[1eyedjack]

MP, robot tourney, best hand South

---

I object to the 3N bid. Am I wrong to object? I might bid 3N opposite a second seat X. But as GIB acknowledges in the explanations, the balancing X can be on as few as 9. I would have raised 2N on the hand that I held.

[AyunuS]

I think its bid is pretty reasonable. Consider how many HCP the other team has. East has at most 5, and possibly fewer. West has at least 11, but not enough to bid again. So due to not enough to bid again, I'd put west at around 11-15. So if you add those up, the other team has 11-20, but you have down at least 9, so your team has at least 22, so the other team only has 11-18 HCP. So they most likely have about 15 HCP, so there's a good chance you have game. If I'm slightly off then some bad sims could easily result in it thinking this.

[1eyedjack]

I do agree that this does not rank among the most outrageous decisions that get reported in these columns. But it is a pretty basic situation, not particularly rare.

Your conclusion may be valid (I remain unconvinced but open to persuasion), but I think that your reasoning is flawed.

Sometimes, if you are stuck for alternatives, for example by opposition bouncy bidding taking away your options, then all of your bids start to assume wider ranges and for the best long term gain you have to choose the lesser of uncomfortable options.

Likewise, sometimes you have to trust the opponents for their bids (or failure to bid) in order to place limitions on partner's hand. This carries with it the danger that the opponents, if they expect you to trust them, can mess you around with a varied strategy. Not likely when GIBs are the opponents, I warrant. But while programming a varied bidding strategy into GIB's system would be too onerous a task, programming GIB to trust partner more than the opponents when faced with conflicting evidence should not be beyond it.

Your statement that opener is known to be weak is I think particularly suspect. Opener is as aware as everyone else at the table that his partner has at most a poor 5 count. Opener can therefore be very strong and still know that there is no prospect for game. If he has nothing particularly remarkable in the way of distribution or good suits to emphasise, then he can do pretty much anything safe in the knowledge that he is not missing game. Even passing carries with it the safety that he will get another bid unless LHO is sitting for penalties (and even then responder is still there).

The point at which the simulation engine in Pro GIB takes over from rule-based bidding is utterly opaque to me. But I would expect that where there are invitational raises available, then these would be predominantly rule based. Then whether or not to accept an invitation would be simulation based.

4th hand has already applied the principle of the transferred King when protecting on perhaps as few as 9 HCP. In other words, 4th hand has already taken into account the inferences available from responder's pass (and limit of 5 HCP) when concluding that protecting light is safe. For advancer also to take that into account doubles up the effect, and doubler has already placed advancer with one of his Kings.

This is why, in real life human games, it is my experience that a 2NT advance to a protective double is stronger than in direct seat, and I personally am of the view that this hand falls squarely into the 2NT category. Like I said in the OP, with South's hand I would be raising and we would still reach 3 (which incidentally is still not gold plated).
But West could have had some of South's values consistent with this bidding, and 3N (or even 2N) would have had no hope. Your argument might have had some validity if there was a significant risk of a good 3N being missed by just bidding 2N.

[cloa513]

I object the 3Nt simply because the requirement for 3NT are raised by the opening bid to greater than 25-26 balanced values - it has to be shapely or double covering hearts effectively worth a much higher value in No-trump total points. e.g. J10xx hearts cover is much better than Axxx as it wastes less HCP on the hearts cover.

[1eyedjack]

I am prepared to accept that the ♥9 provides a threat of a second ♥ guard which is not accounted for in the HCP of the hand. Indeed the blockage in this hand provides precisely that effect. Whether it is sufficient to propel the hand to 3N is another matter, and harkens back to the hand types on which an invitational 2N would be accepted.

[AyunuS]

While that is true that opener can pass even with extra values, GIB seems to usually bid again if it has something good. And then GIB also makes the mistake of assuming everyone else bids exactly how it does. So even though it's probably technically wrong, with how it currently works, it probably does put opener at a relatively weak hand. Although you are correct that it probably would be a better player if it didn't assume such things. Without this assumption, I do agree that 3NT is too risky and unlikely to work here.

[cherdano]

3NT is an obvious bid in a best-hand tourney, North knows that South has at least 13 hcp!

In any case, given that it's a defensible bid that put you in a 3NT you made, there are certainly bigger fish to complain about...

[cloa513]

cherdano, on 2013-October-06, 17:17, said:

3NT is an obvious bid in a best-hand tourney, North knows that South has at least 13 hcp!

In any case, given that it's a defensible bid that put you in a 3NT you made, there are certainly bigger fish to complain about...

GIB doesn't know that- he doesn't have anything like that in his programming. Its the same no matter the tournament.

[cherdano]

Ok, in the future I will only make jokes marked by WATCH OUT THATS JUST A JOKE!

[cloa513]

cherdano, on 2013-October-06, 17:38, said:

Ok, in the future I will only make jokes marked by WATCH OUT THATS JUST A JOKE!

Its just hard to tell if anyone is joking- GIB is such a big joke.

[georgi]

cloa513, on 2013-October-08, 17:13, said:

Its just hard to tell if anyone is joking- GIB is such a big joke.

And what would you bid as North ( without joking )?

1NT or 2NT or anything else beside 3nt which you vigorously object?

And what would South continue over the bid you are about to give? Let say even on open cards.

Should South accept any invitation ( supposedly according to your bidding ) bid with 13HCP?

Any feedback would helps for improvement, so please do.

[1eyedjack]

georgi, on 2013-October-11, 07:02, said:

And what would you bid as North ( without joking )?

1NT or 2NT or anything else beside 3nt which you vigorously object?

And what would South continue over the bid you are about to give? Let say even on open cards.

Should South accept any invitation ( supposedly according to your bidding ) bid with 13HCP?

Any feedback would helps for improvement, so please do.

Georgi I can only give a personal opinion here. If my peers shout me down I will accept it. I generally operate on the principle that if partner invites game, and I have an Ace more than the minimum promised, then I will accept an invite.

With a regular human partner I would expect North to bid 2N, raised by South (and going down a fair proportion of the time, I might add).

[Stephen Tu]

IMO 2nt opposite balancing double should be about 12-14. 3nt should be 15+ not 13+ as current. Doubler opposite 2nt should accept with the 13 count.