wbartley

GIB refuses to bid NT for some reason so, I'm pretty sure the response wasn't some number of notrump. It probably thinks a spade raise here means something other than four card support so it probably didn't bid some number of spades. It wouldn't rebid its three card club suit so that leaves rebidding its four card heart suit or showing its two card diamond support. I'm going with 2D but it's a coin toss for me between those two.

I got a zero on this hand. Everyone else was in 3NT making an overtrick. So, this was a little bit better result than average for me. Still, I forge on. Fools rush in, as they say. I've taken to opening 1NT with any hand with 15 points or less in the best hand format, practically without regard to distribution (haven't been doing it with a void yet). When the robot bids Stayman, I invariably reply with 2D, even if I've opened 1NT with a six card major. I accept major suit transfers even if robot is transferring to my singleton. With 18-21 points I open 2NT, as do many other robot gamers. I used to open a minor and jump to 2NT with 16-17, but lately I've taken to opening a minor and jumping to 3NT and anecdotally it's working out much better. I make no claims about the effectiveness of this strategy compared with a more mainstream approach but it's amusing and I would guess I average above 60% playing with three robots using this strategy. I'm a halfway decent player so it might just be a wash. I can confirm some of what other people have said on this thread - Allowing the robot to hold the trick is just about the best thing you can do. They invariably shift for the worse. I would have loved to let the robot hold trick one on my example hand. Alas, I couldn't get under RHO's third hand low. - Robots are only good declarers in comparison to their ability to defend. - Robots run when you double them in 3NT where their side has bid any suit. - Don't worry about having stoppers in unbid suits when bidding NT. Robots almost always make a stupid passive lead and if they do happen to lead your unstopped suit see item 1. - Doubling for penalty with a robot partner is fraught with danger. The opponents may have bid four suits on their way to a tenuous major suit game and woe to the player who tries to collect a nice penalty. Here are some of my other observations - When you do make these off-shape notrump openings and the opponent bots enter the auction, bid your suit, even at the three level. I find the bots bid again in these situations when they should defend and they defend when they should bid on. - It only makes sense that since the bots defend so badly, you should avoid defending with a robot partner. I probably bid one more twice as frequently with a robot partner as I would with a decent human partner and it's increasing by the day. - There's no point in making a splinter bid with a robot partner. It seems to have no influence over its hand evaluation. - A corollary to jumping to game with support for robot partner's opening 1M with an opening hand: In best hand tournaments, opening four of a major with normal, minimum range opening hands with a six or more card suit pays off. You'll rarely miss a slam and the robots will often surrender multiple tricks by defending too actively. - No offense to goulash aficionados but goulash is the fast track to dementia. I guess that last observation was a bit of a non-sequitur. Anyway, no regrets! I stand by it.

I was thinking I should have taken four club tricks with Q9xx opposite Axx.

Try to contain your laughter https://tinyurl.com/yyfgfftd

Here's a good example of how to play against robots: https://tinyurl.com/yyfgfftd

In 2/1 GF, 3H has to be a natural call because with six hearts and less than a game force you have to respond 1N. If you don't have five or six hearts then you must have four clubs. If 3NT isn't the right spot here then where are you headed? Is your partner expected to rebid 3S with 5242? I stand by my original comment. Bidding 3H here is just bad. 3S can't promise three card support. Using your own system, let's say your hand is Kx 8754 Kxx 5432. You have to take a call here and 3H is out. In response to your last question, 3S is forcing. Your partner will make an appropriately descriptive bid that will no doubt help you decide whether to bid a slam, even if 3S doesn't promise three card support. You can't have everything and I think that giving up the ability to suggest hearts as trump in this auction is losing bridge. By the way. I want to recant my earlier comment that no other bid comes close to 3S. 3N is a barely plausible alternative to 3S. I wouldn't bid it, but I wouldn't call you insane for doing so.

This looks like a bug to me and not the result of double dummy simulations with this play versus alternate plays giving the same result. Ducking the spade causes what appears on the surface to be a THREE TRICK differential in the defense's trick taking potential. It seems highly unlikely that this is the result of it "not mattering" which card is played. I'm well aware that there can be extenuating circumstances that make a particular play seem wrong when it isn't, given the way GIB decides which card to play, but, did you look at the play in question? If I were a programmer working for BBO and I saw this, I would take a very long look at how that play was arrived at. Given that the point range and distribution of the South hand is pretty well bounded, it's hard to imagine that any random distribution of the unknown cards matching what is "known" about declarer's hand would produce the same double dummy result from ducking versus playing the ace.

Well, you have to know how to use a debugger, so I would say 30 out of 100. It may be in some cases that the programmers do know what's wrong but fixing it is too difficult. This seems like a cut and dried case of complete knowledge of the position being ignored in favor of God only knows what, but I would have to see the code and nobody's going to let me do that.

It can't bid 3H here. It's not stuck. It's just bad. 3S is the only reasonable bid here. Nothing else even comes close. This is a COMMON bidding sequence. GIB shouldn't be getting this wrong after so many years.

You can't blame it all on the bot. I would bid game opposite a limit raise with your hand without hesitation. In fact, double dummy analysis indicates that game makes 50% of the time with the North hand opposite an arbitrary 10-12 "point" limit raise.

All these play bugs are 100% repeatable issues. A good programmer should be able to identify the problem.

This is a difficult hand, to be sure. It thinks it's too strong for a 1N bid in fourth seat and it has a singleton heart. But, of course, if you're going to choose double with this hand then you have to be prepared to rebid 2N after the expected 2H response. When balancing over 1S, I prefer to have 1N show 14-16 so I would have been able to bid 1N here, but GIB can't.

https://tinyurl.com/y2hy6pxl My question is, do the robot masters jump to 7H with this hand?

5NT is probably grand slam force in hearts, not pick a minor suit slam. I would try double.

I'm surprised this bug wasn't addressed in the most recent release. I get this message popping up right in the middle whatever I'm doing. The activity timer is like a fire alarm that keeps going off when there's no fire.

https://tinyurl.com/rdayd9l What does GIB need to hold to make a negative double after a jump overcall?

Thanks for the laugh :) "Holding the most spectacular trump support of all time..." made me laugh out loud.

System error is a bit strong. To the best of my understanding, GIB bidding is a giant, convoluted, data driven state machine. The explanations aren't derived from the database that drives the bidding engine so they are often in conflict with one another. I would call it database misconfiguration combined with a fundamental design flaw.

It has to be asking you to pick a major at the three level. I'm guessing the NT opener who bid 2H was not a bot. I recommend you pick spades rather than hearts, but that's me, Mr. Vegas.

This is from Just Declare but I'm assuming those hands are culled from actual robot bidding. https://tinyurl.com/read4qw I'm at a loss to explain this sequence. After deciding that a reopening double with essentially perfect shape wasn't the right bid with the South hand, North passes the forcing 3S bid.

Personally, I think it was the poor quality of the club suit that made GIB decide not to show it. If it had held the ten instead of the nine, THEN it would have been a good enough suit.

I think they just need to remove the rule that says, "If zero points and partner's bid is non-forcing, pass"

I don't really see the charm in gaming the robots. There are pages and pages of ways you can manipulate them. Just look at results from people scoring 85% in robot games. They're opening 1N with any distribution and 12-17 HCP. I see people opening 1NT with 55 in the majors all the time. Robot bids 2♣ and the gamester responds 2♦! Robot leads its singleton spade and declarer runs ten tricks when opponents had the first six diamond tricks but GIB eschewed leading its six card diamond suit.

Obviously 4S is a terrible call but I'm wondering whether 3♣ is forcing here. 3NT will end the auction on a lot of hands where you're cold for 6♣.

Phil Read's rule #1. "If you get to the wrong contract it's because you didn't support your partner's suit."