[Gilithin]

---

From a recent Cross IMP tournament. North was a robot. It seems to me that either the robot misbid or the description to 3♦ is completely incorrect. Perhaps someone could check if she/he/it has a temperature.

[smerriman]

 Gilithin, on 2024-February-16, 14:13, said:

It seems to me that either the robot misbid or the description to 3♦ is completely incorrect.

It may come down to definitions, but technically it's neither; the description is 100% correct; it is fully aware that it will be described as holding 4 diamonds (and in fact, counting on that), and yet bids it 100% intentionally.

As even with human alerts, the description is not what it holds, but how it is defined in the system. GIB can make whatever bid it likes, whether it matches the description or not, but assumes with 100% certainty that you will treat it like the system prescribes, and in this case bid with the belief that it holds 4 diamonds.

Some don't like this; some believe it is unlawful, but it makes for a much better robot, and the fact it never once doubts that you will trust the system definition when following up (nor vice versa, if you tried the same bid on a different hand) tends to bypass the idea of undisclosed partnership understandings.

The reason it looks a bit strange is that GIB's database has small gaps when it comes to total points and HCP; it believes it is strong enough to force to game with 2♦ based on total points, but not strong enough to bid 3NT based on HCP.

The database tells GIB the system bid (over 2NT) is therefore 3♥.

GIB then looks at a range of potential bids it can make - including 3♦, 3♥, and 3NT (and maybe 3♣, not sure) - and thinks about what will happen if it makes each bid for possible hands held by South:

a) on 100% of hands that it bids 3♦, the system will tell South to sign off in 3NT, despite "knowing" North has 4 diamonds.
b) on most hands that it bids 3♥, the system will tell South to sign off in 3NT, but on some you will end in 4♥.
c) on 100% of hands that it bids 3NT, South will pass.

In this simulation, after calculating double dummy scores, b) came out scoring worse overall, with a) and c) tied for first place. It chooses a) instead of c) for no particular reason - it believes both will lead to identical final contracts, and that one happened to be first in its list.

It just didn't expect its partner to pass a GF bid below game..

[Gilithin]

If the system uses 3♦ as a form of cog bid, with 3 spades as here for example, then the description should say so. Saying the description is right but not how the robot actually uses it is the very essence of a CPU isn't it? While this specific hand is unimportant in the grand scheme of things (and I was not personally involved in any way) robots are already used in f2f tournaments and as they improve may even get entered in events against better players depending on regulations and cash sponsorship for a Big Blue/AlphaGo type of match. By this time, we should be expecting descriptions at least as good from the robots a we would from an expert level pair. I submit once again that this is not that.

[smerriman]

The system doesn't use 3♦ as a cog bid. 3♦ is specifically 4 diamonds, and that definition is precisely how the robot uses it; changing its definition would break the system.

You seem to be mixing up alerts as a description of the hand currently held, vs a description of how it should be interpreted.

[Gilithin]

 smerriman, on 2024-February-16, 17:48, said:

The system doesn't use 3♦ as a cog bid. 3♦ is specifically 4 diamonds, and that definition is precisely how the robot uses it; changing its definition would break the system.

You seem to be mixing up alerts as a description of the hand currently held, vs a description of how it should be interpreted.

No, you seem to be ignoring the concept of an agreement in reality being different from what is written in the system notes, commonly referred to as a CPU. If the robots have had this sequence more than a few times, and I would hope there is no doubt of that, there is an implicit agreement that the bid does not show 4 diamonds. If you cannot understand this concept then please stop talking gibberish and let one of the adults take over.

[smerriman]

If you want to know precisely how GIB works, you have your answer. This general logic is fundamental to the algorithm, improves it significantly, and is literally impossible to change by altering the database definitions. It's also disclosed in the overall system notes.

If you want a robot that works in a different way, you can play with the free version of GIB, which is massively weaker but makes database bids only. No need to resort to childish insults.

[mycroft]

So, you've never made a "least lie".

You've never psyched.

You've never made a Zia cuebid, whether it was to inhibit the lead, or because it was the only bid that allowed partner to tell you what you needed to know.

You've never responded 1♥ to 1♦ on 3 because 1NT was so awful and there was no diamond raise that partner would read properly.

Or maybe you have, but partner (and opponents, given other threads) had better not.

As some TD years ago said, "the system is an agreement between partners, not a promise to opponents". Why is it different when it's not a human partner?

As smerriman makes clear, GIB Advanced "thinks". It sees the database, and simulates a bunch of hands, and makes the call that leads to the highest EV (playing with GIB Advanced, I guess). Sometimes that means it does things that aren't quite what the system says. Sometimes there isn't a call whose agreement is what the hand shows.

And of course, the rest of the auction in the OP was just to show us the hand, and not what actually happened at the table. Surely someone who publicly complains about showing 4 diamonds with a small doubleton would have an issue with passing a game forcing call in a partscore.

[Gilithin]

It is kind of irrelevant what the human player does since the thread is about how the robots use the call. In fact the human player at the table where I first saw this did pass but I would have put it in regardless as everything after 3♦ is irrelevant. Systems grow as experience shows how best to utilise the available calls. I will provide an example that seems relevant: my main partner and I play Acol and one characteristic of this system is that you never need to check back for a 4 card major after a 1NT rebid. Because of this, many Acolites do not play NMF. However, NMF (and its relatives) do have a place in Acol too, since 5 card majors can otherwise be awkward. So to get the effects of NMF, you do not need to know how the full system works, just make sure a new minor is forcing and bid naturally. Easy. The trouble comes on the disclosure side. The first time you do it with 5 cards in the major and <4 in the minor, partner will probably be surprised but very quickly they will work out what is going on. If at this stage you continue to maintain that the bid is natural, you are using a CPU and this is not allowed. So the pair have to update their agreement to say that the 2m call does not promise the suit bid. My suggestion for this thread is that the GIB systems guy (still Barry?) checks to see if the robots routinely make this correction with, say, 3 spades, and if that is the case then the bid description also be updated to display the real agreement. "Thinking" does not insulate a pair from disclosing their actual agreements, even when those are different from the system notes.

[smerriman]

 Gilithin, on 2024-February-17, 16:41, said:

"Thinking" does not insulate a pair from disclosing their actual agreements, even when those are different from the system notes.

GIB defines 3♦ as "a hand with 4+ diamonds, or any hand where a result of a simulation would lead to a higher expected score". It is a partnership understanding, but it is also specifically disclosed by several paragraphs in the system notes, as linked to above, making it neither concealed, nor illegal.

If you append "or made via the logic written in the system notes" to the end of every the description of every bid GIB makes, would you still consider it illegal?

[Gilithin]

So when I describe a 2NT response to partner's 2M opening as a hand with game interest or any hand they decide through a mental simulation should make this call but don't disclose that Opener is not under any circumstances allowed to bid beyond 3M, that is ok even when I have seen partner do this with a weak hand and support the last 20 times? Good to know where your morals sit. [removed]

This post has been edited by diana_eva: 2024-February-18, 01:58

[smerriman]

OK, so your issue has nothing to do with the disclosure of the 3♦ bid, but the fact that you aren't able to ask GIB what future responses may mean, as you can human opponents.

That is true, and indeed contrary to the laws as written, though a very different point from the one implied in the OP.

[Gilithin]

 smerriman, on 2024-February-17, 20:01, said:

OK, so your issue has nothing to do with the disclosure of the 3♦ bid, but the fact that you aren't able to ask GIB what future responses may mean, as you can human opponents.

Stop it! Your summary is not what I said. [removed]

This post has been edited by diana_eva: 2024-February-18, 01:59

[fuzzyquack]

 Gilithin, on 2024-February-17, 19:36, said:

So when I describe a 2NT response to partner's 2M opening as a hand with game interest or any hand they decide through a mental simulation should make this call but don't disclose that Opener is not under any circumstances allowed to bid beyond 3M, that is ok even when I have seen partner do this with a weak hand and support the last 20 times? Good to know where your morals sit. [removed]

Players who not only pass forcing bids but also post about it should be able to withstand any critique with dignity

[diana_eva]

Well this thread became more passionate than I'd have expected...

[pilowsky]

Who would have thought FSF would be so exciting...

[Gilithin]

 fuzzyquack, on 2024-February-18, 00:48, said:

Players who not only pass forcing bids but also post about it should be able to withstand any critique with dignity

As far as I know, the player that passed here has neither critiqued or posted in any capacity, and while I did not look at most of the tables in the tournament, I daresay it happened and was not passed at the majority of them. I personally had no involvement in the tournament - a friend who did play asked me about some hands and I happened to click on this specific table as it was an outlier. Despite our resident "Robot Whisperer"'s protestations, it is clear that GIB was using 3♦ as a form of cog in this specific example. I maintain the opinion that if it does this regularly, the explanation should be updated. I do not see this as controversial and I would ask Stuart to stfu, [removed] and let BBO deal with the suggestion.

This post has been edited by diana_eva: 2024-February-25, 07:18
Reason for edit: rudeness

[fuzzyquack]

 Gilithin, on 2024-February-18, 08:38, said:

As far as I know, the player that passed here has neither critiqued or posted in any capacity, and while I did not look at most of the tables in the tournament, I daresay it happened and was not passed at the majority of them. I personally had no involvement in the tournament - a friend who did play asked me about some hands and I happened to click on this specific table as it was an outlier. Despite our resident "Robot Whisperer"'s protestations, it is clear that GIB was using 3♦ as a form of cog in this specific example. I maintain the opinion that if it does this regularly, the explanation should be updated. I do not see this as controversial and I would ask Stuart to stfu, [removed] and let BBO deal with the suggestion.

In this case N. Bot bid better than your friend, and your post should be titled 'Man Bites Crocodile: Bots Bid Better than some Humans'

[Gilithin]

 fuzzyquack, on 2024-February-18, 12:30, said:

In this case N. Bot bid better than your friend, and your post should be titled 'Man Bites Crocodile: Bots Bid Better than some Humans'

Once again, my friend was not at this table. They played on another table with a human partner and against human opponents. Your baiting is really not appreciated. It genuinely seems like there are only trolls in this forum, when pointing out an inconsistency and making a constructive suggestion is met with such hostility. It is genuinely sad what these forums have become. It used to be a place where you could learn from great players and trolls were put in their place by hrothgar, hans and co. It's easy to understand why almost all of the decent players besides Mike have migrated to alternative platforms.

[fuzzyquack]

 Gilithin, on 2024-February-18, 12:49, said:

Once again, my friend was not at this table. They played on another table with a human partner and against human opponents. Your baiting is really not appreciated. It genuinely seems like there are only trolls in this forum, when pointing out an inconsistency and making a constructive suggestion is met with such hostility. It is genuinely sad what these forums have become. It used to be a place where you could learn from great players and trolls were put in their place by hrothgar, hans and co. It's easy to understand why almost all of the decent players besides Mike have migrated to alternative platforms.

Does that mean that you consider 3D bid worse than passing it by your 'not friend'? By the way, I have an impression of feeding a troll, which I guess has stopped being funny.

[Gilithin]

 fuzzyquack, on 2024-February-18, 14:12, said:

Does that mean that you consider 3D bid worse than passing it by your 'not friend'? By the way, I have an impression of feeding a troll, which I guess has stopped being funny.

No, you are not funny. If you want to start a thread about the bidding of the human player, please do so on the appropriate forum. This thread is about the robot system. [removed]

This post has been edited by diana_eva: 2024-February-25, 07:20
Reason for edit: rudeness