GIB defended against my squeeze

[kuhchung]

[hv=http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?sn=vidchung&s=SAQ92HA82DAK72CK9&wn=Robot&w=S5HJ4DQ5CAT876532&nn=Robot&n=S7643HKQT975DJTCQ&en=Robot&e=SKJT8H63D98643CJ4&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=4C%28Preempt%20--%207+%20!C%3B%2011-%20HCP%3B%203+%20total%20points%29PPD%28Takeout%20double%20--%202-%20!C%3B%203-5%20!D%3B%203-4%20!H%3B%29P4H%284+%20!H%29PPP&p=D4DAD5DTH2H4HKH3H5H6HAHJC9CACQC4CTS3CJCKDKDQDJD9D2C8H7D8S4STSQS5H8C6HQS8HTD6S2C7H9D3D7C5S6SKSAC2S9C3S7SJ

]400|300[/hv]

 

(sorry, how do i put the diagram in the post directly?)

(thanks stephen!)

[frisbee]

Unfortunately, Robots often play random cards when following suit and you can make impossible contracts. It can be very annoying when you properly play a squeeze (and expect a good result) to see that it is only an average because, at other tables, a Robot threw away a potentially winning card (here the ♦8). You just have to remember that the Robots are poor bidders and poor card players. Sometimes that works to your advantage; other times, not.

[kuhchung]

i wasn't complaining. i thought it was really funny. of course i only have myself to blame for not noticing that he unguarded the beer early

[Stephen Tu]

(sorry, how do i put the diagram in the post directly?)

Click on the link to get the full URL expansion (www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer ...). Select URL in browser address bar, copy to clipboard.

Post here using:

[hv=(paste URL here)]400|300[/hv]

[Lovera]

It has to be noticed that : at 7th trick when 8♦ is discarded by E you have the extra trick. If you think at a positional when you have an impasse (here in spade) If a single ( or double) squeeze works it being it a direct squeeze (and not indirect or preliminar) the impasse situation can be considered as winner and than this squeeze works at 10 trick.

[billw55]

Robot threw away a potentially winning card (here the ♦8).

Not even a potential winner, just an outright winner. All the diamonds have been played, and the 7 is in dummy! I did think this is the kind of thing GIB would not do. Or was it so smart that it realized it could be squeezed anyway and gave up?

 

 

 

 

 

[NickRW]

Or was it so smart that it realized it could be squeezed anyway and gave up?

 

That would be typical robotic logic.

 

It is not unheard of, for example, with say, Qx in trumps behind dummy's AKxx, for that defender to lead trumps "because obviously declarer will play for the drop". Generally speaking robots don't know that you don't know.

[steve2005]

This problem came up in early chess programs. The computer would see a threat 3 moves ahead so would sacrifice a pawn or a lesser piece. Now the threat is 4 moves away and out of sight for computers then. but next move the threat is still there so it throws away another piece away, repeat until computer has nothing. better hardware and software avoids this problem now. But is similar if sees is going to be squeezed the card is unimportant

[Lovera]

It should be discarded cards in order to value (as 2 is minus than 3 should be discarded early) and this one is not difficult to obtein in a suit and, in case of a type of squeeze, it had a better resulting remaing the choise of another card in the other suit (so if player doesn't count rightly GIB can win but this one in criss -cross squeeze it' d happen more usually).(Lovera)