[smerriman]

GIB doesn't play Bergen. It plays invitational jump shifts (which is common at expert level too, though GIB doesn't play them very well). If you looked the description of the bid you would have seen this.

[mikl_plkcc]

delete

[icer]

this happened recently: https://www.bridgeba...ayed=1641132001
GIB forgot system just like a human would...

[thorvald]

I am unable to reproduce this with the normal robots, could it be the advanced robots?

[Castle1944]

I have had a few instances of what I would consider programming problems but last week was the worst. At the table, with humans, it would have been considered a psyche but, presumably Robots can't psyche.

Robot held:
KQ1084
3
K9
AK953

After three passes robot opened 1S (Vul against non), 2H overcall by me, 2S by robot’s partner, Pass by my partner and 3D by robot and explained as 2- C; 3+ D; 5+ S; 16-18 total points, forcing to 3S

A total misstatement of the hand.

Is this a programming error or a programmed random bid? It is bids and explanations such as this that spread the information that the robots cheat and people are dropping out of playing on BBO because of it.

[smerriman]

Wow. If that's the worst bid you've seen, you can't have played with the robots very often

I think you overestimate the number of people who think the robots cheat - most people who play with the robots regularly know they can't possibly cheat due to the number of basic errors they make (and most posts about the robots are about how bad they are; which is also sometimes an exaggeration, but of course they can't both cheat and be bad at the same time).

At a table with humans, this would certainly not have been considered a psyche - that's a gross deviation from the agreed meaning, while this one is extremely close (correct number of points, correct quality of the diamond suit - the description says also queen or better - just a single card short).

It is also perfectly legal from a bridge perspective - remember that in bridge you do not get to know what the player making the bid holds, but what his partner believes he holds, and it's common for the two to differ even / especially for humans. GIB's robot partner will make all further decisions under the assumption that at least 3 diamonds are held, so no problems there. In human bridge, it only becomes a problem if partner starts learning that you might have 2 diamonds and uses that information in later auctions - GIB never "learns".

It also appears to be a reasonable bid; jumping to 4♠ may be better, but if you're going to make a game try, diamonds is where you need the most help.

Which just leaves why GIB describes it as 3♦+ but only has 2. The logic for making bids is extremely complex and can't be solely summarised by the points / lengths that are used in bidding descriptions. (For example, of course it won't bid 3♦ with *every* hand that matches that description - many are eliminated by the fact another bid would have been even more suitable, and so on).

If every bid was matched perfectly to the description, there would be an extremely large number of situations where not a single bid exists for the robot, and thus it would break entirely. Just like humans, robots have to do the best they can in every bidding situation, even if there aren't any matching "rules". In this case, yes, the robot is programmed that 3♦ should show 3+ diamonds, but there is a lower priority rule that says if you're stuck for a bid, you can also bid 3♦ with 2 diamonds. Should the description therefore change to say 2+ diamonds? No - the rest of the database is programmed under the assumption that you have 3+ diamonds, and that's what should be assumed.

If every description was altered to make sure the ranges covered the absolute extreme cases, it's straightforward to see that most of the descriptions would end up completely nonsensical (and considerably more misleading). E.g. would you open Axxxxxx Axxxxx - - 1♠? I wouldn't be upset if you did, but if 1♠ opening were described as 8+ HCP - or even less - then nobody would ever play with the robots.

[kontoleon]

Robot bid very WTF and sometimes defence really poor.
I have play too much with robots, I really enjoy it and one time bid 5s with totally 4 spades! I have the full hand. I run it from Tablet I have no pc now from best look

Hand 1.
North KJ95(S)943(H)Q43(D)JT9©
East QT62(S)AQT5(H)A8(D)K63©
South A8743(S)87(H)97(D)8542©
East -(S)KJ62(H)KJT652(D)AQ7©

Action
P/1NT/P/2C
P/2H/2S*/3D**
3S/4S/P/5C***
P/5D/P/5S
P/P/X/Pass all

*OK was not the best overbid but this bid means nothing from bug
**Robot means 5+D 4S 14+total points
***Was cue bid (from robot with 0 spades)

OK if no bid 2S the action goes 6H+1. Now goes 5SX-3

With out 2S the action goes 3S artificial bid 4+H slam try

[jm02130]

So the bot holds KJ, KJ10x, xxx, AQxx
I hold A10xxx, void AKxx, KJ10x
Auction proceeds, 1C by bot, 1S by me, 3H by LHO, x by bot, 4H by me, all pass.
Down 4

How can I be interested in playing H when I pulled the bot's double? Isn't this an obvious cue bid? 6C is very good, especially on a H lead, and playing with a human novice I would expect to get there.
This is an error in the bot's logic that needs to be fixed. I resent being screwed this way when I paid for the game.

[smerriman]

Your best bet is to check the descriptions of bids before you make them; GIB's double shows biddable hearts and your 'raise' is natural. Obviously this nonsensical, but BBO don't fix GIB anymore and haven't for years, so avoiding nonsensical descriptions is your only hope.

[jm02130]

I thought one of the purposes of this thread was to help make the robots less nonsensical.

[smerriman]

It was, when it was posted 8 years ago. They haven't updated GIB in nearly 5 years.