[virgosrock]

12 hcp missing. 3 aces could be missing. Nothing to lose bidding 4N rkc.

there used to be a 5S bid to convert to 5N when there were not enough aces. Has this disappeared in modern bridge?

---

[smerriman]

Seriously, back to this again? After your last tirade about simulation bidding, you eventually concluded your argument had no merit. That's still the case.

GIB plays 4NT as quantitative, so that is not an option. Whether or not it should be RKC is completely unrelated to simulation based bidding.

The *only* downsides of GIB's simulations are:

- it takes some bids too literally (not an argument against simulation bidding *at all*, just that bidding definitions need tweaking)
- it sometimes doesn't run enough simulations (which can only have a minor impact on results).

By definition, everything else is guaranteed to lead to a better result on average than if it weren't used. This case is no different.

[virgosrock]

smerriman, on 2018-June-16, 18:55, said:

Seriously, back to this again? After your last tirade about simulation bidding, you eventually concluded your argument had no merit. That's still the case.

GIB plays 4NT as quantitative, so that is not an option. Whether or not it should be RKC is completely unrelated to simulation based bidding.

The *only* downsides of GIB's simulations are:

- it takes some bids too literally (not an argument against simulation bidding *at all*, just that bidding definitions need tweaking)
- it sometimes doesn't run enough simulations (which can only have a minor impact on results).

By definition, everything else is guaranteed to lead to a better result on average than if it weren't used. This case is no different.

hey sm. i don't think you read the follow-up to the tirade. all i acknowledged was the simulation results has some merit. i mentioned the victory of common sense over common science because can do exactly the same after 4C on that particular hand. bid 4c, partner bids 4S(void) plus shows missing DA, missing HA and hopefully case closed. No RKC needed on that one. I did NOT conclude my argument had no merit.

Here, you bring up a good point that 4NT is quantitative. I was not aware that was the case. Thought the club fit had been found with 1c-2c. In this case my apologies.
GUBBO's choices are 4c/5c/6c. I think most play 4C as slam try, maybe GUBBO does not. Does it play 4C as forcing to 5C?

[smerriman]

virgosrock, on 2018-June-16, 19:16, said:

I did NOT conclude my argument had no merit.

I was referring to these earlier posts where you blamed everything on simulations:

virgosrock, on 2017-October-27, 16:12, said:

I am off the "simulation-based bidding" bandwagon for now.

virgosrock, on 2017-October-27, 16:22, said:

Again, am off the simulation bandwagon.

Regardless of what GIB plays 4♣ as, as mentioned above, simulation based bidding is *guaranteed* to lead to a better result, barring the two exceptions above (the first of which isn't relevant here, and the second of which isn't either since this hand actually demonstrates the simulation worked beautifully). There is no logical argument against it, ever. This is a fact, not an opinion.

If 4♣ would have led to a better result, then simulations would have caused it to make that bid.

And if simulations weren't in play, basic GIB would bid 5♣, which is terrible.

[steve2005]

I see nothing wrong with checking for aces or keycards if simulation indicates slam likely.
For many after 3N 4♣ would be Gerber

But you can only find out if off 2 cards.
This doesn't mean it is a good slam but checking seems sensible in most cases.
There are of course exceptions where checking is wrong. Good luck programming rules for Gib.

[smerriman]

steve2005, on 2018-June-16, 20:26, said:

I see nothing wrong with checking for aces or keycards if simulation indicates slam likely.

Neither, but GIB doesn't have a way of doing so. As above, that may be something worth changing, but given the definitions you have to work with, 6♣ like a good result of simulations.