[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

[mikl_plkcc]

hrothgar, on 2025-April-05, 06:31, said:

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

It happened. Someone opened a weak 2 so I took 1-6 for granted, playing the stopper at trick 1 thinking that the other side wouldn't have an entry back to run the suit in 3NT.

The suit ended up breaking 2-5 and it ran, so my 3NT ended up down 3, losing loads of IMPs when all other table made it.

And if my partner ever psych, I won't play with him again.

[mycroft]

Rule 1: "There is exactly one person in the room that wants you to do well. It is easy to turn them to the other side." And trust me, even the most patient of us have had that one game where "-it, if partner's going to yell at me for doing my best, why try?" or worse yet (but I've still done it) "can't get yelled at for my bad play if I'm never declarer. So, I'm passing anything I can, and never introducing my own suits" - with the Mrs. Guggenheim excuse of "but you play the hands so well, partner" when they ask about some of the dummies I'm putting down.

Comment: emotion can kill your game. Usually here we mean bad emotions - anger at partner, anger at self, frustration at being fished by opponents (or psyched, or ...), but "the other play would have worked. Should I have seen it?", or even "man that was a great play I just pulled off!" can throw you from the 13 cards you currently have in your hand. If things frustrate you, or you're going to do anything with them besides write it in your scorecard "for later" and then forget it, work hard to moderate that.

Other comment: what I see here from your posts and experiences is primarily "stuck with (another) pickup partner who..." or "partner did this and I didn't like it" or "I have a set of rules in my head and it's wrong when I can't use them". Mistakes from your end are "how could I do this?" or "how could I have known", rather than "my decision led to this poor result". Again, I'll give "sugarcoated hrothgar"; the bridge world does not revolve around you; partners will not (unless you pay them, and even then, they'll try to show you differently when they think they can) just accept all your rules to be your partner; the opponents - especially your Friday evening opponents, and double especially because of the scoring style you like - will do things to throw your thoughts or take you off your rules, especially if they know what they are (and how to exploit them) or if they know they can rattle you for the other board (or, when you get to "contender" status, if they can rattle you for the rest of the night). You, also, have to adapt; you, also, need to find the situations you're willing to play by partner's rules (even if it's "just to see").

Pickup, especially pickup in a game like the Friday YC IMP pairs, double especially if you're not "field standard", can be an exercise in frustration and poor results.
It will be increasingly so if you insist that everything happens your way. It might even be better for you to find a similarly improving player at another club that has similar ideas about "the rules" as you do, work on a card, do some bidding practise on BBO, play some online games (even against randoms) two, three times a week, and then play every Friday at the Young Chelsea. Your -22 might become -35 for a while (assuming your average pickup partner there is better than your regular partner "improver"), but it will recover as your partnership deepens and strengthens, and partner's actions become "regular, expected and standard" rather than feeling out a new person every week.

[mycroft]

Could you have made 3NT by playing for 5-2 anyway, chucking a trick in the 'obvious' 6-1 case? Would your partner get upset if you did and you were -1 to all the x30s? Surely, "rules" aside, you know that people don't all preempt with "classical" "6-10, 6-card suit to 2/top 3 honours"? Is it worth paying out 11 NV/14 V IMPs on "they follow my rules" - in the YC of all places?

At matchpoints, you have my sympathy. In flight B at the tournament in Calgary, you have my sympathy. In an IMP pairs in the strongest club field in the country, you accepted 11-1 odds that these opponents think like you, and you lost the bet. You still have my sympathy; I *play* 5-card weak 2s, and still might have fallen for it. But you deserve every one of those "lots of IMPs", as would I if I fell for it.

My guess about psychs would be that a) you're going to lose more than one partner when they make a "psych" that was "their rules, not yours", and b) they're going to be okay (if not satisfied) with your decision. In your shoes, I'd be looking for ways to keep partners, not reasons to narrow the pool of choices.

[mikl_plkcc]

mycroft, on 2025-April-05, 11:13, said:

Rule 1: "There is exactly one person in the room that wants you to do well. It is easy to turn them to the other side." And trust me, even the most patient of us have had that one game where "-it, if partner's going to yell at me for doing my best, why try?" or worse yet (but I've still done it) "can't get yelled at for my bad play if I'm never declarer. So, I'm passing anything I can, and never introducing my own suits" - with the Mrs. Guggenheim excuse of "but you play the hands so well, partner" when they ask about some of the dummies I'm putting down.

Comment: emotion can kill your game. Usually here we mean bad emotions - anger at partner, anger at self, frustration at being fished by opponents (or psyched, or ...), but "the other play would have worked. Should I have seen it?", or even "man that was a great play I just pulled off!" can throw you from the 13 cards you currently have in your hand. If things frustrate you, or you're going to do anything with them besides write it in your scorecard "for later" and then forget it, work hard to moderate that.

Other comment: what I see here from your posts and experiences is primarily "stuck with (another) pickup partner who..." or "partner did this and I didn't like it" or "I have a set of rules in my head and it's wrong when I can't use them". Mistakes from your end are "how could I do this?" or "how could I have known", rather than "my decision led to this poor result". Again, I'll give "sugarcoated hrothgar"; the bridge world does not revolve around you; partners will not (unless you pay them, and even then, they'll try to show you differently when they think they can) just accept all your rules to be your partner; the opponents - especially your Friday evening opponents, and double especially because of the scoring style you like - will do things to throw your thoughts or take you off your rules, especially if they know what they are (and how to exploit them) or if they know they can rattle you for the other board (or, when you get to "contender" status, if they can rattle you for the rest of the night). You, also, have to adapt; you, also, need to find the situations you're willing to play by partner's rules (even if it's "just to see").

Pickup, especially pickup in a game like the Friday YC IMP pairs, double especially if you're not "field standard", can be an exercise in frustration and poor results.
It will be increasingly so if you insist that everything happens your way. It might even be better for you to find a similarly improving player at another club that has similar ideas about "the rules" as you do, work on a card, do some bidding practise on BBO, play some online games (even against randoms) two, three times a week, and then play every Friday at the Young Chelsea. Your -22 might become -35 for a while (assuming your average pickup partner there is better than your regular partner "improver"), but it will recover as your partnership deepens and strengthens, and partner's actions become "regular, expected and standard" rather than feeling out a new person every week.

mycroft, on 2025-April-05, 12:11, said:

Could you have made 3NT by playing for 5-2 anyway, chucking a trick in the 'obvious' 6-1 case? Would your partner get upset if you did and you were -1 to all the x30s? Surely, "rules" aside, you know that people don't all preempt with "classical" "6-10, 6-card suit to 2/top 3 honours"? Is it worth paying out 11 NV/14 V IMPs on "they follow my rules" - in the YC of all places?

At matchpoints, you have my sympathy. In flight B at the tournament in Calgary, you have my sympathy. In an IMP pairs in the strongest club field in the country, you accepted 11-1 odds that these opponents think like you, and you lost the bet. You still have my sympathy; I *play* 5-card weak 2s, and still might have fallen for it. But you deserve every one of those "lots of IMPs", as would I if I fell for it.

My guess about psychs would be that a) you're going to lose more than one partner when they make a "psych" that was "their rules, not yours", and b) they're going to be okay (if not satisfied) with your decision. In your shoes, I'd be looking for ways to keep partners, not reasons to narrow the pool of choices.

I now play in two different clubs, one of them is Young Chelsea where I play IMPs with my regular partner.

The other club has matchpoint sessions and I haven't got a regular partner there yet (that club is too far away for my regular partner at Young Chelsea), and although the NGS standard is not as high as Young Chelsea I perform so poorly there, with my score commonly in the range of around 45% only.

It is a much more difficult game with, for example, I got a 100% board just because our opponents had a misunderstanding and ended up at 4♠= rather than 3NT+1 or 3NT+2 in the field, while in "normal bridge" that difference would be immaterial. In other words, I frequently get bottoms because I couldn't see where I could get one more overtrick where the others could get it.

In an IMP game, when the contract is 3NT, I just find a way to get 9 tricks and play for it, and I frequently miss lines of play where the 10th trick can be obtained before the 9th trick is guaranteed, as I am so afraid that I'll run out of stoppers or entries to get all my remaining tricks.

For example, when the opponents knock out the final stopper in one of my suit, I will then play all my winners immediately because I am afraid that they will run the suit, sometimes overlooking that even they run the suit the contract is still safe, when there are still other suits waiting for me to establish.

Conversely, when I couldn't find a way to get 9 tricks, I would then play in a way hoping that a certain card would come out / the opponents would fail to play a certain high card at the right time (for example, a suit is set up in the dummy but I lack an entry to it, and there is a side J but the Q hadn't come out yet) even if it would not be done if the opponents were careful enough, and it frequently ended up with a worse result then a reasonable line of play for -1.

And sometimes my pickup partner there didn't play 5-card major and that would create a very difficult time for me to interpret the bidding as it is much harder to ascertain the exact number of trumps shown in the bidding in a 4-card major system. (I have read some materials about Acol bidding which raises a major with 3-card support only even when partner's bid does not guarantee 5, and I had no idea under what circumstances I could invite / raise to game with 4 and under what circumstances I would need 5) And I was then faced by a lot of contracts which I didn't even know how to play properly because we didn't have enough trump control, and ended up hoping for a misdefence to rescue us. (I have enough of horrors where they played the last trump at the critical time to draw our last trump out, and we ran out of control of all the remaining suits, but I could never exercise the same on the opponents even when I had enough trumps to draw them out)

[mycroft]

Matchpoints is hard. The hardest thing about matchpoints (besides understanding frequency of gain/loss is often more important than size of gain/loss) is that when dummy comes down, you have to work out what the contract is. Not what was bid, but what you have to make/defeat to get a good score. You're saying that you're finding it hard; that's okay, it is hard.

It's why I would sympathize when you go -3 when you hit the pair that opens 5-card weak 2s, and you play for 630 to beat the 600s of those who duck to defend against 5-2 - at matchpoints.

I don't know how the NGS balances IMPs/session vs MPs for grading, but I'd suggest that -1 IMP/board is about a 43, 44% game; I'd expect to rank 9th or 10th of 12 with either score, and I'd expect the bottom two to be boards behind (-1.5 to 2/board at IMPs, 40, 38% at MPs). So my feeling is that you are scoring about the same.

If you're used to being at near-expert level in anything you put your mind to in weeks to months; know that bridge is not one of those things. "There's a million mistakes to make in bridge. Everyone has to make all of them. The difference between average and expert is how many of them they make *twice*."