[mikl_plkcc]

Board 1

---

The ♠ were wide open, and they cashed the 2 side aces and 5 ♠ immediately.

2♦ would be a plus.

Board 2

---

The ♣KJ was covered by AQxxxx and an outside entry, they took 7 tricks immediately. Only on the table where the bidding started with 1♦ the robot led a ♣, which caused the contract to be made.

How can I avoid these bad contracts?

[smerriman]

If you think 3NT on the second hand is a bad contract.. then that's a big problem you need to fix here, not the bidding.

[mikl_plkcc]

On the second hand there were 2 weak suits. There was a large chance that the opponents could run either one.

K86 is just a half stopper and KJ doubleton is a dodgy stopper.

[smerriman]

mikl_plkcc, on 2025-March-31, 17:54, said:

There was a large chance that the opponents could run either one.

This is just completely false. If the hands were double dummy, they can defeat 3NT well less than half the time, and in reality it will be considerably lower given how regularly they won't find the precise lead and continuation to do so. It's very comfortably the right contract at any form of scoring.

Perhaps you could show your thought process as to how you came to that conclusion - there must be some fundamental issue in there somewhere, which may explain similar issues in past threads too.

[mycroft]

mikl_plkcc, on 2025-March-31, 16:46, said:

Board 1

The ♠ were wide open, and they cashed the 2 side aces and 5 ♠ immediately.

2♦ would be a plus.

---

Wow, -50 is a great score! Isn't it?

[Cyberyeti]

Mycroft makes a great point about board 1.

Do you play inverted minors with the robots ? If so, playing a few bad 1Ns is the price you pay for playing GF inverted minors, but this is not one of them. We play inv+ inverted minors so it would go 1♦-2♦-2♥-3♦ and not sure W comes in.

The second you have the same auction as almost everybody else, don't worry about it.

[mikl_plkcc]

mycroft, on 2025-March-31, 19:52, said:

---

Wow, -50 is a great score! Isn't it?

The robot bidding system has inv+ inverted minors.

[eagles123]

Both contracts are entirely normal and you really need to stop resulting. Just because a contract made or went down doesn't mean it was a good/bad contract.

[mycroft]

mikl_plkcc, on 2025-April-01, 03:32, said:

The robot bidding system has inv+ inverted minors.

No, really? I didn't know that. I guess you could bid 3♦ with two flat hands and likely 23-17; yeah, that's the ticket.</s>. Yes, *of course* it would work this time - but if you had heard the many, many "why did she think this was a weak minor raise? We make the same 8 tricks in diamonds as NT" (or 9!) you'd know it doesn't always.

Of course, I wasn't answering "how, playing the robot system, do we avoid the doomed 1NT?" The answer to that, is "you can't. Resulting is a bad habit; don't get into it. Resulting when you can't even change the system you're playing based on the results is even worse (but probably better for your game than if you could)."

I was told "2♦ would be a plus". I showed you that, even if you could get there, you wouldn't play it; and -50 would win the board.

If you play in the YC, I'm sure there are still some pairs who play 12-14 NTs (as I do, here, but in a K/S framework). 1NT-All pass -1 is frequently - I'd like to believe more than half the time; I'm probably wrong, but it's close - a great score, even vulnerable. Taking away the entire 1 level, hiding any fits we might have (therefore, they have a fit™) makes it hard to compete effectively; even when they do, they're fighting "partscore or game?" and "find a fit" and "get out before you're doubled". Frankly, that's why you play a weak NT - get to 1NT before they know anything, and you're at an advantage against those who give away more information. This isn't "1NT AP", it's 1♦-1NT AP, I know; but the argument stands.

Here, nothing works. Par is -140 in 3♠ W (okay, maybe it's -100 in 4♦x S). Like the majority (but by no means all!) of par scores, it's conceivable to find in a normal auction, so beating it is good.

Don't be afraid of negative scores; some of my best results started with a minus sign.