Multiple Lessons for GIB

[calm01]

http://tinyurl.com/736k7rq

 

This hand raises several issues:

 

- the description of GIB East 3NT bid bears no relationship to its holding,

- the actual GIB East holding bears no relationship to a hand wanting to play in 3NT,

- based on the description of partners 3NT bid, why did GIB West bid 6N and not 6H,

- six of seven GIB Easts seemed to bid the same way - only one found a better bid,

- lead partners suit (even when partner is a robot) or it might cost a swing of 2070 points.

 

As always still laughing - the alternative is crying.

[Bbradley62]

- the description of GIB East 3NT bid bears no relationship to its holding...

Aw, c'mon... the description lists four attributes, and three of them match East's holding. :P

[Bbradley62]

- based on the description of partners 3NT bid, why did GIB West bid 6N and not 6H[?]

Because 6N is likely better if East has 4045 distribution?

[Bbradley62]

- six of seven GIB Easts seemed to bid the same way - only one found a better bid

MBC, IMPs. The auction was the same at 14 tables. http://online.bridgebase.com/myhands/hands.php?traveller=M-1319346108-30662752&username=calm01

At one table, South psyched, and this was the 16th: [hv=lin=pn|skydoc,~~M4267pun,~~M4500ok0,~~M4507de6|st%7C%7Cmd%7C1S2689H4678D258C27%2CS47TAH3JQKADJC6JQ%2CS35H5TD346TQKAC89%2C%7Crh%7C%7Cah%7CBoard%203%7Csv%7Ce%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C1H%7Can%7CMajor%20suit%20opening%20--%205%2B%20H%3B%2011-21%20HCP%3B%2012-22%20total%20points%20%7Cmb%7C3D%7Can%7CAggressive%20weak%20jump%20overcall%20--%206%2B%20D%3B%2010-%20HCP%3B%203%2B%20total%20points%20%7Cmb%7Cd%7Can%7CNegative%20double%20--%204%2B%20S%3B%209%2B%20total%20points%20%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C4S%7Can%7C5%2B%20H%3B%204%2B%20S%3B%2021-%20HCP%3B%2016-22%20total%20points%20%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cpc%7CDK%7Cpc%7CD7%7Cpc%7CD5%7Cpc%7CDJ%7Cpc%7CDA%7Cpc%7CD9%7Cpc%7CD8%7Cpc%7CS4%7Cpc%7CC6%7Cpc%7CC8%7Cpc%7CCT%7Cpc%7CC7%7Cpc%7CC5%7Cpc%7CC2%7Cpc%7CCQ%7Cpc%7CC9%7Cpc%7CHA%7Cpc%7CHT%7Cpc%7CH2%7Cpc%7CH6%7Cpc%7CHK%7Cpc%7CH5%7Cpc%7CH9%7Cpc%7CH4%7Cpc%7CHQ%7Cpc%7CS5%7Cpc%7CSK%7Cpc%7CH7%7Cpc%7CC4%7Cpc%7CH8%7Cpc%7CCJ%7Cpc%7CS3%7Cpc%7CDQ%7Cpc%7CCK%7Cpc%7CD2%7Cpc%7CS7%7Cpc%7CHJ%7Cpc%7CDT%7Cpc%7CSQ%7Cpc%7CS2%7Cpc%7CCA%7Cpc%7CS6%7Cpc%7CST%7Cpc%7CD6%7Cpc%7CH3%7Cpc%7CD3%7Cpc%7CSJ%7Cpc%7CS8%7Cpc%7CC3%7Cpc%7CS9%7Cpc%7CSA%7Cpc%7CD4%7C]360|270[/hv]

[Bbradley62]

- lead partners suit (even when partner is a robot) or it might cost a swing of 2070 points.

Love this! A subset of "play to win the post-mortem"!

[georgi]

It has been corrected for the next update.

Won't bid 3NT without certain stoppers.

[xxhong]

I think the key issue is to play the double as seeking for a stopper in D instead of negative doubles. A pure negative double here is difficult to play.

 

http://tinyurl.com/736k7rq

 

This hand raises several issues:

 

- the description of GIB East 3NT bid bears no relationship to its holding,

- the actual GIB East holding bears no relationship to a hand wanting to play in 3NT,

- based on the description of partners 3NT bid, why did GIB West bid 6N and not 6H,

- six of seven GIB Easts seemed to bid the same way - only one found a better bid,

- lead partners suit (even when partner is a robot) or it might cost a swing of 2070 points.

 

As always still laughing - the alternative is crying.

[calm01]

You have to have a good reason not to lead partners suit and South does not have a good reason and the failure to lead partners suit cost 2070. While this failure was by a human player, GIB will never be a good partner until consideration is given by GIB to leading partners suit.

 

Recently I doubled a 2D response on my right to a 2C opener on my left. The description of my double was showing rebiddable diamonds. GIB still failed to lead diamonds while having no good reason for any other lead.

 

If GIB was human most of his/her partners would have little hair left! LOL.

 

On the question of 6NT being superior to 6H in case parter is 4045:

[calm01]

bbradley62,

 

Thanks for the helpful update on the statistics of the hand. I usually agree with your assessments but not on this hand.

 

A decision to lead partners suit comes before the result not after the result. So it is only a matter of post-mortem in the sense that the player that cost 2070 points for a failure to lead partners suit without a good reason might end up dead at the hands of the team-mates at the team review bridge table!

 

While this particular failure was by a human player, GIB will never be a good partner until consideration is given by GIB to leading partners suit. This is a high priority for fixing because the issue has such a high frequency of occurrence.

 

Recently 2C was opened on my left, partner passed and right hand opponent bid 2D. I doubled and the description of my double was showing rebiddable diamonds. GIB still failed to lead diamonds while having no good reason for any other lead.

 

If GIB was human most of his/her partners who could not see the funny side would have even less hair left than I have! LOL.

 

On the question of 6NT being superior to 6H in case partner was 4045:

 

- if partner was 4045, partner would not bid 3NT,

- if partner has a secondary stop in NT - say Q 10 9 x, 6NT would be one down when the likely Ace and then King of diamonds were led.

 

My contention that 6H is better than 6NT is now perhaps clearer.

[Bbradley62]

A decision to lead partners suit comes before the result not after the result. So it is only a matter of post-mortem in the sense that the player that cost 2070 points for a failure to lead partners suit without a good reason might end up dead at the hands of the team-mates at the team review bridge table!

That is exactly what is meant by the phrase "play to win the post-mortem". It means "do what will be most defensible in the post mortem, because that usually yields the best score anyway".

 

On the question of 6NT being superior to 6H in case partner was 4045:

 

- if partner was 4045, partner would not bid 3NT,

- if partner has a secondary stop in NT - say Q 10 9 x, 6NT would be one down when the likely Ace and then King of diamonds were led.

 

My contention that 6H is better than 6NT is now perhaps clearer.

Yes, I constructed that example badly. 3145 would have been a better example. I'd be curious to hear what kind of simulations GIB made to make his 6-level decision.