[diana_eva]

Vampyr, on 2016-May-03, 13:09, said:

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]

1eyedjack, on 2016-May-04, 00:55, said:

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]

PhilG007, on 2016-May-03, 07:39, said:

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]

Vampyr, on 2016-May-04, 08:02, said:

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]

silvr bull, on 2016-May-02, 00:25, said:

---

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

Double or 2♣? Would some even pass?