[Stefan_O]

3C was explained as: "4+♣; 2-♥; 9 total points"

[robert2734]

The robot treats all doubles as takeout.

[Stefan_O]

 robert2734, on 2016-May-07, 20:07, said:

The robot treats all doubles as takeout.

Doesnt look like...
The Double of 2H was explained as: "21- HCP; rebiddable ♥; 16-22 total points"

[Bbradley62]

 robert2734, on 2016-May-07, 20:07, said:

The robot treats all doubles of natural bids as takeout.

FYP

The primary point here is that GIB-North made a bid that is clearly inconsistent with the explanation that GIB provides for that bid. At least one or the other should be fixed.

[lycier]

 Stefan_O, on 2016-May-07, 20:12, said:

Doesnt look like...
The Double of 2H was explained as: "21- HCP; rebiddable ♥; 16-22 total points"

Hi Stefan_O

I strongly protest you, your screenshot method is too unfair ! Please take your real hand diagram as a evidence.
In fact, I have checked and replayed your hand when you posted.
My results are not same as yours, I really can't see that worse definitions what you said, but your screenshot can't show anything.
Now please see my hand evidence.

---

---

---

[lycier]

 Stefan_O, on 2016-May-07, 20:12, said:

Doesnt look like...
The Double of 2H was explained as: "21- HCP; rebiddable ♥; 16-22 total points"

---

Now you see this is a real your hand data, where is " 21- HCP; rebiddable ♥; 16-22 total points ".
The hand records data can tell the truth. The truth is just the truth.
I am afraid that I am worried I might hurt your feelings, so I say sorry in advance, you would be not angry with me.

[1eyedjack]

So the OP question stands: Why is North bidding 3C, which incidentally shows 9 TP, no fewer than 6 in excess of the values actually held, when Pass seems to be the only reasonable action?

Incidentally, you complain about his method of posting the original hand. What additional information of relevance do we now know from having posted it in your preferred format?

[lycier]

 Bbradley62, on 2016-May-07, 22:31, said:

FYP

The primary point here is that GIB-North made a bid that is clearly inconsistent with the explanation that GIB provides for that bid. At least one or the other should be fixed.

Where is your data evidence?
Your reply is really not responsible.
Even unfair play , I am worried you would become angry with me. So only for me to say Yes or keep silent so as to let everyone become glad?

[1eyedjack]

 lycier, on 2016-May-08, 01:19, said:

Where is your data evidence?
Your reply is really not responsible.
Even unfair play , I am worried you would become angry with me. So only for me to say Yes or keep silent so as to let everyone become glad?

Why do you go out of your way to insult everyone? The original post may not be in your preferred format, but the poster clearly states that the GIB explanation for the 3C bid was "4+♣;2-♥;9 total points".

Having complained at length about his posting format, you have then reposted the actual hand which confirms that the explanation for 3C was .... wait for it .... "4+♣;2-♥;9 total points".

Why, then, are you bitching about data evidence? The OP post was entirely accurate, and you yourself have proven this and provided additional evidence in support.

[lycier]

 1eyedjack, on 2016-May-08, 01:09, said:

So the OP question stands: Why is North bidding 3C, which incidentally shows 9 TP, no fewer than 6 in excess of the values actually held, when Pass seems to be the only reasonable action?

Incidentally, you complain about his method of posting the original hand. What additional information of relevance do we now know from having posted it in your preferred format?

This is his hand record.

---

[1eyedjack]

 lycier, on 2016-May-08, 01:25, said:

This is his hand record.

Yes, and it is entirely consistent with the OP. You have already posted this once. What additional information does it contain of relevance to the OP original complaint that was not present in the OP posting? Do you suggest that by default Stefan is a liar when he posts the explanation of 3C without posting the hand record? And now that he has been shown not to be a liar, what then?

The full hand record raises some additional questions about GIB bidding. Why is GIB E/W selling out to 3C undoubled when they can make 5S, or do better than that by taking 3C 4 down doubled, both of which beat 2HX making (fortuitously)?

[lycier]

 1eyedjack, on 2016-May-08, 01:27, said:

Yes, and it is entirely consistent with the OP. You have already posted this once. What additional information does it contain of relevance to the OP original complaint that was not present in the OP posting? Do you suggest that by default Stefan is a liar when he posts the explanation of 3C without posting the hand record? And now that he has been shown not to be a liar, what then?

The full hand record raises some additional questions about GIB bidding. Why is GIB E/W selling out to 3C undoubled when they can make 5S, or do better than that by taking 3C 4 down doubled, both of which beat 2HX making (fortuitously)?

In brief, I found this is a story happened suddently within unknown reasons.
- In his hand traveller, it is only one hand, never occurred at others tables.
- While I checked and replayed his hand by my basic Gib, I also can't get same his bidding sequence.

My conclusion :
So I know Only the Gib programmers have ability to make a final conclusion in this situation. At least, it needs the Gib programmers to investigate its reasons.

[1eyedjack]

 lycier, on 2016-May-08, 02:47, said:

- In his hand traveller, it is only one hand, never occurred at others tables.

That is not true.

There were two other tables where the auction up to North's 3C bid was replicated. Tables 6 and 7

http://tinyurl.com/h7m2tc4

[lycier]

 1eyedjack, on 2016-May-08, 03:17, said:

That is not true.

There were two other tables where the auction up to North's 3C bid was replicated. Tables 6 and 7

http://tinyurl.com/h7m2tc4

Yes, you are great, good job !
Many thanks.

[johnu]

 lycier, on 2016-May-08, 02:47, said:

- While I checked and replayed his hand by my basic Gib, I also can't get same his bidding sequence.

The reason that jumps out to me is that the original hand was using advanced robots. Anybody who isn't a newcomer to this forum knows that basic GIB and advanced GIB frequently bid and play differently. Stefan_O can verify which GIB version he was using. Another possibility is this could have something to do with the seed for the random number generator being different. I don't know how to check this as an end user.

[Stefan_O]

 johnu, on 2016-May-08, 12:04, said:

Stefan_O can verify which GIB version he was using.

This was from a BBO tourney "Robot Rebate 55% (12-boards, $1 fee)".
Is there a way to see what robot-level they use?

[diana_eva]

 Stefan_O, on 2016-May-08, 15:05, said:

This was from a BBO tourney "Robot Rebate 55% (12-boards, $1 fee)".
Is there a way to see what robot-level they use?

All pay robot tourneys use advanced robots.

[lycier]

 johnu, on 2016-May-08, 12:04, said:

The reason that jumps out to me is that the original hand was using advanced robots. Anybody who isn't a newcomer to this forum knows that basic GIB and advanced GIB frequently bid and play differently. Stefan_O can verify which GIB version he was using. Another possibility is this could have something to do with the seed for the random number generator being different. I don't know how to check this as an end user.

Compared to advanced Gib, basic Gib is buggy, advanced robot is more better than basic one in every respect.

[johnu]

 Stefan_O, on 2016-May-08, 15:05, said:

This was from a BBO tourney "Robot Rebate 55% (12-boards, $1 fee)".
Is there a way to see what robot-level they use?

As diana_eva points out, pay tournaments use advanced GIBs. Thus, trying to duplicate results using basic GIBs can be a random crapshoot.