[lycier]

---

After penalty double,pass is a unwise auction.How to escape? I guess that Gib have not an escape bidding system.
How do you think of it?

[manudude03]

I dunno, I can see a lot of EW pairs conceding big insults on this board (assuming they had a penalty double available). Besides, EW's best strain appears to be 2C, which they are unlikely to reach and even if they do, it's at least 500.

[1eyedjack]

Yup good case for having a penalty redouble available to North

[steve2005]

1eyedjack, on 2014-December-30, 06:58, said:

Yup good case for having a penalty redouble available to North

Why be greedy? North has already given up on game. Pass will yield a top (or nice imp+) no need for a redouble for penalty.

Better to save redouble for weak hands with no clear place to play.

Believe me I play weak NT and this sequence comes up far more often with them.

[iandayre]

From my experience GIB will run out with a very weak hand into a 5 card suit. I don't know where you can go with this sort of hand.

[1eyedjack]

steve2005, on 2014-December-30, 11:42, said:

Why be greedy? North has already given up on game. Pass will yield a top (or nice imp+) no need for a redouble for penalty.

Better to save redouble for weak hands with no clear place to play.

Believe me I play weak NT and this sequence comes up far more often with them.

You don't need to ask for my belief. I normally play (and play against) weak NT so can draw on my own experience.

Playing a weak NT completely changes the dynamics of the argument. The OP was playing strong NT. This was in a room where strong 1N was the norm and the world and his dog was opening 1N, and we may reasonably predict that. How likely it is that RHO is bidding "with the room" when doubling does involve an element of guesswork.

MP v IMP also makes a significant difference. The OP does not state the scoring, but it was MP, for which the argument for passing it out is *more* convincing. That does not make it "convincing" in an absolute sense.

XX will only increase your aggregate score on this hand. It would have been "greedy" had it afforded the opponents an opportunity, that they would not otherwise take, to escape to a score which is better (for them) than defending 1NX. We also have to consider the cost of giving up on an artificial XX which, although not required for this hand, might be useful on another occasion (and would be more useful had the 1N opener been weak, in a different universe).

As it happens, the world and his dog was doubling 1N in the protective seat (OK a couple of tables didn't have dogs), so taking the action that fails to enhance your aggregate score also is rather expensive even in a MP environment,

In short, your statement that "Pass will yield a top" is an overbid. You are essentially gambling on this table's auction being anti-room. It is a gamble that on a good day may well pay off. But it remains a gamble. Declarer on this hand scored 26.67% for making an overtrick in 1NX.

To be fair, much of the result hinged on making (v failing to make) a second overtrick in 1NX, which would have netted fractionally under 70% (the modal result as it happens). But the opponents should be held to 5 tricks in either C or H, and it is not a hard defence to find. So XX would have scored 100% against this room regardless of whether or not the opponents pulled.

I don't feel the need to explain why in an IMP field the scope for improvement with a penalty XX is augmented, when the size of the difference in scores matters more than its frequency.

http://www.bridgebas...username=LYCIER

[steve2005]

1eyedjack, on 2014-December-30, 14:41, said:

http://www.bridgebas...username=LYCIER

Having a penalty redouble available wouldn't have made a difference as then the field would have it available and presumably people would redouble too.


LYCIER scored 1 trick less than most. easy to do, but with the cards marked from double possible to do better. I don't understand why some robots are south?! Robot souths did play kinda double dummy.

[1eyedjack]

steve2005, on 2014-December-30, 15:29, said:

I don't understand why some robots are south?!

I don't understand why there was one table with no GIB at all

And at 5 tables there were 2 robots and 2 humans

[steve2005]

1eyedjack, on 2014-December-30, 15:34, said:

I don't understand why there was one table with no GIB at all

And at 5 tables there were 2 robots and 2 humans

Weird what kind of tournament was this?was it even a tournament?

[Bbradley62]

steve2005, on 2014-December-30, 15:41, said:

1eyedjack, on 2014-December-30, 15:34, said:

steve2005, on 2014-December-30, 15:29, said:

I don't understand why some robots are south?! Robot souths did play kinda double dummy.

I don't understand why there was one table with no GIB at all

And at 5 tables there were 2 robots and 2 humans

Weird what kind of tournament was this?was it even a tournament?

The hand was played in MBC. What's not to understand?

[1eyedjack]

Bbradley62, on 2014-December-30, 15:49, said:

The hand was played in MBC. What's not to understand?

That there was such a high ratio of robots to humans in any "room" that is not a robot tournament is, to my mind, extraordinary. Especially as it was not on the first of the month when basic robots are free.

[1eyedjack]

steve2005, on 2014-December-30, 15:29, said:

Having a penalty redouble available wouldn't have made a difference as then the field would have it available and presumably people would redouble too.

I find this to be a particularly unconvincing objection.

If redoubling is optimal strategy then it is important to adopt that strategy regardless of what happens at other tables. If the rest of the room redoubles, then you need to redouble simple to achieve par. If the rest of the room does not redouble then it is just as much of a chuck in lost opportunities if you fail to redouble at your table.

Of course, if redoubling is not optimal strategy, then that is another matter, but that question is not settled by whether or not other tables will adopt it.

[1eyedjack]

Duplicate post - deleted

[Bbradley62]

1eyedjack, on 2014-December-30, 15:55, said:

That there was such a high ratio of robots to humans in any "room" that is not a robot tournament is, to my mind, extraordinary. Especially as it was not on the first of the month when basic robots are free.

I'm curious as to why Lycier played the hand 6-7 hours before everyone else.

[steve2005]

1eyedjack, on 2014-December-30, 16:00, said:

I find this to be a particularly unconvincing objection.

If redoubling is optimal strategy then it is important to adopt that strategy regardless of what happens at other tables. If the rest of the room redoubles, then you need to redouble simple to achieve par. If the rest of the room does not redouble then it is just as much of a chuck in lost opportunities if you fail to redouble at your table.

Of course, if redoubling is not optimal strategy, then that is another matter, but that question is not settled by whether or not other tables will adopt it.

I was assuming it was a Gib tournament since this is a Gib discussion forum. If everyone using Gib card then most will do same bidding. So if you can rebouble for penalty everyone can and will. So bidding wont make a difference.