lycier, on 2016-August-26, 23:28, said:
First
Now I finally see, please you would make a honest comment, the facts are there, and you're making funny excuses.
See those evidences above in my simulating hands.
After 3♠ says " 5+♠,19+hcp,23+TPs",Gib W will start to make a simple addition operation.
- When holds 13 TPs :
23+TPs + 13+TPs = 36+TPs = grand slam contract
- When holds 9-12TPs :
23+TPs + 9-12TPs = 32-35TPs = slam contract
Well if it is doing that, which I suppose is possible, then that's just due to lack of better rule set constraining when it should take such actions. Just because TP suggest trick taking potential for slam is there, which it is having so many trump tricks, doesn't mean it is supposed to jump to slam. It still has to check that it has enough first/second round controls in other suits for the level. And since it has a forcing 4
♦ call there, there should be a way to add rules to force it to bid that instead of just leaping to a level suggested by TP since it doesn't know about the ace situation. Even more ideal would be to maybe have it jump to 4d over 2c to set trumps and show the nature of the hand immediately so the 2c opener can take captaincy. But super long semi-solid suits are pretty rare over 2c openers so I wouldn't consider it a high priority fix.
That doesn't mean that we are supposed to jettison total points out the window. I mean surely you don't want it to treat xxx xxx KQJx xxx as same trick taking potential as xx x KQJxxxxxx x despite having same number of HCP do you? TP still serve a purpose, to evaluate trick taking potential of a hand. It just needs tweaking for long suits, and additional rules to make it prioritize checking for sufficient aces before leaping to slam. This is a rule definition and priority problem, not a "shouldn't use TP" problem.
Quote
See those explanations on 6♦ and 7♦ in all the hands above.
They only say " TPs", never involve "HCP".
The rules for jumping to slam are undoubtedly bad here, and it should be forced never to do it. Doesn't mean TP should be abandoned, just means it shouldn't use TP as a rule for wild slam leaps in priority over lower forcing bids. It means needs better rules in places, not jumping to slam when you have alternatives.
Third
Quote
Stephen Tu, friendly remind you.
Whenever you made some comments on my threads, especially involed Gib evaluation, you usually said to me " nonsense", You are totally wrong".
Why would you become angry?
I have some exact evidences in all my threads,why would you ignore it? would you have some strong evidences to show your points are correct?
On previous threads, you do a lot of things that tend to really annoy other posters in this subforum, not just me.
- you tend to criticize human actions, when it's really completely irrelevant to the existence of a bug in the GIB rule database. Just because human South made a weird/bad bid, doesn't mean there isn't a bug in the North GIB code. You need to stop thinking of hands in terms of looking at all 4 hands when evaluating bidding bugs. Look only at a single hand, the auction to a certain point, and the bid GIB chooses there. Would it be reasonable if South had their bid? Pretend you cannot see the 3 other hands.
- you complicate threads by posting many multiple examples of the same hand, but where different actions were taken at various points. These really should be separated to other threads, the idea is to discuss one bug per thread. Even though it may have arisen from the same hand, these are *different bugs* because it's *different auctions*. Because again, the bids are different and we don't get to see any of the other hands, only the auction. Try to focus on just the particular auction brought up by the original poster, and only GIB actions. If you want to bring up other buggy auctions that happened at other tables that happened to be the same deal, separate them to different threads.
-when I do make specific points /objections/ questions for you to possibly dispute, instead of addressing them specifically, you completely ignore them. I do make an effort to address things you bring up, when you are sufficiently specific about what you are advocating. But often you are not very specific. And you never address individual points, you handwave argue things saying stuff like "oh it's all excuses and denial", instead of specifically picking apart *exactly* what you find wrong about my post. That doesn't create constructive discussion at all.
Make specific statements. Say *exactly* how you want GIB to calculate points instead of TP. Say *exactly* what bids you want GIB to make in which spots. Say *exactly* how you would change the definition for certain bids.
Otherwise it is impossible to have discussion, because we don't know what changes you are looking for.
My claim is that:
- TP is OK, could be formula tweaked here or there to deal with really long suits
- many auctions need to be tweaked so the ranges are reasonable. Using TP for ranges is OK. Some auctions should be to defined to use HCP minimums in addition to TP.
- on slam auctions blasting to slam based on TP total is ridiculous and should be fixed. Because of need for side suit controls, and because simply adding TP can have be too optimistic with too much duplication of values when both hands are shapely. Using more simulation in spots, prioritize ace asking bids or lower forcing bids in place of just random leaps to slam.
Which of these do you dispute? BE SPECIFIC.
Help
s
t
r-m
nd
ing) tr. v. - Any bid made by bridge player with which partner disagrees.