[pilowsky]

2♣ 'Opener rebids his C -- 3- ♥' etc.
Has the DEI ban reached BBO?
https://tinyurl.com/2c9mhqfq

[barmar]

I contacted pilowsky for clarification. His suggestion is that we get rid of the sexist language like "his clubs" in bidding explanations.

I tried asking GIB for its preferred pronouns, it didn't give a clear answer.

[barmar]

I just checked the code, this is the only explanation that has "his" in it, out of over 400 textual explanations.

[pilowsky]

It may be stretching the meaning of "explanations" to describe the words that GIB offers about its bidding, but it's good to know he doesn't assert his male privilege too often!

[barmar]

These messages aren't used only to describe the robot's bidding, they're also used for the human partner's bids in the same situation. Since we don't prohibit women and non-binary people from playing with GIB, we'll fix this in the next update.

[pescetom]

Maybe you could fix some of the many other reported misleading explanations too, which offend players independent of gender.
Starting with the reticent explanations following Unusual NT and most of the atrocious Cappelletti developments.

[barmar]

pescetom, on 2025-October-13, 15:06, said:

Maybe you could fix some of the many other reported misleading explanations too, which offend players independent of gender.
Starting with the reticent explanations following Unusual NT and most of the atrocious Cappelletti developments.

There's a big difference between changing a simple text string and redesigning GIB so that the bids always match the explanations.

For instance, GIB has a basic problem describing a bid that can be used with multiple hand types. The best example of this is raising a preempt to game -- this can be done with a weak hand that just wants to increase the preempt, or a strong hand that expects to make.

I'm not sure what you're specifically referring to regarding Unusual NT and Capp. But in general, followon bids in conventions like these can be complicated to explain, because it often involves picking the least "bad" bid. We assume that when it takes a preference it has at least 2 cards in the suit (I think that's what the explanations to the response to Unusual NT and Michaels say), but sometimes the hands have no fit at all. It picks a bid that comes closest to the explanation.

[pilowsky]

barmar, on 2025-October-14, 13:51, said:

I'm not sure what you're specifically referring to regarding Unusual NT and Capp. But in general, followon bids in conventions like these can be complicated to explain, because it often involves picking the least "bad" bid. We assume that when it takes a preference it has at least 2 cards in the suit (I think that's what the explanations to the response to Unusual NT and Michaels say), but sometimes the hands have no fit at all. It picks a bid that comes closest to the explanation.

This might refer to GIB overcalling 2♥|2♠ with 4M and 5Minor for example. Annoying but tolerable.

[pescetom]

The ones I was specifically complaining about (say after Cappelletti) contain a misleading few words description in an unusual box that appears to be truncated by a premature bottom line, and seem to have the same few words for multiple follow ups even though they are clearly unrelated in meaning. IIRC, the font of the call being "explained" is unusually large too.
I'm not familiar with teaching tables or similar so cannot replicate it for you. I'll take a screen shot next time if necessary. But I suspect a quick look at the descriptions database will already provide the answer. Quite probably the box is inappropriately formatted because it tried to concatenate a text that is missing.


See also my post of 12th October in the Benelli58 bashing on thread for one such inappropriate short text.