[steve2005]

6CS-1
Survivor tournament
I don't object to Gib's 6♣ given meaning of 5♣ as 20+ pts etc especially given Gibs known aggressive bidding style.

Having 5♣ mean only a strong hand is a poor choice. This type of choice is throughout Gib's bidding system even as a passed hand where a big hand is impossible.
Can a player not just want to bid 5♣ because it will give a better score than playing in 4♠ or 4♠X? Has Gib heard of sacrificing?
As it turns out 5♣= would be a top score but you can't reach it as far as I can tell.
Best score achieved was 4♠X-2

[The_Badger]

It's difficult for us humans to counter a 4♠ pre-empt adequately even in a direct overcall position, let alone a balancing position, so to expect GIB to do so accurately except by having a fixed set of parameters as 20+ total points, strong re-biddable ♣s is probably asking too much of a computer system.

I do have some sympathy, Steve, that you were put between a rock and a hard place balancing in 4th against a 4♠ opening bid. I realise it is of little consolation but it's one of those unlucky boards that we all have from time to time.

[steve2005]

The_Badger, on 2017-August-07, 10:18, said:

I do have some sympathy, Steve, that you were put between a rock and a hard place balancing in 4th against a 4♠ opening bid. I realise it is of little consolation but it's one of those unlucky boards that we all have from time to time.

I don't care about bad board. I could have got lucky and got a top.

But there are numerous situations especially in balance where Gibs bidding system a bid shows a monster hand even at much lower levels. I know that have to put something for these meanings. but there is room for improvement and that is what i'm interested in.

[The_Badger]

steve2005, on 2017-August-07, 10:34, said:

I don't care about bad board. I could have got lucky and got a top.

But there are numerous situations especially in balance where Gibs bidding system a bid shows a monster hand even at much lower levels. I know that have to put something for these meanings. but there is room for improvement and that is what i'm interested in.

I think we all know that GIB is far from perfect, or perhaps more accurately, error-free both on bidding and play. And that is compounded by some of the explanations of the bids made. It must be very frustrating for the players that use GIB on a regular basis. In my personal opinion, BBO just needs to up their game and get GIB sorted out. I see so many comments on the GIB Robot Discussion forum that the time for talking is well and truly over, and some action must be taken by the programmers in charge of GIB.

[iandayre]

The_Badger, on 2017-August-07, 15:21, said:

I think we all know that GIB is far from perfect, or perhaps more accurately, error-free both on bidding and play. And that is compounded by some of the explanations of the bids made. It must be very frustrating for the players that use GIB on a regular basis. In my personal opinion, BBO just needs to up their game and get GIB sorted out. I see so many comments on the GIB Robot Discussion forum that the time for talking is well and truly over, and some action must be taken by the programmers in charge of GIB.

Just to clarify - programmers are not in charge of GIB. The owners of the company are, and they assign programming talent and other resources to GIB in accordance with their own business plans.