1NT should take precedence over inverted minor raise

[mgoetze]

[hv=sn=mgoetze&s=SAJ65HKT85D96CK64&wn=Robot&w=S43H9763DAKQ87CJ3&nn=Robot&n=SKTHAQJD5432C9852&en=Robot&e=SQ9872H42DJTCAQT7&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=1D(Minor%20suit%20opening%20--%203+%20D%3B%2011-21%20HCP%3B%201)P2D!(Inverted%20minor%20suit%20raise%20--%204+%20D%3B%203-%20H%3B%203-%20S%3B%2010+%20HCP%3B%20forcing%20to%202N)PPP&p=DKD2DJD6DAD3DTD9DQD4S2S5D8D5H4C4CJC2C7CKH5H3HAH2HQS8H8H9HJS9HKH6HTH7C5S7S6S3SKSQSTCASAS4SJD7C8CQC3C9CTC6]640|480[/hv]

 

This is a pretty ugly 2♦ bid, I would much prefer it if GIB would bid 1NT with this hand.

[BillHiggin]

This is a pretty ugly 2♦ bid, I would much prefer it if GIB would bid 1NT with this hand.

You think the 2♦ bid is ugly. Guess what the bot thinks of the 1♦ bid?

[helene_t]

or the pass of a forcing bid for that matter. But I agree, 1NT is probably better although a notrump contract might play better in the South hand.

[mgoetze]

You think the 2♦ bid is ugly. Guess what the bot thinks of the 1♦ bid?

I dunno, you tell me. :P

 

I do this all the time in robodupes, BTW.

[mycroft]

absolutely, as should many people, which is why I have issues with robodupes == bridge (especially the L40 implications).

 

Don't knock it, it's a great game, and does require a lot of skill, but "engineering misdefence by psyching 30+% of hands" isn't my idea of a "bridge skill".

[42krunner]

I'm not at that level yet. Do you guys have strategies for how you psych the bots?

[1eyedjack]

I'm not at that level yet. Do you guys have strategies for how you psych the bots?

I recommend experimenting a bit.

I don't think that "real" psychs work that well, ie according to the legal def (by which I mean GROSS mis-statements).

But slight variations seem to have a reasonable effect.

One common method is to open the weaker minor and hope you don't get to play there. Not something that you can do in a human game too often due to the implicit agreement arising.

Another is to open or rebid NT on slightly off-shape or (perhaps less successfully) off-values hands.

One of my favourites (there is an earlier thread about it) is to lie in response to Stayman. You would not promise a major that you do not have, but denying a major when you have one works quite often.

 

Here was another example

[hv=pc=n&s=skq3hq976dk72caqt&w=st5hk85dt654ckj75&n=sj986ht4daqj9c964&e=sa742haj32d83c832&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=ppp1np2cp?]399|300|MP, Robot tourney, best hand South[/hv]

 

One poor sod bid by the book, rebid 2H, responder rebid 2N, and South took a bit of a view to raise to 3N.

Spade to the Ace, Club to the T and J. Heart to the Ace. Club to the Q and K. Club back and goodnight.

He was probably a bit philosophical at the 25% misfortune of both Club finesses failing, but it must have smarted a bit when he found he got 0% of the matchpoints. OK, leaving it in 2N would have netted an average-ish result, but 3N was not that bad a spot.

 

At my table (91%), the bidding and play replicated by one other player who had the same idea, it went (uncontested)

1N-2C-2D-2N-3N

 

Spade lead, and then, you've guessed it, Heart back and continuation.

 

 

Doesn't always work so sweet, of course.