xeno123

So after a tournament is completed, I sometimes have trouble seeing how others played the hand for some boards. I see the results listed, but scrolling down through the opponents in the "Other Tables" tab doesn't let me see how they bid and played the hands as you normally can. In the weekly free instant tournament I just played, for Boards 1-7 I can view other's results (but not bidding or play), while for Board 8 I can't even see other's results - it only shows my own score and hands. If I go to my "Recent Tournaments" all the results and hands are there, so it's not a huge deal, but it is some sort of bug.

Good luck in the ensuing fight with your partner GIB in the highly probable cases where he shows up with four or five hearts. That's not a fight you are likely to win.

I think this reflects a general problem with GIB's competitive bidding - without a fit for partner, it is overly wont to press on with its own mediocre 4 and 5-card suits at ever higher levels instead of just passing. It sometimes does this in my experience even when partner has rebid their suit.

Well if Gib is going to get smarter, then you have to as well! Instead of the diamond finesse at the end, you need to throw West in with the ♥10 and endplay West in diamonds.

In an instant MP tournament, came down to a 2 card ending in a NT contract - Declarer (South) had ♥K10 and Gib (West) had ♥AJ with the ♥Q already out. I played the ♥10 and Gib won with the ♥A instead of the ♥J! Gave me 100% on the deal, but I don't call those MPs fairly gotten. http://tinyurl.com/j6f2rz6

The GIB that doubled was clearly a quite different program than the GIB that played...

So which style tends to work better with GIB as your partner? I have noticed some top players opening 1♣ on occasion with only two clubs, which might point to going with the club choice here.

Pass produced a good score - 63% So in summary, where I went wrong was not figuring my partner must have some side strength for the vul preempt given I have AK♥, and assuming (wrongly) the opponent bot bidding must be based on highly distributional hands. What about if the scoring was IMPs? Does competing make more sense now?

Looking at this more, maybe the key lies in the spade suit. If partner has no honors in spades, then 5♥ will go very badly (unless he is very short in spades of course). So if we assume a spade honor, then we have a decent(?) chance of beating 5♦. What about the double vs. pass decision? How to think about that?

From a recent GIB MP tournament: [hv=lin=pn|passell,~~M47466,~~M47464,~~M47465|st%7C%7Cmd%7C2S356TQH2KAD35C4JA%2CS29AH58D248TC367Q%2CS8JKH3467TJQD67C2%2C%7Crh%7C%7Cah%7CBoard%204%7Csv%7Cb%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C3H%7Can%7CPreempt%20--%207%2B%20%21H%3B%2010-%20HCP%3B%20%21HQ%3B%206%2B%20total%20points%20%7Cmb%7C4D%7Can%7C6%2B%20%21D%3B%2016-19%20total%20points%20%7Cmb%7C4H%7Can%7C1%2B%20%21H%7Cmb%7C5D%7Can%7C2%2B%20%21D%3B%208-11%20HCP%3B%209-12%20total%20points%20%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7Cd%7Can%7C1%2B%20%21H%3B%2018%2B%20HCP%3B%2019%2B%20total%20points%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cpc%7CHA%7Cpc%7CH5%7Cpc%7CH6%7Cpc%7CH9%7Cpc%7CHK%7Cpc%7CH8%7Cpc%7CHQ%7Cpc%7CD9%7Cpc%7CDA%7Cpc%7CD3%7Cpc%7CD2%7Cpc%7CD6%7Cpc%7CDK%7Cpc%7CD5%7Cpc%7CD4%7Cpc%7CD7%7Cpc%7CS4%7Cpc%7CS6%7Cpc%7CS9%7Cpc%7CSJ%7Cpc%7CC2%7Cpc%7CC5%7Cpc%7CCJ%7Cpc%7CCQ%7Cpc%7CDT%7Cpc%7CHJ%7Cpc%7CDQ%7Cpc%7CS3%7Cpc%7CS7%7Cpc%7CST%7Cpc%7CSA%7Cpc%7CS8%7Cpc%7CS2%7Cpc%7CSK%7Cpc%7CDJ%7Cpc%7CS5%7Cpc%7CCK%7Cpc%7CCA%7Cpc%7CC3%7Cpc%7CHT%7Cpc%7CC4%7Cpc%7CC7%7Cpc%7CH7%7Cpc%7CC9%7Cpc%7CCT%7Cpc%7CH2%7Cpc%7CC6%7Cpc%7CH3%7Cpc%7CC8%7Cpc%7CSQ%7Cpc%7CD8%7Cpc%7CH4%7C]400|300|[/hv] So Mike Passell made the right decision here to double (Isn't it great when you can compare your decisions to those of a known high-level player?). Out of a field of 20, only 3 doubled and the rest split evenly between competing with 5♥ (down 1) and passing. I was in the (losing) "compete" camp, and I'm looking for the reasoning that Mike used here, and that I evidently failed to use. Or was this just a lucky guess on his part? (I'm of course reminded of a famous golfer who said something along the lines of "It's funny - the more I practice the luckier I get.") My reasoning was that my AK♥ is quite possibly worthless in defense, making it hard to imagine taking two tricks over and above the A♣. I assume that if I had 3 small diamonds instead of 2, I'd be readier to compete because that would increase the chances of a void or singleton in partner's hand. Do people agree with that reasoning? I also assume that if this was IMPS then competing would be the correct decision?

Two questions: 1. Given there seems to be no wild distribution among the rest of the suits, doesn't that increase the chance of an even break in spades? 2. Isn't there some sort of inference to be made from E covering the ♦Q immediately instead of waiting to cover the J?

There is also a free book available on the internet: 2/1 Game Force a Modern Approach http://www.pitt.edu/~timm/BookGameForce.pdf Lots of details on combining 2/1 with various types of Bergen raises and the like - it's aimed at intermediate players I would say. Also a very nice description of a more sophisticated point count methodology (taking into account shape, A/K/10 vs Q/J, singleton/doubleton honors and how to best revalue your hand once a fit is discovered). Beyond my pay grade to evaluate some of his choices and advice, but it's nicely written, comprehensive and FREE.

So I have a rather different question. Why didn't Fantoni/Nunes win everything in sight? From what I gather they are somewhat stronger than the Israeli pair (particularly Schwartz). And why bother with Fantunes? Why not just play one of the more standard systems and rely on their UI to give them a significant edge? Once we know they have been cheating, it seems more probable than not they also used other methods aside from their card orientation. If they used them intermittently or infrequently it might well be impossible to detect them. The only real solution here is to make a couple of the top events all-electronic. That would be enough to deter cheaters - suddenly there would be a big discrepancy between their results in the all-electronic tournaments and everywhere else.

Ah - that's what I missed. So then this claim is not so bad after all. I had been somehow assuming it threw a diamond, when indeed you have to go through some contortions via the diamond ace to take three more tricks.

From a recent robot tournament, I claimed making 3NT after 9 tricks had been played and GIB accepted the claim. Now it is indeed possible to make 3NT, but if you examine the four-card ending you will see that there are still a lot more ways to go wrong than there are to go right: [hv= sn=xeno123&s=SAQ74HA9D754CAQ75&wn=Robot&w=ST9HQT854DJCKT864&nn=Robot&n=S863HKJ76DA63CJ93&en=Robot&e=SKJ52H32DKQT982C2&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=PP1N(notrump%20opener.%20Could%20have%205M.%20--%202-5%20%21C)P2C(Stayman%20--%2011-%20HCP%3B%2012-%20total%20points)2D(Overcall%20--%2011-%20HCP%3B%20twice%20rebiddable%20%21D%3B%2011-12%20total%20points)2S(2-5%20%21C%3B%202-5%20%21D%3B%202-3%20%21H%3B%204-5%20%21S%3B%2015-17%20HC)P2N(Invite%20to%203NT%2C%20may%20not%20have%204-card%20major%20--%209%20HCP)P3C(4-5%20%21C%3B%202-5%20%21D%3B%202-3%20%21H%3B%204-5%20%21S%3B%2015-17%20HC)P3N(4-%20%21H%3B%204-%20%21S%3B%209%20HCP%3B%2010+%20total%20points%3B%20stop%20in%20%21D)PPP&p=DJD3DQD4S2S4S9S3STS6S5SQHAH4H6H2H9HTHJH3C3C2CQCKHQHKD2D5S8SKSAC6C5CTCJSJ&c=9]400|300|[/hv] In fact even double dummy I'm guessing most non-experts will have trouble seeing the correct line immediately. (I had miscounted and thought both clubs in my hand were high when making the claim - I do indeed have two high clubs, but entry problems make it hard to enjoy both). Am I missing something here?

This somewhat interesting hand came up in a MP tournament: [hv=bbo=y&myhand=M-24320074-1423673161]400|300|[/hv] Most of the field ended up in 3NT (after varied bidding) and made 10 tricks on various opening leads. A couple of players, including the highly-rated "King" shown here, made 11 tricks. But 10 or 11 turned out to be quite a battle. On the diamond lead shown, only 10 tricks are available double-dummy. But once East fails to hold up the A♥ at trick 3, 11 tricks are again possible. But declarer goes wrong at trick 5 by not leading a low club (which seems to produce 11 by squeezing West in 3 suits). Instead on the actual heart lead at trick 5 only 10 tricks should be possible. But GIB rides to the rescue! On trick 9 GIB pitches what would be the boss J♦ under the queen for no clear reason and hands declarer another trick. Any explanation? Just trying to be friendly to a familiar top player? And if anyone can explain how to figure out to lead a low club at trick 5 I'd appreciate it.

Figure one or other of the GIBs should have been swearing at its partner's bidding over this uncontested auction where they ended up in 4♠ with a 3-2 fit: [hv=sn=xeno123&s=SKT62HK74DA63CA85&wn=Robot&w=SAQJH5DK5CT976432&nn=Robot&n=S8543HQJ963DT874C&en=Robot&e=S97HAT82DQJ92CKQJ&d=w&v=o&b=8&a=PP1D(Minor%20suit%20opening%20--%203+%20%21D%3B%2011-21%20HCP%3B%2012-22%20total%20points)P2C(Non-game-forcing%20two-over-one%20--%2010-11%20HCP%3B%20biddable%20%21C%3B%2012-%20total%20points)P2H(New%20suit%20--%203+%20%21D%3B%204+%20%21H%3B%2021-%20HCP%3B%2016-22%20total%20points)P3C(10-11%20HCP%3B%20rebiddable%20%21C%3B%2012-%20total%20points)P3S(3+%20%21D%3B%204+%20%21H%3B%204+%20%21S%3B%2021-%20HCP%3B%2016-22%20total%20points)P4S(4+%20%21S%3B%2010-11%20HCP%3B%20rebiddable%20%21C%3B%2012-%20total%20points)PPP&p=S2SQS5S9DKD8D2DAS6SAS8S7H5HJHAH4H2H7SJH6D5D4DQD3DJD6C2D7CQCAC3H9HKC4H3HTC8C6S3CKDTD9C5C9S4H8STCTSKC7HQCJ]640|480[/hv] I'm guessing the 3♠ bid was some sort of probe for NT. Down 4 in this contract was a top - none of the other 10 players in this contract doubled either. Only one EW GIB pair found the cold (as the cards lie) 5♣ contract.

FWIW, both players that made started with a diamond - one ran the 8 and the other played the ace and another diamond. gszes' point that playing for down one makes a lot of sense too - here it would produce a near-top. I do appreciate the informed commentary here.

This normal-looking hand proved tricky in a recent robot MP tournament: [hv=lin=pn|"Queen",~~M26800,~~M26798,~~M26799|st||md|2S6H26TKD3579JACQK,S5789QKH9DQC2358A,S34AH358JQD28C469,|rh||ah|Board 4|sv|b|mb|1S|an|Major suit opening -- 5+ !S; 11-21 HCP; 12-22 total points |mb|p|mb|2S|an|Simple raise -- 3+ !S; 7-10 total points |mb|d|an|Takeout double -- 3+ !C; 3+ !D; 4+ !H; 2|mb|p|mb|3H|an|4+ !H; 9- total points |mb|p|mb|p|mb|3S|an|5+ !S; 11+ HCP; 12-17 total points |mb|4H|an|4+ !H; 9- total points |mb|p|mb|p|mb|p|pg||pc|SJ|pc|S6|pc|S9|pc|SA|pg||pc|D2|pc|D4|pc|DA|pc|DQ|pg||pc|D3|pc|H9|pc|D8|pc|D6|pg||pc|CA|pc|C4|pc|C7|pc|CQ|pg||pc|C5|pc|C6|pc|CT|pc|CK|pg||pc|D5|pc|C2|pc|H3|pc|DT|pg||pc|S4|pc|S2|pc|H2|pc|S8|pg||pc|D7|pc|S7|pc|H8|pc|DK|pg||pc|HJ|pc|HA|pc|H6|pc|S5|pg||pc|CJ|pc|HT|pc|C8|pc|C9|pg||pc|D9|pc|C3|pc|HQ|pc|ST|pg||pc|H5|pc|H4|pc|HK|pc|SQ|pg||pc|DJ|pc|SK|pc|S3|pc|H7|pg||]400|300|[/hv] (The declarer shown here was a "Q" BBO player). About half the field allowed EW to play 3♠ making 4. The other half ended up in 4♥ as shown above, with 2 making, one (shown above) down 1 after going wrong at the end, and the remaining 8 down 2. So the key is what to do at trick 2 after winning the spade lead with the Ace. An immediate spade ruff looks very tempting, and my question is what is the warning signal that should turn one away from that "obvious" play?

That's just not the case. I have some boards that were completed over half-an-hour ago, and any hands that I looked at during the tournament are still not accessible. The ones I didn't check work normally. There is definitely a bug here.

FWIW, the commentators, despite the benefit of seeing all the cards, still thought the contract was making.

Thanks for your informative response. You make it sound so easy, but trust me it isn't for an intermediate player. (I would add there wasn't a long think in the actual game here on the viewgraph). I would have worried about establishing spades for declarer in the event he started with three clubs and so would have an entry to dummy in the club suit. I guess your point is that the defense likely has no shot then. Is it that obvious that you shouldn't just play passively with something like the ♥ ten?

[hv=sn=Levine&s=SAT7653H5D853CQ96&wn=Schwartz&w=SK98H9643DKJ96C43&nn=McGarry&n=SJ4HKQJ87DAQ74CKT&en=Graves&e=SQ2HAT2DT2CAJ8752&d=e&v=e&b=6&a=1C1SDR2CPP2HP2SP2NPPP&p=C7C6C4CTHJH2H5H4HQHAD3H3SQSAS8S4D8D6DQD2SJS2S3SKC3CKCAC9HTS5H6HKD4DTD5DJDKDAC2S6H7C5S7H9D9&c=7]400|300|[/hv] So the most interesting part begins when Graves is on lead at trick 4 after winning with the Ace of Hearts - see if you can come up with what he played to set the contract. (Accurate play is still needed after this trick as well). So my question is what his thought process must have been here to come up with the only correct choice. Anyone care to speculate?

So after a tournament is completed, I can't always see the bidding/play of the other competitors. I can see all the final contracts and results, but when I click an individual result I see only my own bidding and play. It's inconsistent within one tournament - same of the deals I see everything as normal, while other deals the bidding/play of others remain hidden. (It might possibly relate to whether I used the new feature while the tournament is running to see the contracts and results on a particular hand). The bug was introduced when the new feature was added that allows you to see the final contract/result of other competitors after you complete a hand but before the tournament is completed.

So playing in robot tournament (so 2/1 GF), the following hand came up: [hv=sn=xeno123&s=SAKQ6HAQ9642D6CQ2&wn=Robot&w=S8H75D8743CAKJT73&nn=Robot&n=SJT954HKJTDAQJTC4&en=Robot&e=S732H83DK952C9865&d=w&v=o&b=8&a=P1S(Major%20suit%20opening%20--%205+%20%21S%3B%2011-21%20HCP%3B%2012-22%20total%20points)P2H(Forcing%20two%20over%20one%20--%205+%20%21H%3B%2012+%20HCP%3B)3C(twice%20rebiddable%20%21C%3B%205-11%20total%20points)PP3S(5+%20%21H%3B%202+%20%21S%3B%2012+%20HCP%3B%2013+%20total%20points%3B)P4H(2+%20%21H%3B%205+%20%21S%3B%2011+%20HCP%3B%2012-17%20total%20points)P4N(Blackwood%20%5BH%5D%20--%206+%20%21H%3B%202+%20%21S%3B%2020+%20total)P5H(Two%20or%20five%20key%20cards%3B%20no%20queen%20--%202+%20%21H%3B%205+%20%21S%3B%2011+%20HCP%3B%2012-17%20total%20points)PPP&p=CKC4C5C2S8S4S2SQH2H5HTH3HKH8H4H7&c=12]400|300|[/color][/hv] So first question is whether to immediately support spades (I assume via a ♦ splinter), or instead to bid the 2♥ I chose. My thought was it's better to show the hearts now - if I splinter the hearts will never come up at all. I figured it's not going to be hard to support spades on my next bid. As it happened, West intervened, partner supported my hearts, and I couldn't figure a way to find out if we were off two clubs or not, and so I simply chickened out. GIB seemed to think any further spade bid was a cue bid, and so I reckoned we were stuck in hearts rather than spades. Any thoughts on how to approach hands like these? Both when bidding with GIB and also with a competent (but not expert) partner.