Amerika

[pilowsky]

According to Kafka, "there's a lot of bias against foreigners in America".

Perhaps Kafka never attempted to discuss the merits of whether or not to open 1♥ vs 1♣ vs anything else with this particular hand from yesterdays daylong no 1.

Come to think of it, Kafka probably didn't play Bridge at all or little matters of bias such as Americans not liking Germans would not have bothered him at all. It must have been tough being a German-speaking Czech Insurance clerk with a disdain for work - and I think I've got problems.

 

Well, for 100%, finally, just for this one hand, in this little corner of Bridgeworld that is forever mine, I chose right.

What's your choice?

[hv=pc=n&s=sak82ha9875dakc97&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=p]133|200[/hv]

 

 

[hrothgar]

I make plenty of off shape bids

 

This one seems like an obvious 1♥ opening.

 

All of your points are Aces and Kings.

This plus the wide open club suit screams playing in a suit.

A 1♥ opening will give us the best chance to intelligently explore strain

 

If NT is the right strain, then it probably will play better from partner's side

 

Equally significant, while this hand has enormous playing strength if there is a major suit fit, NT could be a nightmare.

You have five cashing tricks and no club stopper.

Developing Hearts could be a nightmare.

 

The only alternative to 1♥ that I can conceive of is 2NT, which seems flawed on multiple levels.

[DozyDom]

If Kafka was Czech, it seems he would normally open 1C on this hand, since I think Precision and Polish systems are more common over there. Other than that, the rationale I imagine you're thinking of would be to avoid a club lead, against 3NT or against a slam. For me, making a decision on the contract is a cooperative process with my partner during the bidding, not a choice made before it starts.

[nige1]

[hv=pc=n&s=sak82ha9875dakc97&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=p]133|200| Pilowsky 'According to Kafka, "there's a lot of bias against foreigners in America". Perhaps Kafka never attempted to discuss the merits of whether or not to open 1♥ vs 1♣ vs anything else with this particular hand from yesterdays daylong no 1. Come to think of it, Kafka probably didn't play Bridge at all or little matters of bias such as Americans not liking Germans would not have bothered him at all. It must have been tough being a German-speaking Czech Insurance clerk with a disdain for work - and I think I've got problems. Well, for 100%, finally, just for this one hand, in this little corner of Bridgeworld that is forever mine, I chose right. What's your choice?'

++++++++++++++++++++

I rank

1. 1♥ = NAT. Goldilocks would approve.

2. 2NT = NAT. Misdescription and overbid. If you swop your Ms and ms, you might consider this.

3. 1N = NAT. Misdescription and underbid. Inferior to 2N because robots respond conservatively.

3. 1♣ = Ψ Mastermind. GIB is tolerant of such gambits but they infuriate and alienate human partners.[/hv]

 

Edited to include Pilowsky's cunning 1N opening.

Edited October 25, 2020 by nige1

[pilowsky]

Come to think of it, I also like the 1♣ opening but for different reasons. I've started playing 'short club' with GIB when I have two 4CM and a decent hand. There is a small risk of being raised to 3♣, but on balance it usually works.

I often upgrade 19 to 20 in 1st or 2nd seat with GIB, but never 18 because of the risk that North will go nuts - speaking of nuts,

 

What I eventually decided to do was downgrade to 17 and bid 1NT. Here's what happened.

♥Q led for 3D+1. 26 other people were in 1♥ pass pass pass[hv=pc=n&s=sak82ha9875dakc97&w=sj974hqjdjcat8542&n=st6h64dqt87642cj3&e=sq53hkt32d953ckq6&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=p1n2c3cp3dppp]399|300[/hv]

Here's the pbn

[hrothgar]

 

What I eventually decided to do was downgrade to 17 and bid 1NT. Here's what happened.

 

 

Stupid decisions sometimes work

[pilowsky]

Stupid decisions sometimes work

 

My modesty overwhelms me,

[apollo1201]

♥Q led for 3D+1. 26 other people were in 1♥ pass pass pass

 

Not getting what the point is. Neither if it qualifies as an « interesting bridge hand » (where does the interest lie in?).

 

Bidding 1NT is (as others said more or less clearly) wrong. The hand is much stronger and doesn’t have any pressure in ensuring playing the hand. Were I to make a bad bid, I’d chose 2NT. Surprising, though, that W acts over a strong NT but not over a mundane 1H opening if that gets passed out.

 

Anyway, as just proven here, being wrong doesn’t mean it will always lose. Sometimes it will work, but statistically not often enough to make it the right call. Some other call(s) will work better over time. Bridge is a probabilistic game with imperfect information (the hidden hands), and that is also what makes the spice of the game.

 

Last time I made a 4SF at 2D after partner had opened and I had 20 HCPs. The issue was partner had opened 1D (I was distracted) and passed my « surprising » 4SF that looked like a kind of forced preference. He ended up 2D+4 after a misdefence when all the other tables were at 6NT-1. I actually apologized to the opps and would never claim 2D was a good bid or was a « thinkable » bid. Just a mix of cartons between the bidding box and my brain.

 

The only thing I can think of is if you desperately need big IMP swings or tops to qualify. Then can you make anti-percentage calls, as if it works it is good for your rating, and if it loses (as you would expect more likely than not) you were still out had you played normally. Examples: finessing a Q with 9 cards, aggressively upgrading hands or overcalling, bidding slams with 4 KC and no Q in a 8-cd fit, going after games on 2 finesses...

[pilowsky]

You are correct, Bridge as you so cleverly put it is a game of probability.

It is designed so that the highest score goes to the person that can make a contract in the highest-scoring strain.

Just to give you a quick reminder that's No Trumps, followed by Spades Hearts etc.

Your little friend who thought the bid was 'stupid' is slightly clever. He went to MIT where Oswald Jacoby lectured. Jacoby was a lot cleverer - we can talk about that later.

Here are some simple numbers for you to ponder before bed.

 

I have the AKxx of spades therefore opps have on average 1 HCP in spades each

I have the Axxx of hearts therefore opps have on average 2 HCP in hearts each

I have the AK of diamonds therefore opps have on average 1 HCP in diamonds each

I have bubkas in clubs therefore opps have on average 3.3 HCP in clubs each (edit on account of genius friend of Borat)

 

Totalling you guessed it 40HCP

 

I'm playing a game where I really want to be in NT or hearts or spades which is where good old Mr Jacoby comes in. Transfers!! So I bid 1NT a lot in best hand tournaments because I know that I have the best hand. Here, all my shape is in the majors - another good reason to bid 1NT. What if North has spades?

You'll be interested to know, probabilistically speaking that playing it in the 'strong hand' really does give a slight edge, maybe only about 1-2%. To be honest, I wonder sometimes if transfers are worth the mental energy, but it's what GIB plays so I'm stuck with it anyway. It's an argument for another thread.

 

I have lectured in statistics to undergraduates and postgraduate students and to doctoral Fellows at multiple universities and reviewed statistics for multiple major scientific journals that I am a member of the editorial board of.

I don't know how to play Bridge for *****, but when I was 18 I used the law of restricted choice to change the way that birth defects were diagnosed around the world - that test is still in use today.

But thanks for reminding me about probability, it's good to know that it's important. I'll be sure to bear it in mind.

 

Regarding 'the interest' try to focus on the problem at hand. 26 people bid one way and 1 person coincidentally me this time but it could have been some other lunatic bids another way. The interest is in the oddity. Odd things are interesting that's where novelty comes from.

 

I suggest that you read Paul Feyerabend rather than Karl Popper if you want to understand how scientific investigation works.

If I only pay attention to what people tell me I 'should do' I will a) not make progress b) not invent anything new c) not improve d) not have fun.

[thepossum]

I can't really comment much on the hand but wish I could write like Kafka and get my feelings about the world into words that would be listened to/read

[JonnyQuest]

Well, . . . finally, . . . I chose right.

 

 

No, you didn't.

[DozyDom]

Another day, another reason to have a separate subforum for "Fun ways to bid at a table with three robots". I do genuinely enjoy these stories, and I do like to make off-piste bids and second-guess the robots myself. But if posts were clearly marked as being separate from real life, it would be easier to debate and discuss options. At a table with 3 robots, I still prefer 1H - but 1NT is now a considered and reasonable action that I would expect some friends to make. But if you post it in a forum about bridge and don't include a subtitle of "how would you best manipulate GIB here", you can expect that people will respond as if you are playing bridge, not the variant of competitive solitaire produced on BBO.

[hrothgar]

 

Here are some simple numbers for you to ponder before bed.

 

I have the AKxx of spades therefore opps have on average 1 HCP in spades each

I have the Axxx of hearts therefore opps have on average 2 HCP in hearts each

I have the AK of diamonds therefore opps have on average 1 HCP in diamonds each

I have bubkas in clubs therefore opps have on average 7.3 HCP in clubs each

 

 

Even if you assume that partner is CHO, I think that your calculation for clubs is off

[JonnyQuest]

Even if you assume that partner is CHO, I think that your calculation for clubs is off

 

Forget it, he's rolling . . . :blink:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8lT1o0sDwI

[nige1]

I have bubkas in clubs therefore opps have on average 3.3 HCP in clubs each

Typing error, no big deal, the argument is still clear

[AL78]

Surprising, though, that W acts over a strong NT but not over a mundane 1H opening if that gets passed out.

 

Not surprising to me. The result on any table can frequently depend on the pairs involved. If West is a fully paid up member of the I-will-not-defend club, they will make an awful 2♣ overcall. More sensible players will pass.

[pilowsky]

Another day, another reason to have a separate subforum for "Fun ways to bid at a table with three robots". I do genuinely enjoy these stories, and I do like to make off-piste bids and second-guess the robots myself. But if posts were clearly marked as being separate from real life, it would be easier to debate and discuss options. At a table with 3 robots, I still prefer 1H - but 1NT is now a considered and reasonable action that I would expect some friends to make. But if you post it in a forum about bridge and don't include a subtitle of "how would you best manipulate GIB here", you can expect that people will respond as if you are playing bridge, not the variant of competitive solitaire produced on BBO.

 

You do recall that old adage 'watch the bidding'? How about 'Read the post'? All daylongs are against three robots, Watson. This is the BBO Forum it's elementary. Most of the people that play here play against robots. They are interested in how to play and defend against them.

[Douglas43]

No need to be rude to Pilowsky just because something off-centre worked. If you are really looking for a swing that's one way to do it.

 

And I suppose with a robot is on lead against 1NT holding A108xxx it's quite likely to pick another suit...

[apollo1201]

You are correct, Bridge as you so cleverly put it is a game of probability.

It is designed so that the highest score goes to the person that can make a contract in the highest-scoring strain.

Here are some simple numbers for you to ponder before bed.

That is arithmetics, not probability or statistics. Before you lecture someone (or at least someone else than those poor students who couldn’t help but had to suffer it), at lest be sure to be as white as snow.

But I got you point about experimenting while discarding prior knowledge and theories in order to find new stuff. The bots are actually a good audience to practice that. Too bad they don’t post here as much as humans.

[Vampyr]

But this forum is “interesting bridge hands”. For most people examples of how to game the robots does not count as “interesting”. It would definitely be good to have a separate forum for how to play with robots. There was a thread about this recently; perhaps this is the place for these posts.

 

Most people I know do not play with robots. I do sometimes when it is free, but I’m not really interested in how to game the robots. I don’t know if many people are, but I kind of doubt it. I think that for most people, playing with robots is a way to keep their fingers busy while they are watching television.

[pilowsky]

But this forum is "interesting bridge hands". For most people examples of how to game the robots does not count as "interesting". It would definitely be good to have a separate forum for how to play with robots. There was a thread about this recently; perhaps this is the place for these posts.

 

Most people I know do not play with robots. I do sometimes when it is free, but I'm not really interested in how to game the robots. I don't know if many people are, but I kind of doubt it. I think that for most people, playing with robots is a way to keep their fingers busy while they are watching television.

 

Some people regard 'robot Bridge' as the purest form. Taydog - Martin Henneberger is one of them. I'm fairly sure that he doesn't play with his eyes shut.

 

In a sense, all games are the same. Even humour is a 'game', when Sacha Cohen sets out to make Rudy look like the idiot that he is, you can bet that a lot of careful thought goes into it.

You can be sure that he gets a lot of satisfaction from the outcome. I also take comedy very seriously. I take everything seriously.

 

Many of the things that I find out playing against robots have direct applicability to FTF Bridge, some do not. Some of the things I learned playing Chess have proved invaluable in playing Bridge.

 

All Bridge hands are 'interesting'. How is that the 'wrong bid' gets the top score. I don't care at all if you ignore the problem, but simply saying oh it happens is not really an answer.

That response is dooming you to mediocrity. It simply means that every time you play there will always be someone better and you will never no why and you will never care because you are doing the 'right thing' even though it doesn't get the best result.

 

How does that make any sense? How is that logical?

 

When you say 'most people' you are paraphrasing Richard Nixon's "Silent Majority" this concept is completely discredited. the silent majority does not exist. Like the American dream, it is as my mother used to say 'a pigment of your imagination'.

 

Most people I know really enjoy playing with robots. They are never rude, they never complain, they never get tired and they always look after you. (that's paraphrasing the mother from the Terminator).

 

Anyway, since my posts are a source of irritation, I'll stop.

[Vampyr]

All Bridge hands are 'interesting'. How is that the 'wrong bid' gets the top score. I don't care at all if you ignore the problem, but simply saying oh it happens is not really an answer.

That response is dooming you to mediocrity. It simply means that every time you play there will always be someone better and you will never no why and you will never care because you are doing the 'right thing' even though it doesn't get the best result.

 

How does that make any sense? How is that logical?

 

I have no idea what you are trying to say. Bridge is a game of probabilities, and if you make percentage bids and plays you will get good results. Yes, we have all made lead-inhibiting bids in our lives. Yours is not the hand for it, but whatever. It could have gone very badly for you, but you lucked out, and crowing about it invites ridicule. And it highlights the fact that robot “bridge” is a poor approximation of actual bridge.

When you say 'most people' you are paraphrasing Richard Nixon's "Silent Majority" this concept is completely discredited. the silent majority does not exist. Like the American dream, it is as my mother used to say 'a pigment of your imagination'.

 

So what colour is the silent majority then?

 

Most people I know really enjoy playing with robots. They are never rude, they never complain, they never get tired and they always look after you. (that's paraphrasing the mother from the Terminator).

 

I guess you and I know different people. The EBU have eliminated robot substitutes from many of their games because many of their players do not like playing with/against boots. In our local virtual club, we have a host to make sure that a single player gets a game, and robots are only used to fill up a half table, so that nobody is saddled with playing opposite a robot for the whole session.

Anyway, since my posts are a source of irritation, I'll stop.

Well, your posts in this thread are certainly annoying.

[JonnyQuest]

How is that the 'wrong bid' gets the top score.

 

The wrong bid did not get the "top score," the result did. You seem to be confusing the two.

 

The scoring for your bid is shown above in the poll results.

 

If only there were a common bridge term for this, this . . . judging the merits of a bid by the results I would use it here. (Sarcasm font in red)

[Vampyr]

The wrong bid did not get the "top score," the result did. You seem to be confusing the two.

 

The scoring for your bid is shown above in the poll results.

 

If only there were a common bridge term for this, this . . . judging the merits of a bid by the results I would use it here.

 

It’s called “resulting”.

[AL78]

How is that the 'wrong bid' gets the top score.

 

Because bridge is a game of probabilities, not a game of perfect justice. If there was no random variation, the same players would always be winning. A "wrong bid" at MPs is a bid that will result in an inferior score the majority of the time assessed over a large number of possible layouts of the cards. If the wrong bid is bad 75% of the time, it will be neutral or work out better 25% of the time, that 25% corresponding to unlikely layouts of the cards. Having a low probability of success does not mean no chance of success, but because an inferior action worked on one specific layout does not mean it wasn't an inferior action when looking at the overall picture. It is the same in life, doing stupid things doesn't 100% guarentee you will suffer for it, but if you repeatedly do stupid things, you are more likely to come a cropper than if you don't do stupid things, hence why it is best for you and those around you in the long term to avoid being careless and reckless.