Jinksy

Can it do this already? I can't find a way - as far as I can tell, GiB only operates when the play is over, after which point there seems to be no way even to manually backtrack, and see what tricks were available if you'd played in ♠s instead of ♥s or whatever.

So does that make it 800 or 1600 for each overtrick?

What's your approach at the 1 level with very strong hands without self-supporting suits - say AKJxx AKxx Kx Qx when they open 1♣♦♥?

Even after 2♣ 2♦ / 2N 3♦ / 3N, opener can cue to show a good hand not quite up to a superaccept (though I'm not sure why on this hand he's not).

From Gnasher in another thread:

Maybe it depends on how serious your serious slam tries are, but why is someone with 3 keycards, 6ish HCP to spare for their bidding and at least 6 playing tricks criticising someone with 2 keycards, a jack spare for their bidding and about 3 playing tricks for not pushing harder for slam than they did? Aces are useful cards, but they don't work miracles.

What if you're too high? Eg in the thread I gave where you hear 4♦ to your right, wank thought that X then pull to 4S should roughly show a black 2-suiter. Do you disagree? If not, where's the cut-off point between that and your normal X-then-bid meaning?

Here's a question I would like and don't have a meta-rule for: How do you determine whether X-then-bid is an extra strength hand, or two places to play, neither of which is the suit advancer just bid?

It was facetious. In the UK at least, a lot of older partnerships still play strong 2s, which means a lot fewer awkward decisions. I can just about imagine finding someone who plays all 'preempts' strong over here.

Game all RHO deals and opens 4♦. You have KQJ63 97 A92 AQ7 What's your call a) at MPs b) at IMPs? If you X, do you intend to bid 4♠ over P's 4♥?

Curious: do others feel the same? My instinct matches jillybean's - with 4-card support for P, I'd very rarely bid a side suit first.

It obviously helps the program that uses it - probably far more so by being artificial in a way the other AIs aren't specifically programmed to deal with. But I don't see why an AI winning that way is of much interest to anyone - it's essentially a bug exploit.

No, but the higher the precision in either the better, right? That said, I'll take B&A's data against anyone's instinct unless that instinct is backed up by comparable data.

Giving a computer a Moscito-like program in a tournament seems like cheating, or at least very contrary to the spirit. You want the coders to be developing the best-playing AI, not have to spend half the development time rewriting its bidding understanding to deal with a specific competitor's differences.

This seems weird to me - it feels much more efficient to give both the same option, since part of takeouts is allowing penalty passes. Surely this forces you to undercompete when you have shortage (or strength) sitting over a bid?

[hv=pc=n&s=s54hakqjt43dj3cqt&n=sakj6h9852dk4ca98&d=e&v=e&b=6&a=p4hp6hppp]266|200[/hv] I've had to make up the pip cards, but I think the Cs are right. W leads a ♥. Stress and nervous tension are now serious social problems in all parts of the galaxy and it is in order that this situation should not be in any way exacerbated that the following facts will now be revealed in advance: both the A♦ and the Q♠ are onside, so you'll probably make this on any plausible line. Nonetheless, with apologies to Douglas Adams, what would the best line have been had you not known that?

I have the book next to me, and it matches my memory - it's frustratingly light on test cases for this question. Of the hands they discuss in the chapter (inc quiz hands), very few of them compare two <4 card major suits, and of those that do only one has as much as a king outside the suits. On that hand, (#5 from the quiz), the 3-card major slightly outperforms the 2-card one, but unfortunately is headed by JT, so it's hard to tell whether the honours or suit length contribute more. It makes a lot of sense to me that on slightly stronger hands, a longer-short major would work though - partly because with greater expected partnership strength you don't necessarily need to set up a 5 card suit so it will do better just by being passive, but mostly because if opener has such as Kxx or Ax in the suit, he'll only be able to hold up once. Then if you've led from a doubleton successfully (ie hit P's suit), declarer will be able to put you in safely if he needs to set up his side suit, but if you've led from a tripleton successfully, neither hand is safe.

I've got the book upstairs, so I'll have a look now, but my memory is that this is an oversimplification of their results, which sometimes favour the 3, sometimes the 2 (occasionally the 1). I don't think they convincingly establish a clear rule, but I certainly came away with the impression that with a solid entry, a longer-short-suit lead looks better.

It does look that way <_< (though I'd bet against BBO randoms, the C lead would be way more popular)

Stayman for me, partly since I don't know what xfer to ♥s then 2♠ is supposed to show. If this hand, then obviously I bid that. After a 2♦ response I'll sign off in ♥s (again, assuming no special agreements about the meaning), after a 2M response I'll sigh and then bid game.

Incidentally, on the actual hand, partner had KQx of Cs and declarer had 10 tricks on top on any other lead. That said, I was dummy with Axxx AQx xxx Jxx, and the sequence had actually been 1N 2♣ / 2♥ 3N. I wasn't sure about Stayman but decided with two bullets and two wide open suits it was worth a go. Since on that auction a ♣ lead stands out a mile, I wondered whether I'd blown the contract.

My guess is that both major and ♣ leads will have a higher chance of setting the contract on this hand than their equivalent on the other, but that the increase is greater for the majors, pushing one of them to the top. At MPs I would expect them both to increase again, with a smaller difference, but with major lead still coming out on top.

Yeah, the gist seemed to be that the weaker leader's hand is, the shorter the major they should lead. It wasn't exactly conclusive, though.

Was E's second X for penalties? If so, pulling seems wrong at MPs when W has a relatively defensive hand and a poor D suit. On the actual hands, I suspect even 2♠X -3 would still have been a top in club bridge, and I think a ♠ lead would get you 800 in on best defence, assuming S had his bid.

This looks quite different to me. With a hard entry in the C suit but not much else by way of defensive tricks there, I'd expect this to come out more strongly in favour of a major lead at IMPs. At MPs I'd guess the single honour is less risky than the KJ holding.