[1eyedjack]

Not a bug report this - just an anecdote that you might find amusing.

I have in recent weeks been trying out a tactical theory playing against the bots.
I have not been keeping empirical records of its success rate. But my gut feel is that I am ahead of the game by it.
I confess that knowing that I have the strongest hand influences the potential benefits, so I might not try it in other forms.

Anyway, the nub of the tactic is that when I open 1N or 2N and CHO bot launches Stayman, I deny possession of a 4 card major whenever I have a 5 card major or am 4333.

The idea behind the tactic is that if (as I expect) I end up in some number of NT, then GIB defence is confused both on opening lead and subsequently by its expectation that I lack a 4 card major, and that the tricks thrown in defence more than make up for those occasions when responder happens to have 4 cards in support of my 4 or 5 card major. I try to tip the odds in my favour by restricting the tactic to those hands either where responder is less likely actually to have 4 card support (ie when I have a 5 card major) or when there is a respectable chance that 3N is at least as good a contract despite our having a major suit fit (ie the 4333 hands).

It is remarkable how frequently GIB leads my major in these cases, particularly given its preference for leading shortages against NT, and especially when we happen to have a fit in the major.
Of course the tactic cannot work well every time. I get the occasional bad hand. Not enough yet to dissuade me from the tactic, but I thought to regale you with a rather spectacular example of failure (or was it?):

IMP, robot tourney, best hand South

---

Contract failed by one trick. Should be more, of course.

The 2S bid showed an invitation with 5S and 4H.
I bid the 5H with some trepidation, half expecting GIB to convert back to 5S (it has done things like that to me before). Might have been interesting what would have happened had I passed 4S (and then guessed well). Shall never know. Indeed had I known that GIB was likely to convert 4H to 4S I would have bid 3N over 2S, having the added value of continuing the deception. That might have made for an interesting result. Perhaps I should have tried that even if expecting 4H to be passed.

IMP result? +0.74!!!!
Everyone else was going down in 4H, some by 2 tricks. It seems that once again GIB was so flustered by the auction that it was incapable of capitalising to the max.

This is one of the things that I really love about robot tourneys. Partner is not going to leave in a huff. I can do this a million times and partner will still not have an implicit agreement that I will do so again. And best of all, there is no petty officious TD to ban me for having made a psychic bid that they have unlawfully banned in the first place.

Onward and upward

[1eyedjack]

Been thinking more on this. I opened the thread with the comment that it was not a bug report, but on reflection I am not so sure. With his 2S bid, North has shown 5xS and 4xH. Armed with that knowledge I (South) decided to play in 4H. OK it seems to be a 7 card fit for all that North knows, but if we had an 8 card S fit then South would have been aware of that when bidding 4H. So the 4H bid pretty much guarantees at most a doubleton S. Again, you MIGHT take the view that a 5-2 S fit would be preferred as trumps to a 4-3 H fit. But again South is also aware of that when choosing 4H. North has no more Spades and no fewer Hearts than he has already promised and is not invited to the party.

Why is this important? What if opener had held, say

S:K
H:AKJ
D:Axxx
C:Qxxxx

GIB might not open this 1N but I will. Or at least I will on occasion, as the whim takes me. Alternative rebids certainly do not appeal.
Possibly the long term winning action with such a hand after a 1N-2C-2D-2S start is to commit to playing in NT. But I would like to have the choice of playing in H without N then correcting back to S for no reason.

I think that GIB should generally be programmed to recognise that if not forced to bid, and having already described its hand, it should pass rather than try to guess superior contracts, which partner is equally capable of guessing on the same information. I confess that I speak as one who likes to psych a lot with GIB and who thereby stands to gain by such a rule.

[cloa513]

1eyedjack, on 2013-July-29, 11:49, said:

Been thinking more on this. I opened the thread with the comment that it was not a bug report, but on reflection I am not so sure. With his 2S bid, North has shown 5xS and 4xH. Armed with that knowledge I (South) decided to play in 4H. OK it seems to be a 7 card fit for all that North knows, but if we had an 8 card S fit then South would have been aware of that when bidding 4H. So the 4H bid pretty much guarantees at most a doubleton S. Again, you MIGHT take the view that a 5-2 S fit would be preferred as trumps to a 4-3 H fit. But again South is also aware of that when choosing 4H. North has no more Spades and no fewer Hearts than he has already promised and is not invited to the party.

Why is this important? What if opener had held, say

S:K
H:AKJ
D:Axxx
C:Qxxxx

GIB might not open this 1N but I will. Or at least I will on occasion, as the whim takes me. Alternative rebids certainly do not appeal.
Possibly the long term winning action with such a hand after a 1N-2C-2D-2S start is to commit to playing in NT. But I would like to have the choice of playing in H without N then correcting back to S for no reason.

I think that GIB should generally be programmed to recognise that if not forced to bid, and having already described its hand, it should pass rather than try to guess superior contracts, which partner is equally capable of guessing on the same information. I confess that I speak as one who likes to psych a lot with GIB and who thereby stands to gain by such a rule.

That's too strong to open 1NT especially playing against GIBs- its more like 1C followed by 2NT.

[1eyedjack]

cloa513, on 2013-July-30, 05:17, said:

That's too strong to open 1NT especially playing against GIBs- its more like 1C followed by 2NT.

Perhaps. Personally I downgrade Kingletons. But accepting the point the hand can easily be adjusted to qualify and the principal then remains. Take away the HJ if you like.

[cloa513]

If you treat a Kingleton as a singleton then you can't treat it as an honour too.

[1eyedjack]

cloa513, on 2013-July-30, 16:21, said:

If you treat a Kingleton as a singleton then you can't treat it as an honour too.

I agree. That’s why they are downgraded. Your point?