[zhasbeen]

These were 2 hands I played recently:

Deal 4 (top):
As you can see, robot had a square 12-pointer and accepted quantitative invitation by bidding 6. I went down 1 when queen of spades was off side. There is no other play for 12th trick.

Deal 12 (bottom):
This one started almost exactly the same as #4, but this time robot passed with what was arguably a better hand because of diamond suit. This time robot passed and I made 6 that required only a 3-2 diamond split.

working on handviewer diagram....top is deal 4, bottom deal 12. Both say deal 1 now but Idon't know how to change them now. when I clicked "D" it spit out random numbers rather than 1-12. I it possible to edit hv diagram after you have inserted it?

---

---

[steve2005]

1st board 50% second board 68% second board south has 1 extra point perhaps if south had a way to find out if north has 5♦ south can bid the slam without even inviting. NMF?
I don't complain out being in 50% slam so often they are just hopeless.

[zhasbeen]

steve2005, on 2017-October-29, 20:08, said:

1st board 50% second board 68% second board south has 1 extra point perhaps if south had a way to find out if north has 5♦ south can bid the slam without even inviting. NMF?
I don't complain out being in 50% slam so often they are just hopeless.

I hear you, but in both cases the only thing robot knows about the south hand is that it has made a quantitative raise. With that knowledge the robot has deemed the square 12 on top more worthy of going to 6 than the bottom hand with 12 points and a decent 5-card suit.
I think my decision to make the 4NT bid is more open to question. It was on conservative side but I see the robot open quite a few 11-12 pointers and so do I. I hate turning a plus into a minus by making a risky bid at match points where games and part scores can be worth more than slams.

The quantitative raise is asking "are you in the bottom or top half of minimum range?" That top hand looks like bottom of range to me.

[johnu]

steve2005, on 2017-October-29, 20:08, said:

1st board 50% second board 68% second board south has 1 extra point perhaps if south had a way to find out if north has 5♦ south can bid the slam without even inviting. NMF?
I don't complain out being in 50% slam so often they are just hopeless.

1st hand is less than 50% since a 4-1, 5-0 club break can hold you to 2 club winners.

[johnu]

zhasbeen, on 2017-October-29, 10:41, said:

working on handviewer diagram....top is deal 4, bottom deal 12. Both say deal 1 now but Idon't know how to change them now. when I clicked "D" it spit out random numbers rather than 1-12. I it possible to edit hv diagram after you have inserted it?

Look for the text "&b=" where b stands for board number. Change the number that follows to your suggested board number

---

---

[Stephen Tu]

Am I looking at a different first hand than everyone else? It seems like 1st hand is like less than 1%, not merely less than 50%, don't you need stiff K of spades? Or I suppose a lead from the SK on opening lead which would be kind of nuts.

[smerriman]

Basic GIB passes both, so I guess you just got an unlucky set of simulations on each.

[steve2005]

Stephen Tu, on 2017-October-29, 21:34, said:

Am I looking at a different first hand than everyone else? It seems like 1st hand is like less than 1%, not merely less than 50%, don't you need stiff K of spades? Or I suppose a lead from the SK on opening lead which would be kind of nuts.

Yes you right barring a spade lead you need singleton K.

Also, if I was looking for slam on first hand with a human I would be looking for 6♣. If north has a doubleton with good odds they have 4♣ then there might be a play for 6♣. not on this hand even with a doubleton I think. Of course, trying this sort of slam bidding is a random number generator with Gib and will often end up in hopeless contracts.

[virgosrock]

zhasbeen, on 2017-October-29, 10:41, said:

These were 2 hands I played recently:

Deal 4 (top):
As you can see, robot had a square 12-pointer and accepted quantitative invitation by bidding 6. I went down 1 when queen of spades was off side. There is no other play for 12th trick.

Deal 12 (bottom):
This one started almost exactly the same as #4, but this time robot passed with what was arguably a better hand because of diamond suit. This time robot passed and I made 6 that required only a 3-2 diamond split.

working on handviewer diagram....top is deal 4, bottom deal 12. Both say deal 1 now but Idon't know how to change them now. when I clicked "D" it spit out random numbers rather than 1-12. I it possible to edit hv diagram after you have inserted it?

---

---

First hand
mostly 1d is 5 cards which may have influenced GIBBO. there are other options
1c-2d later showing clubs. Not sure if that shows 5 or 4 clubs. based on a hand I recently posted where i opened 1d and GIB jump shifted and later bid D, it shows only 4+ d support. Same should apply to 1c-jumpshift though I seem to recall it shows 5+ clubs.
1c-2c is also a possibility here as well. I'd prefer 1c-2c to make GIBBO's life easier. Might end up with same result.

Second hand
1d-1s-1nt-2c(nmf). I think 2d will show 5d and then off to the races.
In general the more the clarification to GIB the better it will decide. Of course clarifies to defense too but that is always true. I think 3D would be forcing as well. If so, that is better.

vrock

[zhasbeen]

smerriman, on 2017-October-29, 22:30, said:

Basic GIB passes both, so I guess you just got an unlucky set of simulations on each.

You don’t know half of it. I was leading a 25-table field after 11 rounds and got knocked down 2nd after 26% on this board to lose by 1.4%.

That wasn’t the worst, however. On Saturday I went into last board of 43-table game with a 78% score. I’m in process of inserting a handview file of this board in that thread.
Anyway, I got a 39% on the board that knocked me down to 74.5 % and 2nd place. I was confident that I’d won anyway but knew that it wasn’t a sure thing. Sure enough, someone had a 75.8%, giving me another tough beat on last hand. The 78% would have been a new record for me since I started playing in the robot games 10 weeks ago. I always play in the 12-board ACBL games.

I had 2 other close 2nd’s the last couple days, but will spare you the details. In one I didn’t play well at all and deserved to lose.

All that complaining aside, I’ve gotten plenty of breaks from robot, and some good plays too. I believe that the breaks even out over time. And, although we would all like to see improved from robots, I doubt that it would change our scores much, if it all. We all play with the same robots—it’s the same for everyone, as the saying goes. The big plus would be in form of fewer frustrations. It’s always more enjoyable to play with good partners, and the robots never criticize us. I can't begin to imagine how difficult it is to program these guys. What I can imagine is that there is a domino effect. When you make one change it has an effect on a bunch others that you have to deal with.

[zhasbeen]

Stephen Tu, on 2017-October-29, 21:34, said:

Am I looking at a different first hand than everyone else? It seems like 1st hand is like less than 1%, not merely less than 50%, don't you need stiff K of spades? Or I suppose a lead from the SK on opening lead which would be kind of nuts.

True; and I actually did get a spade lead. When the dummy came down I figured that there was less than a 10% chance that bot had lead away from the king. The great majority of the time they make a passive lead. However, there was no other possibility for a 12th trick so I let it ride. Down one.

[zhasbeen]

johnu, on 2017-October-29, 21:19, said:

Look for the text "&b=" where b stands for board number. Change the number that follows to your suggested board number


Thanks! I just fixed it.

---

---