[frisbee]

Robot (as North) holds: ♠K76 ♥Q75 ♦KQ64 ♣T76

In first seat, Robot passes. 1♥ by Partner. 2♣ by Robot. Double by Opponent. 2♠ by South. Then the insanity begins ...

.... P - P - 1♥
P - 2♣ - Dbl - 2♠
P - 3♣ - P - 3♦
P - 4♣ ... I will not bother to show the rest of this insane auction.

2♣ was alerted as Drury (technically, it is Fit Drury, but ok).
3♣ was described as showing the ♣A. Really? I do not see it.
4♣ was described as showing the ♣AK. Really? I must be blind.

Not surprisingly, some Souths drove to impossible grand slams. No need to show the South hand.

This is a continuing complaint ... Robots insist on bidding the ♣suit (in this auction, 3♣ and 4♣) when they want to make a forcing bid, whether they have ♣ or not. As has been mentioned several times before, this is NOT allowed by the ACBL GCC (General Convention Chart), which the Robots are required to follow in ACBL tournaments. Please correct this continuing programming error. In this auction, the first and the second round ♣ controls the Robot promised were in the opponents hands.

Thank you for listening.

[lycier]

Hi Frisbee :

Welcome to robot discussion forum.
You topic is very good,if possible,would you give us a your hand link or your hand diagram?

[frisbee]

Hi lycier --

I showed tonight's BBO tournament number and hand number in the title. I do not know how to link to that. I showed the Robot's actual hand in the top line. The auction that I showed was not my own (I did not bid 3♦ over 3♣), but another player's auction. My local kibitzers would have also bid grand slams after the Robot's two cuebids.

My 2♠ bid was a full reverse as the Robot expects (instead of the HSGT that I prefer to play after Fit Drury with real partners).

This appears to be a Robot programming error that I have mentioned on a few occasions, but has never been properly fixed. The Robot likes to bid ♣ when not holding ♣. What is worse, on this particular hand, is that it does not have the controls in ♣ that its descriptions says that it has.

[Stephen Tu]

frisbee, on 2015-August-06, 17:03, said:

This is a continuing complaint ... Robots insist on bidding the ♣suit (in this auction, 3♣ and 4♣) when they want to make a forcing bid, whether they have ♣ or not. As has been mentioned several times before, this is NOT allowed by the ACBL GCC (General Convention Chart), which the Robots are required to follow in ACBL tournaments. Please correct this continuing programming error. In this auction, the first and the second round ♣ controls the Robot promised were in the opponents hands.

Certainly it's not supposed to be bidding clubs here as that's just bad bidding. You should post a link to the hand so we can see the full explanations. Preferably post the hand directly here using:

[hv=(paste full url here)]400|300[/hv]

Get the URL from www.bridgebase.com/myhands or the BBO client (export hand to handviewer link), click the movie URL to show the full expanded URL with all the .lin code, then put into the forum using the above syntax.

For other auctions where you think it shouldn't be bidding clubs, post those too.

But I don't understand what your comment about the GCC means. Drury is legal under GCC. And any constructive calls are allowed on the second and subsequent rounds of the auction so it can bid clubs to mean whatever it wants it to mean, there are no restrictions. Now whether GIB shouldn't be making those calls on certain auctions is certainly up for debate, but it really has nothing to do with GCC legality.

Bidding clubs in modern bidding is just often not going to be real suits since it's the cheapest bid and is often going to be used as some convention or another. Famous quote, Edgar Kaplan: "I don't think anyone in this tournament can bid diamonds to show diamonds. We lost the club suit in the 1950s. Now diamonds are gone and hearts are sinking fast."

Club opening 3 cds is normal when no 5 cd M, no 4 diamonds. Club rebid on 3 cds after 1M-1nt is very frequent and normal since 1nt is forcing (GIB plays 2/1). In other auctions it's often some checkback mechanism or might be 4th suit forcing. There are plenty of reasons to bid clubs without clubs, legitimately, please post the hands if you feel otherwise.

[frisbee]

Stephen, yes, Fit Drury is allowed under GCC (which the Robot described, as I mentioned). But, Robots bid ♣ in other situations as a forcing bid (as I mentioned, 3♣ and 4♣ on the actual hand). Those (forcing relay) bids are NOT allowed by GCC unless they "specifically" describe something (and are alerted as such), they cannot be used ONLY as a general force.

While I agree that it can be necessary from time to time to bid ♣ (without a long ♣ suit) because there is no other option, the Robots appear to default to bidding ♣ even when descriptive bids are available. Personally, I play (and teach) Thurston's version of 2/1. Paul's comment is the same, with ♠Qxx ♥AQxx ♦QJx ♣AKx ... Over 1♠ what do you bid? ... (you cannot bid 2♥ because you have only four and you cannot bid 3NT [15-17] because you are too strong) ... so you are forced to bid 2♣, which is not terrible because "no one really wants to play in ♣". GCC makes allowances for that 2♣ bid, but not when the Robots bid 2♣ with a void (as an unpassed hand). And, yes, GCC allows Opener to rebid 2♣ with a 4=5=2=2 hand after 1♥ - 1NT, without an Alert.

I have been working with and programming computers for 40+ years, so I am certainly not a technophobe. But, I had no luck in the past posting via the method you mention. Perhaps because I do not use the BBO browser version. Perhaps because I do not use IE or Javascript that BBO often requires (on the plus side, however, I do not see the BBO advertisements that can be very distracting when trying to play bridge). I should also mention that BBO does not save MP games on my computer, but it does save IMP games on my computer. This was a MP tournament.

[Stephen Tu]

On what exact sequence did a Robot bid 2♣ with a void? It's really useless to make generalized complaints like this. You have to give a particular sequence so that the programmers have a clue where to look in their massive rules database to make fixes. Preferably a link to the actual hand.

Quote

I have been working with and programming computers for 40+ years, so I am certainly not a technophobe. But, I had no luck in the past posting via the method you mention. Perhaps because I do not use the BBO browser version. Perhaps because I do not use IE or Javascript that BBO often requires (on the plus side, however, I do not see the BBO advertisements that can be very distracting when trying to play bridge). I should also mention that BBO does not save MP games on my computer, but it does save IMP games on my computer. This was a MP tournament.

You don't need to use the BBO browser version of the client. Nor do you need IE; any common modern browser will do, just navigate to www.bridgebase.com/myhands . You really don't use Javascript? That would break most of the web! I don't see Javascript as anywhere near as dangerous as say Flash or Java (not the same as Javascript) which you might block if you are particularly worried about security. You probably do need Javascript to see the hand diagrams on this forum, though you might be able to post one without it if you get the URL through myhands.

[frisbee]

Stephen, I posted here to show the hand in question. Clearly, the Robot's 3♣ and 4♣ bids were inappropriate. That programming logic needs to be corrected. (Let us stick with that, instead of the side issues I mentioned ... only an attempt to further explain this was a continuing problem ... Robots bid ♣ by default much too often.)

[Stephen Tu]

Yeah, no one disagrees with you about this particular hand. But your general complaint hasn't been one that I see posted, bidding clubs by default. Certainly I don't remember seeing 2♣ being bid on a void ever, other than in situations where it's clearly conventional. So I am just curious about the sequence that led to this bidding natural 2♣ on void, which I haven't encountered. You make a generalized complaint about the robot bidding clubs when they shouldn't, but no examples other than this drury hand? It's just unproductive without other specific sequence examples.

[frisbee]

I could certainly go back to find other hands that I and others have posted and commented on in this GIB forum, but I am not going to waste the time. Robots mis-bidding ♣ (even with voids) has been discussed on several occasions. I will now retire from this flame-throwing fruitless argument.

[Stephen Tu]

OK I found it:
http://www.bridgebas...me-forcing-hand
Supposedly fixed in v 31 last December.

Still, it seems to me that this is "bug with a particular sequence", on that specifically responding to 1 heart with long spades, 3 cd hearts, and game forcing values, not really indicative of a GIB general proclivity to bid clubs to force. It was a bug in a particular situation.

Which shows the value of being specific rather than general with complaints when possible, supposedly this is fixed and you shouldn't have seen this for awhile.

[Bbradley62]

There have certainly been hands posted where GIB's bid is explained as showing an ace that he doesn't have. I've never noticed it being specific to clubs, but I suppose it could be.

ok, the first one I found is clubs: http://www.bridgebas...of-clubs-north/
damn! another one is clubs: http://www.bridgebas...oesnt-show-ace/

[lycier]

frisbee, on 2015-August-06, 19:34, said:

I posted here to show the hand in question. Clearly, the Robot's 3♣ and 4♣ bids were inappropriate. That programming logic needs to be corrected. (Let us stick with that, instead of the side issues I mentioned ... only an attempt to further explain this was a continuing problem ... Robots bid ♣ by default much too often.)

Sorry, I don't know what you said,we never get your hand at present.
Only you can be able to post your hand diagram,we need evidences.

[frisbee]

lycier, as I mentioned, that was not my auction; I was kibitzing another player. The Robot hand, the Robot bids and the Robot descriptions were given in my initial post. I do not see why the hand of the Robot's partner would matter, if that is what you are requesting. If someone is able to show that particular auction and fancy hand diagram, they are welcome to try; I cannot.

[Bbradley62]

We can't know which table OP was kibitzing, since the auction started exactly as he describes at multiple tables, with the same explanations. As OP states, the point here is to show GIB's errors, not to distract by showing any weirdness on the part of human South.

[lycier]

frisbee, on 2015-August-07, 04:12, said:

lycier, as I mentioned, that was not my auction; I was kibitzing another player. The Robot hand, the Robot bids and the Robot descriptions were given in my initial post. I do not see why the hand of the Robot's partner would matter, if that is what you are requesting. If someone is able to show that particular auction and fancy hand diagram, they are welcome to try; I cannot.

Hi Frisbee :

I think we should have an obligation to help them instead of complaining .Any BBFer should give more informations in detail instead of simply reporting.Even as kibitzer,I think it should be allowed for any BBFers to post robot's wrong hand,this should be regarded as a kind of friendly manner,any ideas?
In fact you are a player in #4717 ACBL Robot Dulicate instead of a kibitzer,see my screenshot.





Unfortunately,BBO never allow us to get any hand from ACBL tournaments for security reasons in the current policy,so I replied " Only you can be able to post your hand diagram,we need evidences."
Don't be worried about any thing since this kind of thread should be regarded as friendly manner.
It will be most detailed reporting and correct description only for you to post that real hand, Complaining is useless,BBO need more constructive suggestions , would you help the programming staff ?

[Bbradley62]

Lycier: OP has described the auction and descriptions exactly as they happened, and his very specific suggestion is that GIB should not show aces (or kings) that he doesn't have. He's done a service, so please stop pestering him.

[frisbee]

Bbradley62, thank you for understanding my comments.

lycier, perhaps there is a language misunderstanding somewhere, but I was very specific in my comments.
Yes, I played in that tournament. No, I did NOT have the specific auction that I showed; mine was different. I cannot post the auction that I kibitzed. All the details that you requested were given in my original comments, except for the hand diagram (that, as you mentioned, BBO does not allow anyone to post) that you want to see.

I am retired now and have the time to enjoy tournament bridge again. If there is a need for programmers for GIB Robots, I could be interested, but my strength is with number-crunching languages such as Fortran (which has always been and still remains the preferred language for mission critical applications) ... I have zero interest in scripting languages.