[wbartley]

In first seat I held AKxxx KJTxx x Qx. GIB held x - AQJTxxxx xxxx

The auction went 1♠-P-1NT-2♣-2♥-All pass

1. I'm pretty sure 3D would not be forward going in this auction in GIB standard
2. If it is, why wouldn't GIB prefer spades holding a void in my second suit?

I'm a long time BBO member. I've played with robots a lot and I can honestly say that my original Ginsberg, nearly ten year old version of GIB, bids and plays as well or better than the current BBO version. I might be exaggerating but I would like to see a match between my old version and the current version.

[iandayre]

Interesting. If true, it would indicate the futility of the current band-aid approach to improving GIB, and make clear the necessity of a full-scale evaluation and improvement of the entire bidding mechanism. Card play, while obviously not at the highest level, need not be affected in my opinion.

[steve2005]

My bridge teach told me don't go to bed with an unmentioned 8-card suit. Gib missed this lesson.

[johnu]

What's an 8 card suit headed by AQJ10? Dummy

[Bbradley62]

Standard question: What type of game was this? Tournament, MBC, or "Just Play Bridge", etc?

[iandayre]

Bbradley62, on 2015-August-03, 20:45, said:

Standard question: What type of game was this? Tournament, MBC, or "Just Play Bridge", etc?

Good point as always but it begs a question I've asked before without any BBO response: Why use basic robots at all? The advanced robots are already there, programmed and ready to go, and I don't see why it would be cheaper for BBO to have people use the basics rather than the advanced.

[1eyedjack]

iandayre, on 2015-August-04, 09:54, said:

Good point as always but it begs a question I've asked before without any BBO response: Why use basic robots at all? The advanced robots are already there, programmed and ready to go, and I don't see why it would be cheaper for BBO to have people use the basics rather than the advanced.

I thought that this had been explained in response to the previous occasions when you raised this question:

Robots consume server resources. Server resources cost money. The more resources are consumed, the greater the overhead to BBO.

An advanced robot consumes more server resources than a basic robot and consequently represents a greater overhead to BBO.

It is not unreasonable for BBO to ask its members to make a contribution to those overheads in proportion to the demand on those resources directly resulting from the member's choice of type of robot.

In that context, whether or not it is reasonable to provide basic robots at all is a function of demand. If a sufficient number of customers are willing to pay $1 per week but not willing to pay $1 per day, and for that reduced price are prepared to accept a cut down robot "lite", which at that price is all that BBO can afford to fund in server consumption, what harm is there in BBO servicing that demand?

It has nothing to do with the resources expended in creating ie programming the robots, but has everything to do with the drain on server processing ability at the time that the robot sits down at the table.

Is this hard to grasp?

[wbartley]

Unless the "basic" robot consumes zero resources and has zero heuristics and therefore bids randomly, it's hard to imagine it coming up with pass in this situation without there being some sort of bug. The advanced robots bid too quickly for there to be any extensive use of Monte Carlo simulations and double dummy analysis in its decision making. It seems more likely that the developers maintain two sets of heuristics (or rather they maintain one and neglect the other) so as to create an incentive to use the "advanced" robot. That's fine with me. It just seemed like a really terrible call to pass there. If nobody cares to investigate it it's no skin off my nose.

[1eyedjack]

I absolutely agree with you wbartley. I personally think that the whole basic v advanced thing is another argument altogether than this case. But if BBradley thinks that it is relevant then I would generally defer to him on this point.

[Bbradley62]

I asked a much more general question than "advanced or basic". Sometimes in the MBC there is a large variety of GIBs, including some versions that haven't changed in years and that BBO has (essentially) no control over.

[wbartley]

It was a Just Play Bridge robot.

[iandayre]

1eyedjack, on 2015-August-04, 10:44, said:

I thought that this had been explained in response to the previous occasions when you raised this question:

Robots consume server resources. Server resources cost money. The more resources are consumed, the greater the overhead to BBO.

An advanced robot consumes more server resources than a basic robot and consequently represents a greater overhead to BBO.

It is not unreasonable for BBO to ask its members to make a contribution to those overheads in proportion to the demand on those resources directly resulting from the member's choice of type of robot.

In that context, whether or not it is reasonable to provide basic robots at all is a function of demand. If a sufficient number of customers are willing to pay $1 per week but not willing to pay $1 per day, and for that reduced price are prepared to accept a cut down robot "lite", which at that price is all that BBO can afford to fund in server consumption, what harm is there in BBO servicing that demand?

It has nothing to do with the resources expended in creating ie programming the robots, but has everything to do with the drain on server processing ability at the time that the robot sits down at the table.

Is this hard to grasp?

No, not at all. Sorry if I don't recall this answer before. My point was that it wasn't obvious to me why it would be more expensive for BBO to provide Advanced robots as opposed to Basic ones. If it is is indeed more expensive, then that is a valid reason.

And for the record, while I certainly have been critical of BBO on many occasions, I have always tried to treat my fellow contributors the this board with respect, and I am getting fed up with the incessant snarky comments toward me that seem to come out every time I make any sort of mistake or omission, perceived or otherwise.