thepossum Posted September 21, 2019 Report Share Posted September 21, 2019 Hi all Please ignore the final contract - I could have considered Blackwood but .... the cue bidding by North seems crazy to me - maybe I should have bid straight to 4H and not bid 3H (I erroenously regarded it as an invite, not strong) but....still please concetrate on the cues :) [hv=https://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?lin=st||pn|thepossum,~~M25465m0,~~M11016cp,~~M11030zs|md|4SKQ832HKT4DK852CQ,SA765H9853DJ74C98,STHAJ762DAT9CAJ52,SJ94HQDQ63CKT7643|sv|n|rh||ah|Board%202|mb|P|mb|1S|an|Major%20suit%20opening%20--%205+%20!S;%2011-21%20HCP;%2012-22%20total%20points|mb|P|mb|2H|an|Forcing%20two%20over%20one%20--%205+%20!H;%2012+%20HCP;%2013+%20total%20points;%20forcing%20to%203N%20|mb|3C|an|twice%20rebiddable%20!C;%205-11%20total%20points%20|mb|3H|an|3+%20!H;%205+%20!S;%2021-%20HCP;%2015-22%20total%20points;%20forcing%20to%203N|mb|P|mb|4D|an|Cue%20bid%20--%201+%20!C;%205+%20!H;%201+%20!S;%20no%20!CA;%20!DA;%20no%20!SA;%2015+%20total%20points%20|mb|P|mb|4H|an|3+%20!H;%205+%20!S;%2015-18%20total%20points|mb|P|mb|4S|an|Cue%20bid%20--%201+%20!C;%205+%20!H;%201+%20!S;%20no%20!CA;%20!DA;%20!SK,no%20!SA;%2016+%20total%20points;%20forcing%20|mb|P|mb|5H|an|2+%20!C;%202+%20!D;%203+%20!H;%205+%20!S;%20no%20!CAK;%20no%20!DAK;%2015-16%20total%20points|mb|P|mb|P|mb|P|pc|S4|pc|SK|pc|SA|pc|ST|pc|S7|pc|C2|pc|SJ|pc|SQ|pc|S3|pc|S5|pc|H2|pc|S9|pc|CA|pc|C4|pc|CQ|pc|C8|pc|H7|pc|HQ|pc|HK|pc|H3|pc|H4|pc|H9|pc|HA|pc|C7|pc|H6|pc|D3|pc|HT|pc|H8|pc|D8|pc|D4|pc|DA|pc|D6|pc|HJ|pc|C3|pc|D5|pc|H5|pc|D9|pc|DQ|pc|DK|pc|D7|pc|S8|pc|S6|pc|C5|pc|C6|pc|S2|pc|C9|pc|DT|pc|CT|pc|D2|pc|DJ|pc|CJ|pc|CK|]600|400[/hv] What I don't understand, in relation to programming bids with highly specific meanings is how its possible for some uch erroneous bids to occur. Isn't it simple logic to bid 4C, not 4D etc - I know opps bid clubs - but one table got a 4C cue - go figure - then 4S with a singleton ten. Does GiB sometimes have a random bid generator? regards P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted September 21, 2019 Report Share Posted September 21, 2019 Comment 1: GIB is notoriously bad at cue bidding. I would hesitate to draw any conclusions based on its bidding Comment 2: GIB uses simulation based methods. In theory, if you are using advanced bots, the same auction / line of play should always result in identical behavior. If you are using basic bots, who knows. Comment 3: I agree that GIB should have bid 4!C. However, when GIB doesn't bid 3!C you should re-value you hand upwards (GIB should not have HCP's that are wasted opposite your shortness) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thepossum Posted October 15, 2019 Author Report Share Posted October 15, 2019 Thx Hrothgar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zhasbeen Posted October 18, 2019 Report Share Posted October 18, 2019 Thx Hrothgar I would add inappropriate use to "bad". This particular use is recurring, and is one I've seen more times than I want to remember. I have referred to it as "tear your hair out cue bid" because it forces you to an uncomfortably high level. GIB also likes to cue bid opponent's suit with and without a stopper there. You have all suits covered except opponent's and GIB is cue bidding it. Does "he" have it or not? Tear your hair out trying to decide what to do. It would be nice if he would just bid no trump when he has a stopper. 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.