[straube]

 bluecalm, on 2012-March-18, 07:53, said:

Ok, I see.
We have new expert forum for people to defend ideas like robot leads. Awesome !



This only shows you have no clue how good players think about this game.
You will never see anyone good saying things like: "well, I would lead this and this but now let's see if bidding suggest otherwise". In fact if you were to defend such reasoning you will instantly be seen as someone not very good no matter where this reasoning leads you to in particular deal.

This is an insulting post. I asked for information about robot leads because I don't know much about them and thought they might help us to defend. I understand about listening to the auction etc, but agreements about leads might conceivably help us to know whether partner might be denying a stiff, etc, by his choice of lead. I posted this to the expert forum because I thought that expert players would be most knowledgeable about this. More than likely, the Granovetters should be considered experts and they've advanced this idea of robot leads. I was doubtful in the past about the Granovetter's Obvious Shift idea as well, but I learned then that this idea has a following and it's helped (I think) our partnership. I'm welcoming of criticism of robot leads and perhaps they are altogether bad, but I'd appreciate some leeway as to which forum I elect to post.

[bluecalm]

My reply was to dake50 for his trollish post, not to you.

Quote

More than likely, the Granovetters should be considered experts and they've advanced this idea of robot leads

Again, I honestly don't know what could motivate them to advance this idea (and with such intellectually dishonest argumentation too as quoted by PrecisionL). If someone come to this forum and propose something similar they would be ridiculed in no time. Granovetters deserve the same and even more so as they writing could be taken seriously by some naive souls and thus do some damage.

[awm]

The following points would seem to hold:

1. There are a lot of common auctions like 1NT-3NT or 1♠-2♠-4♠ that don't seem to demand any particular lead.
2. A lot of effort/energy/time can be spent on opening lead, even though the results are highly random.
3. There could be some advantages to inferences about the rest of the hand/defense based on opening lead.
4. Gaining these inferences and saving the effort/energy/time might be worth making slightly inferior leads.

It seems like one could agree to play something like robot leads on a certain style of auctions, for example auctions where our side has made no call but pass and opponents have not named a suit naturally other than their final strain. This would not necessarily be a bad agreement. Even the Granovetters aren't recommending this lead style in all auctions (I don't think any expert would) but using such a system sometimes doesn't seem ridiculous.

[bluecalm]

Quote

It seems like one could agree to play something like robot leads on a certain style of auctions, for example auctions where our side has made no call but pass and opponents have not named a suit naturally other than their final strain. This would not necessarily be a bad agreement.

Still sucks.
As the simplest example lead from xx is usually very attractive against 4M if your hand is weak and much less attractive if you hold majority of defensive assets.
You will make mistakes like that all the time if you follow the chart. Seriously, can we just agree the idea is ridiculous and forget about it ?

[dake50]

This is an insulting post. I asked for information about robot leads because I don't know much about them and thought they might help us to defend. I understand about listening to the auction etc, but agreements about leads might conceivably help us to know whether partner might be denying a stiff, etc, by his choice of lead. I posted this to the expert forum because I thought that expert players would be most knowledgeable about this. More than likely, the Granovetters should be considered experts and they've advanced this idea of robot leads. I was doubtful in the past about the Granovetter's Obvious Shift idea as well, but I learned then that this idea has a following and it's helped (I think) our partnership. I'm welcoming of criticism of robot leads and perhaps they are altogether bad, but I'd appreciate some leeway as to which forum I elect to post.

*** Absolutely insulting to any reasoning mind were the comments I called out.
Discuss why's and wherefore's but don't get into grade school quarreling.
I'm glad you have the observational powers to recognize quarreling when it's so obvious.
You even express the reason to discuss, not quarrel.
Thanks for recognizing "This only shows you have no clue how good players think about this game.
You will never see anyone good saying things like..." was NO ATTEMPT TO DISCUSS - JUST QUARRELLING.

[bluecalm]

I didn't quarrel tbh. I just stated facts.
This is too obvious to discuss in expert forum. Anyway I am done with it, the concept is ridiculous so have it for yourself.

[dake50]

Ok, I see.
We have new expert forum for people to defend ideas like robot leads. Awesome !

This only shows you have no clue how good players think about this game.
You will never see anyone good saying things like: "well, I would lead this and this but now let's see if bidding suggest otherwise". In fact if you were to defend such reasoning you will instantly be seen as someone not very good no matter where this reasoning leads you to in particular deal.


***
Every expert partnership I know publishes CARDING AGREEMENTS (including opening leads).
Do you assert they should publish auction agreements instead?
Is CARDING AGREEMENTS not how "good players think"?
Astounding this is so obviously in front of you and your experience of bridge,
yet you decry that thinking.
At least open your mind to the POSSIBILITY that a rational person can start
from CARDING AGREEMENTS and yet play well.

[bluecalm]

I think you don't understand what robot leads are.
They are not carding agreement. They are agreement about what suit you choose to lead from.
Anyway, I think you are just a troll because of this:

Quote

Do you assert they should publish auction agreements instead?

Quote

Is CARDING AGREEMENTS not how "good players think"?

I've never asserted anything like that.
Anyway I offered helpful advice which is to forget about silly idea of robot leads because no good player ever think like that.
If I wasn't right on this one I would be ridiculous to state this as a fact but alas I am right which you can easy verify by asking good players you come across.
Ok I am done with responding to your posts.

[Zelandakh]

Opening lead tables date back to (at least) Culbertson. Indeed this is how I learned. It did not take very long to find out that this was a poor idea most of the time. Several authors have published material about how important it is to vary your lead according to the auction.

Finally, a plea to everyone here - please let us try to avoid "forum police" mentality, at least publicly. If you believe a post is misplaced in this forum then send a message to Ben about it. Equally a plea to Ben - could we perhaps remove such "wrong forum" messages since they only serve to derail threads and cause bad feelings to develop?

[pigpenz]

Are robot leads related to the cd/book "switch in time"?

[bluecalm]

I've read it long time ago so I am not sure but I don't recall it having anything about robot leads.
Very interesting book imo, even if I don't like every idea they talk about there it make you think about meanings of signals a lot and a lot of this stuff is applicable to more standard signalling methods.

[pigpenz]

 bluecalm, on 2012-March-20, 11:44, said:

I've read it long time ago so I am not sure but I don't recall it having anything about robot leads.
Very interesting book imo, even if I don't like every idea they talk about there it make you think about meanings of signals a lot and a lot of this stuff is applicable to more standard signalling methods.

Thanks for info just saw it on bridge today site and wondered if they were related

[dake50]

My reply was to dake50 for his trollish post, not to you.

Again, I honestly don't know what could motivate them to advance this idea (and with such intellectually dishonest argumentation too as quoted by PrecisionL). If someone come to this forum and propose something similar they would be ridiculed in no time. Granovetters deserve the same and even more so as they writing could be taken seriously by some naive souls and thus do some damage.

***
More trollish --- if you think that the programmers
of robots will never surpass what you claim you are able to do,
look at what robots did to master chess.
To assert that that can't/won't be done without
ANY justification IS QUARRELLING!!!

[Zelandakh]

 dake50, on 2012-March-22, 16:12, said:

look at what robots did to master chess.

But this thread is not about bridge computer leads, it is about leading from a given holding in a suit in preference to a given holding in another suit regardless of the auction. The chess equivalent of this would be to always play the first legal move from the list: e4, Nf3, Bc4, Nc3, d3, 0-0, Be3, Qd2, Rad1 regardless of what black has done in the meantime. I hope you can see the flae in this argument. Even the current generation of bridge computer programs do not ignore the bidding when choosing a lead. If you believe it is such a good idea, why do you think the programmers of robots do not use it? Could it be that the bridge programs are actually already smarter than you?

[dboxley]

 dake50, on 2012-March-18, 18:33, said:

Ok, I see.
We have new expert forum for people to defend ideas like robot leads. Awesome !
This only shows you have no clue how good players think about this game.
You will never see anyone good saying things like: "well, I would lead this and this but now let's see if bidding suggest otherwise". In fact if you were to defend such reasoning you will instantly be seen as someone not very good no matter where this reasoning leads you to in particular deal.

***
So you won't lead K from KQJ1098 against 3NT?
That's a preferred lead, high on any list of leads.
I defend that reasoning. Don't impute a red-herring
just for your inability to rationally discuss this topic.

This from a player who usually gives up a trick on opening lead... I do it because I tend to overthink lead situations. Does this auction call for a trump lead, an attacking lead, a passive lead, is declarer prepared for a lead of my suit or partner's suit? Actually, the better the opponents, the easier it is to pick the correct lead but it is still sometimes random. I'm not suggesting that you shouldn't think but saving some brain energy by following blind rules when nothing else presents itself seems like a good idea to me.