[Stefan_O]

Diagram

[lycier]

Hi Stefan_0

I am wondering why you would use the word " hopeless" ?
Now let's analysize this hand at first.

- See your hand diagram.

---

Here, may I ask you a question?
Have you ever thought of redouble before you would choose passing?

- I can pretty confirm that it isn't my first time to encounter such hand, "redouble" can solve this problem.

---

Redouble says " Value-showing redouble --- 3+♣, 21-hcp,18-22TPs."
That's problem right there.
I never believe such explanations since this isn't true ！ In fact, its true manings is only for help --- ask partner to bid own longest suit to escape to a better and safter suit contract !
So I think redouble should say " Help,help,help !".
Would you think this improvement of redouble can become hopeful?

[1eyedjack]

Redoubling for help by South presupposes the inevitability of West passing for penalties in the event of South passing. South cannot know that this is how the auction will develop, and if West is expecting to bid over South's pass, then a redouble by South simply places North-South into the lion's jaws.

The onus on rescuing I think rests mainly with North, AFTER West has committed to a penalty pass. And I would have thought that a rescue by North is fairly clear. Could still be carnage, but I think that it is odds on favourite to pull.

[lycier]

If you disagree with my proposal, it is difficult to resolve this problem.
You said " South cannot know that this is how the auction will develop,"
In fact, South can guess to know since north partner pass at first round without any interference, so I believe that there is no any reason for north partner to take any auction after opp's doubling.
Redouble says " Value-showing redouble --- 3+♣, 21-hcp,18-22TPs.". In fact ,such definition on redoubling is meaningless.And in fact, Gib partner always know this redouble is a help one.
I have noted this kind of problems for a long time, and I can tell you that as long as opener makes a help redouble, the partner always know how to help opener to escape to a better and safter suit contract in the my past hands especially when opener only holds 3-card minor suit to open because west passing have told odd distributions on the four suits.

[1eyedjack]

I am not saying that your suggestion lacks any merit. I do think that GIB follows the more standard approach. And following a standard approach has some merit for that reason alone.

[Stephen Tu]

lycier, I think you have confused the auction 1c-(x)-p-(p)-xx, which should ask rescue, with the actual one. Redoubling for rescue before being penalty passed is presumptuous, because LHO pulling is far more common than LHO passing for penalty. North should rescue, not South. Actually redouble should show better clubs and make North *not* pull, in standard methods.

Also, I think in general you have a really, really bad habit of questioning other people's bidding as humans. That really isn't the focus of this forum. We are discussing how GIB should bid, not how humans should bid. Even if human did something horrible (which didn't happen here, in this case), you should imagine that *you cannot see any of the other hands but the GIB making the decision*. This is how to evaluate bids, looking at the auction and the hand alone, not all 4 hands which you far too often do! Whether human did something suboptimal is irrelevant. Whether other tables bid different sequence is irrelevant. Focus your mind solely on one GIB, whether its decision at one particular point is reasonable or not, assuming everyone else at the table was being normal, which may or may not have actually happened. Because we want GIB to be making good decisions even if its partner did something bad. A bid can be bad even if the partner contributed to the bad result (and their bid was normal here). So here, look at North's hand and North's hand ONLY, ask yourself if passing the double is right or if 1h is percentage.

My old version of PC GIB, it has some weird definitions that I think contribute to it deciding not to run:
- passing the penalty double shows both 13+HCP and rebiddable clubs. Rather than just say rebiddable clubs and non-length in the majors. So I think it believes EW make game a lot regardless and underestimates the utility of improving the contract.
- running to 1h shows 5+ H and a void club! Don't see why it should show void, perhaps it then thinks its partner bids too much later.

I don't know the current definitions but they may need to be adjusted if they are still like this now.

[lycier]

I would say your advice really has no value.
What's the standard approach? In fact, Gib just does so, it is not done by me.
A pity that whenever discussing, you always like to attack me for several times, if you can't stand, would you leave here?

[lycier]

Stephen, as I earlier said, it isn't my first time to encounter such hand. I found this way. I know you never believe this matter, so you would better validate it.
This is a conclusion of my study on the several similar Gib hands in the past, that's to say Gibs follow such bidding rules in fact.

[lycier]

I am wondering whether you really have studied such similar Gib hands.
Yes or no?

[Stephen Tu]

Lycier, I attack you if I think you are posting nonsense. I attack nonsense in bridge forums so newbies, lesser players don't learn wrong ideas unchallenged. They get to see alternative points of view and decide whose logic makes more sense. Your argument style is infuriating, because you don't actually ever address the individual logical statements of those who disagree with you. Essentially you fall back on "I'm right, you're wrong, go away" which is not advancing your argument at all.

You act as if someone appointed you moderator of this forum and that you are judge of what bidding sequences should be considered bugs or not. You weren't, and in any case clearly have neither the bridge expertise nor computer expertise to act in such a capacity.

We aren't interested in "similar" sequences. We are interested in one particular sequence. You are thinking of redouble in balancing seat vs direct seat as similar when they are in fact very different situations. It is not at all standard bridge for redouble in direct to be for rescue. What if North was weak, 4-5 clubs, east had doubled with void and West left it in with 5? Now you force play redoubled when 1c-dbl was least bad spot. Also, you force your side into the auction when probably 90 percent plus West wasn't going to pass the double.

[lycier]

Maybe you are correct.

[iandayre]

Stefan_O, on 2016-June-13, 15:46, said:

Diagram

Certainly the E-W robot actions can't be criticized! Should N run to 1H? Perhaps. I am sure many human players would not. If this were among the worst GIB problems, we'd have a much better product.

I am not sure how Lycier happened to play the exact same hand (his Bd. 11 example) but GIB did well there, playing West's pass of the XX as for penalty. Once again, this differs from standard practice after a direct-seat double and immediate redouble, when advancer's pass is non-committal and allows doubler to escape as best suits their hand.

[iandayre]

Stefan_O, on 2016-June-13, 15:46, said:

Diagram

delete duplicate

[johnu]

lycier, on 2016-June-14, 07:07, said:

I would say your advice really has no value.
What's the standard approach? In fact, Gib just does so, it is not done by me.
A pity that whenever discussing, you always like to attack me for several times, if you can't stand, would you leave here?

The Down vote button is disabled, but I would like to record 3 down votes for this post. Read what Stephen posted and learn something for today.

[lycier]

iandayre, on 2016-June-14, 10:05, said:

Certainly the E-W robot actions can't be criticized! Should N run to 1H? Perhaps. I am sure many human players would not. If this were among the worst GIB problems, we'd have a much better product.

I am not sure how Lycier happened to play the exact same hand (his Bd. 11 example) but GIB did well there, playing West's pass of the XX as for penalty. Once again, this differs from standard practice after a direct-seat double and immediate redouble, when advancer's pass is non-committal and allows doubler to escape as best suits their hand.

I really have noticed this issue over several years, I found a strange thing at below.

lycier, on 2016-June-14, 01:14, said:

- I can pretty confirm that it isn't my first time to encounter such hand, "redouble" can solve this problem.

---

Redouble says " Value-showing redouble --- 3+♣, 21-hcp,18-22TPs."
That's problem right there.
I never believe such explanations since this isn't true ！ In fact, its true manings is only for help --- ask partner to bid own longest suit to escape to a better and safter suit contract !
So I think redouble should say " Help,help,help !".

Stephen thought what I said was nonsense.
But I never think so since this may be a fact, fact is fact. In fact, facing to XX, Gib partner usually regard this redouble as a help double - bid and escape to another suit.

Here I strongly want to express what I see :
When you open one minor at one level only with 3-card, after double, never forget making redouble, don't worried about the definition on this redouble, can ignore its explanation, redoubling is a best escaping approach because others have unbalanced hands (the principle of suits destributions), and Gib partner also regard it as a help one.

Thank you very very much for your reply, thank you and again.

[manudude03]

Stephen is right here. Redouble shows a strong hand. For me, the typical hand is a 3325 18 count with great clubs. If I was North, I would be competing with a 4144 2 count if West had jumped to 2H and expect it to be making or very close to it.

[Stephen Tu]

Lycier, we all know that GIB has a ton of bugs in it. So you should not be using what it does as instruction on what constitutes standard good bidding. The fact that GIB plays the direct redouble as only showing 3 clubs, and thus tends to run from 1c, is just yet more bugs, not evidence that humans are supposed to auto xx on three!

Please stop assume GIB is correct and humans are wrong about this. GIB is very often wrong! We humans here, some of us have been playing for decades and have lots of knowledge gleaned from interacting with human experts and reading hundreds of bridge books and countless forum articles. We have a better idea of what standard bidding is than the seriously buggy bidding rules in GIB's database. If most humans on a thread are recommending one thing, while GIB does something else, I'm assuming the humans are right, not the computer! And here I don't think GIB redoubles as south, only you are recommending that treatment.

[Bbradley62]

iandayre, on 2016-June-14, 10:05, said:

I am not sure how Lycier happened to play the exact same hand (his Bd. 11 example)...

I am not sure of the details, but Lycier has the ability to create any hand he wants and have GIB bid with him. Maybe this is from buying a GIB subscription and using teaching tables, but I don't really know. He didn't "happen to play it"; he deliberately re-created it in order to test something. At any rate, this can be very helpful (when done in a productive analytical manner) to diagnose problems. It also happens that he does this using basic GIB, which is more likely to be making GIB's "book" bid rather than bidding based on simulations, so this also is helpful in determining where there are errors in GIB's decision tree.