Stefan_O

Another example of these useless "4+suit" definitions I encountered, is this: 1♣ - 1♥ 1♠- 1NT 2♦ 2♦ was described as "4+♦..." but is rather a 4SF/NMF bid, showing at least invitational values and asking responder to describe his hand and go to game with maximum. To make matters worse, there is also another bug related to this situtation: http://i.imgur.com/gJQmFD5.png As seen, the jump to 3♥ does not show extra-values (i.e. has same meaning as 2♥). For lack of better, with 4315/18HCP, I bid 3♥ anyways, hoping only the description was wrong, but the robot passed with 9HCP.

No, 1 and 2 are correct. Spades are more "safe" because you are unlikely to help declarer develop extra tricks he cannot create himself. Hearts is more "aggressive", because higher probability to beat the contract, but also higher probability to give away extra tricks --- and if you're unlucky it happens to be declarer's 9th trick....

At IMP: small heart, because you only want to beat the contract. Pd, of course, may have better spades and that is the only way to beat it on a particular deal, but hearts is the percentage lead. At MP: small spade, to avoid giving declarer an extra trick.

To me, the advantage of playing (2) is you never have much of a problem what to bid. In the sit above, the worst thing that can happen is, when you are loaded with spades, you may have to let them play 2♠ undoubled, rather than doubled. Playing (1), the scary downside is, when you are short in Spades and have 3, 4, 5, or even 6 hearts, and competitive or game-going hand if partner has hearts. You probably bid and hope that opener has hearts -- but sometimes it turns out that opener also has Spades, and you risk a disastrous result. So I can understand why text-books recommend (2)...

If you play 2♦ multi (weak, 6 card major -- or maybe some strong hands, too), and opps overcall in a major, what is the usual/popular meaning of responders Double? Like: 2♦ - (2♠) - X Is it (1) Penalty-double. I have good spades behind overcaller. (2) Asks opener to Pass only if spades is his long suit, otherwise describe his hand. ?

3♠ of course is beyond all reason -- clearly a bug. But even 3♥ vuln seems like a highly dangerous shot in the dark here, not knowing anything abt E's lucky ♥-fit on this particular deal... Where on earth to play if E instead has doubleton ♥? Obvious risk of a serious misfit for both sides, and Diamonds behind South, seems over-all odds are in favor of defending against 3C.

X = "Takeout double -- 3+♣; 3+♦; 4+♥; 2-♠; 11 HCP; 12 total points"

Ha-ha -- AWESOME lead!! :D :D But I agree -- just a very lucky fluke here... Would certainly be interesting to have a look at the monte-carlo samples that prompted this lead --- maybe one would learn something abt this great game :)

http://i.imgur.com/JwGRadq.png Jump(!) to 3♠ is described as: "13-16 total points; forcing"

http://i.imgur.com/qdEBSAE.png

/withdrawn/

Certainly a dumb choice. But the general issue is, when descriptions significantly deviate from actual hand, what meaning does the other robot infer from such bid? What the description says? Or same meaning that the bidder-robot apparently associated with it?

Now my dog looks confused... is asking: What's this deal got to do with anything at all? :blink: :unsure: :huh: :blink: :blink:

Since the XX shows 3cd ♠-support, South knows North is marked with 2 or fewer spades. Even my dog can tell you, North's Pass is not for penalties.

http://i.imgur.com/GepEaAd.png Question is: Does his partner know?

Hard to see why we would need an "expert" opinion on this one... It's so obvious the descriptions of 1NT and 2♥ (with the Passed responder) are inconsistent, that my dog could tell you so.

Good points. Just wondering, since the negative X promises 4 spades, should South use support-double over 2H when he has 3-card ♠ support? Would make it a bit easier to find a 4-3 ♠ fit... Plus we could then rule out a 4-3 ♠ fit, in the situation above? Compare to: W N E S P 1C 1D 1S 2D X

I noticed, if responder is a passed hand, in the following sequence: Pass - 1♥ 1NT - 2♣ 2♥ In this sequence 1NT is described as: 2-♥ (non-forcing) but 2♥ was then described as: 2-3♥ ... I guess the second description is copied from the similar sequence where responder is not passed, but not correct in this case.

yeah... or make sure you only double with 18+hcp or 7 likely tricks, if pd is supposed to pass with any 0 hcp and no 5cd-suit. I agree Doubling with any 15-16hcp has a tendency to backfire more often than not But that's just my "gut-feeling" :) -- not based on actual statistics... Otherwise, there is Brozel or similar... http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/5339-brozel-convention/

This was from a BBO tourney "Robot Rebate 55% (12-boards, $1 fee)". Is there a way to see what robot-level they use?

OK, another issue that should be fixed then, if it really adds short-suit points without seeing any trump-fit.

You only count for shortness, when you have known trump-fit. A singleton has no particular value in NT. If you count something here, it should be for suit-lengths or quality, not shortness.

When I now check the hand-viewer, the description of Double (was from a Passed hand here) says: "Takeout double -- 3+ ♣; 3+ ♦; 2- ♥; 4" Yes, obviously it is truncated at the end... I guess this is an issue only when the hand is stored for post-mortem viewing, not during actual play...?

Curious... how do you count 13 points here? I see 11 HCP and no known trump-fit. Is it the ♥-length that counts for 2 points?

Doesnt look like... The Double of 2H was explained as: "21- HCP; rebiddable ♥; 16-22 total points"