hotShot

This Basic GIB does not plan the play. So it doesn't know that it can take the winners and run home. Instead GIB uses informations from the auction for its sample set and given that S showed 5 ♦ the change that S has both ♦Q and ♦J is about 4/6. Again there are many tricks for the declarer and no way to keep defenders from taking ♣A (and ♣Q). The typical set where many cards make no difference at all, reducing the selectiveness of the sample set. If you press the DD-GIB button it tells you that playing ♣ will just make and any other card will allow an overtrick. You can't see the situation when it's Wests turn to decide which card to play, but we expect about 4/6 of the samples show that the finesse will work. So playing the finesse is the logical choice from the sample set. GIB does not even know what a finesse is and is unfamiliar with the concept of safety. So although there are samples where E will go down playing the finesse, the finesse is the move that works 4/6 of the time providing an extra trick.

I think I would pass on both. These hands it seems are not ours.

As I understand the scenario there started 3 trains in one hour perhaps following a schedule. Once they started their round, they are randomly delayed or if the distance between them get to short systemically accelerated, because the leading train picked up everybody already allowing the following train to make shorter stops. So a typical scenario would be that 2 trains will have a short interval (e.g. 6 minutes) between them while the 3rd will have a bigger one (e.g. 27 minutes) .

I would think the usual pattern is "the played cards often do not matter" which reduces the usefulness of the samples. Declarer misses Trump AK. These tricks are lost the cards played to these tricks do not matter. Trumps are 2-2 it even matters less. Declarer has ♣AK (single) ♦AKJ ♥AKQ (void) In the top tricks and the ruffs the cards off defenders don't matter much. So I would say the pattern is many quicktricks or ruffs => No significant differences between the tested plays => a) one unusual sample gains a lot of weight b) an inferior play has the same weight as the good play and is randomly picked

I assume this was done by a Basic GIB. Ruffing the ♥A seems to be a typical error caused by a sample size that is to small .

What if I hold 12 HCP with 3 of them in a single K, am I not allowed to use judgement that this hand is worth less than average 12 HCP counts? How frequent has my partner to miscount his HCP so that I'm required to act?

Although it seems like a nice feature, i see a little problem with it. Assume a hand that would require you to bid 3NT using your methods, but the DD sees that you can make only 8 tricks. Should the par Score be 3NT-1 or 2NT ? Or the other way round Using your methods you found that 2 keycards are missing so you did not bid slam. Fortunately the trump K will drop/the finesse is working so that DD the slam is always made. Should the par score be 6M or 5M+1 ? Based on your methods neither you nor your partner was able to enter the auction, but your side could make 3♣-1 when opps played 2M. What should the par score be? Perhaps one could take the par score from the result list e.g. the contract bid on most tables, but that is most likely biased too.

What to bid now is irrelevant, as the problem was caused by North pass last round. A bidding system that forces North to pass his 12HCP balanced hand with support or at least tolerance for the unbid suits, definitely puts you in an disadvantage playing against preempts.

Have you thought about the possibility that W might have been sarcastic or ironic? EW bid game in red! That should be reason enough to double

Years ago I did not find a way to do it when building a database of simulated deals with DD results, so that I could use database request instead of calculation power.

Well I thought that ♠AQ ♥K ♦AQ and ♣K would be enough for 6 tricks but I guess there is a drop somewhere to limit it to 5 loser.

DD Simulations are tricky. You need to be absolutely clear about what question you want to get answerd and once the simulation has finished you need to recheck if the result you got is really an answer to the question you wanted to ask. It is possible to answer the question what percentage opps could make game/slam on deals you would preempt. (But it won't tell you if your preempt applies any pressure on opps.) If that percentage is "low" your preempt style might be to solid. You could ask for the percentage of preempts in minors where your side could take e.g. 7 tricks. If that percentage is "low" your preempt style might be to aggressive. If you ask for the percentage where opps find their best spot after your preempt. DD simulations can't give you the answer. As for this study DD-Simulations don't seem to be very helpful. But I think it is obvious that a preempt is reducing the bidding space and by that limiting the amount of information that can be transported by bidding. This will usually result in less accuracy in opps bidding, giving them an opportunity to guess wrong.

I think it is unlucky. Look at this very similar deal.... [hv=sn=1eyedjack&s=ST95HAQJT65DK2CAJ&wn=Robot&w=SHK732DAQ874CK853&nn=Robot&n=SKJ873H9D65CQ9764&en=Robot&e=SAQ642H84DJT93CT2&d=n&v=o&b=1&a=PP1N(notrump%20opener.%20Could%20have%205M.%20--%202-5%20%21C)P2H!(Jacoby%20transfer%20--%205+%20%21S%3B%2011-%20HCP%3B%2012-%20total%20points)P2S(Transfer%20completed%20to%20S%20--%202-5%20%21C%3B%202-5%20%21)D(Takeout%20double%20--%203+%20%21C%3B%203+%20%21D%3B%203+%20%21H%3B%202-%20%21S%3B%2014-20%20total%20points)PPP&p=H2H9H8H5STS4S5D4S3SASJC5H4HQHKS7S8S6SKD8HAH7C4S2SQD2H3S9D3D6DAD5C3CQCTC7C6C2CAC8HJD7C9DJHTDQCJD9H6CKDKDT]380|270[/hv]MP, best hand South.

Well Berkshire Hathaway had it's yearly stock holder meating. A german newspaper reported he said: "Es kann bald sein, dass wir mehr Geld haben, als wir intelligent investieren können."

It is reported here that W. Buffett said something like this: We will soon have more money than what could be intelligently invested. I read that as: There is so much money around that some investors already don't know where to put it intelligently. It would explain the recent economic crises like the mortgage crisis. Assuming there was more money to loan than what people were able to borrow and repay. It would also explain why people invest into financial products (e.g. derivatives) that they don't understand.

If GIB would know all 4 hands, it could do a Double-Dummy-Analysis and play perfectly. This is not the desired behavior, so GIB only knows his own hand, the played cards, the bidding and the cards in dummy. All GIB can do is Double-Dummy-Analysis, so it needs a deal to analyze. So GIB generates a random deal that has the same properties than the actual deal. The random deal can be close to the real board but it could also be to far away from the real thing. This is where the sample size comes into play. Instead of looking at one random deal, it generates and analyses "sample size" many deals playing the card that is best in most of them. In this deals if the sample size is 2, GIB analyses 2 random deals. For the first card played in trick 2: If N has the ♦ J in both of these 2 deals, GIB will start trick 2 assuming the finesse fails. If N has the ♦ J in one of these 2 deals, the finesse will be less attractive to GIB If the ♦J is with S in both samples (and S has 4♦) GIB will go for the option finesse. Note that even if GIB has lead a card to trick 2, it does not yet know what it will do when it's dummy's turn. But of cause the played card influences the options GIB has when it's dummy's turn. When GIB is about to play the 3rd card to trick 2, it generates and analyses 2 new random deals, because now GIB knows that the S hand had the ♦2. If N has the ♦ J in both of these 2 deals, GIB will have to play for the drop.. If N has the ♦ J in one of these 2 deals, GIB will see a draw between drop and finesse and will randomly pick one of the options. If the ♦J is with S in both samples (and S has 4[DI), GIB will play the 10. So if you look at helene_t's statistic on the sample size, you realize that with more deals in the sample, the finesse gets less attractive. The reason for that is that with the bigger sample the finesse often fails and since the 3-2 split has 68% and the 4-1 split only 28%. playing for the drop has the better chances. Given a sample size big enough, GIB might even discover that playing the ♦A first is a good idea.

GIB does not play like a human and it does not have a "plan". It does not use something like suitplay to solve a play problem. GIB generates random deals that have the same cards in its own and and in dummy. It also places the played card into the unknown hands. The rest of the cards are dealt randomly (using information from the auction). GIB generates a number of such deals and solves each of them DD. After that GIB plays the card that is best in most of the deals. This is why GIBs play gets better the more cards are played. With less unknown cards and more information about the distribution, the pool of generated deals is closer to the real deal and with less cards involved the DD-Analysis is faster so that GIB can test more deals in the same amount of time. To understand GIBs play you have to look at the pool of similar deals it generates. In this case the pool must have had a hand with the 4th♦J in the South hand. Perhaps there was no hand generated where finessing the J failed because it was in the N hand. From a strategy point of view GIBs weakness is the first 2 tricks.Especially if your side did not bid at all. The DD-Analysis for the first trick takes the longest time. Therefor the samplesize of the pool of generated deals is small. With little information available, this small sample could include deals that differ a lot from the actual deal. GIBs play in the context of the actual deal could than seem strange.

uday ist right of cause. If you take a closer look, you see that all relevant distribution of ♠ and ♥ will lead to 3 tricks each suit for declarer. Declarer loosing a {CL] to the A is also unavoidable. So the only difference in tricks that are likely to occur is from the 32% of 4-1 or 5-0 distributions in ♦. If the long ♦ are with N, declarer will lose a ♦ trick as J98x(x) would be behind QT5 and there is only one save entry to the table. So if you generate random distributions for NS there is a 16% chance that S hat 4 or 5 ♦ and these deals are the only ones that make a difference in the number of tricks (unless N has single J). No x-ray vision just plain probabilities.

My Impression is that S wants to ruff 2 ♦ in dummy. I want at least on of these tricks, so I take ♦A draw trump with ♠A and follow with ♠9. Now I expect our side to get another ♦ trick and another trick in ♥.

A forum is best suited for discussions, while bridgewinners is more like a blog with comments. You can answer to a comment, but one should stop there. Have you seen wikiarguments? ( http://en.wikiarguments.net/ ) You can argument pros and cons and vote arguments up and down. Interesting approach. Maybe I'm old fashioned but I prefer a forum. One click to get an overview about new posts,and enter relevant threads from there. But I can understand that a forum is not the first choice for mobile devices.

Bridge has changed a lot since i last posted here, 1NT with a 5M and a single ...

The adaption process for plant and animal life is not that easy as you might think. e.g. fish need a specific water depth and temperature to spawn, since the coastline does not move they might not find suitable conditions a bit further north/south. The ecological system is quite complex, if not all species adapt at the same speed the whole process can fail.

Partner could investigate 7, but he did not, so i guess he does not hold much kings. I would expect lots of queens and jacks. So I'll stay in 6♠.

I dont think that pass is an option. Whe know that partner is most likely short in ♠ and that even if he has enough strength (e.g.8-9 HCP) for game, he does not have a bid over 2♠. So I think that 2NT is mandatory.

Perhaps you might like to post to the Gib Robot discussion subforum: http://www.bridgebas...bot-discussion/ This is where all critics about GIB is bundled. Several of the bidding bugs reported there have been changed. So an effort there is not necessarily a waste of time.