wbartley

Is this for real? You have to be making this one up.

[hv=pc=n&s=sakqjh54da7cak984&w=st98764ht87dk954c&n=s52hakqj2dqjcq753&e=s3h963dt8632cjt62&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1hp6nppp]399|300[/hv] Explanation given for the 6NT bid is 22-24 HCP

With 1NT showing no fit, there is no other reasonable treatment. This is a clear cut situation of a business double asking for a spade lead.

[hv=pc=n&s=sakjt98ht7d87cak2&w=s5ha963dq965cq965&n=s3hk542dt432cjt74&e=sq7642hqj8dakjc83&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=pp1sp1nppdp2hppp]399|300[/hv] This is an entirely normal trap pass situation that GIB doesn't seem to recognize.

Just Play Bridge robot [hv=pc=n&s=skqj43hjdqcaqj543&w=s752haqt3da76ct87&n=s86h9764dk84ck962&e=sat9hk852djt9532c&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1cp1hp1sp1np2sppp]399|300[/hv]

I'll take that as a no.

Asking for trouble. So, swap partner's heart and spade holding and I'm probably cold for 4H. And what does your opinion of my bid have to do with the obvious fact that my bid shows longer clubs than hearts? This is the GIB forum. If you think that pass is the correct bid on this auction by GIB, then say so.

Just play bridge robot: [hv=pc=n&s=sa5hat32d3cakqt82&w=sj97hkq6dakq76c76&n=sq642h84d9854c953&e=skt83hj975djt2cj4&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=p1cdp1s2hppp]399|300[/hv] This is a perfectly normal bidding sequence showing a strong hand and more clubs than hearts.

This is a completely deterministic situation with a computationally manageable number of possible layouts of the outstanding cards. Unless you assign a probability of 0 to North holding Kx of diamonds, you should not get this play wrong. You can empirically determine the total number of unique possible layouts given what is known about the distribution of the outstanding cards and accurately estimate the amount of time necessary to do a full double dummy analysis. If that estimate falls below a certain threshold, assign a probability to each of the layouts given clues from the bidding and play, making sure not to assign a probability of zero to any possible layout. At this point it becomes a simple expected value problem. This is a five card ending with the distribution of the suits completely known. A full double dummy analysis of all possible positions has to be on the sub-millisecond scale. If the number of possible permutations times the average amount of time to do a double dummy analysis exceeds your maximum threshold, you resort to sampling but you should generate more hands than you're going to do double dummy analysis on and rank them based on the probability analysis used in the determinative case, choosing only the most likely n hands.

If this isn't a bug, it's a design flaw. There is no way you will convince me that conceding down one when there are possible layouts where a different play succeeds is correct behavior. For example, had GIB gone up with the ace (a play that is, in my opinion, still incorrect design) you could at least argue that it took the opening bid into consideration hoping that the defender would mistakenly play his king under the ace. If GIB uses a probabilistic model when determining which card to play, it should never assign a probability of zero to a layout that is physically possible. In this case, if it assigns the layout where North started with Kxx in diamonds a probability of .0000000001 and it assumes best play on both sides, it will play the queen or jack because all other layouts result in down one no matter which card it plays and thus the expected value of the play of the queen or jack is infinitesimally greater than the other cards.

Took johnu's advice and entered the hand properly. Thanks much for pointing this out!

Just Play Bridge robot. [hv=pc=n&s=s8haj7654dk953ca8&w=sakq952hq93d74c96&n=s763hkdt86ckjt732&e=sjt4ht82daqj2cq54&d=e&v=e&b=6&a=p1h1sp2sppp&p=hkhth7h3c7c4cac6hah9d6h2hjhqs3h8ckc5c8c9cjcqs8s9s2s7sjh4s4h5sas6d4dtd2]399|300[/hv] This has to be some sort of bug. There's no reason not to take the diamond finesse knowing the full distribution and knowing that North still has another diamond.

It bid a grand slam off an ace when 1) it has the means to determine that it is off an ace 2) By any interpretation of my bidding, reasonable or otherwise, being off an ace is a possibility.

Let's assume that it gives me a void in spades, Outside of spades there are 24 missing HCP, so I could still be missing the ace of clubs and have 20 points.

So many whys on this one. Why did you open 1♣ instead of 1N? Why did you rebid your 5 card club suit? Why did you pass 2♦ which showed clubs?

Just play bridge robots A84 T KJ83 QT843 K982 AK2 AQ97 KJ West deals. Nobody vul. I am South The auction goes three passes and then 2N=3♠=4♦=4♥=4♠=7♦!

Just play bridge robot. The auction goes 1♠-X-2N-P-4♠-4N (described as 3-5 ♣ 3-5 ♦ 3-4 ♥ 2- ♠. 12+ points)-P-P! I'm the doubler and the 4N bidder. Not that the explanations mean much of anything but it appears GIB thinks this bid shows shortness in spades and support for the unbid suits. GIB held: T7 95 Q98542 832. 5♦ is cold on any lead.

The auction goes 1C (explanation says (3+ clubs blah blah blah)-3C (explanation says "aggressive weak jump overcall. 7+ clubs blah blah blah) Now responder hovers over the 4C bid because he has 5-5 in the majors only to discover that 4C shows 5+ clubs. I guess there are 15+++ clubs in GIB's deck.

Here's a hilarious example of the exact opposite variety. The auction goes, P-P-1D-1S-2H-2S-5D and the explanation of the 5D bid is 11-21 HCP. Biddable diamonds. 12-22 total points.

My comment specifically refers to the fact that almost every time the explanation is "twice rebiddable" the hand in question is just rebiddable.

The term "twice rebiddable" should be replaced with "rebiddable" in pretty much every situation in which it is used.

Just play bridge robot. Everybody vul. West deals, North (GIB) holds A K86 AK987 9653 I hold: KQ753 3 Q AKJT84 The bidding goes: P-1♦-2♥-3♣-P-3♥-P-3♠-P-3N-P-4♠ (alert says 5+♣; twice rebiddable ♠ which probably should be "rebiddable ♠. I've only bid spades twice)-P-P!!

Looks like a bug to me.

On the hand with which I bid 6S, if opener has neither the K of hearts nor the A of spades - about the worst hand it can hold - 6S is at worst on a finesse, not down 2, and that's only if the opponents lead a heart. If opener's hand is T9xx xx AKxxx Kx, 6S is well above 50-50, even on a heart lead. There are hands that opener could hold that make seven on minimum values, Axxx KJ xxxxx Kx, for example, which may not be an opening bid for the bot. What sort of scientific approach do you suggest for me to find out about such hands, given that I'm playing with a machine that frequently passes cue bids? Tell me a hand that the bot counts as 20 "points" that I can have that doesn't produce 7S opposite its hand? It was the bot that said the meaning of my 6S was 4+H, 4+S and 20+ "points". That's what I have. There's nothing inconsistent in my bidding prior to the 6S in the robot's system. I can't bid 2H initially because that shows either a self-sufficient suit or support for opener's suit and I have neither. I could bid fourth suit forcing over the 1S bid but what am I bidding over 2NT? Anything other than 6S at that point is just asking for trouble, so I'm really no better off than just bidding 6S. And look at the bot only auction below for how silly the "scientific" approach is. The bot bids 7S over responder's 3N. That could as easily be based on Axxx xxx AKQx Kx as what it held. Its jump to 7S is no more scientific than my jump to 6S. Less so, in fact, because it's the bot that knows the value of its KJ of hearts and K of clubs. I suppose my 6S could have been based on KQJxx AQxxxx Q Q but no sane point counting system would give me 8 points for those two stiff queens. You say that it's not normal to bid 1S=6S. Well, it's true that opportunities to do so don't come up often, but, given the constraints of the system we're forced to play with the robots, 6S isn't completely nuts. No more nuts than 1D=1H=1S=2C=3N=7S is.

Just because a bid doesn't have some artificial meaning doesn't mean it's unscientific. There's nothing unscientific about 1N=6N. If the bot assumes I'm playing its system, which it should, and not making some wild bid out of the blue then it should realize it has a WAY better hand than can reasonably be expected. If it were to bid 7S after the given auction and go down due to anything other than a freak lie of the cards, then the 6S bid was clearly irrational.