Help
I'm seriously question whether it is worth ever opening 2C with a robot partner. Here is my most recent misadventure:
https://tinyurl.com/ydmn4k97
A search of this forum shows that the dreaded "cheaper minor" bug is not a new problem. But it apparently never has been fixed.
How do you interpret a robot "cheaper minor" bid:
a) As a second negative (showing no "values" (2 queens, 1K or better)?
b) Showing values and a real suit in that minor?
c) Another waiting bid, showing nothing and asking for further description?
How should I have responded to 3H in this example, to avoid the robot precipitously jumping to slam?
My experience is that after an opening 2C bid, the cheaper minor response comes up frequently. Is it avoidable? I'm inclined to think that opening 2C with a robot partner should be limited to balanced hands preparing to rebid 2N or 3N, and otherwise risk opening at the 1 level.
What do you think?
Page 1 of 1
Cheaper Minor (yet again ...)
#2
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 974
- Joined: 2017-August-10
- Gender:Male
Posted 2021-September-03, 13:58
it is a border line 2♣ opener. with 5422 I would preference 2NT open or 2♣ with 2NT rebid. that is only imo.
#3
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 4,044
- Joined: 2014-March-15
- Gender:Male
Posted 2021-September-03, 14:31
Based on all of the other times I've seen this bug come up, the explanation seems rather simple; GIB would have been programmed to bid a natural 3♣ when it had values and a club suit; then cheaper minor was introduced, without removing that rule. So it now bids it with both hands, which is totally broken.
The problem is, how would you fix it - cheaper minor isn't a great convention and makes further bidding very hard with hands like these. Easiest way would be to switch GIB to an immediate negative 2♥ - that would result in a lot more logical continuations that would be easier for a robot to understand.
You probably could have escaped safely here even without showing a balanced hand; if GIB truly did have a very weak hand as it promised, you don't want to be in 3NT; your 3♦ bid says forcing to 3♠, so you could have bid a much safer 3♠ over 3♥. It's hard to argue with the last 6NT bid, given 3NT promised values for game opposite a 0 count.
[edit]I take it back. If you bid 3♠, GIB will pull out another one of its huge flaws, jump straight to Blackwood and put you in 6♠.
The problem is, how would you fix it - cheaper minor isn't a great convention and makes further bidding very hard with hands like these. Easiest way would be to switch GIB to an immediate negative 2♥ - that would result in a lot more logical continuations that would be easier for a robot to understand.
You probably could have escaped safely here even without showing a balanced hand; if GIB truly did have a very weak hand as it promised, you don't want to be in 3NT; your 3♦ bid says forcing to 3♠, so you could have bid a much safer 3♠ over 3♥. It's hard to argue with the last 6NT bid, given 3NT promised values for game opposite a 0 count.
[edit]I take it back. If you bid 3♠, GIB will pull out another one of its huge flaws, jump straight to Blackwood and put you in 6♠.
#4
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 5,041
- Joined: 2008-September-10
- Gender:Male
Posted 2021-September-03, 14:37
3NT showed 25-32 HCP. Good decision by North to not play you for a maximum and bid 7NT.
#5
- Group: Members
- Posts: 27
- Joined: 2008-November-26
Posted 2021-September-03, 18:58
johnu, on 2021-September-03, 14:37, said:
3NT showed 25-32 HCP. Good decision by North to not play you for a maximum and bid 7NT.
The bot interpreted 3N as showing 25-32. But that just isn't logical, imo.
Page 1 of 1