[pilowsky]

According to Kafka, "there's a lot of bias against foreigners in America".
Perhaps Kafka never attempted to discuss the merits of whether or not to open 1♥ vs 1♣ vs anything else with this particular hand from yesterdays daylong no 1.
Come to think of it, Kafka probably didn't play Bridge at all or little matters of bias such as Americans not liking Germans would not have bothered him at all. It must have been tough being a German-speaking Czech Insurance clerk with a disdain for work - and I think I've got problems.

Well, for 100%, finally, just for this one hand, in this little corner of Bridgeworld that is forever mine, I chose right.
What's your choice?

---

[hrothgar]

I make plenty of off shape bids

This one seems like an obvious 1♥ opening.

All of your points are Aces and Kings.
This plus the wide open club suit screams playing in a suit.
A 1♥ opening will give us the best chance to intelligently explore strain

If NT is the right strain, then it probably will play better from partner's side

Equally significant, while this hand has enormous playing strength if there is a major suit fit, NT could be a nightmare.
You have five cashing tricks and no club stopper.
Developing Hearts could be a nightmare.

The only alternative to 1♥ that I can conceive of is 2NT, which seems flawed on multiple levels.

[DozyDom]

If Kafka was Czech, it seems he would normally open 1C on this hand, since I think Precision and Polish systems are more common over there. Other than that, the rationale I imagine you're thinking of would be to avoid a club lead, against 3NT or against a slam. For me, making a decision on the contract is a cooperative process with my partner during the bidding, not a choice made before it starts.

[nige1]

Pilowsky 'According to Kafka, "there's a lot of bias against foreigners in America". Perhaps Kafka never attempted to discuss the merits of whether or not to open 1♥ vs 1♣ vs anything else with this particular hand from yesterdays daylong no 1. Come to think of it, Kafka probably didn't play Bridge at all or little matters of bias such as Americans not liking Germans would not have bothered him at all. It must have been tough being a German-speaking Czech Insurance clerk with a disdain for work - and I think I've got problems. Well, for 100%, finally, just for this one hand, in this little corner of Bridgeworld that is forever mine, I chose right. What's your choice?'
++++++++++++++++++++
I rank
1. 1♥ = NAT. Goldilocks would approve.
2. 2NT = NAT. Misdescription and overbid. If you swop your Ms and ms, you might consider this.
3. 1N = NAT. Misdescription and underbid. Inferior to 2N because robots respond conservatively.
3. 1♣ = Ψ Mastermind. GIB is tolerant of such gambits but they infuriate and alienate human partners.

---

Edited to include Pilowsky's cunning 1N opening.

This post has been edited by nige1: 2020-October-25, 09:27

[pilowsky]

Come to think of it, I also like the 1♣ opening but for different reasons. I've started playing 'short club' with GIB when I have two 4CM and a decent hand. There is a small risk of being raised to 3♣, but on balance it usually works.
I often upgrade 19 to 20 in 1st or 2nd seat with GIB, but never 18 because of the risk that North will go nuts - speaking of nuts, here's your prize for putting up with this post.

What I eventually decided to do was downgrade to 17 and bid 1NT. Here's what happened.
♥Q led for 3D+1. 26 other people were in 1♥ pass pass pass

---

Here's the pbn

[hrothgar]

pilowsky, on 2020-October-24, 20:45, said:

What I eventually decided to do was downgrade to 17 and bid 1NT. Here's what happened.

Stupid decisions sometimes work

[pilowsky]

hrothgar, on 2020-October-24, 22:46, said:

Stupid decisions sometimes work

My modesty overwhelms me,

[apollo1201]

pilowsky, on 2020-October-24, 20:45, said:

♥Q led for 3D+1. 26 other people were in 1♥ pass pass pass

Not getting what the point is. Neither if it qualifies as an « interesting bridge hand » (where does the interest lie in?).

Bidding 1NT is (as others said more or less clearly) wrong. The hand is much stronger and doesn’t have any pressure in ensuring playing the hand. Were I to make a bad bid, I’d chose 2NT. Surprising, though, that W acts over a strong NT but not over a mundane 1H opening if that gets passed out.

Anyway, as just proven here, being wrong doesn’t mean it will always lose. Sometimes it will work, but statistically not often enough to make it the right call. Some other call(s) will work better over time. Bridge is a probabilistic game with imperfect information (the hidden hands), and that is also what makes the spice of the game.

Last time I made a 4SF at 2D after partner had opened and I had 20 HCPs. The issue was partner had opened 1D (I was distracted) and passed my « surprising » 4SF that looked like a kind of forced preference. He ended up 2D+4 after a misdefence when all the other tables were at 6NT-1. I actually apologized to the opps and would never claim 2D was a good bid or was a « thinkable » bid. Just a mix of cartons between the bidding box and my brain.

The only thing I can think of is if you desperately need big IMP swings or tops to qualify. Then can you make anti-percentage calls, as if it works it is good for your rating, and if it loses (as you would expect more likely than not) you were still out had you played normally. Examples: finessing a Q with 9 cards, aggressively upgrading hands or overcalling, bidding slams with 4 KC and no Q in a 8-cd fit, going after games on 2 finesses...

[pilowsky]

You are correct, Bridge as you so cleverly put it is a game of probability.
It is designed so that the highest score goes to the person that can make a contract in the highest-scoring strain.
Just to give you a quick reminder that's No Trumps, followed by Spades Hearts etc.
Your little friend who thought the bid was 'stupid' is slightly clever. He went to MIT where Oswald Jacoby lectured. Jacoby was a lot cleverer - we can talk about that later.
Here are some simple numbers for you to ponder before bed.

I have the AKxx of spades therefore opps have on average 1 HCP in spades each
I have the Axxx of hearts therefore opps have on average 2 HCP in hearts each
I have the AK of diamonds therefore opps have on average 1 HCP in diamonds each
I have bubkas in clubs therefore opps have on average 3.3 HCP in clubs each (edit on account of genius friend of Borat)

Totalling you guessed it 40HCP

I'm playing a game where I really want to be in NT or hearts or spades which is where good old Mr Jacoby comes in. Transfers!! So I bid 1NT a lot in best hand tournaments because I know that I have the best hand. Here, all my shape is in the majors - another good reason to bid 1NT. What if North has spades?
You'll be interested to know, probabilistically speaking that playing it in the 'strong hand' really does give a slight edge, maybe only about 1-2%. To be honest, I wonder sometimes if transfers are worth the mental energy, but it's what GIB plays so I'm stuck with it anyway. It's an argument for another thread.

I have lectured in statistics to undergraduates and postgraduate students and to doctoral Fellows at multiple universities and reviewed statistics for multiple major scientific journals that I am a member of the editorial board of.
I don't know how to play Bridge for *****, but when I was 18 I used the law of restricted choice to change the way that birth defects were diagnosed around the world - that test is still in use today.
But thanks for reminding me about probability, it's good to know that it's important. I'll be sure to bear it in mind.

Regarding 'the interest' try to focus on the problem at hand. 26 people bid one way and 1 person coincidentally me this time but it could have been some other lunatic bids another way. The interest is in the oddity. Odd things are interesting that's where novelty comes from.

I suggest that you read Paul Feyerabend rather than Karl Popper if you want to understand how scientific investigation works.
If I only pay attention to what people tell me I 'should do' I will a) not make progress b) not invent anything new c) not improve d) not have fun.

[thepossum]

I can't really comment much on the hand but wish I could write like Kafka and get my feelings about the world into words that would be listened to/read

[JonnyQuest]

pilowsky, on 2020-October-24, 01:11, said:

Well, . . . finally, . . . I chose right.

No, you didn't.

[DozyDom]

Another day, another reason to have a separate subforum for "Fun ways to bid at a table with three robots". I do genuinely enjoy these stories, and I do like to make off-piste bids and second-guess the robots myself. But if posts were clearly marked as being separate from real life, it would be easier to debate and discuss options. At a table with 3 robots, I still prefer 1H - but 1NT is now a considered and reasonable action that I would expect some friends to make. But if you post it in a forum about bridge and don't include a subtitle of "how would you best manipulate GIB here", you can expect that people will respond as if you are playing bridge, not the variant of competitive solitaire produced on BBO.

[hrothgar]

pilowsky, on 2020-October-25, 03:40, said:

Here are some simple numbers for you to ponder before bed.

I have the AKxx of spades therefore opps have on average 1 HCP in spades each
I have the Axxx of hearts therefore opps have on average 2 HCP in hearts each
I have the AK of diamonds therefore opps have on average 1 HCP in diamonds each
I have bubkas in clubs therefore opps have on average 7.3 HCP in clubs each

Even if you assume that partner is CHO, I think that your calculation for clubs is off

[JonnyQuest]

hrothgar, on 2020-October-25, 08:20, said:

Even if you assume that partner is CHO, I think that your calculation for clubs is off

Forget it, he's rolling . . .
https://www.youtube....h?v=V8lT1o0sDwI

[nige1]

pilowsky, on 2020-October-25, 03:40, said:

I have bubkas in clubs therefore opps have on average 3.3 HCP in clubs each

Typing error, no big deal, the argument is still clear

[AL78]

apollo1201, on 2020-October-25, 02:48, said:

Surprising, though, that W acts over a strong NT but not over a mundane 1H opening if that gets passed out.

Not surprising to me. The result on any table can frequently depend on the pairs involved. If West is a fully paid up member of the I-will-not-defend club, they will make an awful 2♣ overcall. More sensible players will pass.

[pilowsky]

DozyDom, on 2020-October-25, 07:59, said:

Another day, another reason to have a separate subforum for "Fun ways to bid at a table with three robots". I do genuinely enjoy these stories, and I do like to make off-piste bids and second-guess the robots myself. But if posts were clearly marked as being separate from real life, it would be easier to debate and discuss options. At a table with 3 robots, I still prefer 1H - but 1NT is now a considered and reasonable action that I would expect some friends to make. But if you post it in a forum about bridge and don't include a subtitle of "how would you best manipulate GIB here", you can expect that people will respond as if you are playing bridge, not the variant of competitive solitaire produced on BBO.

You do recall that old adage 'watch the bidding'? How about 'Read the post'? All daylongs are against three robots, Watson. This is the BBO Forum it's elementary. Most of the people that play here play against robots. They are interested in how to play and defend against them.

[Douglas43]

No need to be rude to Pilowsky just because something off-centre worked. If you are really looking for a swing that's one way to do it.

And I suppose with a robot is on lead against 1NT holding A108xxx it's quite likely to pick another suit...

[apollo1201]

pilowsky, on 2020-October-25, 03:40, said:

You are correct, Bridge as you so cleverly put it is a game of probability.
It is designed so that the highest score goes to the person that can make a contract in the highest-scoring strain.
Here are some simple numbers for you to ponder before bed.

That is arithmetics, not probability or statistics. Before you lecture someone (or at least someone else than those poor students who couldn’t help but had to suffer it), at lest be sure to be as white as snow.
But I got you point about experimenting while discarding prior knowledge and theories in order to find new stuff. The bots are actually a good audience to practice that. Too bad they don’t post here as much as humans.

[Vampyr]

But this forum is “interesting bridge hands”. For most people examples of how to game the robots does not count as “interesting”. It would definitely be good to have a separate forum for how to play with robots. There was a thread about this recently; perhaps this is the place for these posts.

Most people I know do not play with robots. I do sometimes when it is free, but I’m not really interested in how to game the robots. I don’t know if many people are, but I kind of doubt it. I think that for most people, playing with robots is a way to keep their fingers busy while they are watching television.