are there played by human? See your traveller, If Gibs are not good, the rest is worse.

- What's the standard bidding sequences in your hand?
I replayed it, my conclusion :

---

Result : 3C=

How about Gib playing ? Shouldn't we applaud for Gib's wonderful performance?

Any ideas?

[Stefan_O]

lycier, on 2016-April-22, 18:35, said:

Thank you for your reply in time.
You are a newcomer...

Hi lycier!

OK, where to start here.....?

First, YES, I play a LOT with the robots and ENJOY it,
simply because I think it's much more fun/rewarding than playing with random pickup humans on bbo.
Random human pds make a LOT more stupid and upsetting things than Gib does -- for sure!
This deal was from a more rare occasion where I played in an individual tournament with a temporary robot substitute.

Second, this post was NOT AT ALL meant as a general criticism or disparaging of Gib,
but only reporting an issue, that I felt could stand some improvement in the application
to make it even more enjoying.

I understand you dont like the term "bug". OK.
I'm a long-time developer myself.
When I see unintended, unexpected, harmful things coming out of my own code,
"bug" -- or sometimes "feature", but in a humorous way --
is what we routinely call it, no matter what the root-cause is.
But whether you call it so, or an "issue" or "trouble report" or whatever, I dont have a strong opinion on.
How do you suggest I should have crafted the subject line?

"Harmful 4S bid. Can the robots be improved here?"
Would that be acceptable?


ps. As a curiousity, I once helped Matt Ginsberg in the early days of GIB being tested on OKB by reporting a cardplay issue to him,
which he confirmed was a code-bug and fixed. He was very grateful for that, and thanked me by sending me a free copy of the program

[lycier]

Stefan_0, now I feel so ashamed, thank you very much for your patience to answer

[Stefan_O]

lycier, on 2016-April-23, 03:17, said:

Stefan_0, now I feel so ashamed, thank you very much for your patience to answer

Ok, thanks, lycier. No problem

[Stefan_O]

lycier, on 2016-April-22, 18:35, said:

Here, I would want to ask you a question.
What's the meanings of responding 3♣?
Why does north Gib rebid 3♦ then 4♦ after partner 3♣?

OK, so I understand that robot actions are based on all players
having exactly what the bidding database/conventions prescribe....

So South should have 6+diamonds and North 2+diamonds for his 1NT bid.
And 4C is then a quebid looking for a diamond-slam?

But East's Double of 4D... what does that mean to Gib?

There seems to be some detectable conflict between all these bids, isnt there?
How does Gib resolve such things when NO card-layout can match all the actual bids made?

Bottomline, I think, it seems Gib places much more "trust" here in opp's bids than his pd's Double.

If opp's bids really are what they "should be",
what on earth could East have to throw in a Double in the middle of this bidding?

[Stefan_O]

manudude03, on 2016-April-22, 17:47, said:

I said I can understand it, not that I agree with it. Besides, East could have something like QJx xx Qxx xxxxx ...

With Qxx in trumps as only defensive value, Double seems like an extremely silly bid.
And why do you assume East has 3-card spade-support?
He has not shown anything, and might just as well be singleton or void in spades.

[lycier]

Stefan_O, on 2016-April-23, 02:59, said:

Hi lycier!

I understand you dont like the term "bug". OK.

Hello Stefan_O :
Yes,yes, here I want to express what I see from Hand Records, now I will take my hand records data out to show why I dislike the concept of "Bug".


1- See my wonderful hand.

---

Result : 7♥N=
How about this hand? very normal. Okay.

2- See my hand traveller :



3- See a different sequence in 9th hand :

---

Result : 6♥N+1


3- Statistic result :
- There are 4 hands in which west Gib didn't open 2♦ in total, they are second, 4th, 5th and 9th hand respectively.
- There are 12 hands in which west Gib opened 2♦.

4- Problem and discussion :
In terms of the position of 4th, 5th and 9th hand, south human might complain about Gib : " if west Gib opens 2♦, I also like lycier to get 7♥, why is west Gib unfair to me? why does Gib open 2♦ to help lycier to bid up to 7♥? So it is a Bug due to passing bid at first seat."
In terms of the position of 10th,11th,12th,13th,14th,15th and 16 hand, south human might complain about Gib : " If west Gib didn't open 2♦, just like second, 4th, 5th and 9th hand , I will bid up to slam, why doesn't west Gib pass? why Gib do good to them?

Now the problem comes out, for opening 2♦ and passing bid, which is a Bug?
If you think passing bid is a bug, then second, 4th, 5th and 9th hand are Bug evdences.
If you think opening 2♦ is a bug, then there are 14 hands in total.

For me, if I hold west Gib hand, I don't like to open 2♦ since there is not any singleton in the semi-balanced hand, especially at first or second seat.
However too many people very like to open 2♦.
How about it?

I strongly think the Gib is becomming smarter, Gib take a better method to handle with such problem, now as you see, Gib would choose passing bid in the 25% hands, opening 2♦ in the 75 % hands. (Note I know a sample of 16 hands is too small, it needs 50 hands at least as a small sample.)

4- My conclusion :
Pass or opening 2♦, both are correct, only a problem of choice at random. They are a normal opening instead of Bug.
However according to too many people's methods, one of the two bids is a bug.

Bug or not?
Stefan_0 or any programming experts, if you can answer my simple question reasonablly, I would be appreciated. I am only a Gib fans, a layman on programming.

[lycier]

Stefan_O, on 2016-April-22, 17:31, said:

OK, I see...
just curious... what browser are u using that doesnt even display inlined images? ... Lynx?

I use chrome browser, but I am chinese from China mainland, Google left China in October 2010, so you should know what I said, please no reply on this. Many thanks.

[Stefan_O]

lycier, on 2016-April-23, 05:26, said:

Now the problem comes out, for opening 2♦ and passing bid, which is a Bug?

First, this example seems quite different, since both opening 2D weak on West and Pass are completely reasonable bids.
More a matter of personal style and "taste", and neither would classify as a "bug" to me.

But are you saying that Gib will sometimes randomize between which option to choose?

I have looked through many hand-travellers after playing robot-tournaments to see what happened at other tables,
and I am under the impression that, as long as different humans act exactly the same on a specific deal,
the robots will always take exactly the same actions, too.
Only after humans take different actions
(might be only small differences like one human playing the 3 from 953 in a suit, while another human chooses the 5)
may the robots diverge in their responses.

This is a very good approach, of course, to achieve maximum fairness in the robot tournaments.

In programming, the obvious way to achieve this feature
(i.e. identical human actions at different tables is guaranteed to generate identical robot responses,
even though Gib uses monte-carlo random sampling in bidding an play)
is for each deal to initialize the random-generator with exactly the same numeric seed at all tables.

However, I have mostly looked at pure robot-tournaments (always 1 human + 3 robots at every table),
so it might be that BBO for some reason
is not using the same approach when a robot is playing in a competition
with a mix of human-human and human-robot pairs, like your example shows.

I dont see any technical reason, though, why the same approach could not be used in such tournaments, too,
as long as the robots are playing the hands from the start of the deal.

Only when a robot is substituted into the middle of deal (because a human left the table or was "timed out") it is generally not possible, of course.