Express - Free Automated Fun

[Bbradley62]

1♦-(P)-3♦ is explained as:

Forcing. 5+D. INV (11-12) 5+♦. No 4card major.

I know almost no one declines invitiations, but it's still not right to call a bid both forcing and invitational. ;)

[Bbradley62]

#6035 Express - Free Automated Fun

Hand 6: one table ran out of time on Trick 12 with a very clear final two tricks; score stayed as Average. Maybe adjustments aren't made in the last round?

Okay, I see what's happening... adjustments are being made, but they're not being posted in the active "My Results" window on the right side of the screen. But, the final standings reflect the adjustments and results in "Recent Tournaments" include the adjustments.

[barmar]

1♦-(P)-3♦ is explained as:

Forcing. 5+D. INV (11-12) 5+♦. No 4card major.

I know almost no one declines invitiations, but it's still not right to call a bid both forcing and invitational. ;)

Sounds to me like they copied the description from the 2/1 CC, which uses inverted minors. An inverted minor single raise is invitational or better and forcing for one round. They changed it to just invitational, but forgot to remove forcing.

[Bbradley62]

My partner for this hand is a Robot.

P -(P )-1♣-(2♦)

Db-(3♦)-3♥*

*explained as 5+C; 5+H; 21- HCP; 3-card C; 13-22 total points.

I don't think I've shown either 5♣ or 5♥.

[Bbradley62]

In most tournaments, if a player is substituted during the play of the hand, that sub is at a disadvantage because he doesn't know what cards were played before he got there. Does GIB have that problem when he subs in these events, or does he "know" what cards have been played?

[uday]

GIB knows what cards have been played.

[cloa513]

GIB does not what cards have been played. It does not use a card play plan. It simulates at every step. It can only not play a card not in its hand.

[Bbradley62]

GIB does not what cards have been played. It does not use a card play plan. It simulates at every step. It can only not play a card not in its hand.

Your first sentence is clearly not true, assuming you meant to say "GIB does not know what cards have been played." GIB knows, for example, that his Q is good when the A and K have already been played. If RHO has shown out of a suit, GIB knows he can safely finesse LHO for the missing cards. He takes all known information into account when running his simulations.

[Bbradley62]

Yes, there is a short term exposure to people who can manage to stall out the game. That will be resolved down the road with a tournament filter that will prevent people with "too many" incomplete boards from joining the express Ts.

I'm looking forward to this being implemented. There are people who get up to 4 Averages on 6 boards because either they're too slow for this format and they know they can avoid a bottom by stalling.

[barmar]

He takes all known information into account when running his simulations.

The key word is "known". It doesn't take inferential information into account. So if a finesse works the first time, it doesn't assume it can repeat the finesse.

[Bbradley62]

The key word is "known". It doesn't take inferential information into account. So if a finesse works the first time, it doesn't assume it can repeat the finesse.

So, he gives opponents credit for sometimes being smart enough to hold up?

[barmar]

So, he gives opponents credit for sometimes being smart enough to hold up?

No, I'm talking about leading towards the KJT, finessing the J, and the opponent winning with the A. Later it leads toward the KT and plays the K.

 

Yes, I know there are some hands where it turns out to be necessary to falsecard like this, but they're quite rare (and end up being the stuff of bridge legends when great players find the play at the table).

[Bbradley62]

No, I'm talking about leading towards the KJT, finessing the J, and the opponent winning with the A. Later it leads toward the KT and plays the K.

Ok. I've never seen him do anything like that.

[barmar]

I've seen it a number of times, most recently yesterday or today. My GIB partner went down in a cold contract due to that misplay. And this was in a tourney (probably Robot Reward), so it was the advanced GIB.

 

Similarly, GIB knows not to underlead an ace on opening lead against suits. But it doesn't know that the opponents know this. So when the opening lead is through a KJ in dummy, it almost invariably plays the K, while every decent player knows that the J is the right play (on the rare ocasions when LHO has found the clever underlead, you congratulate him and pay out).

[Bbradley62]

Similarly, GIB knows not to underlead an ace on opening lead against suits. But it doesn't know that the opponents know this. So when the opening lead is through a KJ in dummy, it almost invariably plays the K, while every decent player knows that the J is the right play (on the rare ocasions when LHO has found the clever underlead, you congratulate him and pay out).

I was told many years ago that men underlead aces and women underlead queens. :blink:

[Bbradley62]

Partner opened 1♥ and I responded 2♦. The explanation said that I had shown 4 clubs.

[Bbradley62]

The explanation of 4m responses to 2N-3♠ (MSS) says 4-4m. Shouldn't that be 4+?

[Bbradley62]

I'm working on a filter now that will allow us to restrict these events to people who don't bail out of the middle of too many Ts. Once we get that in, we can try longer Ts ( say an hour long ) and use IMPs.

With the increase in EFAF to six times per hour, I thought I'd revisit this. Any chance of making some of the games IMPs?

[Rain]

This particular tourney type is only 6 boards. Isn't IMP going to be too swingy?

[Bbradley62]

As opposed to the randomness that exists now? I think enough players would prefer IMPs to justify making it one or two of the six hourly games.

[albertaold]

My only peeve is already mentioned. Players doing the biding have carte blanche to wreck the game. They bid real idiotic then time out the hand to get average. I have seen it where they didnt think they were going to make it and timed it out and tournament director adjusted board to give them the bid. It should be 1 min for first wait time then 20 seconds for playing time. This would stop players from wrecking the concept of these tournaments. Or maybe a reporting of players that do this so they can be blacklisted from express tournaments.

[barmar]

Every time I play one of these, I vow it will be my last. The lack of chat gives people carte blanche to do whatever they want, they don't have to worry about partner giving them a hard time about it.

[Bbradley62]

The movement appears to be something other than random. However, in the 3-table 80%TCR game finished 25 minutes ago, two players played against each other in 5 of the 6 rounds. Not surprisingly, they finished first and last.

[barmar]

An individual player can expect that to happen to him about every 1,000 3-table tourneys, if I got my math right. For it to happen to any random pair in a tourney is going to be far more common.