University of IAC > 2/1 Talk

Trying to play with GIBs, a minor rant

<< < (2/3) > >>

onoway:
Short answer is because if p opens a simple raise doesn't show the strength of my  hand.  P is minimum and will pass that and I don't want that to happen. It's been a Very long time since I played any sort of Goren and not entirely sure what I learned, literally at my parents knees at the weekly bridge game, even was strictly Goren, but certainly closer than any other system I've run into.

Certainly p's opening is within the parameters of point count, if a tad aggressive given the weaknesses in the hand but iirc Goren wasn't a shy bidder., In any case with such an opening I'd expect p to pass anything reasonable asap. Therefore I have to show I have extras somehow, and encourage ongoing dialogue. So then I'd expect my clone to say something like, oh really! Tell me more about your hand, maybe we ve got game somewhere!b and..we are still at a low level so we can get out if needed.  So them we explore for a fit , likely ending up in some number of dia., because  of the fragile other suits.  a huge difference in the games is that in rubber bridge it's generally a very bad idea to go down. Sacrifices are not generally a winning strategy  as they often are in duplicate. BuI just as in duplicate, getting into the bidding as soon as possible is.

As I said it's been a VERY long time and quite possible one or either of my parents had developed a twist or two that worked for them, until I came to BBO I'd never had a "lesson" in my life.

 That's just the way it was, not any sort pride or shame. I didn't even know there was such a thing as duplicate.  Joining BBO was definitely a shock! Thank goodness for BIL in those days with people like Susan Doty shepherding innocents into the shadowy world of conventions! Sorry Oliver you were (and still are) way beyond my ability to follow into the mysteries of Precision! I tried to leap from knowing NO conventions to understanding your notes on Lebensohl and got somewhat traumatized, like trying to teach a grad 5er physics, it didn't take, even with the best of intentions!

onoway:
By  The  way,  not trying to defend Goren, he doesn't need it and even if he did I've no impressive record to wave as a banner. Just trying to explain what a totally different world I grew up in in bridge terms and why I go off on tangents sometimes.

kenberg:
If I understand it correctly, you do not play 1 !D - 2 !D as forcing.  So the all-bot auction that I gave earlier, 1 !D - 2 !D -2NT - 3NT was unavailable to you.

I started bridge in 1961 by reading Goren. I liked it fine. But Goren has been dead, literally and figuratively, for quite a few years.

Let's try SAYC
http://web2.acbl.org/documentlibrary/play/SP3%20(bk)%20single%20pages.pdf

In SAYC, 1 !D - 2NT is natural with 13-15 highs.  Same as Goren if I recall correctly. So that would be an option in SAYC. But the 2NT is passable with the bots, so let's say you start 2 !C. Partner bids 2NT.   OK, 3NT. Why not? Is it really likely that after 1 !D - 2 !C - 2NT that the hand belongs in 5 !D?
It's possible perhaps. But think of 3 !D from partner's point of view, whether bot or human. He has bid 2NT and you, after starting with 2 !C, now bid 3 !D. Partner sees this as you announcing "From my hand I think we are unlikely to belong in NT. Continue on to 3NT at your own risk". So he says "Ok, I guess we need to find a minor to play in. I have three clubs, partner surely has five to bid this way, so 4 !C". Oops.

So: The bot auction playing inverted minors is 1 !D - 2 !D - 2NT - 3NT. In SAYC it could be either 1 !D - 2NT - 3NT or 1 !D - 2 !C - 2NT -3NT.

Here is a made up hand to illustrate the above:
!C AKJ74    !D J865  !H 2   !S A32

Partner opens 1 !D, you bid 2 !C, partner rebids 2NT. This hand could well belong in 6 !C or 6 !D, and if not then probably 5m. So you bid 3 !D. This is more along the lines of what partner would expect when you first bid 2 !C and then 3 !D.  After 3 !D partner can still bid 3NT. But with Qx in hearts he surely won't. 3NT would have no play opposite this hypothetical hand of yours,   5 !D has decent chances. Far from certain, but his opening was a bit marginal.


At any rate, however it starts exactly, if partner at some point bids 2NT, raising to 3NT sounds right.

aloysuis:
I found this post very interesting, thanks.  Having only this year taken up 2/1, I find the robots [and explanations] pretty solid in bidding, but is there any point in signalling in defence?
Also, if GIB can declare the hand better, why can't the robot? - possibly they aren't linked, but robot declarer seems to select the worst line of play even more often than I do!

kenberg:
Figuring out just why the bots do what they do is a challenge.  I keep meaning to do a serious analysis but so far I haven't.

I believe that they actually signal in some instances. Of course "signally in some instances" is hard to tell from "random plays that occasionally are correct signals"

The appear to ignore any signals from their partner, so there maybe is no reason for them to signal.

When BBO folks  describe what the bots do during play, they usually refer to random simulations. I hope they will someday explain this a little. There have been several times I cannot imagine any simulation that would make anyone choose the line the bot chooses.

I have thought some about the limitations of simulations. I suppose simulations go something like this: Consider the unseen cards randomly distributed and then see  which play has the best chance. Ok, but this does not, or might not, take into account what others are likely to do. Double dummy analysis, which I assume is what a simulation uses, can be interesting but in fact it is not all that great a predictor of what will actually happen. People rarely drop stiff kings when there are three cards out, the double dummy analysis does.

I defended a hand yesterday where the line I took was nuts. Perhaps random double dummy analysis would show it plausible, but taking the human element into my thinking would have led me to the correct line. I try to do this, the bots don't. 

But there are other cases where I really cannot see how any analysis, with or without considering the human element, would lead then there.

I have posted some hands with the bots. My general view is that they are often ok and sometimes very good. But other times they appear to have suffered from some electronic  zap. But then that applies to me also.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page