Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Stefan Olausson
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 34 35 36 37
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If it's BBO robots, AFAIK, they don't play suit-preference at all.

They just assume pd will still find the killing play, though :)
22 hours ago
Stefan Olausson edited this comment 22 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I know what “impossible 2” means if North had rebid 2m.

But after the 2 rebid…?
Does it then show 5-5 in the minors? Or what?

Do the robots really play such convention? If not, it seems futile for a human to use it….
22 hours ago
Stefan Olausson edited this comment 22 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree with the poll North should preempt 5 in first round.

It's pretty clear with that distribution that 4 won't be the final contract, anyways.

Not that it will necessarily help – they might still venture 6, of course – but make them guess as much as possible.

I don't see you have anything to call director about, really, since West had no UI when raising to 6.
(Unless you just want to make it clear to West, that any unsolicited comments during the bidding or play are generally inappropriate, of course)
If there was another bidding-round after 6, and East took some action, it might possibly be some UI involved.
But more likely not, since it's pretty clear from the 6 bid itself that West considered his hand has improved :)
April 15
Stefan Olausson edited this comment April 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I also haven't been in that exact “ridiculous” sit, but playing 2 ourselves, I have seen pard open 2, they preempted in hearts, you sit there with a void in hearts and long spades.
It's darn horrible! :D

After that, I insist on playing X as pass-or-correct over major-overcalls.

And then some months ago…
we play Multi with a 5+major, pard opened 2, they overcalled 4, and holding short spades and long hearts I had an easy such X. Pard held 5 spades and happily converted to penalties :)
April 13
Stefan Olausson edited this comment April 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Cheats? How?
April 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hmm… Not sure how transfers would help here?
Can you elaborate?
April 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Interesting.
We currently play very similar – designed independently :)

2 can be a strong 5-card or normal 6-card opening.

2 - 3/3 = SAT showing a 5+ major of your own, but we play it as GF.

Over 2 - 2NT, we play:
3 = A 6-card major. -3=GF, then cross-wise majors.
3 = Exactly 5 hearts. Minimum.
3 = Exactly 5 spades. Minimum.
3 = Exactly 5 hearts. Maximum.
3NT = Exactly 5 spades. Maximum.
April 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We currently play 2 Multi, showing only a weak major.

Prioritizing major-contracts, we play both 3m and 4m responses as “South-African Texas” – like this:

2 - 2M/3M/4M = Pass or correct.

2 - 3 = GF with 5+hearts, lacking spade-support.

2 - 3 = GF with 5+spades, lacking heart-support.

2 - 4 = Sign-off in 4 with own long heart-suit. Opener normally transfers back.

2 - 4 = Sign-off in 4 with own long spade-suit. Opener normally transfers back.

Over the 2-3m responses, there is then room to sort out if you have a 5-3 or 6-2 fit or no such fit.

————————

When opps overcall a major against 2, we play X as pass-or-correct, not for penalties.
If they overcall a minor, X for penalties.
April 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
>“Right now we never have to think about those questions, which I like.”

Man — you're sooo simplistic!

;)
April 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
>“Have you thought about how a convention card would look if this rule were repealed?”

Could just be 2 cards/pair instead of one.
April 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
>“how far you are allowed to diverge without violating the rules”?

I would also appreciate an answer to this specific question.
April 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Boils down to exactly what means “system” and what means “style”?

If one player plays 15-17-NT with 2 or more cards in each suit, while his pard essentially – and despite what the CC says – plays 14-17-NT and 1 or more cards in each suit, exactly why is that not different systems?

I don't know the answer.

If they displayed different CC's it would not be allowed, I believe?
April 12
Stefan Olausson edited this comment April 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In trick 8, double-dummy analysis, there are 2 mis-plays.
First West discards a spade, when he should have discarded a diamond. Then North returns the gift by discarding 7 when he should have discarded a diamond.

Trick 9, another mistake, West discards 3 when he should have unblocked J or discard .

After that, West is thrown in on J, forced to concede 2 more diamond-tricks.
April 12
Stefan Olausson edited this comment April 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Should play trumps to the King,
in case East has the Queen singleton,
and West has 3 spades, I believe.

If West doubled with trumps AQx(xx)
you will always lose two trumps, anyways.
April 12
Stefan Olausson edited this comment April 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I ruff the second diam high, and if it wins, continue small trump.
April 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Why did I pass the double?
2 transfer to seems automatic…

I guess they got a ruff?
April 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks Ian! Awesome deal - with Qx, too :D

Your question – I don't quite get it, what you want to do?
Could u elaborate? Give a use-case?
April 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
BTW, Ian, could you post a link to your play-records of that deal?

Would be interesting to see.
April 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, they “fixed” the bug that Gib refused to lead an Ace against 7NT.

Then someone discovered it would also refuse to lead AK in the same suit against 6NT. And they “fixed” that, too.

And now this :)

These embarrassing symptoms, of course, means that Gib has one or more underlying bugs in the core-software/algorithm, that BBO is not able to trouble-shoot and fix properly.

And there are probably many more of those infamous “crazy gib plays” that result from such bugs, but they are not so obvious to fix with “digital duct-tape” as the examples above.
April 10
Stefan Olausson edited this comment April 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
>“BBO people says Gib uses Winning Suit Contract leads and No Trump leads by D. Bird etc.”

Well, not quite… or, at least, I'm pretty sure that is not correct.

I guess you (or the “BBO people”) are referring to the paragraphs below from GIB system notes.

My understanding is *not* that it actually “uses” Bird's books.

It just says, that you can read those books to *understand why* Gibs double-dummy algorithm will often favor passive leads, or select the leads made by Gib.

It's *not* that they took Bird's books and somehow “programmed Gib” to use the style from those books.
They are independent works (well, Bird might rather have been inspired by Gib), but *come to the same conclusion* because that is what the underlying mathematics/statistics analysis will actually yield.

–quote–
GIB usually leads passively against NT (read the book Winning Notrump Leads to understand why).
Don't assume it's leading its longest suit.
When you lead, it doesn't assume you're leading your best suit, which is why it doesn't always return the suit like a human would.

In suit contracts, GIB's opening lead is frequently a side singleton or doubleton, to try to get a ruff.
When it leads a suit bid by the opponents, this is almost always the reason.
Read the book Winning Suit Contract Leads for insight on the way GIB leads against suits.
–end quote–

- http://www.bridgebase.com/doc/gib_system_notes.php

BTW, isn't Bird's books also of a much later date than the Gib software?

AFAIU, Gib was developed ca 1995-2000 or so,
after which Ginsberg abandoned the software and any meaningful improvement of Gib virtually ceased.
April 10
Stefan Olausson edited this comment April 10
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 34 35 36 37
.

Bottom Home Top