[cencio]

https://www.bridgeba...C3%7Cmc%7C10%7C

[benellis58]

Not shocking, considering how wretched the GIB robots are at "defending".

[smerriman]

This is your fault, not the robot's. As noted in its System Notes:

Quote

If it leads an honor that's part of a sequence, it uses standard honor leads (K from AKx, A from AK doubleton).

This may not be standard for you, as most humans would do the opposite, but was when GIB was written.

Having promised three diamonds with your opening double, your lead therefore tells partner there is a 100% chance you do not have the king of diamonds, making its queen entirely worthless. True, it didn't need to throw it, and perhaps the opps would have played for you leading from AQx later (though who would do that), but this is all moot when you just need to lead the king here.

[benellis58]

Please, Stephen! Regardless of whether or not the human led the "correct" card according to the GIB system, there was still absolutely no reason whatsoever for the GIB robot to make such a ridiculous zero percent play...except, that is, for the typically pathetic GIB defensive "abilities". Even YOU, Stephen, admit that "... it didn't need to throw it, and perhaps the opps would have played for you leading from AQx later...".

[smerriman]

Some people like to play with robots for enjoyment, and aim to get the best results they can, given GIB itself will never change. These people may not be aware that the A lead denies the K, and upon learning such fact, can improve their results in the future.

Your posts, on the other hand, provide absolutely no value whatsoever to anyone, so that's the last one of those I'll be reading - welcome to the ignore list.

[benellis58]

Stephen, assuming you honour your promise, you will not be reading this, but I will take the opportunity to respond anyway. You seem to delight in attacking people. In this very thread, for example, you began your unsolicited lesson on which card to lead according to the GIB system by writing to Cencio "This is your fault, not the robot's." Had you merely wished to educate people about GIB leads, you could have done so without that totally unnecessary swipe at Cencio. I have noticed that you frequently attack posters in a similar way under the guise of educating them about GIB, and I find that approach unnecessary, uncalled for, and unpleasant.

I pointed out that even if Cencio had led the "wrong" card according to GIB principles, the poor result was still entirely due to the GIB robot's silly, zero percent play of tossing his queen for no reason. I would say that - contrary to the dig you made at me - this actually DID "provide...value" in both defending Cencio and negating your incorrect statement.

Why "incorrect", Stephen? Because EVEN if one were to accept your argument that the debacle was due to the "wrong" card being led - an argument which I do NOT accept and which totally absolves the robot of any culpability for his wasteful, unnecessary, and pointless play which could never gain, which might sometimes break even, and which might sometimes lose (as it did here!) - your BRIDGE logic was highly flawed. You wrote: "Having promised three diamonds with your opening double, your lead therefore tells partner there is a 100% chance you do not have the king of diamonds, making its queen entirely worthless." That is incorrect, Stephen, even if we accepted your very flawed premise...because EVEN if Cencio did not have the king, he could have had the JACK.