[iandayre]

GIB ACBL Robot Tournament you hold xx, xx, AKTxx, AQxx

You open 1D in first seat, 1D, 2H, 2S, P --- 3C, P, 3H, Double. What now? Pass seemed obvious, but I was the only one in the small tourney to choose that option. Others? 1 bid 3S (shows 3), GIB bid 4S. 2 bid a strange 3NT, GIB bid 4S. 1 bid 4D, GIB bid 4S. At my table after my pass GIB bid 3S and I bid 4S. Now GIB bid again! 5D cue bid, 5S, down one.

Pass would seem to be the weakest action, but was the only one that somehow made GIB think it should bid above game. Hard to understand.

GIB held AKJ98xx, Jx, Void, KT9x

[m1cha]

iandayre, on 2016-December-03, 19:06, said:

GIB ACBL Robot Tournament you hold xx, xx, AKTxx, AQxx

You open 1D in first seat, 1D, 2H, 2S, P --- 3C, P, 3H, Double. What now? Pass seemed obvious, but I was the only one in the small tourney to choose that option. Others? 1 bid 3S (shows 3), GIB bid 4S. 2 bid a strange 3NT, GIB bid 4S. 1 bid 4D, GIB bid 4S. At my table after my pass GIB bid 3S and I bid 4S. Now GIB bid again! 5D cue bid, 5S, down one.

Pass would seem to be the weakest action, but was the only one that somehow made GIB think it should bid above game. Hard to understand.

GIB held AKJ98xx, Jx, Void, KT9x

Not that hard maybe. There was only one other player to explicitely show spade support. Did any of your bids show additional strength? The robot's hand is worth 18.15 points on the Kaplan and Rubens hand evaluator: K&R at AKJ98xx Jx --- KT9x.
Just imagine you happen to hold ♥A instead of ♦K, the slam is almost cold.

[Stefan_O]

m1cha, on 2016-December-03, 20:04, said:

Not that hard maybe. There was only one other player to explicitely show spade support. Did any of your bids show additional strength? The robot's hand is worth 18.15 points on the Kaplan and Rubens hand evaluator: K&R at AKJ98xx Jx --- KT9x.
Just imagine you happen to hold ♥A instead of ♦K, the slam is almost cold.

Seems like you miss the weirdness...
When the human bid a direct 3S (3-support), Gib just raises to game,
while when Ian first passes (obviously less positive action) it moves towards slam.

Makes no sense.

And it is not uncommon to find similar deals where you gain or lose from such complete random-outcomes,
because of robot behavior, when comparing what happen at other tables.
It's no fun, even if I guess it will even out in the long run if you play a sensible game.

Some of the quirks you also learn to "work around".
Personally I have become quite cautious abt penalty-doubling oppos at high levels, when they have clearly overbid.
You never know if a penalty double, perhaps with setting tricks in your own hand,
will prompt your robot-pard to run into a ridiculous new contract at the 4 or 5-level, and you end up being penalty-doubled yourself!

[Stefan_O]

Adding to Ian's specific hand, is also the broken bidding-database.
Ian writes that direct 3S over the 3H cue-bid was showing 3 spades.
Clearly, that's already impossible, since with 3-support we would always have supported spades on the previous round, rather than bid 3C.

[m1cha]

Stefan_O, on 2016-December-04, 05:38, said:

Seems like you miss the weirdness...
When the human bid a direct 3S (3-support), Gib just raises to game,
while when Ian first passes (obviously less positive action) it moves towards slam.

Makes no sense.

I didn't miss that, but I don't agree. GIB partner made an artificial bid which was doubled. Pass from the player's side then is not necessarily weak. It is clearly forcing, and waiting and just denies a hand suitable for any obvious bid. For example, if 3♥ just promises 10+ or 11+ points and if 3♠ denies additional values, it can be passed in the part score range; and a pass followed by a ♠ raise could then show a stronger hand.
I have absolutely no idea if this is the case here. I'm just saying it might be and I cannot judge the situation based on what I've seen so far. That's why I was asking if any of his bids showed additional strength. This isn't always obvious.

Stefan_O, on 2016-December-04, 05:38, said:

And it is not uncommon to find similar deals where you gain or lose from such complete random-outcomes,
because of robot behavior, when comparing what happen at other tables.
It's no fun, even if I guess it will even out in the long run if you play a sensible game.

Yes, I know. I have played lots of those. A situation I have seen so often: Opponents bid 1♥ - 2♥, and pass. I interfere in reopening position either with a double or by bidding 3♣. Opponents bid on, In one case to 3♥, in the other to 4♥. And then they make anything from 8 to 11 tricks with no apparent correlation to what they have bid or what I have bid (though I guess there should be one). I get 40 % for bidding 2♣ with 3145, 12 HCP, and the robots making 3♥; while those who doubled get 70 % for 4♥ down one. So I think okay, next time I double with this hand type. And then I get 30 % again, now for the double because this time they bid to 4♥ after 2♣. There is nothing one can learn from this. At least that's how I feel about it. I admit so far I haven't bothered to collect statistical evidence. Yeah and I also hope it evens out in the long run.

Anyway, back to the hard facts.

Stefan_O, on 2016-December-04, 05:38, said:

Some of the quirks you also learn to "work around".
Personally I have become quite cautious abt penalty-doubling oppos at high levels, when they have clearly overbid.
You never know if a penalty double, perhaps with setting tricks in your own hand,
will prompt your robot-pard to run into a ridiculous new contract at the 4 or 5-level, and you end up being penalty-doubled yourself!

You definitely have my sympathy. See my topic here:
Robot partner running from a penalty double

Or, did you play the Free Daylong in MPs just yesterday? Noticed board 5?
I held ♠72 ♥A5 ♦AJ73 ♣AKQ32. Partner deals, it goes
p (p) 1♣ 2♣*; (*) Michaels: both majors
p (4♠) ?
Now I feel I should do something and find the double labeled: 'Takeout double -- 4+ ♣; 4+ ♦; 5-♥; 5-♠; 21- HCP; 18 - 22 total points',
just my hand. So I click the double and it goes all pass! My GIB Partner passes the double with virtually nothing but with a 5-card fit in ♣(!), precisely ♠KT ♥J87 ♦542 ♣T9865. West has a ♣ void (of course), the ♠K is finessed, 4♠X makes +1 for 21 % after all because 29 other players were also set up. 5♣ was down 2 or 3, never doubled. Some genius even made 4♣ (after opening 1NT).

[Stefan_O]

m1cha, on 2016-December-04, 14:12, said:

Or, did you play the Free Daylong in MPs just yesterday? Noticed board 5?

No, I did not play that MP Daylong.

Only --- even if I did, it's actually NOT the case that everybody plays the same deals in the Daylong tournaments.

Look at some other players in the scoreboards what deals they played, and you will see entirely different ones.

[iandayre]

m1cha, on 2016-December-04, 14:12, said:

I didn't miss that, but I don't agree. GIB partner made an artificial bid which was doubled. Pass from the player's side then is not necessarily weak. It is clearly forcing, and waiting and just denies a hand suitable for any obvious bid. For example, if 3♥ just promises 10+ or 11+ points and if 3♠ denies additional values, it can be passed in the part score range; and a pass followed by a ♠ raise could then show a stronger hand.
I have absolutely no idea if this is the case here. I'm just saying it might be and I cannot judge the situation based on what I've seen so far. That's why I was asking if any of his bids showed additional strength. This isn't always obvious.


Yes, I know. I have played lots of those. A situation I have seen so often: Opponents bid 1♥ - 2♥, and pass. I interfere in reopening position either with a double or by bidding 3♣. Opponents bid on, In one case to 3♥, in the other to 4♥. And then they make anything from 8 to 11 tricks with no apparent correlation to what they have bid or what I have bid (though I guess there should be one). I get 40 % for bidding 2♣ with 3145, 12 HCP, and the robots making 3♥; while those who doubled get 70 % for 4♥ down one. So I think okay, next time I double with this hand type. And then I get 30 % again, now for the double because this time they bid to 4♥ after 2♣. There is nothing one can learn from this. At least that's how I feel about it. I admit so far I haven't bothered to collect statistical evidence. Yeah and I also hope it evens out in the long run.

[size="2"]Anyway, back to the hard facts.


You definitely have my sympathy. See my topic here:
Robot partner running from a penalty double

Or, did you play the Free Daylong in MPs just yesterday? Noticed board 5?
I held ♠72 ♥A5 ♦AJ73 ♣AKQ32. Partner deals, it goes
p (p) 1♣ 2♣*; (*) Michaels: both majors
p (4♠) ?
Now I feel I should do something and find the double labeled: 'Takeout double -- 4+ ♣; 4+ ♦; 5-♥; 5-♠; 21- HCP; 18 - 22 total points',
just my hand. So I click the double and it goes all pass! My GIB Partner passes the double with virtually nothing but with a 5-card fit in ♣(!), precisely ♠KT ♥J87 ♦542 ♣T9865. West has a ♣ void (of course), the ♠K is finessed, 4♠X makes +1 for 21 % after all because 29 other players were also set up. 5♣ was down 2 or 3, never doubled. Some genius even made 4♣ (after opening 1NT).

All other players had the same auction through the double. (with the exception of one I didn't mention before, who passed the forcing 2S) Of course that one also beat me in MP score, adding to the frustration. 2S already showed 10+, 3H was a game force. Also, I have not seen any GIB auctions where pass shows extras. Sometimes direct action shows extras, sometimes it does not.

[m1cha]

iandayre, on 2016-December-06, 11:22, said:

All other players had the same auction through the double. (with the exception of one I didn't mention before, who passed the forcing 2S) Of course that one also beat me in MP score, adding to the frustration.

Playing best-hand in robot bridge can be like opening in 4th seat. You know that all other players are weak and you may sometimes want to pass an otherwise forcing bid. I wouldn't do it in this case because the hand seems too strong, but it is tempting. A situation where do it regularly: I open 1♣ on a good 4+ card suit with 11 or 12 points and get an inverted minor response labeled "forcing to 2NT" - but do I want to play 2NT? Often not, in IMPs never. 3♣? Ridiculous. So of course I pass, and so far none of the robots on either side of the talbe have ever complained .

iandayre, on 2016-December-06, 11:22, said:

Also, I have not seen any GIB auctions where pass shows extras.

You will not see any, I guess. If a bid has several meanings, the label usually shows the set of common properties. So if we had a pass for both a set of weak hands and another set of strong hands, even if another bid existed for hands weaker than those of the strong set, the label would still show minimum strength.

But what I sometimes see is that I have a bid for, say, up to 13 HCPs and another bid for 16+ HCPs but no bid for my hand. I conclude that either the labels are wrong or I should have bid otherwise with my 14 or 15 HCPs in a previous round. I just remember jump shifts as one example which I don't seem to handle correctly yet.

Then we know cases where pass has a special meaning and says nothing about strength. For example 1NT (p) 2♦ (X) ... If I pass here I just deny a third card in ♥ but I can still have maximum strength and raise partner's 2NT/3♥ to 3NT/4♥. Or imagine your RHO opens 2♦ multi (not a GIB robot, obviously), you may pass and wait for them to show their long major before you step in with a very strong hand hoping to play 3NT. Passing after a forcing call is not automatically weak. Though in your case, I can't say you did anything wrong.

[iandayre]

I often use those tactics as a 3rd/4th seat opener as well. You have to be more careful when partner is unpassed, since "best hand" refers only to HCP. Partner can have an excellent playing hand, this being an example. I would not have dreamed of passing 2S here.