[Bbradley62]

---

[barmar]

The book bid is 3♠. In 3 out of 11 of my simulations, it decided to pass.

In some cases it thinks it can take the first 6 tricks, I think because it expects to be able to get several ♣ ruffs. In other cases, it seems to be concerned that if it bids 3♠, partner will bid 4♣, and this will go down a bunch.

[cloa513]

barmar, on 2011-December-13, 23:42, said:

The book bid is 3♠. In 3 out of 11 of my simulations, it decided to pass.

In some cases it thinks it can take the first 6 tricks, I think because it expects to be able to get several ♣ ruffs. In other cases, it seems to be concerned that if it bids 3♠, partner will bid 4♣, and this will go down a bunch.

Then it can bid 4H if partner bids 4C.
Its a stupid double risking the spade suit, just bid 3H or 3NT.

[barmar]

It apparently thinks it needs a stronger hand (8+ TP) to bid 4♥. Although in practice, it will bid 4♥ because of simulations, but when it estimates how the auction will continue during its simulations, it only considers book bids (because of the exponential explosion of doing hundreds of simulations of the following bids during each of the hundreds of simulations).

I redid my test, this time it only passed in 2 out of 11 simulations. So apparently the changes in v20 have modified its estimates in the right direction.

Perhaps we should lower the requirement to bid 4♥ in that auction.