[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.

[bluenikki]

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

The robot bidding system has inv+ inverted minors.

For a passed hand there is no +.

[mikeh]

To the OP:

You’re not the only poster here who thinks that posting about hands played on BBO with robots means you’re discussing bridge. You’re not. You’re discussing an entirely different card card, where the superficial similarities fool you.

Bridge is a social game. Try socializing with robots.

Bridge is a partnership game, where experienced human partnerships don’t blindly apply algorithms that frequently result in absurdities.

Bridge is a thinking game…one is faced with varying amounts of information of varying degrees of reliability (most players have title idea of just how much…or even what kind of..information is available to him or her and many don’t understand the concepts of various orders of inference…primary, secondary or tertiary inferences abound at the table). Robots literally cannot process any inferences…they literally do not think…they apply pre-programmed routines.

For example, yesterday I declared 3N against ‘advanced’ robots. Dummy held KJ in hearts…declarer 10987. A heart was led, and my RHO bot cashed the AQ and switched to the diamond 10. I held Kx with xx in dummy. I popped the King, losing to the Ace. The robot cashed the diamond Jack and switched. Why? Not because it thought anything but because some flaw in its software said switch.

Playing against robots won’t help you improve. You’ll make some silly contracts on ridiculous defence. You’ll fail in some because an unorthodox lead works.

I’ve had 84% games against robots….I've never had nor seen an 84% game against humans, even playing with a WC expert in a local club game.

And so on. Want to learn how to play? Start playing with and against humans, preferably including at least one player more knowledgeable than you (unless you read bridge books or pay attention to the more knowledgeable posters here, you’re never improving without associating with someone better than you).

Also, as others have pointed out, you seem to judge the merits of your bidding and, I presume, your play by the results on any given deal. That is absolutely the best way to ensure that you never get any better at all. It’s even worse than the silly way so many people think double dummy analysis informs how one should bid or play….never finesse against the king when it’s singleton offside, always finesse when it’s onside, etc…lol.

Bridge is, imo, the best card card ever invented and maybe the best game period…better than chess, at which I used to be good, and maybe better than Go…although I’ve heard Go players swear it’s the ultimate game. But you’re not playing bridge.

[mikl_plkcc]

My level in bridge is still at the level of applying rules in both the bidding and the play, and only when partner has made a picture bid I stop using the rules, therefore I will get angry when my partner lies on his hand, and I may play badly when the opponents lie on their hands too because it will lead to miscounts.

[DavidKok]

mikl_plkcc, on 2025-April-05, 05:18, said:

My level in bridge is still at the level of applying rules in both the bidding and the play, and only when partner has made a picture bid I stop using the rules, therefore I will get angry when my partner lies on his hand, and I may play badly when the opponents lie on their hands too because it will lead to miscounts.

I really appreciate your enthusiasm for the game, and I think you can play it for many years while having a lot of fun. There are two points I want to comment on though:

• Getting angry during bridge, especially with your partner, is not acceptable. You are a team, your partner made their decisions in the game with the intent to win together, and if that backfires you should accept that gracefully and move on. If it happens predictably or repeatedly you can, after the games (or, my personal preference, a day or two after the games) invite partner to discuss what happened and how you can improve. Getting upset during the play is both rude and detrimental to your score.
  
• From the posts you've shared I think a lot of the rules you've learned are crap. You comment on wanting to improve, but then rebut the advice people give here. Let me assure you that if you change nothing, your scores won't improve. Personally I think the best way for you to become a stronger bridge player is to take a step back from what you've learned and find out whether strong players agree with it - either locally or online. And when (or if) people tell you your approach is flawed, take the time to consider whether they might be right.

[hrothgar]

mikl_plkcc, on 2025-April-05, 05:18, said:

therefore I will get angry when my partner lies on his hand

Given the level of your declarer play, you really better hope that pattern doesn't do the same when you botch an easy contract

> I may play badly when the opponents lie on their hands too because it will lead to miscounts.

You do understand that your opponents are going to figure this out and take advantage, right?

In all seriousness, back when I was playing in F2F events, I knew players who would self destruct if I psyched against them and I made damn sure to exploit this