[snowdragen]

Frequently I get the urge to play a stress-free game with the AI while listening to relaxing music. It's a great way to unwind. Sometimes though... you get this.

---

Opening 1♠ seemed appropriate, although I could have bid 1NT I suppose, which might have precluded a few possibilities...

At this point I thought "Well, my AI partner has just denied support for spades and clubs. I don't think I have enough support to raise diamonds. I don't have any heart stoppers, but partner should have some length given his responses."

So I settled with 2NT, which was passed out. Fairly standard auction, right? Or so I thought.

Behold, the North hand.

---

At which point we were brutally ♥'d to death by the opponents.

[gordontd]

snowdragen, on 2014-April-16, 00:30, said:

Fairly standard auction, right?

No. Passing 2D would be standard. While you wouldn't expect your partner to have nearly as strong a hand as it did, you didn't have enought strength to bid 2NT and you knew the hearts were wide open.

[Cyberyeti]

gordontd, on 2014-April-16, 01:24, said:

No. Passing 2D would be standard. While you wouldn't expect your partner to have nearly as strong a hand as it did, you didn't have enought strength to bid 2NT and you knew the hearts were wide open.

Correct, the only bid other than pass you could consider is 3♦ (to prevent LHO bidding 2♥), partner is showing a bad hand with long diamonds.

[Zelandakh]

One of the most important parts of learning a bidding language is understanding where the hand brakes are. In many systems responding 1NT and rebidding a new suit lower ranking the Opener's first at the lowest level is such a brake. It is not a complete stop bid, Opener can make a further move with a maximum, but this hand is not good enough for that.

[MrAce]

snowdragen, on 2014-April-16, 00:30, said:

At which point we were brutally ♥'d to death by the opponents.

Well, at least they did not lead ♣ to the K and another ♣ K before you unblock AK ♦ over the hearts

How did the hearts split ?

[Bbradley62]

While I agree that it is standard to pass 2♦ as South, I would also say it should be standard for North to insist on diamonds over 2NT.

[uday]

The bots know that 3D over 2N is a signoff, and they claim they'd bid 4D (forcing) if given a do-over or multiple do-overs

Snowdragen, approx where/when did u play this hand? I mean, what game format ( robot duplicate, total points, video bridge, etc) and with which username ?

[helene_t]

gordontd, on 2014-April-16, 01:24, said:

you knew the hearts were wide open.

Not really, North could easily be 1462 or such.

However, with ♦AK it looks like entries to the table could be a problem. 3♦ would be a resonable bid, if partner can't bid 3NT over this you know that 3NT isn't the right contract. I would have passed, though.

[snowdragen]

Hm, well if what people are saying is true (most likely), then I learned something. I didn't know that 2♦ by North should be considered a signoff bid in this case. I'll keep that in mind for the future.

Actually, this game wasn't played on this site. I used a separate card game program; it has a pretty nice interface and other games as well (though I mostly play bridge anyway). I've mostly gotten used to the limitations of the AI bidding by now, but sometimes it'll throw a curveball at me.

[steve2005]

Bbradley62, on 2014-April-16, 07:48, said:

While I agree that it is standard to pass 2♦ as South, I would also say it should be standard for North to insist on diamonds over 2NT.

he is correct but 2♦ is a gross underbid. think should bid 4 or 5♦

now after 2N which should show extra values and at least 1 and probably 2 ♦ AI partner should bid 5♦

[mike777]

snowdragen, on 2014-April-16, 00:30, said:

Frequently I get the urge to play a stress-free game with the AI while listening to relaxing music. It's a great way to unwind. Sometimes though... you get this.

---

Opening 1♠ seemed appropriate, although I could have bid 1NT I suppose, which might have precluded a few possibilities...

At this point I thought "Well, my AI partner has just denied support for spades and clubs. I don't think I have enough support to raise diamonds. I don't have any heart stoppers, but partner should have some length given his responses."

So I settled with 2NT, which was passed out. Fairly standard auction, right? Or so I thought.

Behold, the North hand.

---

At which point we were brutally ♥'d to death by the opponents.

Good post to put on.

Clearly many new players may find 2d here confusing as to length and strength.

[dandey]

snowdragen, on 2014-April-16, 00:30, said:

Frequently I get the urge to play a stress-free game with the AI while listening to relaxing music. It's a great way to unwind. Sometimes though... you get this.

---

Opening 1♠ seemed appropriate, although I could have bid 1NT I suppose, which might have precluded a few possibilities...

At this point I thought "Well, my AI partner has just denied support for spades and clubs. I don't think I have enough support to raise diamonds. I don't have any heart stoppers, but partner should have some length given his responses."

So I settled with 2NT, which was passed out. Fairly standard auction, right? Or so I thought.

Behold, the North hand.

---

At which point we were brutally ♥'d to death by the opponents.

[dandey]

Never trust a robot they heartless.

[Zelandakh]

dandey, on 2014-May-26, 21:27, said:

Never trust a robot they heartless.

I bet it did not go on tilt after the bad result though!

[the hog]

Bbradley62, on 2014-April-16, 07:48, said:

While I agree that it is standard to pass 2♦ as South, I would also say it should be standard for North to insist on diamonds over 2NT.

Perhaps, but maybe he thought this player would bid 3nt

[Bbradley62]

Then I guess it would suck to end up in a reasonable 5♦ contract.

[rosetrees]

I'm probably missing something here. I'd wonder why the robot responded with 1NT. It had length and points in ♦. Surely a ♦ bid would have been more appropriate. This would have set you on the path to a ♦ contract.

[Stephen Tu]

rosetrees, on 2014-May-30, 16:07, said:

I'm probably missing something here. I'd wonder why the robot responded with 1NT. It had length and points in ♦. Surely a ♦ bid would have been more appropriate. This would have set you on the path to a ♦ contract.

The robots play 2/1 as a game force. The requirements to bid 2♦ are thus higher than in "SA" or Acol. 1nt in response to a major in most natural systems doesn't promise a balanced hand, it is more or less a bid one is forced into with enough points to respond (5-6 depending on shape, style), inability to raise partner's major, & fewer points than required to 2/1 (~9+ in older Acol, 10/11 in SA, 12+/13+ in 2/1GF). So 1nt is appropriate given lack of an immediate bid to show this hand. (3♦ is even stronger than 2♦ in the bot's system, and 4♦ is a spade raise with diamond shortness.)

2♦ as a followup though I think is rather weak, that would be more appropriate with a similar hand in high cards but 6 diamonds instead of 9 of them. It should bid more diamonds, and probably get to 5 as a partnership, which may be hard to beat in practice.

[1eyedjack]

Just to add to Stepen Tu's answer, even those whose systems do NOT promise game forcing ("GF") values for a direct response of 2 in a lower ranking suit ("2/1") typically still place a higher minimum limit on total values for that response (typically about 10 HCP or a good 8) than the minimum requirement for a 1 level response (typically about 6 HCP or a good 4).

If you have the minimum total values for a 1 level response but insufficient for a 2/1, then you have to choose between the lawfully available 1 level responses, and those options depend upon the choice of suit opened by partner.

At one extreme, if partner opened 1C, then you have a full range of options, and a 1N response would show a balanced hand.

At the other extreme, if partner opened 1S, then the ONLY available 1 level response is 1N. In that case 1N includes any hand that has sufficient values to respond at all, lacks sufficient values for a 2/1 response (regardless of whether or not that would have been GF) and lacks Spade support for a simple raise (which would show about the same values as 1N but with support).

So a 1N response to 1S does not promise a balanced hand, nor does it deny a long suit lower ranking than opener's.

Apart from a tweaking of the limits on values, the only significant difference of principle with a 2/1 system is that in such a system the 1N response to 1 Major is itself a forcing bid (not GF, mind, indeed not promising any more values than a normal minimum 1 level response), so that responder can reasonably expect an opportunity to show a long, lower ranking, suit at next opportunity, if still at a safe level, which would then clarify that the 1N response was on a shapely hand whilst also limiting the strength of the hand. Such bids mean the same if 1N is non-forcing, but you just have to accept the risk that your 1N may end the auction.

This is a regular point of confusion for beginners. Bids in NT SOUND balanced, and this impression is reinforced by insisting that opening bids in NT are prescribed as such. But this is relaxed when responding, particularly the higher the rank of opener's suit.