[PhantomSac]

Qx
x
Q97x
AQJ9xx

I opened 3N, defined as 25-27 HCP balanced, gib passes..what?

edit: Rogerclee playing same robotdupe and it was duplicated.

[rogerclee]

SAME

[jdonn]

Just taking a stab, but I bet gib couldn't come up with enough (any?) hands that matched the sim, so it... gave up?

[655321]

Haha, GIB might have used the H_Karluk recommendation of not trusting partner's bidding!

[Jlall]

Ahhh H_Karluk has joined Ari on the programming team, it all makes sense now!

[jjbrr]

GIBbbbbler

[barmar]

But if you open 2NT and GIB has a hand like that, it will typically blast to 6NT.

[jdonn]

I don't know what you mean by "but".

[hanp]

I'm planning to write a computer program that doesn't do such silly things. Will take a while.

[arigreen]

Good luck Han. Let me know how it goes.

In the meantime, yes, GIB was not fortunate enough to generate any deals that matched the constraint. And due to a gap in the rules, there's no rule that matched 7N for this hand. 3N auctions don't come up too often.

Still, I feel that this is inexcusable, and I'm thinking of ways to fix it. The obvious solution would be to add a rule that says "bid 7N with 37+ combined HCP" which should work in theory, but there would likely be side effects of GIB jumping to 7N in auctions where it thinks its partner has shown 28+ points or whatever.

[Jlall]

Thx for your reply ari

[bid_em_up]

arigreen, on Feb 24 2010, 08:14 PM, said:

The obvious solution would be to add a rule that says "bid 7N with 37+ combined HCP" which should work in theory, but there would likely be side effects of GIB jumping to 7N in auctions where it thinks its partner has shown 28+ points or whatever.

Why is it relevant to other auctions where GIB thinks its partner has shown 28+ (whatever) points, and not specific to only auctions where GIB's partner has opened 3N (or 2N or even 1N)?

[PhantomSac]

If the rule is "with 37+ HCP, bid 7N" then if gib thinks we've shown 28+ he might just jump to 7N blindly.

Of course you could make the rule "with 37+ HCP after some number of NT opening, bid 7N" but that wouldn't solve the more general problem that often if we have that many points, gib will find no hands to simulate and will do something stupid.

Still, it would be better than nothing.

[jdonn]

I don't like a blind rule like that because of the can of worms it opens with other unfixed bids. My preference is you deal with 3NT openings in detail the same as 1NT and 2NT openings have obviously been dealth with, and then we take everything else as it comes as well.

[arigreen]

I like Justin's suggestion to define 7N after partner opens any number of NT. I'll go with that one.

[PhantomSac]

arigreen, on Feb 25 2010, 06:24 PM, said:

I like Justin's suggestion to define 7N after partner opens any number of NT. I'll go with that one.

That's why we're such a good partnership ♥