[Manastorm]

I am very familiar with eccentricities of GIB, so I know that things happen. I want share this gem with you and let me know, if you have played with GIB more than I.
GIB did not open: KJ5, 8, AT98, AT732.

[smerriman]

GIB is many things, but it is at least consistent. Over three years and it still passes opening hands.

[nullve]

 Manastorm, on 2020-August-07, 03:56, said:

I am very familiar with eccentricities of GIB, so I know that things happen. I want share this gem with you and let me know, if you have played with GIB more than I.
GIB did not open: KJ5, 8, AT98, AT732.

Maybe it was just thinking one move ahead (like I've heard some do at chess):

1♣-(P)-1♥-(P)
?

[Manastorm]

 nullve, on 2020-August-07, 04:04, said:

Maybe it was just thinking one move ahead (like I've heard some do at chess):

1♣-(P)-1♥-(P)
?

Yeah. I haven't seen GIB thinking along the same lines with 12-14bal. I would expect it not to open occasionally, when its simulation spots a problem.

[FelicityR]

 nullve, on 2020-August-07, 04:04, said:

Maybe it was just thinking one move ahead (like I've heard some do at chess):

1♣-(P)-1♥-(P)
?

It be interesting to note whether with the same shape 3145 and 13 HCPs (perhaps more?) and a singleton small ♥ it does the same thing? The hand given ♠KJ5 ♥8 ♦A1098 ♣A10732 comes out at 14.95 on the Kaplan and Rubens evaluator. A similar hand with 13HCPs ♠KQ8 ♥8 ♦AJ103 ♣K8762 comes out at 14.90 on the evaluator. Would it pass this, too?

[pilowsky]

 nullve, on 2020-August-07, 04:04, said:

Maybe it was just thinking one move ahead (like I've heard some do at chess):

1♣-(P)-1♥-(P)
?

How many moves ahead can you see? Capablanca was asked - Only one - he replied. "But it's always the right one"

[johnu]

 nullve, on 2020-August-07, 04:04, said:

Maybe it was just thinking one move ahead (like I've heard some do at chess):

1♣-(P)-1♥-(P)
?

Thinking about future moves??? Frequently GIB doesn't even think about the move it is currently making

[nullve]

 FelicityR, on 2020-August-07, 05:27, said:

A similar hand with 13HCPs ♠KQ8 ♥8 ♦AJ103 ♣K8762 comes out at 14.90 on the evaluator. Would it pass this, too?

Checking what "basic" GiB would do:

---

[mbeide2]

 Manastorm, on 2020-August-07, 03:56, said:

I am very familiar with eccentricities of GIB, so I know that things happen. I want share this gem with you and let me know, if you have played with GIB more than I.
GIB did not open: KJ5, 8, AT98, AT732.

You didn't mention, from what I can see, what position GIB was in. Had it's partner already passed? Was it 4th hand? A lot of things could affect the decition. But I don't like partnering up with robots myself either.

[Manastorm]

 mbeide2, on 2020-August-08, 08:30, said:

You didn't mention, from what I can see, what position GIB was in. Had it's partner already passed? Was it 4th hand? A lot of things could affect the decition. But I don't like partnering up with robots myself either.

GIB was the 2nd hand. I had 84, KQ642, KQJ2 and J6. Bidding went
p - p - p - 1♥
p - 1NT - p - 2♦
p - 3NT all pass
What to do over 3NT, anything plus here is great, but nowhere to land. 2♠ response over 2♦ should show a good raise, didn't even do that.

[msjennifer]

sir,
with due respect to the developers of ROBOT in Bridge ,I would unashamedly repeat that it will be impossible to develop real intelligent ones.After all they use the very limited knowledge of basic SAYC .One can never succeed in imbibing the thought processes of a human brain in a ROBOT.If one just wishes to have a round of fun in the evening and can't find three more to complete the table then one can have immense pleasure in fooling the three ROBOTS.

[johnu]

 msjennifer, on 2020-August-08, 12:20, said:

sir,
with due respect to the developers of ROBOT in Bridge ,I would unashamedly repeat that it will be impossible to develop real intelligent ones.After all they use the very limited knowledge of basic SAYC .One can never succeed in imbibing the thought processes of a human brain in a ROBOT.If one just wishes to have a round of fun in the evening and can't find three more to complete the table then one can have immense pleasure in fooling the three ROBOTS.

FWIW, GIB plays its own version of 2/1, not SAYC. Supposedly the standalone version of GIB plays a wider variety of systems. As far as opening bids go, it is relatively easy to program opening bids without AI because it is almost all decision tree based logic and there are a small finite number of considerations to evaluate.

[miamijd]

Were these the basic or advanced bots? The advanced ones generally open very light and would always open this hand.

[smerriman]

 miamijd, on 2020-August-08, 14:26, said:

Were these the basic or advanced bots? The advanced ones generally open very light and would always open this hand.

I am 99% sure that opening bids are not one of the bids that can be overridden by simulations, thus can't differ between different versions of the bots.

GIB simply passes all 3145 12 counts in all seats.

[pilowsky]

So do the advanced robots in Prime. This is the OP's hand. North not vul. was Dealer, and passed.
https://tinyurl.com/y4ejrv3e

[nullve]

 smerriman, on 2020-August-08, 14:58, said:

GIB simply passes all 3145 12 counts in all seats.

Not true.

---

[smerriman]

Oh wow. It consistently opens yours, and consistently passes the OPs and my linked hand. I have no idea how it elects to open or pass then - have experimented and can't find a clear pattern.

[pilowsky]

Don't worry - it will all go away in the heat...