[1175]

I feel as if I need to start a thread of bidding explanations that appear "suboptimal" (meaning that they make no sense, and I hope they eventually change with a system update).

While some of these have appeared in other threads I have started, I will make this hand my first formal nomination:

---

This auction occurred at three tables, with 5♣ going down one or two. I will add a fourth table here, where (in this sequence) South simply passed the 3♥ bid by North (down five undoubled). What caused this? The treatment of the 3♣ bid: "My long suit - no major fit - 6+♣; 1-♠; 11-16 total points". If South had six or more clubs and 11-16 points, he would have acted over 1♥.

I will add this (similar) treatment of the 4♣ bid ("4-♦; 2-♠; 13- HCP; twice rebiddable ♣; 15+ total points"), which occurred at two tables (down three or four tricks):

---

Some Souths handled this sequence better than others. The winning call (made at only three tables):

---

That failed by one or two tricks, even though (double dummy) North-South can make 3♠. One South should have made his preference known a round earlier:

---

At four tables, South never retreated to spades (down three or four):

---

Finally, at two tables (mine included - a rare win in the duplicate IMPs), North-South produced a plus score with an "eccentric" bid by South:

---

One doesn't see both sides playing the same contract at the 3-level very often. This failed by two tricks (+100 and 9 IMPS). While I don't feel particularly proud of the 3♣ bid, it did have the effect of keeping North out of the auction.

[rhm]

You confuse bad treatments with bad judgement.

There is no cure against bad judgement except learning from experience.
Bad treatments require bad agreements, like playing something as artificial instead of natural or of playing something as forcing instead of non forcing or vice versa.
I doubt that the players in your example had clear agreements what the bids in your example showed.
An expert would have passed 3C in a flash not because of superior agreements but because of superior judgement

[1175]

rhm, on 2024-June-23, 06:06, said:

You confuse bad treatments with bad judgement.

I don't agree.

This subforum concerns "BBO Robot Discussion." The Robot has no judgement, and (if you have read any of my other threads) you will see others making that point. Human players have to use the system, because the Robot will believe whatever its partner bid.

rhm, on 2024-June-23, 06:06, said:

I doubt that the players in your example had clear agreements what the bids in your example showed.

The bid explanation showed exactly what the Robot expected from the South hand.

rhm, on 2024-June-23, 06:06, said:

An expert would have passed 3C in a flash not because of superior agreements but because of superior judgement

I don't believe anyone (least of all myself) would classify the Robot as an "expert."

[smerriman]

 1175, on 2024-June-22, 12:59, said:

(meaning that they make no sense, and I hope they eventually change with a system update).

The description of this forum is "Abandon all hope, all ye who enter here".

Oh, maybe I misremembered..

Honestly, this one doesn't seem like a big issue to me; GIB has been told that if you want to ignore partner's strong request to pick one of their two suits and play in your own, you need a really good suit.

Sure, that can't exist by a passed hand, and no doubt it could have an improved definition - though be very careful, as weakening the definition most would likely cause GIB to start doing it opposite your Michaels with hands you'd rather it didn't..

But it's an exceedingly rare situation, compared to so many more common ones, and getting out of the auction as cheaply as possible with 2♠ doesn't seem that bad (can't fathom why anyone would pass, knowing you're guaranteed to be in a worse situation next bid..)

[1175]

I lost the hand here (not quick enough to save it), but I remember seeing the explanation and thinking "what the...?" I don't remember the vulnerability either (if that matters).

---

The explanation for the 4♥ bid said something like "4♠ and 6♥" (which I have never seen used anywhere else). I remember reading that several times. Please tell me that I haven't lost my mind.