bixby

Just finished playing in the Daylong MP (A) game. On deals 5, 6, and 8, where I had 9-card trump fits (deal 7 was at notrump), the adverse trumps broke 4-0 three times in a row. It doesn't even bother me any more. I just expect it when playing here.

Can I mention that I hate, hate, hate the robots' intermediate jump shifts? I've tried to give them a fair amount of time so that I could get used to them, but I still get a feeling of dread every time they come up. As far as I can see, they are an "invitation" to disaster. I'm not going to argue about the theory of which kind of jump shift is best. I assume the ultimate goal of programming the robots is to maximize customer satisfaction. So I want to register my strong dislike of this bid. I think the only thing I dislike more is when I use RKCB and GIB jumps to the six level because it has a void. I understand that we don't get to pick and choose what agreements the robots are going to play. I'm sure whatever the programmers do to make some customers happy makes other customers unhappy. But boy, intermediate jump shifts make me unhappy, and I wanted that on the record.

Playing with and against robots, I was in 3d seat, none vul, and it went P - (3H). I was 5-1-3-4 with 14 HCP. The description of DBL was: "3-5 C; 3-5 D; 2- H; 3-4 S; 14+ total points." The description of 3S was: "6+ S; 14-19 total points." So following an opening 3H bid, DBL shows 3-4 spades and 3S shows 6 or more spades. What am I supposed to bid with 5 spades? I couldn't find any bid that showed that.

And smerriman, yes, your experience was even worse!

Thank you all for these replies. Yes, I checked the description of 3H before bidding it. The descriptions given above are GIB's own descriptions of the bids involved. The full description of 3H is "Splinter -- 1H; 5+ S; 21- HCP; 18-22 total points; forcing to 3NT."

GIB's hand: A854 / K74 / 973 / KJ7 My hand: KQJ10632 / 9 / A5 / A109 I was third hand. The bidding went: P P 1S P 2C (1) P 3H (2) X 4H (3) X P (4) P P (5) (1) Drury (2) Splinter - thinking that we could have slam if GIB has, e.g., xxxx / Axx / Kxxx / Kx (3) Shows HA, denies DA, CA (4) Not sure what to do, but thought that it might be better to pass and let GIB try Blackwood than to try it myself. If GIB bids 4S I can still decide whether to continue (5) ?? What?? Hey, I want my money back!! Sheesh! Seems like a bug.

I see. Thank you for this reply.

When accessing BBO from my mobile phone, I can't register for a Robot Rebate 55% game. That form of play doesn't show up in the list of available games when I choose Robot World from my phone. It works fine when I access BBO from my laptop.

[hv=pc=n&s=sjt9642hj6dktc632&w=s3hqt72dj987ca987&n=sakq8hak53da654c5&e=s75h984dq32ckqjt4&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=p2np3hp4sppp]399|300[/hv] In an ACBL regional event yesterday, North opened 2NT with a small singleton club. I don't know what he was planning to do if South bid 3NT -- presumably pass and take his chances. As it happened, N/S got to 4S making 6 for a slightly below-average score. Almost everyone was in the same contract. A few pairs reached the slam, doubled E/W in 5C, or, sadly I'm sure, played it in 1D. Is the 2NT opening bid legal in the ACBL? If not, what would the ruling be?

It is listed as having "0 views." I assumed that meant no one read it. If you have a means of reading the suggestions without incrementing the number of views, I didn't realize that. Thank you for your reply.

1. In the new BBO, the convention card won't print out on one page. Is there a way to do this? Perhaps I need to change a setting? 2. As I posted the other day (no one read it), when playing Robot Reward, it would be nice if, as in the old version of BBO, you could see not only your own score, but all players' scores, so you would know how much you need in order to move up or down, and what the winning positions are.

I like the new version of the BBO software, but when playing Robot Reward it shows only your current score and your current ranking. In the old version, it also showed everyone's score, so you could see how just how far ahead or behind you were as the play went along. It also showed how much everyone stood to win if they maintained their current ranking. This additional information was very useful in this form of play. Could this be restored in the new version?

And hrothgar, thank you for suggesting that bet, but you're not getting the full point. The bias against 3-2 splits doesn't apply to all deals. It only kicks in when the human declarer is thinking, "ah, good, now all I need is a 3-2 split." Probably the system provides a bias in favor of 3-2 splits on other deals so that the statistics work out overall. It really is a diabolically clever bit of programming.

Oh yes, I know you're all scoffing at me, I expected that, but let's just check out this deal, shall we? It occurred just now, only a few hours after my post: Matchpoints, I am in second position at favorable vulnerability, and I hold: KQ64 / AKQ5 / A4 / A85 After a pass by East I open 2C, and with opponents silent it goes: 2C 2D 2NT 3H 3S 5NT ?? 5NT is described as "Quantitative invte to 7NT. 5S, 11-13 HCP." Now what? After some thought I decide that even though 7NT is inadvisable because I am at the low end of my point range, 7S seems worth a try in light of my prime points and good spade fit. 7S is passed out, and on the opening lead of the CQ I see: A8752 86 KJ8 K32 KQ64 AKQ5 A4 A85 Brilliant! 7NT would require a diamond finesse or some other piece of cleverness or good fortune, but I am going to claim 7S after simply drawing one round of trump, because even if trumps are 3-1 I can draw trumps, discard a low club from dummy on my third heart, and ruff dummy's third diamond in hand. Only a 4-0 trump split can beat it. I win the opening lead in hand, congratulate myself once again on having made the right choice in a high-level bidding situation, and plunk down the SK, upon which robot West gives me the sickening familiar long pause that is, of course, the prelude to showing out. Down one. Only a 9.6% chance, you say? Not around here!!

How many times in BBO robot play have you said to yourself, either immediately upon seeing dummy or after a couple of tricks have been played, "ah, good, now all I need is a 3-2 split." Well, that is the time to kiss your contract goodbye, because the BBO robots are specially programmed to split 4-1 whenever that happens. Except that a 5-0 split is also permitted. And I've seen more 4-0 splits in a week on BBO than in a year off it. Oh, I know you're going to deny this, or say it has something to do with imperfect human shuffling, but the cards at my bridge club are computer dealt, so I'm very used to computer-dealt hands, and boy, if the BBO robots don't have a built-in "now all I need is a 3-2 split" detector, they sure act like they do. Five missing cards are supposed to split 3-2 68% of the time, and if I get a 3-2 split on BBO 50% of the time when I think "now all I need is . . ." I'd be surprised.

After a competitive auction, my side was on defense and I was contemplating my opening lead when the declarer, a pretty decent player who was playing with a less experienced player, explained one of my bids to his partner, by way of giving his partner a small bridge lesson. Except that the explanation was completely wrong. Maybe it would have been right in the system the declarer and his partner were playing, but it was wrong in the system I was playing with my partner. Frankly, it didn't make any sense to me in any system I'd ever heard of. But put that aside. The main point is that it was not a correct explanation of my bid in the system I was playing with my partner. Did I have any obligation to correct this mistaken explanation? Declarer had asked no question; he had only explained his understanding of my bid to his partner, the dummy. I said nothing. Was that appropriate? And what about my partner, who also said nothing?

Recently, playing in a robot game on BBO, I opened 1D in second seat and the bidding went: (P) - 1D - (1S) - 2S (P) - ? As expected, 2S was described as limit raise or better in diamonds, 11+ total points. I had 15 HCP and stoppers in all the suits, so I innocently bid 3NT. My robot partner raised to 6NT. Then I checked the description of my 3NT bid and saw that it showed 18-19 HCP! I went down one. Now, I know I could have checked the meaning of 3NT before bidding it, but why would it show so many points? My partner had shown 11, I had 15, all the suits were stopped, so it seemed obvious to bid game in NT. What other bid could I have made to force to game in NT without risking going beyond 3NT? If I'd bid 2NT, couldn't partner pass? And if I'd bid 3 of a suit, couldn't partner go on to 4D? So I don't see what I was supposed to do.

Just in the last few days, a problem has arisen whereby the screen flickers a lot while I'm on BBO. Occasionally the screen blacks out entirely for a couple of seconds and then comes back. It's very annoying. Is anyone else having this problem? Can the BBO people say whether it's caused by something at the BBO end? Is there any setting I can adjust to fix it? My computer updated itself a few days ago so that might be part of the problem too, I don't know. If it matters, my computer is Windows-10 based and I access BBO via Chrome.

I agree that it would be useful if the payment prompt identified which tournament you were about to pay for. It actually does so if you are on a mobile device, but not if you are on a PC. I have also accidentally paid for the wrong tournament once or twice. Obviously none of this is that big a deal. It's just a small suggestion.

There is no need for the "A" in the names of the "Daylong Tournament (IMP) A" and the "Just Declare Daylong (MP) A". The "A" is needed in the name of the "Daylong Tournament (MP) A" to distinguish it from the "Daylong Tournament (MP) B" and the "Daylong Tournament (MP) C". But as there is only one IMP and one Just Declare daylong tournament per day, the "A" designation is unnecessary in those tournaments, and including it only makes the various daylong tournaments harder to distinguish from one another. It would be easier for players to pick out their desired tournament if the "A", "B", and "C" were present only in the names of the MP daylong tournaments.

Thank you all for these thoughts. Here's the rest of the story: [hv=pc=n&s=sa42h8dkq64caqj42&w=sqt9haj74dt93c987&n=skj853hqt6da7ct53&e=s76hk9532dj852ck6&d=e&v=e&b=6&a=p1cp1sp2dp3cp3sp3nppp]399|300[/hv] As you can see, I turned the deal upside down to ask the question. The hand shown as yours was really your robot partner's hand. Your hand was really the South hand shown now. The deal was one of the last deals I encountered on the final day of the recent NABC Robot Individual event. I don't know if my bids were the best possible, but my choices were not uncommon -- they occurred 9 times out of the 30 times the deal was played. Following the sequence shown in the question, the robot came up with . . . 3NT! I was rather disappointed when I saw my partner's hand following East's lead of the H3. Naturally West won the HA and returned a heart (the 7) to East's HK. By good fortune West had the HJ and East had the CK so after a simple club finesse we made all the remaining tricks for +460, but that was still below average as everyone in a spade game made at least +480, and there were a few pairs who reached 3NT on some other auction and made +520 after getting a different lead. But really, why choose 3NT knowing of the 8-card spade fit and having no guarantee that partner has anything in hearts? I was baffled. Thanks again for your thoughts.

[hv=pc=n&s=skj853hqt6da7ct53&d=w&v=e&b=16&a=p1cp1sp2dp3cp3sp]133|200[/hv] MPs, E/W Vul. Playing with the GIB robots in an individual event, what is your next call? 3S is described as "5+ C; 4+ D; 3 S; 21- HCP; 18-22 total points; forcing."

Excellent. Thank you, Barmar.

One second is longer than you think it is. I would say that half a second would be sufficient as a delay between cards within a trick (maybe even a bit less); perhaps 1 second would be a good delay at the end of a trick. But what's happening right now, with a delay of basically zero, is, IMHO, too fast for human comfort, particularly with regard to the time needed between the end of a trick and a robot lead to the next trick. (Sorry, I don't know how to merge the topics.)

Barmar, thank you for that reply. I appreciate the speed, but it is disconcerting to have the robots play so fast that after the human player leads to a trick the next three cards can zip by almost instantaneously and then get wiped off the screen by a robot's lead to the next trick before the human can even see what they were. If the robots are going to play that fast then I would suggest that there at least needs to be a pause before a robot leads to the next trick so that we human players can see the cards for a moment before they disappear. If the robots play that fast during the upcoming NABC Robot Individual a lot of people are going to notice! Thanks for your consideration.