[steve2005]

Blows Michaels
Gib Micheals with 6♥5♠partner shows preference and Gib starts bidding spades like that will be a better spot.
This was replicated against several players.
4♥ makes 4♠ requires some help in a 5-2 instead of a 6-3 fit.
Even the description Gib has shown 6+♠.

[1eyedjack]

To misquote, Hamlet, Act 5, Scene 2, Osric:

"A bug. A very palpable bug."

[lycier]

1eyedjack, on 2016-April-22, 00:44, said:

To misquote, Hamlet, Act 5, Scene 2, Osric:

English is not my native language, I don't know what Shakespeare wrote a classical English, if type simple English, I would be very grateful.

1eyedjack, on 2016-April-22, 00:44, said:

"A bug. A very palpable bug."

Not necessarily.

It didn't occur to me to think it is a bug, even I am a layman on the programming.
The reasons :
1- It never always go that bad sequences. Here is a traveller evidence.




- From first to 6th hand, basically it goes like this :

---

Result : 4[spadesW]-3

- From 7th to 22th hand, basically it goes like this :

---

Result: 2♥E+2

Or :

---

Result : 4♥Ex=

Or :

---

Result : 5♦Sx-3
( Here 4♦ says " ♦Ace "? )

- The 23th hand is invalid.

2- Statistics :

- The worst things Gibs did is that Gibs shouldn't rebid 2♠ after responding 2♥, there are 6 hands in total.
- The most correct auctions Gibs did is that Gibs correctly rebid 3♥ to invite, generally speaking, there are 16 hands in total.

3- Discussion :
That's to say sometimes Gibs chose wrongly within some unknown reasons, these hands accounted for 18.18% of total number of 22 hands. However in the most of time, Gibs' bad performance behavior did not occur with any one ! These hands accounted for 72.72% of total number of 22 hands.
I admit Gibs process in use are sometimes a wide range of failures occur in the complex hands with complex shapes, but Gibs' choices are correct in the most cases.
It should know that here programming will be very very tough only in this hand, I guess it should need to set up tens of thousands of bidding rules at least. In fact, Gibs are improving day in day out.

4- My conclusion :

There is nothing strange about it in some hands, it's just a matter of choices, perhaps bidding rules need to be established, it's just growing pains. Believe BBO programmer, Gibs are really becomming more and more smart in the current.

[gwnn]

In simple English:

"bug" means there is something going wrong with the program some of the time.

"bug" does not mean that there is nothing correct that the program does ever.

For example, let's say I wrote a program that got the input x and had to return x+1. Suppose you had to test it for bugs.

You enter 1, it gives 2. Great.
You enter 3, it gives 4. Great.
You enter 255, it gives 0. This is a bug. This means that my program has a bug. It returns something other than x+1 for some input x. If you tell me "hey, 255+1 is not 0." I can't just reply "no no lycier, but 1+1=2 and 3+1=4, so what you reported is not a bug."

GIB bids correctly/understandably very often and bids absurdly sometimes. The point of this subforum is to report these cases (bugs). Nobody says that GIB always bids wrongly or everything it does is a bug. But we do report the (few) occasions where it does produce wrong bids = bugs.

Is it clear now what a "bug" means in English?

[steve2005]

Weird if Gib gets interference it makes right bid "3♥"
but left in the clear it deviates with "2♠"
With humans interference is what usually causes them to go off the rail, a clear path they do ok.

[lycier]

I know " bug", also know what the meaning of "Debug" is.
But he said :"To misquote, Hamlet, Act 5, Scene 2, Osric: A bug. A very palpable bug."
Facing to a classical English sentence plus "A bug. A very palpable bug.", as a non-English people, usually it isn't easy for me to understand the wonderful hint of what he said, and not everyone can understand the British sense of humor, of course, including you.

[smerriman]

I'm going to go back to being a lurker after this post, but lycier's posts are too infuriating to ignore.

lycier, on 2016-April-22, 17:12, said:

I know " bug", also know what the meaning of "Debug" is.

Then why does everything you post imply the complete opposite?

lycier, on 2016-April-22, 17:12, said:

It didn't occur to me to think it is a bug,
1 - It never always go that bad sequences

What Gib does in other hands is 100% irrelevant to whether the behaviour on this hand was a bug or not.

lycier, on 2016-April-22, 17:12, said:

2- Statistics :

What Gib does in other hands is 100% irrelevant to whether the behaviour on this hand was a bug or not.

lycier, on 2016-April-22, 17:12, said:

3- Discussion :
That's to say sometimes Gibs chose wrongly within some unknown reasons

This is the definition of a bug.

lycier, on 2016-April-22, 17:12, said:

However in the most of time, Gibs' bad performance behavior did not occur with any one ! These hands accounted for 72.72% of total number of 22 hands.

What Gib does in other hands is 100% irrelevant to whether the behaviour on this hand was a bug or not.

lycier, on 2016-April-22, 17:12, said:

4- My conclusion :

There is nothing strange about it in some hands, it's just a matter of choices

The fact it was clearly the wrong bid and contradictory to its own description makes it strange and a bug.

lycier, on 2016-April-22, 17:12, said:

, perhaps bidding rules need to be established, it's just growing pains. Believe BBO programmer, Gibs are really becomming more and more smart in the current.

The fact Gib is smart in general is 100% irrelevant to whether this is a bug or not.

These are not opinions that you can agree/disagree with. These are facts based on the definition of a bug. If you disagree, you do not understand the definition of a bug.

Back to lurking.

[lycier]

Ha-ha, very interesting matter.
If it is a bug, from first to sixth hand, it appears there is a bug in its traveller. However, from 7th to 22 hand, would you recomfirm if it is a bug in its traveller? Where is that bug?
What to imply the complete opposite, would you imply that you are very good at computer science, especially Gibs programming ? Would you have good ability to confirm Gibs bug?
All what you said only showed a sign of self-confidence with your good ability of identifying Gibs Bug, merely.
Only I agree with Bug comments, you can become glad? Orelse, you will be angry?

[Stephen Tu]

lycier, on 2016-April-22, 19:56, said:

Ha-ha, very interesting matter.
If it is a bug, from first to sixth hand, it appears there is a bug in its traveller. However, from 7th to 22 hand, would you recomfirm if it is a bug in its traveller? Where is that bug?

Why do you think there is "a bug in the traveller". Do you believe the bidding & play record of the hand was recorded incorrectly? That seems highly unlikely.

It's apparent that this hand was likely played by different versions of GIB. Some of them choose a poor 2♠ call and continue to rebid spades, strangely, perhaps because simulations say that it shouldn't give up after 2♥ (agree), but likely the definition of heart rebids is poor and preventing it from choosing that, so it finds 2♠ as a poor 2nd choice.

Quote

What to imply the complete opposite, would you imply that you are very good at computer science, especially Gibs programming ? Would you have good ability to confirm Gibs bug?

We don't understand the point of many of your posts pointing out what GIB did correctly or not at other tables on other sequences. It's completely irrelevant. People are reporting boards where GIB bid something that in the poster's opinion is a poor choice, where bids are badly defined, or the hand doesn't match the description of the bid as here. These are bugs. We post them here in the hopes that eventually, some day, at least some of them will get fixed in some future version of GIB.

We don't understand why you are trying to say that these hands aren't bugs, or really the point of some your posts in general. It's one thing if you disagree with OP, that you think GIB's bid on the actual hand is reasonable, or you think the definition of GIB's bid that the OP disagrees with is actually reasonable. If you think bidding 2♠ as the continuation is actually a good call. That would be a disagreement over whether this 2♠ is a legitimate bug (though most would disagree in this particular case). But posting what GIB did on other tables on other sequences is irrelevant to whether this 2♠ happened, it's a bug that showed up at least one table. Doesn't mean it's not a bug if it wasn't replicated on 100% of other tables, which might be running different versions or the human did something else.

[lycier]

Stephen Tu, on 2016-April-22, 20:31, said:

Why do you think there is "a bug in the traveller". Do you believe the bidding & play record of the hand was recorded incorrectly? That seems highly unlikely.

It's apparent that this hand was likely played by different versions of GIB. Some of them choose a poor 2♠ call and continue to rebid spades, strangely, perhaps because simulations say that it shouldn't give up after 2♥ (agree), but likely the definition of heart rebids is poor and preventing it from choosing that, so it finds 2♠ as a poor 2nd choice.



We don't understand the point of many of your posts pointing out what GIB did correctly or not at other tables on other sequences. It's completely irrelevant. People are reporting boards where GIB bid something that in the poster's opinion is a poor choice, where bids are badly defined, or the hand doesn't match the description of the bid as here. These are bugs. We post them here in the hopes that eventually, some day, at least some of them will get fixed in some future version of GIB.

We don't understand why you are trying to say that these hands aren't bugs, or really the point of some your posts in general. It's one thing if you disagree with OP, that you think GIB's bid on the actual hand is reasonable, or you think the definition of GIB's bid that the OP disagrees with is actually reasonable. If you think bidding 2♠ as the continuation is actually a good call. That would be a disagreement over whether this 2♠ is a legitimate bug (though most would disagree in this particular case). But posting what GIB did on other tables on other sequences is irrelevant to whether this 2♠ happened, it's a bug that showed up at least one table. Doesn't mean it's not a bug if it wasn't replicated on 100% of other tables, which might be running different versions or the human did something else.

[/size][/color]

Well and good.
It seems that you never believe the hand records data.
- If you would emphasis on only one hand of someone, and regarded as Bug proof, obviously this point is not correct. What can Only one hand stand for ? Please check any hand records, I can 100% confirm there is a different choice at least with different results in almost of Gib hands ,according to your points of views, can we regard it as a Bug? If this is true, there is a bug at least in the almost of hands.

- Statistic : it is from BBO hand records, it is a very important method of study , just like smoking can cause lung cancer - it is a conclusion of statistics, isn't proof of profession doctor. In fact this is recognized all over the world . Hand records show sometimes Gibs chose wrongly within some unknown reasons, these hands accounted for 18.18% of total number of 22 hands. However in the most of time, Gibs' bad performance behavior did not occur with any one ! These hands accounted for 72.72% of total number of 22 hands.

If anyone disagree, now I can take a classic example :
Would you tell me who is expert in this world at BBO?
Assume you tell me Benito Garozzo is a world class player.
Ok?
As we know he often join Jec match, we are very easy to find a bad his hand, then we can especially emphasis on only one hand of Benito Garozzo, according to the methods above, that bad hand can completely show Benito Garozzo is a beginner !
Then everyone can become glad?
The bridge is a probability game, after all.

This is just strength of the data.
Let the hand records data tell the truth.

Any ideas?

[lycier]

IMO,too many people like unfair Bug comments, they always emphasis on the showing of only one hand, and regard hand records as uselessness, this isn't a good method.

[gwnn]

Lycier, you clearly have no idea what "bug" means. I tried to explain to you using my computer example but clearly you didn't understand or ignored it. Here it is, again:

If I write a program that gives the correct result 99% of the time and for some reason gives an incorrect result 1% of the time:

THAT 1% INCORRECT RESULT IS A BUG.

You can't say "it didn't occur to me that this is a bug. GIB bid correctly on 77% of the hands." That just shows us that you don't understand English or you are deliberately thick. Either way, replying to you is a mistake.

[gwnn]

http://dictionary.ca...implified/bug_3

a mistake or problem in a computer program （计算机程序中出现的）缺陷，漏洞

If my program returns 255+1=0, that is a problem in my program: a bug. If a user reports this bug to me, I can investigate what caused the bug. Of course if my program returns 99% correct results and 1% incorrect ones, that is better than another program that returns 50% correct results and 50% incorrect ones. But that doesn't mean that the 1% mistakes that my program returns are correct or that this 1% is not a bug.

Should I draw a diagram?

[1eyedjack]

I don't give a flying fart what you call it. Bug or whatever.

From my perspective it is sufficient that all are agreed (or all bar one regular poster here) that it is undesirable behaviour by GIB and worthy of devotion of attention and resources of GIB programmers to curb that behaviour.

[lycier]

oh? that's to say you have ability to identify whether it is a bug, in fact, you rarely participate in discussion.
Don't need large fronts, the most important problem is whether Steve2005's hand is a bug, why not answer? That's the crux of the problem.

[gwnn]

Yes I have the ability to identify whether it is a bug. It is irrelevant whether or not I make 1 post a year or 10 posts per hour for this. I can do the following things (even you can do it because you don't need to speak English, just to identify suit symbols and numbers):

• Look at the hand description for 2S: 3- ♣, 3- ♦, 5+♥, 6+♠ (and some English gibberish, never mind).
  
• Look at the distribution: 5♠, 6♥, 1♣, 1♦
  
• Compare.

Alternatively (advanced version):

• GIB W prefers hearts to spades and GIB E prefers hearts to spades.
  
• They end up in 4S in an unopposed auction.
  
• Ergo, there probably was a bug somewhere.

I am sorry for using bigger fonts, I thought you might have understood it better that way. Clearly I was wrong about this.

[gwnn]

Stephen Tu, on 2016-April-22, 20:31, said:

It's apparent that this hand was likely played by different versions of GIB. Some of them choose a poor 2♠ call and continue to rebid spades, strangely, perhaps because simulations say that it shouldn't give up after 2♥ (agree), but likely the definition of heart rebids is poor and preventing it from choosing that, so it finds 2♠ as a poor 2nd choice.

Hey Stephen, no, it's not even that. All GIB's that had the auction
1♣-2♣-p-2♥
p-?

Did indeed go on to bid 2♠, eventually ending up in 4♠.

Lycier's pointless examples were about the two alternative auctions:
1NT-2♦-p-2♥ (2♦=majors)
p-p-p

and:
1♣-2♣-p-2♥
3♣-3♥

Which is to say, GIB doesn't always misbid, which all of us knew alrady.

[lycier]

Very good.
I am glad to see that you take out your method to discuss this issue, so it is not a good style to deny other methods only for discussion.

[gwnn]

Your "method" is, when confronted with a bug, to point out that there are other sequences which do not have bugs. It's like if I called a plumber to fix my drain and he replied "there is no problem with drains in general. 73% of drains work." That is not a method for plumbing. That is just trolling.

[1eyedjack]

gwnn, on 2016-April-23, 02:18, said:

• GIB W prefers hearts to spades and GIB E prefers hearts to spades. And each has communicated said preference to the other

FYP