[fred]

Click to see well played hand

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[cloa513]

fred, on 2012-January-18, 11:41, said:

Click to see well played hand

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

Wow- GIB didn't botch a two level contract with very little to the play and you failed to read partner's nondouble of 2 clubs as I don't mind what you lead given that with this sequence he has to be quite strong and the chances of you ever having the lead again is remote.

[Jyrki_63]

Hopefully you or GIB's partner congratulated the declarer on a fine play :-)

[fred]

cloa513, on 2012-January-18, 21:46, said:

Wow- GIB didn't botch a two level contract with very little to the play and you failed to read partner's nondouble of 2 clubs as I don't mind what you lead given that with this sequence he has to be quite strong and the chances of you ever having the lead again is remote.

About the play, I would guess that at least 95% of BBO regulars would have missed it. Good for you if you think you are in the other 5%, but the quality of your bridge analysis in Forums makes me doubt that.

About the failure of South to DBL 2C, most players of at least intermediate level understand that such DBLs are not "lead directing". It turns out that North-South here were playing Precision so the point is rather moot.

About your ongoing pissing contest with me, feel free to continue it but this is a battle you are not going to win.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[ahydra]

What am I meant to be admiring here? I must be missing it. I notice South is endplayed, but this always seems to happen because W can put S on lead with a club.

Note: I'm asking out of ignorance, not arrogance

ahydra

[fred]

ahydra, on 2012-January-19, 10:39, said:

What am I meant to be admiring here? I must be missing it. I notice South is endplayed, but this always seems to happen because W can put S on lead with a club.

Note: I'm asking out of ignorance, not arrogance

ahydra

The endplay does not work unless declarer eliminates diamonds while maintaining a trump in the dummy before leading a heart.

Such a position can be achieved only if declarer ruffs a diamond early then endplays South (by exiting in clubs) into leading a 3rd round of diamonds (thus eliminating that suit from the East-West hands). Subsequently South is endplayed a second time when declarer exits in hearts. The purpose of the first endplay is to prepare for the second endplay - maybe not rocket science for everyone, but certainly not a basic concept for most players.

GIB's general line is the only line that leads to an overtrick on the actual lie of the cards. You can see this by going to the end of trick 2 and then clicking the GIB button - the Ace of diamonds will have a "1" on it (indicating an overtrick will be made if that card is led and if all players play perfectly) while all of declarer's other cards will have "="s (indicating the contract will be made exactly if any of those cards are played and all players play perfectly).

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[inquiry]

ahydra, on 2012-January-19, 10:39, said:

What am I meant to be admiring here? I must be missing it. I notice South is endplayed, but this always seems to happen because W can put S on lead with a club.

Note: I'm asking out of ignorance, not arrogance

ahydra

There was to key early plays. The first was to win the ♠K in hand rather than ♠A in dummy on the first round of trumps. The 2nd key early play was to cash the ♦A before the spade entry to dummy is used up, so a diamond can be ruffed as part of the elimination needed for the endplay. You could transpose a few plays, by playing diamond at trick two, and win spade ace at trick three or four, followed by a diamond ruff.

You have not totally removed all of east's safe exits by ruffing one diamond (he still has one safe diamond exit), but the plan is to throw him in twice, once in clubs, then later in hearts. On the second throw in, he will not be able to exit without ensuring an extra winner for declarer.

This line of play works when north can not win the 2nd club. IF north's 3 hcp were the heart king, then this play is unnecessary but still works (if north had the heart king, you could just led towards the heart QJ to get your overtrick).

The reason this was a good play was the key play of an early diamond before the 2nd round of trumps. I think Fred is being generous to suggest that at least 95% of BBO players would miss this play. I think the percentage that would miss this is greater than 95%,

[BunnyGo]

inquiry, on 2012-January-19, 11:25, said:

There was to key early plays. The first was to win the ♠K in hand rather than ♠A in dummy on the first round of trumps. The 2nd key early play was to cash the ♦A before the spade entry to dummy is used up, so a diamond can be ruffed as part of the elimination needed for the endplay. You could transpose a few plays, by playing diamond at trick two, and win spade ace at trick three or four, followed by a diamond ruff.

You have not totally removed all of east's safe exits by ruffing one diamond (he still has one safe diamond exit), but the plan is to throw him in twice, once in clubs, then later in hearts. On the second throw in, he will not be able to exit without ensuring an extra winner for declarer.

This line of play works when north can not win the 2nd club. IF north's 3 hcp were the heart king, then this play is unnecessary but still works (if north had the heart king, you could just led towards the heart QJ to get your overtrick).

The reason this was a good play was the key play of an early diamond before the 2nd round of trumps. I think Fred is being generous to suggest that at least 95% of BBO players would miss this play. I think the percentage that would miss this is greater than 95%,

Welcome back, Ben! We've missed you! I agree that this is a play I would certainly miss if I were playing mechanically instead of thinking hard about the hand. I dunno what that says about 95% or more, but I was impressed to see GIB get such a hand correct. Actually, that's not quite right--I expect a lot of GIB, I'm more disappointed when it goes wrong, but it's good to see it go right even if it's expected.

[Scarabin]

I yield to no man in my admiration for Fred's skill as an analyst and as a programmer but I have to echo cloa513's sentiment that presenting this hand as GIB at its best may be to damn with faint praise. One of the deals I treasure in Bridge Master 2000 is Level4 A-4 which to me is a subtle example of a throw-in although perhaps just beyond my level of expertise. I tried using Jack, wbridg5 and GIB to play this hand. Both Jack and wbridge5 bid to 6 spades. They missed the throw-in but identified the inferior play of a squeeze. Gib rested in 4 spades and took 2 losing finesses. To me this identifies pretty generally their respective standards.

[inquiry]

Scarabin, on 2012-January-20, 22:16, said:

I yield to no man in my admiration for Fred's skill as an analyst and as a programmer but I have to echo cloa513's sentiment that presenting this hand as GIB at its best may be to damn with faint praise. One of the deals I treasure in Bridge Master 2000 is Level4 A-4 which to me is a subtle example of a throw-in although perhaps just beyond my level of expertise. I tried using Jack, wbridg5 and GIB to play this hand. Both Jack and wbridge5 bid to 6 spades. They missed the throw-in but identified the inferior play of a squeeze. Gib rested in 4 spades and took 2 losing finesses. To me this identifies pretty generally their respective standards.

I am not sure which gib you used. Did you load the hand into a teaching tablle? Did you buy stand alone gib? Did you have gib set on the longest thinking time? GIB being in 4S instead of 6, is in no danger of going down, if both finesse on that hand (diamond and club) fail, then he still makes an overtrick. I don't want to force things on gib, but i am not sure when its algorithm finds a sastisfactory solution and then plays. WHEN the algorithm found 100% (to make) line with finesses, maybe it stopped looking. Perhaps if gib was forced to play 6♠ it would play differently (I do know the setting or thinking time given to gib makes a difference in his play).

The endplay on that hand is no harder to find than the endplay on fred's example play here, and in fact, I think the endplay there is easier to find as it is a textbook case (why it was an early level four hand I suspect) that jumps out of the computer screen at you when you see the layout. Wbridge5 and jack's not finding this endplay certainly doesn't speak well of them, either. But whatever you think about how gib did on didn't do on any particular hand at any particular time does not detract from the expert play it found on the hand Fred showed in this thread.

As a general rule, I suspect we will not be getting into a lot of comparisions of gib with other computer programs (as in allowed by forum adminstrators), as gib is the one that bbo has and uses for its online games. This is not meant to hinder freedom of speech, but this is a BBO site, afterall. Some limited comparision are certainly acceptable, but let's don't get carried away. For example, I can pull out hands my copy of jack flubbed big time and test to see which ones gib (on slowest setting) might get right and post as well.. but what good would that do? Of course there are ongoing efforts to improve gib, so helpful comments in that direction are always welcomed.

[Scarabin]

Hi Inquiry, First to answer your questions I bought a stand-alone Gib before I discovered BBO. I also forced Gib to play 6S with the same result. Second may I apologise, I did not mean to stir up a hornet's nest. I am just looking for a way to discover whether any other members share my interests and because the Review forum is not yet available I tend to squeeze posts into other less suitable forums. As a last point may I congratulate you, and thank you for, your ebook on squeezes. I like the suggested approach.

[fred]

Scarabin, on 2012-January-20, 22:16, said:

I yield to no man in my admiration for Fred's skill as an analyst and as a programmer but I have to echo cloa513's sentiment that presenting this hand as GIB at its best may be to damn with faint praise. One of the deals I treasure in Bridge Master 2000 is Level4 A-4 which to me is a subtle example of a throw-in although perhaps just beyond my level of expertise. I tried using Jack, wbridg5 and GIB to play this hand. Both Jack and wbridge5 bid to 6 spades. They missed the throw-in but identified the inferior play of a squeeze. Gib rested in 4 spades and took 2 losing finesses. To me this identifies pretty generally their respective standards.

Thanks for your compliments.

My post was not meant to present GIB "at its best". I just thought it was a well-played hand as well as a hand that many readers would find instructive.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[Scarabin]

Thanks Fred for taking the time to reply. The compliments are sincere as is my appreciation of Bridge Master 2000 I have reached an age where the hassle of actual play no longer appeals and BM gives me an assured supply of interesting hands. Sorry for not appreciating your point: as an ex team of four enthusiast I tend to switch off on overtricks and I do not have your gift of seeing every hand as special.