robot leads

[bluecalm]

I didn't quarrel tbh. I just stated facts.

This is too obvious to discuss in expert forum. Anyway I am done with it, the concept is ridiculous so have it for yourself.

[dake50]

Ok, I see.

We have new expert forum for people to defend ideas like robot leads. Awesome !

 

This only shows you have no clue how good players think about this game.

You will never see anyone good saying things like: "well, I would lead this and this but now let's see if bidding suggest otherwise". In fact if you were to defend such reasoning you will instantly be seen as someone not very good no matter where this reasoning leads you to in particular deal.

 

 

***

Every expert partnership I know publishes CARDING AGREEMENTS (including opening leads).

Do you assert they should publish auction agreements instead?

Is CARDING AGREEMENTS not how "good players think"?

Astounding this is so obviously in front of you and your experience of bridge,

yet you decry that thinking.

At least open your mind to the POSSIBILITY that a rational person can start

from CARDING AGREEMENTS and yet play well.

[bluecalm]

I think you don't understand what robot leads are.

They are not carding agreement. They are agreement about what suit you choose to lead from.

Anyway, I think you are just a troll because of this:

 

Do you assert they should publish auction agreements instead?

 

Is CARDING AGREEMENTS not how "good players think"?

 

I've never asserted anything like that.

Anyway I offered helpful advice which is to forget about silly idea of robot leads because no good player ever think like that.

If I wasn't right on this one I would be ridiculous to state this as a fact but alas I am right which you can easy verify by asking good players you come across.

Ok I am done with responding to your posts.

[Zelandakh]

Opening lead tables date back to (at least) Culbertson. Indeed this is how I learned. It did not take very long to find out that this was a poor idea most of the time. Several authors have published material about how important it is to vary your lead according to the auction.

 

Finally, a plea to everyone here - please let us try to avoid "forum police" mentality, at least publicly. If you believe a post is misplaced in this forum then send a message to Ben about it. Equally a plea to Ben - could we perhaps remove such "wrong forum" messages since they only serve to derail threads and cause bad feelings to develop?

[pigpenz]

Are robot leads related to the cd/book "switch in time"?

[bluecalm]

I've read it long time ago so I am not sure but I don't recall it having anything about robot leads.

Very interesting book imo, even if I don't like every idea they talk about there it make you think about meanings of signals a lot and a lot of this stuff is applicable to more standard signalling methods.

[pigpenz]

I've read it long time ago so I am not sure but I don't recall it having anything about robot leads.

Very interesting book imo, even if I don't like every idea they talk about there it make you think about meanings of signals a lot and a lot of this stuff is applicable to more standard signalling methods.

Thanks for info just saw it on bridge today site and wondered if they were related

[dake50]

My reply was to dake50 for his trollish post, not to you.

 

Again, I honestly don't know what could motivate them to advance this idea (and with such intellectually dishonest argumentation too as quoted by PrecisionL). If someone come to this forum and propose something similar they would be ridiculed in no time. Granovetters deserve the same and even more so as they writing could be taken seriously by some naive souls and thus do some damage.

 

***

More trollish --- if you think that the programmers

of robots will never surpass what you claim you are able to do,

look at what robots did to master chess.

To assert that that can't/won't be done without

ANY justification IS QUARRELLING!!!

[Zelandakh]

look at what robots did to master chess.

But this thread is not about bridge computer leads, it is about leading from a given holding in a suit in preference to a given holding in another suit regardless of the auction. The chess equivalent of this would be to always play the first legal move from the list: e4, Nf3, Bc4, Nc3, d3, 0-0, Be3, Qd2, Rad1 regardless of what black has done in the meantime. I hope you can see the flae in this argument. Even the current generation of bridge computer programs do not ignore the bidding when choosing a lead. If you believe it is such a good idea, why do you think the programmers of robots do not use it? Could it be that the bridge programs are actually already smarter than you?

[dboxley]

Ok, I see.

We have new expert forum for people to defend ideas like robot leads. Awesome !

This only shows you have no clue how good players think about this game.

You will never see anyone good saying things like: "well, I would lead this and this but now let's see if bidding suggest otherwise". In fact if you were to defend such reasoning you will instantly be seen as someone not very good no matter where this reasoning leads you to in particular deal.

 

***

So you won't lead K from KQJ1098 against 3NT?

That's a preferred lead, high on any list of leads.

I defend that reasoning. Don't impute a red-herring

just for your inability to rationally discuss this topic.

 

This from a player who usually gives up a trick on opening lead... I do it because I tend to overthink lead situations. Does this auction call for a trump lead, an attacking lead, a passive lead, is declarer prepared for a lead of my suit or partner's suit? Actually, the better the opponents, the easier it is to pick the correct lead but it is still sometimes random. I'm not suggesting that you shouldn't think but saving some brain energy by following blind rules when nothing else presents itself seems like a good idea to me.