BBO Discussion Forums: Beyond Belief - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Beyond Belief

#1 User is offline   ArtK78 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 7,786
  • Joined: 2004-September-05
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Galloway NJ USA
  • Interests:Bridge, Poker, participatory and spectator sports.
    Occupation - Tax Attorney in Atlantic City, NJ.

Posted 2012-May-14, 07:20

I have seen the robots do some strange things. This one is truly beyond belief (although it certainly improved my score):

http://tinyurl.com/6m7m8e7

We won't mention the first pitch by my robot partner which cost an additional undertrick.

Perhaps I should have doubled again. :)
0

#2 User is offline   Stephen Tu 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,795
  • Joined: 2003-May-14

Posted 2012-May-14, 11:00

Looks like opener's double was undefined as takeout. It says "2+ spades", not "2- spades, 3+H, 3+D", and North took it as penalty? Min HCP for South should be much higher, of course.

Of course East's action is LOL.
0

#3 User is offline   ArtK78 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 7,786
  • Joined: 2004-September-05
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Galloway NJ USA
  • Interests:Bridge, Poker, participatory and spectator sports.
    Occupation - Tax Attorney in Atlantic City, NJ.

Posted 2012-May-14, 13:14

The action I was referring to was the 3 bid, not the pass of 2 by CHO. 2x should go down in any event, just as 3 undoubled (???) should have gone down 2 tricks.

Query: If GIB North is willing to pass out a takeout double of 2 for penalty, why is it not willing to double 3? Yes, I know that South could hit 3 based on North's pass of 2x, but doing so in the face of a 3 bid seems kind of silly (or is intelligent discussion of this sequence too far out there to even bother)?
0

#4 User is offline   Stephen Tu 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,795
  • Joined: 2003-May-14

Posted 2012-May-14, 14:17

View PostArtK78, on 2012-May-14, 13:14, said:

The action I was referring to was the 3 bid, not the pass of 2 by CHO. 2x should go down in any event, just as 3 undoubled (???) should have gone down 2 tricks.


I think the idea is to fix all the problems on the hand, not just the LOL 3s bid. It starts with the double by opener being poorly defined, as 2+ spade not 2-, not being extra strength, and not promising support for other suits. I think opposite a takeout double, CHO should take out, after all 2s doubled is cold with best declarer play (its failure in play might be influenced by playing you for more length in spades than you have). In fact after you start AK and follow with club, declarer supposed to take NINE tricks, supposed to ruff club with K not ten after you got in with DK and led 4th club,

Partner pitching the heart in theory didn't matter. In the end game, declarer supposed to come down to DQ HAQx in dummy, HJxx in hand and either CQ or good spade. You are down to HKxx DA. He plays black winner and you are squeezed out of your heart guard even if partner still has Txx left. Or similar ending with HAx in dummy Jx in hand if one heart hook has already been taken for trump drawing purposes and/or to confirm location of HK.


Quote

Query: If GIB North is willing to pass out a takeout double of 2 for penalty, why is it not willing to double 3? Yes, I know that South could hit 3 based on North's pass of 2x, but doing so in the face of a 3 bid seems kind of silly (or is intelligent discussion of this sequence too far out there to even bother)?


GIB a long time ago used to be even worse at this, routinely boosting doubled contracts a level. I think there was some weird simulations going on in that made it think that if it bid again the opps wouldn't be able to double for penalty again. I thought most of those were fixed but apparently not all! And apparently you weren't able to double 3s for penalty, so it was right :).
0

Share this topic:


Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users