Help
Obviously such 3♠ for evaluation is rediculous, but great pity that Gibs really don't know such mechanical TP counting are invalid in many situations.
Page 1 of 1
Invalid TP evaluation
#1
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 7,612
- Joined: 2009-September-28
- Gender:Male
- Location:China
Posted 2016-December-27, 13:35
This hand is from Arena Challenge.
Obviously such 3♠ for evaluation is rediculous, but great pity that Gibs really don't know such mechanical TP counting are invalid in many situations.
Obviously such 3♠ for evaluation is rediculous, but great pity that Gibs really don't know such mechanical TP counting are invalid in many situations.
#2
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 4,076
- Joined: 2003-May-14
Posted 2016-December-27, 14:25
Could East easily have had xx AQJxxx x AJTx on the same bidding, no? Then 4h makes.
Bidding on over 3h isn't completely nuts at IMPS if you are already there and 4h might have decent chances, the idea is that the bonus when 4h makes is large when vulnerable, and sometimes 3h was already down and they aren't always going to find the double, and the loss for one extra undertrick is small. It's more dubious at MP. Though I would have west just bid 4h if going on not 3s, and 3s should probably be defined as stronger. To me what caused this, if basic bot, is that the range for bidding 3s is just really way too low. You really like to blame the use of total points when it's really the range for certain actions that is the problem, not the use of TP. Make it have 11+ TP to move instead of 8-9, then you are probably fine.
What I would object to more is:
1. 2h instead of showing it as a single suiter in hearts starting with 2c. I really think that 6-4s should be treated as single suiter in the major. Otherwise partner with 3244 or something gets to the minor instead which is silly when 2h is perfectly fine contract. Or 5143 instead of playing 6-1 a level lower you get to 4-3.
2. Capp 2h showing only 4 cd heart to me is unplayable, I think it should show 5+H. Way too often advancer has like doubleton heart but not length in both minors, and is at a total guess whether to play 5-2 which is probably OK or a 4-2 which probably isn't.
3. the 2h/3h calls should be capped at the top end by failure to double.
4. I don't think South required 17 hcp to bid 2s, I think lots of people bid there with 5 spades and any strength in the 1nt opener.
Bidding on over 3h isn't completely nuts at IMPS if you are already there and 4h might have decent chances, the idea is that the bonus when 4h makes is large when vulnerable, and sometimes 3h was already down and they aren't always going to find the double, and the loss for one extra undertrick is small. It's more dubious at MP. Though I would have west just bid 4h if going on not 3s, and 3s should probably be defined as stronger. To me what caused this, if basic bot, is that the range for bidding 3s is just really way too low. You really like to blame the use of total points when it's really the range for certain actions that is the problem, not the use of TP. Make it have 11+ TP to move instead of 8-9, then you are probably fine.
What I would object to more is:
1. 2h instead of showing it as a single suiter in hearts starting with 2c. I really think that 6-4s should be treated as single suiter in the major. Otherwise partner with 3244 or something gets to the minor instead which is silly when 2h is perfectly fine contract. Or 5143 instead of playing 6-1 a level lower you get to 4-3.
2. Capp 2h showing only 4 cd heart to me is unplayable, I think it should show 5+H. Way too often advancer has like doubleton heart but not length in both minors, and is at a total guess whether to play 5-2 which is probably OK or a 4-2 which probably isn't.
3. the 2h/3h calls should be capped at the top end by failure to double.
4. I don't think South required 17 hcp to bid 2s, I think lots of people bid there with 5 spades and any strength in the 1nt opener.
Page 1 of 1