TheoKole

One of the purposes of cue bids is also to receive information as to what Aces DOESN'T hold. This is also very useful information also. As for the auction I would suggest this: 1 ♠ - 2 NT (Jacoby) - 3 ♦ (shortness) - 3 ♥ (Cue bid) - 4 ♥ (Cue bid) (King of hearts since you have already cue bid hearts this shows 2nd round control) AND also denies 1st round control of ♣ and ♦ through a negative connotation that it was not cuebid. At this point, assuming that partner has their first round opener you can actually place most of their high card points. At this point, you know that you do not have a grand slam for example with this theoretical hand AKxxx, Kxx x Axxx. So know you can ask for key cards; 4 NT (key card ask) - 5 ♦(1 or 4 - which you know to be 1) at best, slam is on a finesse and at worst you are missing 2 aces which you know will cash. Do you bid slam hoping that partner has the Ace of ♠ AND that the King is finessable? The answer to that is no. There are some hands that expert bidders, and declarers will get a bad score on compared to other players of lesser experience. This is usually when players take a very high percentage line on the hand and the low percentage line that the less experienced player uses because that the only one that they have experience in. ex. Finesse instead of an endplay. On your example board, bidding logically and getting the correct information will keep you out of this slam will get you a bad board on this particular hand against the less experienced player. You will gain points on the next 3 hands on average of this type that they make the incorrect percentage slam decision. The only exception to bid slam on this hand is if you are playing MP's and are deliberately "shooting" for a swing score after you have correctly analysed previous boards and have correctly analysed that you need a swing top on this board for a good overall score. Please do not try this technique if you are not an expert in declarer play, bidding AND bidding of your partnership and the other partnerships that you are playing against. Also you should able to correctly estimate to a high degree of probability of the time how well you are doing in the middle of the set of boards. Good luck.

I've noticed dozens of times when they will lead low from a doubleton Qx, 10x, Kx and so on. If I overcall I have noticed that it is much more likely that the robot will lead from 732 of dummy's suit than my overcall or opener. Also in the past few weeks I have noticed about a dozen underleads of an Ace in a suit contract. Also some completely weird leads J from AJ83 underlead against a 4 spade contract? I think that in these times that the programmers somehow think that they can do a "surround play" on the opening lead? I've also noticed many openers on 10 counts and sometimes 8 counts if a hand is a 2 suiter. In declarer play GIB regularly takes practice finesses, and the order in which it plays suits doesn't have a logical course many times risking a ruff for no particular reason. The notes that are described for its own system are incorrect many times and a bid that is described as "forcing" has been passed many times. Other times the bidding system is so bad that you cannot make a cue bid, even though the next suit would be a cue bid. Also never, never trust the robots judgement in slam bidding. Good luck

In order to bid this hand without 4 suit transfers you MUST have an agreement beforehand to bid this type of hand. There are 2 methods for this type of hand. One is 3 ♦ directly which is strong and game forcing and at least hinting at slam, partner is encouraged to cue bid. Another method is to go through STAYMAN and then bid ♦. You can use these methods if your suit is clubs also. It is important to note that if you agree on a method then the other bid for the minor must be weak sometimes very very weak where you are simply trying to escape NT. An example would be Kxxxxx or longer and out. I am assuming if you choose one of these methods then your NT biding structure would include 1 NT - 2 ♠ to be minor suit Stayman for both minors. Either of these methods has its advantages and drawbacks in making the NT hand the declarer, in order to protect and tenancies for strong hands so choose your poison. I can't emphasize enough that you must have a previous agreement for strong hands with 1 minor and as a result have by default the other method for weak hands. If you mess up the hands you are headed for a very bad board. Good luck, T

Thank you for your careful analysis of the hand and the thinking. I had this problem playing MP's at our local club game and was unsure whether my final decision was theoretically correct or not. I think that it seems a tossup as to whether most other pairs will be in 6NT or 6 ♥ on the hand. Having only up a minute to go though the thinking on such a hand is difficult so I find it beneficial to think about these types of hands for future reference when I will be playing similar types which will require similar decision making. Regards, T

By the same reasoning, aren't the people in 6NT immaterial? They either beat you or you beat them. They beat you by 10 points, except in the case of doubleton Q ♦ with east (which they would not play for) or in the case where the minor suit Q's are offside and east has the 10 clubs incase they go down and you make your contract. Regards, T

[hv=pc=n&s=sk63ha842da84ckj5&n=sa2hkqjt9dkj3ca94]133|200[/hv] So you manage to get to a 6 ♥ contract after south opens a strong NT and you get a trump lead; trumps are 3-1. In the play you can take the chance of 1 of 2 finesses in the minors working about 75% with a 25% chance of going down and a 25% chance of getting +1. Of course there is a stronger play to make the contract by eliminating ♥ and ♠ and playing Ace and King ♦. If doubleton Q ♦ doesn't drop then give up the diamond and west is endplayed if the finesse was working originally and east is endplayed if they hold either the 10 or Q ♣ and the original ♦ finesse wasn't working. All together approx. a 90% chance of making the contract with a very small chance ~ 2% singleton or doubleton Q ♦ of having a chance for an overtrick. So playing MP's which is the best percentage play for a top and which would you choose in the field. Do you think this one of the rare instances that it is correct theory- wise to play "safely" for the endplay? I have not discussed playing against anyone in 6NT because you cannot practically play against anyone who bids 6NT for the board. Their most likely play on a heart lead is to try the 2 finesses which will either work or not. In either case they will score higher than you making 6NT or 6NT+1 or going down on the board when you would also have gone down. Thanks in advance for the replies, T

I'm going to suggest that you bid 5 ♣ whether or not partner would take it as a cue bid or not. The only problem is the adverse colours of red vs white. At favorable colors I would definitely do so. The reason is simple mathematics. 10 down at white vs red is 500 vs 620 or 650 or 680 at worst even if they do not bid their small slam. I think that you can count on getting your Ace ♥ as a trick in a 5 ♣ contract. Also it should be obvious that if you are doubled you will revert to ♦. If partner raises you! (LOL) you can also outbid him in diamonds. I think that a small slam for them is odds on right now and the only advantage that you have is that you are the first player to be aware of this fact. The adverse red vs white colours have a danger of being left to play in 5 ♣ undoubled for -10 down. Personally I find this danger to be very very low on average, (both opponents would have to resist the temptation to double). If you have an agreement with partner of a lightner double after this kind of auction for him to lead your "suit" then this kind of bid has even higher advantages, especially at imps. This kind of strategic "void suit bid" comes around very rarely, especially when you can escape to a higher ranking suit so I take advantage of it every time that I can. Cheers, T

Another set of really odd plays by GIB using rented advanced robot GIB http://tinyurl.com/y4w3jjgk As you can see east robot leads the singleton ♥ King and west fails to overtake and give a ruff. After this start the contract is cold by throwing 2 hearts from hand north hand on the top ♣. Another possibility is throwing 2 ♥ from the south hand on the top ♠ in the north hand. The odds slightly favor using discards from ♠ but because of the of the total suit lengths. This plan is abandoned due to the count signals by defender east and the Ace of ♠ is ruffed. Then GIB goes and plays totally weird mode 1 ♥ is discarded and then GIB ruffs the low ♣ instead of using the second discard. A 100 % guaranteed for -1 at least. Then the truly bizarre play of finessing east against the 9 of ♦ for -2. I find myself struggling to understand the logic of these plays. Some type of bug, if not perhaps someone can find what GIB was playing for by analysing the plays. Thanks in advance for the comments. T

I think you are just a little miffed about missing the heart slam LOL :lol:

So another GIB "judgement" decision to give you a small laugh for the day. [hv=pc=n&s=sk2hk64dakjt2c653&w=sqt975hd9864cqj94&n=sa3haqjt9852d753c&e=sj864h73dqcakt872&d=e&v=0&b=14&a=1c1d1s2c(good%20diamond%20raise%2011%2B%20points)2s3d3sppp]399|300[/hv] It seems that GIB isn't confident enough to bid an 8 card ♥ suit either on the first or second round. This is even though after my overcall and subsequent bidding their hand becomes HUGE. Guess that GIB would need a 10 card suit to decide that it might be a good trump suit; of course we missed a cold grand. In all seriousness, perhaps the code might need a bit of tweeking as to when to bid. As you can see opening a little light on HCP's but with shape doesn't seem to be a problem. Regards T

I would pass after thinking about it for a bit. Either opener has a tremendous hand with long ♣ and we cannot out bid them or opponents have a major suit fit which they can run to if I give them a chance, perhaps even making a game or partner has quite a good hand with ♣ but he could not or would not want to overcall in NT. In any of these cases I want the ops to play in a 1♣ contract especially since it is red vs red. Regards T

This reminds me of many hands when you "have to" play for a mistake by the defenders. For example, how do you play A10xx in dummy opposite Qx in hand for no losers? You have to play the suit and ruff the diamonds, there simply aren't enough tricks and you cannot endplay someone in a 7 ♣ contract. You cannot draw trumps yet because and play for a singleton King because you simply need the trumps in your hand to ruff the diamonds high. If there is a singleton K after drawing trumps you will be able to ruff ♦ ONCE with the extra trump and you need to ruff the ♦ twice on a 3-2 trump split. You can play against LHO and lead the Queen hoping he doesn't cover if he has the King. However this will only work (perhaps, but it shouldn't) if they are an intermediate defender. A beginner will "cover an honor with an honor", an expert will cover when they see 2 honors in dummy (whether or not they have the J). However there is another way IF RHO is an expert defender. Play the Ace and a low ♦ from dummy (look I have a singleton ♦ :rolleyes: ), if they have Kxxxx of ♦ it is the correct play to duck the King (99% of the time :lol:) Actually I think it is correct play to duck even if they have Kxxx, I might be able to set up a squeeze against their partner with the 10 ♦ menace against them. Think of it this way, if I DO have a singleton diamond (which I should on this line of play) then their partner has QJx ♦ so if they put up the King it crashes with their partners J while I ruff, the next ruff the Q comes down and the 10 ♦ is good. They are an expert defender and can tell I don't have extra trump, since I did not draw any rounds of trump, I need the trump entries to dummy to ruff high in my hand. Don't try this type of play against me please, I will hate you for it :angry: Regards T

Thanks for all the replies. I was really interested how many people would pass for penalties. I thought about it but it violated 1 of my 4 rules. So the decision rests as to take the high road for game or the low road for part score knowing that the long trump hand will be forced with spade leads (if you can actually find a fit). Since I tend towards optimism in these types of hands, I bid 3NT hoping the suit wold block. This was Xed by RHO to indicate a ♠ lead promising an honor and I knew I was in trouble. I pulled to 4 ♣ and luckily found a 5 card suit in dummy but this was Xed by RHO again :( (so much for my optimism) I scrambled to 9 tricks with ruffs and high cards so we got out of the deal only slightly burnt. I also thought of 4 ♥ playing in a Moysian fit. The reason I chose ♣ instead of ♥ is that 1 I am much more likely to find a 5 card fit in the suit instead of in ♥, and I am much more likely to find of find a 3-3 fit in ♥ instead of ♣. At this point I am simply trying to get out of the deal with the least amount of damage. The choice of pass for penalties is one I think some would think long and hard about and I did also. I stated that I have 4 STRICT rules about passing low level take out doubles which are: 1: I have good reason to believe that we have a majority of the high card points; CHECK 2: I have good reason to believe that the hand is a misfit deal; CHECK 3a: Rule of 12: 12 minus the number of tricks declarer will need to take is the number of trumps I need in my hand (ie. 12 - 8 (for 2 spade contract) = 4) CHECK 3b: Rule of 10: 10 minus the number of tricks declarer will need to take is the number of trump tricks I need in my hand (ie. 10 - 8 (for 2 spade contract) = 2 the last point is the stickler I also adjust the total by 1, if I am in front of declarer meaning I need 5 length and 3 trump tricks in a spade contract. This is to account for trump endplays, elopement trump plays and the fact that partner might lead a trump in these auctions and I need to account for this. Thank you again to all who replied, it seems we were predestined for a negative board on this hand but sometimes you have to try to get out of these with the least amount of pain as possible, knowing that other pairs will face the same decisions. Regards T

For anyone who bid 3NT what do you do if you get Xed by RHO to indicate an honor? Will you still chance the 3NT bid or will you deal with it later if it happens? Regards T

I added the 2NT description because I wanted the bid to be reflective for the reader's agreements, not MY agreements. If the reader's use 2NT as Leibenshoel or as a scramble in their partnership is up to them. Regards T

Wouldn't this be defined as a "bug" if GIB doesn't understand the bids that the program description registers? Anyways I still haven't been able to find the place where I can rent the advanced GIB to see if it is better. Is it still available to rent? I'm sure it was in the past, any help is appreciated. Thanks

[hv=pc=n&s=s98532hkq2daqcqt6&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=2s(Weak%206%20to%2010%20points%206%20card%20suit)d(take%20out)p]133|200|Interesting bidding decision[/hv] I have a strict 4 rules I use whenever I have the option of passing out a low level take out double for penalties. I'll post my decision of what I did and the reasons for it after people have had the chance to cast a vote. Cheers

The bids were from the GIB explanation of what they mean to GIB. They were NOT my interpretation of the bids but GIB's As I stated in the post, I read the explanation of the bids, before I made them.

[hv=pc=n&s=skqjhkj65dcakj754&n=sat87hqt8daq6cqt8&d=n&v=b&b=13&a=1c3d4d(Cue%20bid%20forcing%20to%204%20spades)dppr(Cue%20bid%20forcing%20to%204%20spades)ppp]266|200|So GIB passes 2 cue bids when we are almost cold for 6 clubs :angry: I checked the GIB meaning for bidding the cue bids before making them [/hv] No, I did not play the contract. Truly this bug is truly incomprehensible. Unless I was teaching beginning students I really wouldn't play with this type of player in a live game. Other times GIB has been unable to count to 13 tricks literally in their own hand after knowing that all key cards were present, or misplayed a suit slam that I think absolutely no one would ever do literally taking a 8% line of play instead of a 60% line of play (see my thread GIB Grrrrr below this one). I've been unable to find the advanced GIB robot for renting on the site, is it still available? Do these types of mistakes happen with the advanced GIB? Thanks

If you play 4 suit transfers sure, some players play 3 ♠ as transfer to both minors; same thing after 1NT - 2♠, if this is the case then stayman and bidding the minor suit is a good way to make a forcing minor suit bid.

If you choose to start 1 ♥ instead of 2 NT then after 1 ♥ - (1 ♠) - 2 ♣ (2 ♠) one continuation is... 3 NT - (Pass if they are smart) - 4 ♣ (interested in ♣ slam, otherwise why go past 3NT) - (Pass) 4 ♥ (cue bid and indirectly warning about ♦ since ♦ were not cue bid) - 4NT (key card ask) (4 ♠ can also be used as keycard ask by agreement in this sequence) - 5 ♣ (0 or 3 keycards) 6 ♣ (to protect the King of ♦) If south opens 2NT then 3 ♣ (usually stayman) 3 ♥ (♥ suit) - 4 ♣ (cancels stayman, interested in ♣ slam otherwise why go past 3NT) 4 ♥ (cue bid for ♣ hand good for slam indirectly warning about ♦since cue-bid was bypassed) - 4NT (keycard for ♣) (4 ♠ can also be used as keycard ask by agreement in this sequence) 5 ♣ (0 or 3 key cards) - 6 ♣ (to protect King of ♦) Good luck

Et voilà! Here's how it looks like: [hv=pc=n&s=sakqjt98765432hdc&n=shakqjt98765432dc&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=7hp7sp7ndppp&p=cas2dah2]640|480[/hv] OK, so the obvious question is... how did north think he would win the first trick? Or any tricks for that matter? Or was he so pissed off with partner for outbidding him on this hand... ? :lol: BTW, I think it would be a slightly better hand if all 4 hands played their respective Aces on trick one... :blink:

3 ♠! :blink: Thanks, I admit I was searching but I didn't see this bid. :(

Hi Possum, I think that I can understand your point of view regarding many strange conventions not being alerted online. I'm an older player also, 50's+ B-) and truly detest so called "destructive bidding systems" strong pass and other "brown sticker" systems. That being said I love ALOT of different conventions and try to incorporate as many as possible into a 2/1 system. I'm also a true believer in absolutely full disclosure and alerts in bidding and defense. Also I believe in taking full responsibility to alert and fully explain to the opponents, everything in bidding understandings, for instance when we use a convention and partner is answering in response to asking bids. (this means that I'm responsible for using the convention correctly AND explaining it to the opponents correctly, in the startup AND also in the following bids). However, I remember about 20 years ago when I started using Multi 2♦ openers as weak in a major, OR 2 NT opener, OR 4441 openers 18+ points. It certainly took alot of time for people to get used to the system and I ended up getting some undeserved tops simply from using this convention. As others got used to the system they found out that they could usually wait a round if they had a normal hand to see what was up, without many problems. I believe that most players that have difficulties bidding against unusual systems feel this way because it takes them out of their "comfort zone" of bidding because they aren't prepared for it. I find unethical behavior on the part of players to be a much more prevalent problem though, cheating in the cards of course, live finger signals between players, tapping, voice inflection when bidding without bidding boxes and such. One other thing that really got me angry though when I was younger, was the psychological pressure that "more experienced" players tried to use on me to try and belittle my playing and bidding and defense to gain an advantage later on. For example, in the guise of "helping" me they would try to insinuate that I should have "covered an honor with an honor" like they wanted me to. :) I found that the best way to answer was to explain how they made mistakes in declaring the hand and showing them the line of play which would have guarenteed them making their contract no matter what I did. Rant over also, ;) Cheers!

So after a practice session watching GIB robots messing up many hands, going down in cold games and so on, this slam sent me a bit over the edge. I'm sitting south. [hv=pc=n&s=saq97hkq92da94cq7&w=s652ht4d752cj8632&n=sk8h8765dkq8cak54&e=sjt43haj3djt63ct9&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1np2cp2hp6hppp&p=ctc7c2ckh7h3h2htc3c4c9cqd4d2dqd3h5hah9h4s3s7s2s8h6hjhqc6s9s5sks4d8d6dad5sas6castsqc8c5sjd9d7dkdth8djhk]399|300[/hv] Can someone please explain to me how GIB thinks that this is a good line of play? As far as I can tell it will only work if East has specifically AJ10x of trumps. How can GIB think that this line is better than simply playing East for the Ace of trumps? Why does GIB make such simple mistakes that most beginners would not make? FYI During the bidding I was looking at the different bids GIB uses and found that there was absolutely no way to set ♥ as trump and ask for Aces or even trump quality. Ok, rant over I guess.