Chocolate or Vanilla?

[uva72uva72]

[hv=pc=n&s=skq5hat97dtcqj753&w=st97hkdkj97cat982&n=sa8432hj65432da6c&e=sj6hq8dq85432ck64&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=pp1cp1hppdpp2hdppp&p=sjs5s7sah2h8hthks9s3s6sqhac2h3hqsksts4d2dtdjdad3s8d4c3c8s2c4c5c9d6d5h7d9h9cthjd8h6c6c7cah5dqcjd7h4ckcq]399|300[/hv]

 

Matchpoints, ACBL robot individual

 

When I saw that I had gotten only 43% of the matchpoints for +480 on this hand, I rushed to see how other players had managed to reach the excellent 21-HCP slam opposite a passed hand. The attachment is what I found. Actually, only 1 (brilliant, in my opinion) declarer found the re-raise to 2♥, recognizing that it was a lock for overtricks and that, once derailed, the robots would not right themselves. The other declarers who outscored me got +660 in 1♥ doubled making 5 overtricks.

 

This hand, in my opinion, takes the cake. A 6-card suit and 8 HCP and the robot leaves in a 1-level double. Is it yet time to say that there is a problem with take-out doubles in version 3.1 that did not previously exist?

[Bbradley62]

Analyzing these things is almost always easier if you include the GIB-provided explanations, to help determine what specifically is the problem. I don't know why South's bids are not explained, but they're not the problem.

 

[hv=bbo=y&lin=pn|human,~~M34429,~~M34427,~~M34428|st%7C%7Cmd%7C3S5QKH79TADTC357JQ%2CS79THKD79JKC289TA%2CS2348AH23456JD6AC%2C%7Crh%7C%7Cah%7CBoard%209%7Csv%7Ce%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C1C%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C1H%7Can%7COne%20over%20one%20--%204%2B%20%21H%3B%2011-%20HCP%3B%206-12%20total%20points%20%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7Cd%7Can%7C5-%20%21C%3B%204%2B%20%21D%3B%205-%20%21H%3B%204%2B%20%21S%3B%2012-16%20total%20points%20%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C2H%7Cmb%7Cd%7Can%7C5-%20%21C%3B%204%2B%20%21D%3B%205-%20%21H%3B%204%2B%20%21S%3B%20biddable%20%21H%3B%2012-16%20total%20points%20%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cpc%7C]360|270[/hv]

 

The explanation of the first double clearly indicates that it's take-out, and it should be taken out. However, the explanation of the second double includes "biddable hearts", which is clearly nonsense.

[cloa513]

Analyzing these things is almost always easier if you include the GIB-provided explanations, to help determine what specifically is the problem. I don't know why South's bids are not explained, but they're not the problem.

 

[hv=bbo=y&lin=pn|human,~~M34429,~~M34427,~~M34428|st%7C%7Cmd%7C3S5QKH79TADTC357JQ%2CS79THKD79JKC289TA%2CS2348AH23456JD6AC%2C%7Crh%7C%7Cah%7CBoard%209%7Csv%7Ce%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C1C%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C1H%7Can%7COne%20over%20one%20--%204%2B%20%21H%3B%2011-%20HCP%3B%206-12%20total%20points%20%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7Cd%7Can%7C5-%20%21C%3B%204%2B%20%21D%3B%205-%20%21H%3B%204%2B%20%21S%3B%2012-16%20total%20points%20%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C2H%7Cmb%7Cd%7Can%7C5-%20%21C%3B%204%2B%20%21D%3B%205-%20%21H%3B%204%2B%20%21S%3B%20biddable%20%21H%3B%2012-16%20total%20points%20%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cpc%7C]360|270[/hv]

 

The explanation of the first double clearly indicates that it's take-out, and it should be taken out. However, the explanation of the second double includes "biddable hearts", which is clearly nonsense.

Probably the biddable hearts comes in from East leaving in the double- the fact that is ridiculous for East to leave it in is of course not handled.

[iandayre]

One can hardly fault the explanation for the second double, whatever it may be. I can understand the programmers not planning for the possibility that an opponent, in a position to pass out a doubled contract, would instead raise!

 

That said, whether this problem is new or not, it must be fixed immediately.