[mikl_plkcc]

---

We should be in clubs instead. With such ill-advised preempts how could I place the final contract effectively?!

[hrothgar]

mikl_plkcc, on 2025-May-02, 05:06, said:

We should be in clubs instead. With such ill-advised preempts how could I place the final contract effectively?!

You poor poor baby
I have so much sympathy for you and yet another of your tales of woe where the robots did something stupid.

Let the forum's wipe away your tears.
You did nothing wrong!
It was all the fault of the evil bad robots.

Cheer up buckaroo!
Tomorrow will be a brighter day!

[hrothgar]

On a more serious note, I would also make a penalty double with your hand, but I'd feel a whole lot better about it if the 8 of Spades were the 9

[mycroft]

Not going to tell you whether robot was right or wrong, or whether you were right or wrong. Enough have said enough on that. I'd be right there with you with my favourite (and not so favourite) partner, though.

But *if* you want a partner who thinks like you do, and does what you expect and do, go find one. I will warn you that it will be a pretty long search, and you'll likely be passing on some better players who would play with you except, but you can find them, and you can play "your game" to your hearts content, and see how it does. But at least you will be comfortable knowing what partner has and knowing they know what you have, which will improve your scores over continually fighting with partner who doesn't think like you and "won't listen to reason".

Even for players significantly better than you (or me, or hrothgar, or...), however, the robot is a challenge. Because explicitly, they *do not* bid or play like you, or like any partner they've ever had, and *nothing you can do will convince them to change anything*. You have to do all the changing; and there are many who Just Can't Do It. If you can't, or won't, stop playing with robots. If you can't do that, stop caring about the results you get - it is a good way to waste time, and practise your declarer play (especially if you play Best Hand). Oswald Jacoby, as quoted in Watson's "Play of the hand": "I am the best player of bad contracts in the world. That's because I've been in so many of them." Accept it for what it is.

But know that back in Jacoby's day, preempts looked a lot more like what you want them to. Nobody, even my "we're better than the room, don't gamble" partner, preempts like that any more. There's a reason why - and hrothgar's suggestion of setting the West hand to a pass and the North hand as written, and running 30 or so hands, and working out where you want to be and what is likely to happen with and without a 3♦ opener might show you that reason.

There is no system that works on every hand. That is one of the joys of this game. There will always be hands that are "system losses".

[mw64ahw]

2-bad robot bids.

[eagles123]

I think 3D if anything is a little conservative from the bot ... stop worrying about hands like this!

[johnu]

GIB apologizes for not having a 6 card side suit and 2 voids.

[smerriman]

Seems like the only real choices for a human opener are 4♦ and 5♦, though obviously neither would get you to clubs, nor is there any real need to. And if you're playing with a robot, WTP?

[Huibertus]

This is NOT an ill advised preempt at all.

Yes it would be nice if you'd be able to preempt showing an minor two suiter (Like I used to be able to do with a 2NT opening) and yes you can argue it's 4♦ that needs to be opened. But I have no issues at all with this opening.

Preempting is ALL about frequency of being able to open and obstruct opponents constructive bidding. The obvious flip side of the coin is that it also obstructs your own constructive bidding. Restricting preempt holding side suits help constructive bidding of BOTH parties, it's a matter of partnership style to decide if if that is desired or not. And there's no obvious best answer.

As for your hand, I understand you double 3♠ yes I too might do it at times. But I don't think you should do it. You have 3 or 4 tricks and almost certainly lack an entry to partner's hand for him to cash his trick(s). So pass, it might come back to you at the 4 level.

[mikl_plkcc]

 smerriman, on 2025-May-02, 16:38, said:

Seems like the only real choices for a human opener are 4♦ and 5♦, though obviously neither would get you to clubs, nor is there any real need to. And if you're playing with a robot, WTP?

As a human, I'll pass with this hand to give a chance to my partner to describe his holding. If he tells me having clubs, I'll raise aggressively. If he tells me having a major, I'll stay out of the auction and defend.

 Huibertus, on 2025-May-03, 02:04, said:

This is NOT an ill advised preempt at all.

Yes it would be nice if you'd be able to preempt showing an minor two suiter (Like I used to be able to do with a 2NT opening) and yes you can argue it's 4♦ that needs to be opened. But I have no issues at all with this opening.

Preempting is ALL about frequency of being able to open and obstruct opponents constructive bidding. The obvious flip side of the coin is that it also obstructs your own constructive bidding. Restricting preempt holding side suits help constructive bidding of BOTH parties, it's a matter of partnership style to decide if if that is desired or not. And there's no obvious best answer.

As for your hand, I understand you double 3♠ yes I too might do it at times. But I don't think you should do it. You have 3 or 4 tricks and almost certainly lack an entry to partner's hand for him to cash his trick(s). So pass, it might come back to you at the 4 level.

If my partner preempts on a large variety of hands like these, I can't bid anything but raise his suit holding length. I wouldn't also make a double with 5 cards in the opponents' suit as well.

If the preempt puts all the other 3 tables in the blind what the hands are actually like, it is more like destructive bidding instead of obstructive bidding.

An obstructive bid is a bid which takes a lot of the bidding space, while fully describing the hand at the same time so the partner can directly place the final contract.

[smerriman]

I know you will, but as usual, you're in an extreme minority.

[Huibertus]

mikl_plkcc, on 2025-May-03, 03:04, said:

As a human, I'll pass with this hand to give a chance to my partner to describe his holding. If he tells me having clubs, I'll raise aggressively. If he tells me having a major, I'll stay out of the auction and defend.

No problem dude.

Just a hint, if you feel you need to argue about responses to your post rather than look at it and decide if you want to learn from it or not, it would be more useful if you just posted "I don't like bots" then nobody would have to bother about sharing their views.

[pescetom]

 smerriman, on 2025-May-03, 03:06, said:

I know you will, but as usual, you're in an extreme minority.

You probably realise, but although everyone can see the poll, only members of BW will be able to see the poll results.

[hrothgar]

pescetom, on 2025-May-04, 09:28, said:

You probably realise, but although everyone can see the poll, only members of BW will be able to see the poll results.

Right now, there are roughly 40 votes

Two people voted pass
One of whom is Michael

[pescetom]

hrothgar, on 2025-May-04, 09:55, said:

Right now, there are roughly 40 votes

Two people voted pass
One of whom is Michael

Now 1 more vote for diamonds, I felt authorized not to abstain having read this thread only now.