Irrational suit choices

[janeball]

Playing in Robot tournament 6194 board 12

My rh robot opened 1NT,

1NT 2H* 2S P

P 3C P P

P

*Hearts and a minor

My partner robot had JT of hearts and a singleton club and left me in 3C

 

Same session Board 4

I bid 4th suit forcing and my partner chose to play the fourth suit in a 3-3 fit at the 6 level instead of in a very makeable 4-4 fit in clubs.

The opponents did not bid

1H 1S

2C 2D

3D 4NT

5H 6C

6D

Given the difficulties of bidding 4NT with a minor suit I bypassed 4C because if the robot bid 5C there was no way I could do key card. It had bid two clubs and 6C is probably making. I realise this logic is harder to program than the first one it shouldn't be too tough

if realperson bids 4NT key Card then they become the captain and should be allowed to place the contract at the 6 level and the robot should subsequently pass.

[barmar]

First hand: What did the description of 3♣ say? Since you bid 3{CL] on your own, maybe it assumed clubs were longer than hearts. A 6-1 fit is better than a 5-2 fit.

 

Second hand: When you bid RKC for ♦, I think that sets the trump suit as far as GIB is concerned. I'll bet the description of 6♣ said "cue bid".

[janeball]

First hand: What did the description of 3♣ say? Since you bid 3{CL] on your own, maybe it assumed clubs were longer than hearts. A 6-1 fit is better than a 5-2 fit.

 

Second hand: When you bid RKC for ♦, I think that sets the trump suit as far as GIB is concerned. I'll bet the description of 6♣ said "cue bid".

 

Don't get me wrong I think the robots are great. Big blue beats humans at chess but a bridge program has not yet been developed that can beat a human. I know my problems are ones that can be fixed and in my opinion should be.

 

Why would the robot assume that my minor is longer than my major? This is another example where the robot does not make a simple suit preference. There are many. The robot had 2 honours in the first bid suit.

 

The second one is a recurring problem. Who ever bids KC is the captain and the robot should never over rule them at the six level. This is the rule in my human bridge partnerships. I don't think they would last very long if I went around 'correcting' my partner at the 6 level.

 

I know there are 6 level bids that extend KC but does the robot recognise them? I have just reviewed the robot CC and according to that they play the basic 4NT - 5NT bids with the normal responses. The 6 level bids I use are not listed so I assumed they were not coded.

[Bbradley62]

Jane: For Board 12, there are two separate (but related) questions: (1) What does GIB think 3C shows?, and (2) What should it show? Are you able to go back to the hand record and tell us what description is given?

[janeball]

Jane: For Board 12, there are two separate (but related) questions: (1) What does GIB think 3C shows?, and (2) What should it show? Are you able to go back to the hand record and tell us what description is given?

 

I can go back and it says '4+C, 4+H 3-S 11+ total pts

Exactly what I had, my hand is perfect for the 2H bid.

 

S:J H:KQ983 D:K42 C:AKxx

 

Aren't the robots JT of hearts just peachy?

 

I had 15 points and I am red against white so I definitely had my bid, A simple suit preference that prefers a doubleton to a singleton would seem a simple rational choice to me.

[janeball]

Jane: For Board 12, there are two separate (but related) questions: (1) What does GIB think 3C shows?, and (2) What should it show? Are you able to go back to the hand record and tell us what description is given?

My teacher - guymath is brilliant and he says I should have doubled rather than bid 3C.

[Bbradley62]

Jane: For Board 12, there are two separate (but related) questions: (1) What does GIB think 3C shows?, and (2) What should it show? Are you able to go back to the hand record and tell us what description is given?

I can go back and it says '4+C, 4+H 3-S 11+ total pts

My teacher - guymath is brilliant and he says I should have doubled rather than bid 3C {holding J, KQ983, K42, AKxx}.

I agree that it's right to double to show extra strength, which would imply (as Barmar suggested) that 3♣ shows extra shape. Therefore, the suggestion would be to change the description provided for the 3♣ bid, which likely is making it consistent with partnerGIB's understanding anyway.

[barmar]

Partner never asked you to show your second suit, and never supported your first one. It's only logical that you should have good clubs to bid them freely. The bid descriptions often don't match GIB's actual understanding, as Bradley pointed out.

 

Furthermore, wouldn't you have bid the same way if you had 4 hearts and 6 clubs? In that case, if GIB bid the way you want, I think we'd be in a thread asking why GIB pulled you out of a 6-1 fit into a 4-2.

[cherdano]

Partner never asked you to show your second suit, and never supported your first one. It's only logical that you should have good clubs to bid them freely. The bid descriptions often don't match GIB's actual understanding, as Bradley pointed out.

 

Furthermore, wouldn't you have bid the same way if you had 4 hearts and 6 clubs? In that case, if GIB bid the way you want, I think we'd be in a thread asking why GIB pulled you out of a 6-1 fit into a 4-2.

I don't know how GIB plays it but it would be terrible to play that either suit could be longer when bidding 2♥. Normal is 5+H, 4+minor, and hearts at least as long as the minor.

So it's a bug either way, in the definition of 2H or in GIB's decision to pass 3♣.

[barmar]

That's one of the reasons why I think Capp is a bad system over strong NT. If partner doesn't have support for your major, you're forced to the 3 level with potentially poor trumps. I've always thought that it would be better if it promised 4+Major, 5+minor, so if partner prefers a minor you're in at least a 5-2 fit. And why I prefer conventions like DONT and MECKWELL, where you can usually stop on the 2 level.