contradictions in robots' so-called "system" bid descriptions in robots' "system" should be consistent
#1
Posted 2020-June-01, 17:14
So if you have both black Aces, as I did, you cannot control-bid without outright lying, i.e., outright direct contradiction of a key aspect of the description of the bid you're making (for example, bid 5♣, mendaciously denying the A of ♠ which you do have).
Another more common example: you open 1NT, partner transfers to, say, ♥, on your 2♥ they bid 3♦, and you fit both red suits. What should normally be a joyous occasion is turned to ashes by the terrible descriptions of your various bids now available: every bid showing ♦ supports categorically shows 2 cards in ♥, while you have 3; every bid showing 3+ hearts categorically denies the 4 cards in ♦ which you also have. So with a double fit what are you supposed to do -- give up the game and turn to tiddlywinks?!
If BBO cannot devote staff time to correct such glaring mistakes (surely some bid should be available for every reasonably common hand, easily obtained in this case by having some cheap bid, say 3 ♥, promise 3+ ♥ without constraints on the length in ♦), I suggest they crowd-source the corrections!
To be specific, I suggest...: Publish the marked-up (whatever markup language) text (and whatever machine-readable description of bids the robots must consume, or whatever structured hand-describing language can be easily compiled into such a MR description) on, say, github; selectively accept PRs from volunteers to fix the text and MR description for some sequence or groups of sequences.
Surely there can be no commercial or other disadvantage to BBO from such an act, as the robots' 2/1 is hardly a trade secret or source of competitive advantage to BBO, right? Many of us would happily volunteer to express our frustration with logically inconsistent bid descriptions by offering PRs for them, and once a volunteer has proven their worth and dedication by giving enough contributions of high-enough quality BBO might decide to promote them to "core committer", able to review and authorize other contributors' PRs, further reducing the workload on BBO staff if that's an important consideration.
Comments, feedback, kudos, barbs...?
#2
Posted 2020-June-01, 17:51
aleaxit, on 2020-June-01, 17:14, said:
The code base that GIB uses for bidding is a nightmare
BBO developers have posted about this on numerous occasions.
The best chance that you have to get something that actually bids decently is if BBO tosses GIB and replaces it with WinBridge or Jack or whatever...
Its cute that you think that cuebidding opposite GIB is ever a good idea
#3
Posted 2020-June-01, 17:56
#4
Posted 2020-June-01, 18:00
TylerE, on 2020-June-01, 17:56, said:
Because the GIB code base is a mess and the new owners need to maximize their Return on Investment
#5
Posted 2020-June-01, 18:14
Open sourcing GIB has been something I've wished for for a long time, but BBO have sadly said they won't do it, despite the fact it would no doubt result in huge (and free) improvements. Perhaps when it gets replaced with Argine, they'll reconsider for old time's sake.
#6
Posted 2020-June-01, 20:38
hrothgar, on 2020-June-01, 18:00, said:
I'm confused as to what you mean. The new owners already owned Funbridge and whatever robot that uses. If anything it would save money as they are only supporting one robot, not two.
#7
Posted 2020-June-01, 20:39
aleaxit, on 2020-June-01, 17:14, said:
Why do you have both black aces?
![B-)](https://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/cool.gif)
aleaxit, on 2020-June-01, 17:14, said:
A good partner has the right cards for the system, such as it is.
![:lol:](https://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif)
![B-)](https://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/cool.gif)
#8
Posted 2020-June-01, 20:43
TylerE, on 2020-June-01, 20:38, said:
Assuming they decide the Funbridge robot is their best option, that requires completely rewriting the interface of the Funbridge program to work with the BBO interface, assuming they decide to keep the BBO interface. In the long run it should save money as you only have to support 1 robot program, but in the short run, you can milk more money from users by not doing so.
#9
Posted 2020-June-01, 22:55
johnu, on 2020-June-01, 20:43, said:
Maybe BBO can simply be replaced by Funbridge. Does anyone know what the interface is like?
#10
Posted 2020-June-02, 05:06
#11
Posted 2020-June-02, 10:14
#15
Posted 2020-June-02, 23:06
#17
Posted 2020-June-03, 15:58
TylerE, on 2020-June-03, 15:34, said:
He also has a very strong record playing against people
#18
Posted 2020-June-03, 21:34
smerriman, on 2020-June-01, 18:14, said:
Open sourcing GIB has been something I've wished for for a long time, but BBO have sadly said they won't do it, despite the fact it would no doubt result in huge (and free) improvements. Perhaps when it gets replaced with Argine, they'll reconsider for old time's sake.
"Perhaps when it gets replaced with Argine..."
By "when", do this mean that you expect that it eventually WILL happen? How does Argine compare with some of the other top robots such as Microbridge or Jack 6?
#19
Posted 2020-June-04, 15:29
pilowsky, on 2020-June-02, 23:06, said:
That's Zhasbeen you were responding to.
![B-)](https://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/cool.gif)
As far as Leo LaSota goes, he hasn't posted to these forums in years so you will have a long wait before you see a complaint from him. And many other well respected players play robot tournaments and are not even members of the forum.
#20
Posted 2020-June-04, 16:16
As for the question of which is the better robot. I have pitted GIB against itself in the Prime club. You can guess who won/lost; every time. The question makes no sense at all to me. Bridge is a game played by humans. Even when we compete against three robots. I actually think that the challenge format is one of the purest forms of the game.