[manudude03]

---

Robot duplicate tourney (MPs).

I understand it doesn't need to cash the 2 aces on the first 2 tricks, but I would have thought south being 2632 was a big enough threat that it can't risk pushing for an extra undertrick, let alone the actual shape.

[lycier]

Obviously,Gib server for playing is in ageing I think.

[steve2005]

Q♣ isn't totally horrible, your aces are in your short suits so opp unlikely to run 12 tricks. But to get an extra trick you need partner to have K♣ or some card they are probably going to get if you cash your 2 Aces.

But back to reality, check the bidding, run the simulations partner has 0 hcp, there is no hope. Cash the two aces and get on to the next hand.

or at least when you do get in with one ace consider yourself lucky, run the simulations again and cash A♠.

So, the only legit reason for not cashing is it's sure south has 5♥. Ok maybe it's possible south has 5♥ and you can get -2. But is is really worth risking getting an absolute bottom with 6NX= when -1X is likely a good score if not a top?

Another issue why didn't east give count with 7♦? played 3. Knowing in Gib 2/1 your not supposed to JS with side 4-card♠, so west Gib will have complete count on south's hand. but still no excuse.

There is definitely a bug in the simulations, the programmers had to hard-wire Gib's programming to get it to cash an Ace in 7N, running the simulations weren't coming up with cashing.

[iandayre]

It's true that nobody posts hands where the bidding has totally gone off the rails and GIB is able to get additional defensive trick(s) by not cashing out. But still I, like Steve, question the quality of the simulations. Is GIB simply simulating what lie of the cards is most likely, or is it (as it must) also considering the cost in MP's or IMP's of being wrong (failing to cash when it was needed) as opposed to the gain in extra undertrick(s) for being right?