??? after partner doubles a preempt

[bluechip10]

[hv=pc=n&s=sjt63hq9dkt53c642&w=sq5h6daqj9742cq87&n=sk82ha74d86cakj95&e=sa974hkjt8532dct3&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=3ddp3sppp]399|300[/hv]

 

I ducked the opening H lead in hopes my HQ would be an entry to hand. Then the opps reminded me again about the power of a crossruff. :angry: After the hand, partner said I should pass 3DX. My view is that the double was OK but risky, and Lady Luck was not on our side. Thanks for the comments.

 

LOL. I would have passed with the north hand. First, we are red. Second, lousy shape. Now, if north passes, does preemptor's pard bid 3 hts? As I said above, a plus score is a good score.

another thing; with the opening lead, declarer pretty knows the red suit distribution. Declarer needs the clubs to be 3-2 with the Q onside. Tough hand, but hindsight is 100%

[miamijd]

[hv=pc=n&s=sjt63hq9dkt53c642&w=sq5h6daqj9742cq87&n=sk82ha74d86cakj95&e=sa974hkjt8532dct3&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=3ddp3sppp]399|300[/hv]

 

I ducked the opening H lead in hopes my HQ would be an entry to hand. Then the opps reminded me again about the power of a crossruff. :angry: After the hand, partner said I should pass 3DX. My view is that the double was OK but risky, and Lady Luck was not on our side. Thanks for the comments.

 

X is fine. 3s is fine. Sometimes preempts work.

[irishcafes]

Over a preempt, my goal is to get a plus. If pd has enough for a game, 3D is probably going down 3 for 800. Game may be difficult as spades may be 4/1. If game is not there, you are minus or at best 140, either score is worse than 200, the minimum I expect if I leave the double in. The only time that bidding gives a better result is when you can make game and 3D is only down two (or the rare chance you have slam).

[mike777]

pass seems clear....partner x= a debate

[PhilG007]

X is fine. 3s is fine. Sometimes preempts work.

That all depends if they are allowed to stand. More often than not the

opponents will compete.

[1eyedjack]

That all depends if they are allowed to stand. More often than not the

opponents will compete.

I have no opinion whether or not as a statement of fact you are correct (that more often than not the opponents will compete).

 

I do however have an opinion that, accepting it as accurate, it by no means informs us on the question of whether "sometimes preempts work".

 

On the minority of occasions when they do not compete, it will sometimes have been right to compete.

 

Likewise, a positive finite proportion of the time it will have been wrong to compete when they do.

 

And when they do compete they may be denied sufficient bidding space to find the correct spot.

 

So yes, sometimes preempts work, and no, that conclusion does not depend on whether they are allowed to stand.

[PhilG007]

I have no opinion whether or not as a statement of fact you are correct (that more often than not the opponents will compete).

 

I do however have an opinion that, accepting it as accurate, it by no means informs us on the question of whether "sometimes preempts work".

 

On the minority of occasions when they do not compete, it will sometimes have been right to compete.

 

Likewise, a positive finite proportion of the time it will have been wrong to compete when they do.

 

And when they do compete they may be denied sufficient bidding space to find the correct spot.

 

So yes, sometimes preempts work, and no, that conclusion does not depend on whether they are allowed to stand.

Totally disagree Anyway,I think it's time we had a head 2 head. I have issued a challenge. Ball's in your court,Bud.

I suspect you're English...my favourite victim. I am a confirmed Anglophobe. Bring it on !!!!

[PhilG007]

I have no opinion whether or not as a statement of fact you are correct (that more often than not the opponents will compete).

 

I do however have an opinion that, accepting it as accurate, it by no means informs us on the question of whether "sometimes preempts work".

 

On the minority of occasions when they do not compete, it will sometimes have been right to compete.

 

Likewise, a positive finite proportion of the time it will have been wrong to compete when they do.

 

And when they do compete they may be denied sufficient bidding space to find the correct spot.

 

So yes, sometimes preempts work, and no, that conclusion does not depend on whether they are allowed to stand.

In other words, Definitely Maybe ;)

[1eyedjack]

Have logged on briefly to accept (8 boards, MP, best hand). So point-a-board it is. Will have to wait to get home before playing them.

 

Just to be clear, are we supposed to be paying lip-service to what is sensible (in GIB's eyes), or do you expect to play GIB for all its foibles? I don't mind either way, as long as I know up front.

 

Incidentally, when I disagree with someone on the forums, I usually (as here) make an attempt to justify my opinion.

[PhilG007]

Have logged on briefly to accept (8 boards, MP, best hand). So point-a-board it is. Will have to wait to get home before playing them.

 

Just to be clear, are we supposed to be paying lip-service to what is sensible (in GIB's eyes), or do you expect to play GIB for all its foibles? I don't mind either way, as long as I know up front.

 

Incidentally, when I disagree with someone on the forums, I usually (as here) make an attempt to justify my opinion.

Since I haven't programmed these collections of nuts and bolts,I have no control over them. The only thing that

might give me a edge over these pesky cybernets is logic.

[Vampyr]

Totally disagree Anyway,I think it's time we had a head 2 head. I have issued a challenge. Ball's in your court,Bud.

I suspect you're English...my favourite victim. I am a confirmed Anglophobe. Bring it on !!!!

 

How do you disagree? Every statement is clearly true simply based on logic, even if you have never played bridge.

 

Why can't we remove up votes when we were intending to reply? I think that maybe 50% are because of this.

[1eyedjack]

Why can't we remove up votes when we were intending to reply? I think that maybe 50% are because of this.

heh, I think the only solution to that currently is to sprinkle around upvotes with largesse :)

[1eyedjack]

Since I haven't programmed these collections of nuts and bolts,I have no control over them. The only thing that

might give me a edge over these pesky cybernets is logic.

OK, feel free not to answer the question. No change there, I guess. Act of optimism to have expected one.

[PhilG007]

OK, feel free not to answer the question. No change there, I guess. Act of optimism to have expected one.

What I have written,I have written

[PhilG007]

OK, feel free not to answer the question. No change there, I guess. Act of optimism to have expected one.

I have completed my half of the challenge. Awaiting for you to do the same

[diana_eva]

 

Why can't we remove up votes when we were intending to reply? I think that maybe 50% are because of this.

 

I fixed that for you by abusing my super-powers :)

[Vampyr]

OK, feel free not to answer the question. No change there, I guess. Act of optimism to have expected one.

 

Looks clear that his answer is that he does not want to play by attempting to tweak the robots. Seems like a good idea since that is a skill but not a bridge skill.

[Jinksy]

I suspect you're English...my favourite victim. I am a confirmed Anglophobe.

 

That must be why you have such insight into the country's dominant bidding system.

[1eyedjack]

Looks clear that his answer is that he does not want to play by attempting to tweak the robots. Seems like a good idea since that is a skill but not a bridge skill.

The unfortunate thing about that is that he chose "best hand South" in the challenge format, which for those unfamiliar means that no other hand at the table will ever have more HCP than the human South, and the human South is permitted to know that and act accordingly. While that is equally the case for both human Souths in a head to head challenge, and there are aspects of skill that derive from that knowledge, it without a doubt distorts the game compared with a real life event. The robots, meanwhile do not adjust their strategy for this quirk, not that that really figures in anything.

 

Is there a distinction in principle between "gaming" GIB generally on the one hand and on the other taking legitimate advantage of your unusual knowledge of the HCP divisions in a best hand South event? I don't claim to know the answer to that. But I guess if the challenger chooses best hand South in the format, by default we are expected to capitalise on it where possible.

 

All that said and done, having played the set I can honestly say that there was only one hand where I felt that I did something outrageous in normal bridge terms, where on hand 3 I passed a forcing bid (1-suit response by a non-passed hand), having myself a v. min opener and knowing that North could not be stronger than me. It is a risky thing to do even so, and many's the robot tournament where I have done that and partner has shown up with sufficient compensating distribution to make game solid. I got lucky this time.

 

There was one other hand where I possibly strayed from the straight and narrow, in which I downgraded an 18 count and opened 1N. it turned out well when partner turns up with an ace and a king but no making game. It wasn't really deserving of a downgrade, not even being 4333 shape. I have observed in the years in these forums that everyone is dead keen on upgrading to qualify for 1N, but never the other way. My experience in robot tournaments is that opening 1N on 18 seems to work surprisingly well on average, and I can't put my finger on quite why.

 

Apart from those two hands I think I did everything that I would at a normal table playing robot system.

 

Hand 6 was quite an interesting one, at least so I thought, with some minor interest in the bidding but perhaps more in the play. I think I will post that one up in another post. PhilG and I replicated the auction on this one (there was only one other when we were in the same contract). We also halved the result in the play (by the end), but there were some missed opportunities to win the board.

 

The other hand (hand 1) where we ended in the same spot but by only slightly (uninformative) different routes, I received a more friendly opening lead, and I cannot think of any logical reason why GIB should have done that differently, so there is nothing to crow about there. I think my route was more middle-of-the-road GIB system on that one, not that that is a ringing endorsement of the route.

[jogs]

[hv=pc=n&n=sk82ha74d86cakj95]266|200[/hv]

 

 

If West had opened 1♦, what would North bid?

 

Double or 2♣? Would some even pass?