smerriman

Is 3♦ an option?

It still uses rules for deciding which card to lead, just that simulations can override it. Thus the reason it makes the "normal" lead 95+% of the time. Some of the other 5% are due to simulations; the rest developers wouldn't respond to.

I always used to think this too, until I started watching Peter Hollands' videos. He would ask - can you come up with 3 other hands which would pass out 1♣ (and give a bad result)?

Well, if you don't look at your own threads.. Also, jdonn is the actual developer capable of making changes. If you aren't going to take into account his advice on posting bugs, why do you think things "should have been fixed"? Highly likely he is no longer reading your posts, so 0 chance of being fixed now.

No, GIB never* leads 5th high. Always* 4th high from that holding. So West must hold JT or JTx. *97.4% of the time. The rest, unexplained bugs happen.

I don't think this is relevant; it's impossible for West to hold a singleton given the lead. The only question is, would GIB play J from Jx? Surely this loses in several cases, so I would say no, thus finessing the 9 can never work.

Out of interest, how do you know they were having connection issues? You've never had problems; I've never had problems; I suspect the reason nothing has improved is because there is nothing to improve. (Or, it's caused by Flash in some way and only affects a small set of users, in which case they've been working hard on a Flash alternative which is now previewable on the BBO homepage).

Really? That is, with pretty standard bidding, you have at least four options: - Texas then pass, without slam hope - Texas then KC/Blackwood - Transfer then splinter, with shortness - Transfer then bid game, without shortness If you don't play Texas or splinters (probably because you haven't gotten around to learning them, vs more useful definitions of those bids), then isn't it pretty unlikely that you play a conventional 3♥?

How can they not have big fits in both majors? It is your partner who bid 2NT, so if they don't have majors and you don't either..

Yep - the only thing I didn't take into account were eg responder hands with 54 in the majors that would sometimes bid Stayman instead of transfer. Note however that this is from responder's perspective when he is transferring with a 5 card suit - from opener's perspective, you will be superaccepting less as partner will sometimes have more than 5. Though from responder's perspective, you also know your full shape, and eg transferring with 5530 is likely to give different results. So I'm not really sure what the point of any of this is.

Yes and no. Yes, it takes it as showing values, but: a) Basic GIB makes the same pass, so it's not based on expecting lots of tricks b) The reason GIB passes (and also passes with the worst possible 0 count) is because every bid it can make promises 8 HCP for some reason.

Over 10000 hands where one player has any 5332, 4333, or 4432, and the other has exactly 5 spades, I get: 2 cards: 28.05% 3 cards: 47.83% 4 cards: 20.37% 5 cards: 3.75% So considerably smaller than Helene's numbers.

Yeah, I know, I'm a web developer, so was able to debug in responsive mode :) It's the 640px vertical limit that's the issue.

Was going to post about a number of issues, but now I see that there is one gigantic issue that influences every single other issue. On my 1366x768 laptop, Firefox, fullscreen, with no toolbars other than the normal menu bar (not even default ones like bookmarks etc), I'm seeing the mobile layout. It appears the mobile layout displays when the available height is 640px or less, which is the case when you consider the taskbar and toolbars on the standard 1366x768 size screen (still the most common desktop size). Screenshot. (And the mobile layout is horrible to use on a desktop. But I presume this was unintended, thus will leave any further comments until this is resolved - or mentioned it's deliberate :) )

That makes it a diana_eva vs derppp final (same format). Good luck to both!

Just to clarify, what I wrote above *is* how GIB describes 3♦. So it's not like it didn't have it as an option.

Why not? According to something like this, 3♦ is "natural and nonforcing, showing a very good suit (usually 6+ cards), a decent hand, and no support for either of the 2NT bidder's suits.". Or in terms of GIB's descriptions: My long suit - no major fit - 6+ ♦, 1- ♥, 11+ total points No need to play this as forcing, as you can always go through 2NT first if you want to force.

[hv=http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?sn=smerriman&s=SKJHKJ875D7CAKJ65&wn=Robot&w=S76H9632D65CQT843&nn=Robot&n=SQT8HQDKQJ98432C2&en=Robot&e=SA95432HAT4DATC97&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=1S(Major%20suit%20opening%20--%205+%20%21S%3B%2011-21%20HCP%3B%2012-22%20total%20points)2S!(Michaels%20--%205+%20%21H%3B%209+%20total%20points%3B%20forc)P2N!(Show%20your%202nd%20suit%20--)P3C(My%20second%20suit%20--%205+%20%21C%3B%205+%20%21H%3B%209-16%20tot)PPP&p=S7S8SASKS9SJS6SQSTS5D7C4C3C2C9CJCACQD2C7CKCTD3S3H5H3HQHAS4C6D6D4HJH2D8H4HKH6D9HTH7H9DJDTC8DQS2C5D5DKDAH8]400|300[/hv] Robot Reward, so you may not agree with my use of Michaels - but what was GIB trying to do?

I think it's rolling, so you can play 8 days after your third-to-last.

[hv=http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?s=SAJ7H532DQ872CKQT&w=SHAKJT97DA64CAJ97&nn=smerriman&n=SQ432HQ864DK5C543&e=SKT9865HDJT93C862&d=e&v=n&b=34&a=P1DD1H3SD3NP4SDPPP&p=H2HKH4C2HAH6C6H3CAC3C8CTC7C4S5CQSTS7H7SQC5S6CKC9S8SJH9S2D7D4DKD3HQS9H5HTDJDQDAD5D6S3D9D2S4SKSACJD8HJH8DT]400|300[/hv] I was North in this hand in the MBC, which resulted in East refusing to play and leaving, stating West can't double with a void and should have bid 1♥. To me the double looked fine, with the idea of bidding hearts next, but things quickly got complex and I'm not sure how I would have handled continuations. Double or 1♥? 3♠ or something else? 3NT or something else? 4♠ or something else?

I thought you were implying that your example was a reason you should use Banzai points instead of normal points, because normal points got you to a bad 3NT. How do Banzai points get you to a better contract? If you're not talking about opener, are you saying you shouldn't have accepted with responder's three kings? Because I'm pretty sure simulations will again disprove that. So obviously I was wrong, and you were just showing an example hand where both methods fail equally. That doesn't debunk anything. To show Banzai points may be worthwhile you'd need to provide a hand where the use of Banzai points gives a better result on average. Stephen Tu has already provided a hand (your own, AJxx Axx xxx xxx) where statistics support the opposite. And again, asking to provide *two* hands has no relevance. Only the average for the hand where a decision is being made. It may even be true that for every single 4333 vs 4333 hand that fails, Banzai points said you shouldn't be in game. That still wouldn't demonstrate in any way that you should use them in the 100% of cases where you don't know the other hand.

I don't see how this could possibly be relevant? Of course 4333 vs 4333 is not good. But you don't know whether your partner has a 4333 or not. If you want to say ATx Axx Axx Axxx shouldn't bid 3NT after partner invites with 2NT, you need to simulate all possible 2NT hands, not just give an example of one. Then figure out whether it is worth bidding game. In this case a simulation says yes, so if you're suggesting you should pass, you're playing losing bridge.

A 13.5 year bump must be some kind of record, right? B-)

Agreed - and makes you regret every mistake individually! Thanks for a great match.

He meant 3♠. This actually showed 16 or *less* total points, not exactly 16. But the entire response structure is messed up - every single possible response to 2NT makes no sense: 3♣ - 3+ ♣, 3- total points?!? 3♦ - 3+ ♦, 3+ HCP, 3- total points?!? 3♥ - 3+ ♦, 10-16 total points, forcing to 4♦ 3♠ - 16- total points 3NT - 5- ♥, 5- ♠, 12+ HCP, 16- total points, likely stop in ♥ and ♠ 4♣ - 5+ ♣, 16- total points 4♦ - 5+ ♦, 16- total points 4♥ - 3+ ♦, 14-16 total points, forcing to 5♦ 4♠ - biddable ♠, 16- total points 4NT - quantitative invite to 6NT, 16+ HCP, 16- total points 5♣ - biddable ♣, 16- total points 5♦ - biddable ♦, 16- total points And to add to the fun: Pass - no suitable call, 16- total points, forcing Oh dear oh dear.