I’m being lazy / distracted and just playing bad. Making some basic mistakes. Multitasking during boring work calls. Ugh.
There is one hand I have a question on. Hand 6 of the full challenge. I’ll wait to discuss until it is complete.
Beat AA by 32. Lost to NN by 14. Both reissued for 8 boards (NN was supposed to be for 16. Oops)
No idea who will be playing during the holidays, but I’ll keep issuing challenges, hopefully at least playing them myself.
procrastinator wins the regular group challenge with +26.25. I win the Declare-only with +25.75. Both by 10. Both reissued. (To be complete by Sunday morning, so I’ll be surprised if both get played by all 5 invitees.)
Baffled. No challenge against procrastinator complete or running. I guess I didn’t play it, but I thought I was playing them in order and had nothing set to expire. Oh, well. Lost to AA by 12. Both those reissued.
ETA: lost to NN by 8. Reissued
Discuss away. I think it’s bizarre that the bots responded 1S to 1H with 5C, 4S and game forcing strength. But looking at the continuations, it was mildly strange that you did not bid 4C over 1S (as everyone else did). Clarifying what suit is trumps is a very good idea. Splintering with a singleton is better than with a void, but the void is only a very minor deterrent. Then as your auction continued, maybe the bot should have passed 4S. Not really clear what he should do. Though 5D by him would be very low on my possibility order. Over his 5D, hard to say whether you should pass or bid 5S.
Had your second bid been 4S (almost as good as 4C, IMO) your side would almost certainly get to 6S.
I don’t know. My main question is why my partner would bid 5D over 4S given his holding, but looking at the system notes, I guess I’ve given some mixed signals. But I figured once I rebid his major suit, it is a positive indication of a fit.
I had trouble finding the right second bid. And I checked the 3-level bids, but I guess I didn’t check the 4-level bids. 4C would have been better than 3D.
Re: 1S over 1H, I thought that was always preferred. Give information about your hand 6+ points, 4+S while keeping the bidding as low as possible.
I had a similar thought with my 3D bid. I guess I always favor leaving more room to work with. One of the reasons is that I’ve been taught cue bidding is better for finding slams than straight blackwood, but I have not had that much success with it with the bots, so maybe I should abandon that mentality.
Re: Splintering with a singleton better than a void. Can you discuss this in more depth. I get the splinter bid at a basic level, but don’t really understand the nuance and value, and certainly don’t understand why having a singleton would be better than a void (other than potentially misleading).
Yes, the potentially misleading is a big part of it. If partner has the idea his holding is opposite a stiff, he can evaluate better. He’s good to expect a loser (if he doesn’t have the ace). If he has the king, it may have some value opposite a stiff (lead toward it to set it up for a pitch), but with a void the king is worthless unless they lead it And when he has all small cards, he’s going to expect a loser when there isn’t one.
Many would also say that a singleton ace is undesirable, because partner may think his king is at best half a trick (when the ace is onside), but it fact it’s a sure winner. Even more than that, he’ll expect your high card points to be outside the short suit, helping him set up winners in those side suits, and a stiff ace doesn’t help set up those side suits.
Neither a void or a stiff ace is a fatal flaw, but both make it less likely that the splinter will lead to the best contract. (Splinter still often the best option, and no other option is guaranteed to reach the best contract either. That’s why the rest of us did splinter on this hand.)
Many people would expect his 5D bid over 4S to be a cue bid with spades agreed. I would. But system notes clearly said that was not the agreed meaning. And of course, if it were a cue bid, then certainly you shouldn’t pass it.
For bot’s first bid (and a very good general rule), make the most descriptive bid possible. If too weak for 2C, definitely bid 1S. But here, with a game forcing hand, bid your longest suit first.
As to your second bid, another very good general rule: if you can describe you hand very well with one bid, it’s better to make the descriptive bid than to keep the bidding low. Thus 4C (4-card spade support, club shortness, game forcing) is very good for on the descriptive scale, far more descriptive than 3D, so the better bid. Similarly 4S (4-card spade support, game forcing) is far more descriptive than 3D, is also a better bid, IMO (but not as descriptive as 4C, so 4C is even better).
Another common situation where the principle is also important: if partner opens 1 of a major, and among the reasonable choices is a raise to 2 of the major, the raise is almost always the best choice. Let partner know there’s a fit. There’s no bonus for finding 2 fits. So if partner opens 1H and I have 7-10 points (or pretty much any time I have 6-10 points) with 3 hearts, I’m going to raise. Not bid 1S with 4 spades (and 5+ hearts), even though it leaves the most room. Almost never 1S with 5 spades (and 3+ hearts). If I did bit 1S with 3+ hearts, it would generally mean I decided to upgrade my hand and consider it worth more than 10 points, too good for 2H, rather than thinking my shape was the reason for 1S.
No sign of the Declare-only challenge that would expire today. I thought I had played it. If anyone else has results, you could post them. oirg wins the regular challenge with +8.75. I beat AA in a 2-way by 22.
All reissued. At least at the moment my screens show I have 2 group challenges and 3 2-way challenges, as I expected.
ETA: lost to procrastinator by 11. Reissued. No more expiring today.
So strange. Yesterday SW1 had 3 2-way challenges in progress, none expiring yesterday (also a group challenge, and SW49 had the declare only). I don’t remember what the status against Numbers Nerd was, but it wasn’t expiring before noon today unless I had completed it. And now it’s gone without a trace. Unless NN declined the challenge, I don’t know how that would happen. I reissued it.
The challenges except against NN expire Dec 30.
procrastinator has quite the string of good results. Wins the Declare-only with +10.25 and the regular group challenge with +27.75 (by more than 10). Then our the 2-way by +50. I knew my results could be very bad but wasn’t sure they would be. (The only clear error was not catering for a stiff spade Q or a spade void in the 2H opener’s hand, with 6 spades out, but it would have cost nothing to cater to those as well. (Though I would have made if opener held 10xx of spades or 10x while procrastinator might have gone down. I don’t know how he would have continued had the Q not shown up on round 1.)) I also lost to AA by 4. All reissued.
ETA: Lost to NN by 20. Reissued.
NN wins the Declare-only with +11.75. I win the regular with +18.00 Neither by a margin of 10. Both reissued.
ETA: I beat AA by 3 in a 2-way, with biggest swing 3 to me for going down only 2 instead of 3 in a voluntarily bid game. Reissued
ETA: beat procrastinator by 1. Reissued
and NN by 9. Reissued
Neither group challenge close. I win the Declare-only with +28.00. AA wins the regular with +30.50. Both by more than 10. I beat AA by 3 in a 2-way. All reissued.
Win vs NN by 11. Lose vs AA by 17. Win vs procrastinator by 4. All reissued.
I win the Declare-only with +8. procrastinator wins the regular with +11.25. Neither by 10.
I lose 2-way to NN by 20, beat AA by 15. All reissued.
ETA: beat procrastinator by 22. Reissued
ETA: who says all that matters is whether the contract makes at imps. Lost to NN by 3, 9-6, losing no more than 2 imps on any board. Reissued.
Win by 4 vs AA. Reissued