1eyedjack Posted May 9, 2015 Report Share Posted May 9, 2015 [hv=sn=1eyedjack&s=SKJHJ7DA765CKQ952&wn=Robot&w=ST832H94DKQ2CA643&nn=Robot&n=SAQ9754HKQDJT4CT8&en=Robot&e=S6HAT86532D983CJ7&d=n&v=o&b=1&a=1S(Major%20suit%20opening%20--%205+%20%21S%3B%2011-21%20HCP%3B%2012-22%20total%20points)3H(Aggressive%20weak%20jump%20overcall%20--%207+%20%21H%3B%2010-%20HCP%3B%203+%20total%20points)D(Negative%20double%20--%204+%20%21C%3B%204+%20%21D%3B%209+%20tota)PPP&p=SKS2SAS6C8CJCQCAH4HQHAH7H8HJH9HKCTC7C2C3SQHTSJS3H5D5D2S7H6D6C4D4H2C5S8S9D8DADQDTCKC6S5H3D3D7DKDJSTS4D9C9]400|300[/hv]MP, Instant, 33 I really don't know if I should be posting this hand. It could be argued that the decisions are borderline, even though the outcome of those decisions is dramatic. Perhaps the fact that it is MP is influential. We are informed that GIB takes scoring into account. If this auction is reasonable at MP I sincerely hope that it would be different at IMP. Maybe the fault lies with my X? Perhaps KJ should be enough to treat as primary support. Possibly of interest, at other tables (earlier version of GIB), following the identical start, North pulled the X to 3S, raised to 4S by South. What is not obvious to me is whether the difference in treatment results from an evolution of bidding rules or, alternatively, whether it was simply the result of a different random number seed for simulation purposes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iandayre Posted May 9, 2015 Report Share Posted May 9, 2015 In my opinion your double was automatic. So should have been GIB's takeout to 3S. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.