[BunnyGo]

http://tinyurl.com/7jwrcvx

By the way, do you prefer me reporting bugs here, or with the webform from the "export deal" option?

[xxhong]

The explanation of 5H is clearly wrong. A rebid at 5 level should show a strong suit.

BunnyGo, on 2011-November-18, 09:59, said:

http://tinyurl.com/7jwrcvx

By the way, do you prefer me reporting bugs here, or with the webform from the "export deal" option?

[georgi]

5♥ is forced bid, why should have promised something extra?

[xxhong]

Now the explanation for 5H is 12+ total points and 5+ H. This simply can't be correct.
The correct meaning of 5H should show a strong H suit and offensive oriented hands.
For example, 5H should show something like x KQJTxx AKxx xx. Not something like Qx AKxxx Kxx xxx, which is a clear pass over 4S x.

georgi, on 2011-November-18, 16:36, said:

5♥ is forced bid, why should have promised something extra?

[BunnyGo]

georgi, on 2011-November-18, 16:36, said:

5♥ is forced bid, why should have promised something extra?

The two problems I have are:

a) 5♥ is not forced, it's pulling a penalty double.
b) 6♦ is absurd.

[BunnyGo]

BunnyGo, on 2011-November-18, 09:59, said:

By the way, do you prefer me reporting bugs here, or with the webform from the "export deal" option?

bump the question.

[barmar]

BunnyGo, on 2011-November-18, 16:54, said:

bump the question.

Either way is fine with us.

[barmar]

The double is not strictly penalty, it's "cards", or what I've seen some people call BOP (Balance of Power).

The book bid for South is Pass, but simulations told it to pull the double. There's nothing in its bidding database for this sequence, so the description came from a default rule "All undefined bids are natural".

And the book bid for North after 5♥ is Pass, but its simulations told it to bid 6♦. The problem here is something I mentioned recently in another thread: when North is simulating, the hands it deals the other players are based on the bidding database, it doesn't try to emulate their simulations (recursive simulations would be computationally intractable). So it dealt lots of 5-card suits to South.

We can probably resolve this by adding explicit rules that say when to bid over these high level doubles, rather than leaving it to simulations. But it's hard to cover all cases -- can any of you honestly say that you make decisions like this based on simple rules rather than judgement?

[BunnyGo]

barmar, on 2011-November-18, 20:51, said:

The book bid for South is Pass, but simulations told it to pull the double. There's nothing in its bidding database for this sequence, so the description came from a default rule "All undefined bids are natural".

Yeah, and the book bid would have worked out better. Maybe I need to mess with my simulation generator.

[barmar]

BunnyGo, on 2011-November-19, 01:34, said:

Yeah, and the book bid would have worked out better. Maybe I need to mess with my simulation generator.

Oops, I sometimes get confused about which player is which.

But the basic problem is that there's nothing in the bidding DB that says what kind of hand you need to pull the double. There's nothing that told North that you must have a really long suit, so it was scared of being in a 5-1 fit at the 5 level. If you only have 5 hearts, and you're short in spades, you're very likely to have diamond tolerance.

We need to fill in the missing double-pulling bids.