Link to hand
This is a ridiculous grand, but it was Best Hand and I was playing catch up. The bots seriously need some form of signalling, even if it just standard count. It would help this situation where both opps were guarding diamonds which was never a threat.
Page 1 of 1
GIB lets through a no-play grand signalling required
#2
Posted 2015-January-11, 15:28
My link
Another hand that illustrates the same (recurring) problem. Since East is 100% marked with ♣K98 (or declarer would have had 13 tricks off the top), it makes zero sense for West to expose the ♦Q in order to protect the ♣10. Yet this kind of defensive lapse happens time and again, with the result that, if you look for a legitimate line (such as a ♣/♦ squeeze on this hand) you are more than likely to get a worse result than if you just cash your tricks and hope for a silly mistake.
Unfortunately, with the exception of the Ace-on-lead-against-7NT issue, problems with the robots' card play seem to generate no traction with the developers. And even that correction seems limited to grand slams, if not specifically to 7NT. So you sometimes get Belladonna and Garozzo as defenders, but all too often it's Laurel and Hardy.
Another hand that illustrates the same (recurring) problem. Since East is 100% marked with ♣K98 (or declarer would have had 13 tricks off the top), it makes zero sense for West to expose the ♦Q in order to protect the ♣10. Yet this kind of defensive lapse happens time and again, with the result that, if you look for a legitimate line (such as a ♣/♦ squeeze on this hand) you are more than likely to get a worse result than if you just cash your tricks and hope for a silly mistake.
Unfortunately, with the exception of the Ace-on-lead-against-7NT issue, problems with the robots' card play seem to generate no traction with the developers. And even that correction seems limited to grand slams, if not specifically to 7NT. So you sometimes get Belladonna and Garozzo as defenders, but all too often it's Laurel and Hardy.
Page 1 of 1

Help
