[Bbradley62]

---

What's up with that 3♥ bid? "2- total points"? What would 3♠ have been instead?

[mike777]

Bbradley62, on 2012-January-29, 17:24, said:

---

What's up with that 3♥ bid? "2- total points"? What would 3♠ have been instead?


great question, cant wait to see, my guess is 3h is more forward going and 3s is bal/compete in pass out seat?


1s was 18+ so we cant have 7TP and we passed over 2d so we dont have 5 or 6 invite?


so 3h is h values, forward going and around 4 hcp?

[Bbradley62]

Why are you typing your comments inside my quote box? You post enough that you really ought to understand how these things work.

[mike777]

Bbradley62, on 2012-January-29, 17:41, said:

Why are you typing your comments inside my quote box? You post enough that you really ought to understand how these things work.

Not really not sure why they ended up in your box.

anyway to say the samething a bit differently and see if you agree.


1) we have less than 7 hcp or we bid game.
2) we have less than 5-6 hcp or we invite over 2d
3) with 5s we may have bid 4s, 1s showed 5+s and 18+ TP
4) we are told 3h is 2+ hcp and 3+s
5) so our range/box is 2-4 hcp and 3-4 spades.


3h is top of range, 3s is less?

--


btw these problems are fun to think out and they often seem to be pretty logical at least compared to alot of human bids.

thanks for posting them.

[Bbradley62]

mike777, on 2012-January-29, 17:47, said:

3h is top of range, 3s is less?

I'd be good with that conclusion, except that the description GIB provides for 3♥ includes "2- total points". Maybe it should be that 3♥ shows 3-5 total points and 3♠ shows 2- total points?

[cloa513]

Love also that attrocious bidding by EW (who would bid on to NT after nearly passing out 3D) and play- GIB declarer obviously doesn't believe that you have 18 TP after all why does it try a logically hopeless deep finesse.

[barmar]

The pass over the takeout double showed 8- total points, it didn't say anything about HCP. The pass over South's 1♠ showed 2- total points, and also didn't say anything about HCP. This pass came from simulations, as the book bid with a weak hand and 4-card support is 3♠; I think the simulations determined that the ♥K was wasted and 4333 shape is bad for preempting.

However, when the auction petered out at the 3 level, it finally decided that it couldn't keep quiet about its support any more, so it showed a max for all its previous bidding with a cue bid. But the rule that covers this bid doesn't clear out what has been shown previously, so 2- total points is still in the description.

[Bbradley62]

What would 3♠ have shown instead of 3♥?

[barmar]

Bbradley62, on 2012-January-30, 20:31, said:

What would 3♠ have shown instead of 3♥?

4+ S; 3-6 total points

[Bbradley62]

barmar, on 2012-February-02, 17:39, said:

Bbradley62, on 2012-January-30, 20:31, said:

What would 3♠ have shown instead of 3♥?

4+ S; 3-6 total points

So...
...................3spades.......4+spades
0-2 total points.....3♥............3♥
3-6 total points.....N/A...........3♠

Maybe something should be adjusted so that the hand with exactly three spades and 3-6 total points has a bid available?

[barmar]

The 3♥ bid doesn't limit the hand to 2 points, it's the earlier passes that do that.

[Bbradley62]

So, with 3 hearts and 4 total points, North wouldn't have passed over 2♦? Oops... he actually DOES have 3 hearts and 4 total points.

So, there an earlier inconsistency that caused the explanation of the 3♥ bid to be inaccurate?

[barmar]

I already told you that according to the bidding rules, it should have bid a preemptive 3♠ over 2♦. But it decided to pass because of simulations. That pass showed 0-2 total points. Then a later simulation told it to reopen over 3♦. This auction shouldn't really exist, and the rule for the 3♥ bid doesn't account for the possibility that it limited its hand earlier.

When simulations override book bids, you get inconsistencies like this. The bidding rules can't know why the simulations overrode them.

[cloa513]

barmar, on 2012-February-03, 11:47, said:

I already told you that according to the bidding rules, it should have bid a preemptive 3♠ over 2♦. But it decided to pass because of simulations. That pass showed 0-2 total points. Then a later simulation told it to reopen over 3♦. This auction shouldn't really exist, and the rule for the 3♥ bid doesn't account for the possibility that it limited its hand earlier.

When simulations override book bids, you get inconsistencies like this. The bidding rules can't know why the simulations overrode them.

Couldn't simulation driven bids get an S appended to the explanation so partner knows the bid could be nonsense or far from a normal bid.