[AAr]

I'm getting a hang of the GIB tourneys and how it plays, but the one thing I have learned that seems to help me with my declarer play in Robot Tournaments is that GIB seemingly never underlead Kings against suits, but will often lead Singletons! With that knowledge, that would that always tilt the odds to play the Ace from dummy from, say AQxxx from dummy opposite 10xx in a suit contract, guarding against a ruff, almost KNOWING that RHO has the King, and there's the chance that playing the Ace could drop a Singleton King. And, you would KNOW the finesse (playing the Queen) will lose.

Is this observation helpful and correct? I seem to be doing better at robot tourneys once I learned this infomation.

Thanks!

[Lelos80te]

My statistics games with the robot to Express Free tournaments at 24/01/2012 (includes one hundred past tournaments):
name boards auction play defense total (avg MP)
gib......109 -0.2996 0.0836 -2.3395 -2.5528 (= 47.66%)
I do not like his game in defense, especially against no-trump

[AAr]

My thing is that if you KNOW that the opponent will NEVER underlead a King, you would play for the K-Drop EVERY time. The "Ten Ever, Eleven Never" Rule is completely out the window here: You would play for the K-Drop even with an EIGHT card fit. Playing the Ace will also guard against a ruff if the opponent has led from a Singleton. It seems like the ONLY times playing the Queen from Dummy to finesse are either when the opponent with the King would be endplayed, or when dropping the Singleton King can not make the contract, but winning the finnesse (even though it has only a 1% chance to win) would.

My point is this. I know why humans rarely lead Aces and Queens against suit contracts: Doing those often give up tricks will not often enough gaining. Underleading an Ace could cost the Ace if the opponent has a Singleton in that suit or if the opponent is able to run the suit for Discards. While underleading a Queen WOULD usually be OK if your partner happens to have a King or Jack in the suit, you want to make the opponents guess missing Queens as often as you could, and will cost whenever an opponent has the AKJ in the suit.

But, underleading Kings, while the risk is there (It costs whenever the declarer has the AQ in the suit), it could often work out nicely if your partner has the Ace or the Queen in the suit. If your partner has the Ace, he could take it and lead to your King. If partner has the Queen, when declarer takes the Ace, you have at least high-card control of the suit: Even if declarer has a singleton, he could only use the suit for ruffs, not discards (at least without conceding a trick). And, even even the Dummy has either the Ace or Queen (or both!), it forces declarer to guess at Trick One! And, in most cases, you want to cash the winners as fast as you could before the declarer can set up a long suit for discards.

I'm not saying that ALWAYS underleading Kings is wise. It pays to watch the bidding, and if it likely marks declarer with the AQ, don't do it. But, you definitely should SOMETIMES underlead a King. Furthermore, if the declarer KNOWS that you NEVER underlead Kings, it will only help him in the play, sometimes making contracts everybody else will go down in: E, when your partner HAS a Singleton King of a suit you lead: All the other declarers will be finessing and losing, but your opponent will be playing the Ace for the K-Drop, and winning. In Bridge, just like in Poker, it pays to "mix it up" sometimes.

Then again, I also notice that, when declaring, GIB oppoents usually play the Ace from Dummy for the K-Drop / Ruff Guard whenever an opponent leads from a suit with the King missing, so maybe underleading a King while defending a suit contract against GIB CAN work as long as the Ace is in the Dummy and not in the Declarer's hand.

Also, on a releated note, they also rarely underlead the second-highest remaining card in the later stages (Example: Would not underlead a Queen with the either the Ace or King gone; would not underlead a Jack with two out of the three top honors gone, etc.).

[Bbradley62]

GIB just underled a K against me in a suit contract. I played him for not having done so, and went down in a contract that everyone else made. Oh well...

[EricK]

Bbradley62, on 2012-January-25, 12:10, said:

GIB just underled a K against me in a suit contract. I played him for not having done so, and went down in a contract that everyone else made. Oh well...

Maybe GIB reads this forum.