dwar0123

This is a very instructive hand on how gib decides its bids. It doesn't look at its points and bid accordingly. It takes the definitions of his partners hand and creates random hands for all 3 hands that it can't see that fit the definitions of everyone's bid and then for each random hand it plays double dummy and see's if it can make. If over many random hands, he makes 6n often enough, it bids. How many points the gib has in his own hand is mostly irrelevant. Often, when gib is caught bidding poorly, the fault lies not with the GIB that did the poor bid, but with a bad definition that gib was using to create simulations that were not realistic(Never make a bid that is described as 25+ total points!) It doesn't actually appear that the definition here is the problem, just for whatever reason gib often made 6n with his hand opposite his simulated partner. Could be the potentially running 5 card suit as well as quite a few 10, and 9's.

Not sure I understand. We play 2/1, so north's 2♥ was game forcing. As for opening 1♠ when 5-6, that is just how we learned it in the clubs when starting out and never really saw the need to change it. Thinking about it, while I agree I am total points strong enough to reverse, I am not hcp strong enough. Further, being so low on hcp, I can expect frequent competition and feel getting the major in as a definite 5 carder is important, especially at mp, which is what we normally play.

1. There are many rating systems used across my different games and this problem is essentially a solved one. There are multiple solutions, but the basic idea is very different then the point system you see with the acbl. Unlike the acbl, where the rating only goes up over time, each player has a rating that goes up when they do better then expected and down when they do worse then expected. The expectation for a pair is the average of each persons rating compared to the average of their opponents. If you want more details on this you can google lehman rating for a bridge version. Most complaints against ratings rest the negative impact it can have on some players who become defensive of their rating. They will get much angrier about bad results and sometimes even refuse to play with or against others because of perceived imbalance in ratings. There are some other problems, such as separate groups not being compared accurately because there isn't much cross over play and it tends to intimidate poorer players into not playing. 2. Good rating systems will always lag a little behind a player whose skill is changing, but they generally catch up. 3. Most good rating systems work off results, if the results are not done within the system then the question is moot. If they play in the system, then they will have results and be rated, doesn't matter if they join something else or not. 4. Then each login would have their own rating. I am almost 100% sure it is in fact ok to have multiple logins and I know several high profile people that do. They have a public persona and a hidden one when they want to be left alone. I am indifferent to the practice as long as they are not cheating by having multiple logins at the same time while playing. As for your final point, that brings to mind an interesting idea, what if bbo could enable private clubs to introduce a rating system. That still leaves the main bridge club that the vast majority of people are steered towards free of it, while filling the need that is constantly being asked for. It might also allow different private clubs to experiment with different rating methods to their own determent or benefit. As for cheating, shrug, some people cheat, both in person and online. Not much you can do about it but catch it when you can and go on with your life. No reason to let them win by spoiling it for everyone by deciding we can't do anything because some people abuse it.

Maybe he was trying to do a grosvenor coup so intricate that it would be a great compliment to you if it worked, a mere expert would do the strip squeeze and be done with it :)

So an odd hand showed up that seems to have the easiest auction ever if you first agree to a suit and then bid to play in a different one. I am wondering which of these auctions this would actually be considered ok on(if any) and which this would be considered dangerous. [hv=pc=n&s=sk8432hjdacaj8763&n=saq9hakq987643d5c&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1sp]266|200[/hv] So my partner didn't know how to bid this safely so he just bailed with this auction(opponents always silent) 1♠-2♥-3♣-6♥-ppp For minus 2 imps in an online imp tourny in what I am sure you must agree is a fairly weak field. Ie, slightly more people bid 7 then failed to even bid 6. Initially I suggested he should support spades over 3♣ then ask via rkc and then bid 7♥ with my response. He was worried I might correct to 7♠. Now most of the field got there via 1♠-4n-5♣/♦-7♥. Obviously if a poor control count in given, then 6♥ has to be equally clear as to play. It seems likely that you can only do this if you are deciding between 6-7, as I don't think 5♥ can be to play. So my questions. 1. To reassure my partner, is 6♥ or 7♥ clearly to play in these auctions. 2. Which is more clear, showing hearts, supporting spades and then demanding to play hearts, or just doing rkc directly over 1♠ and then bidding hearts over what ever response(or are both equally clearly to play) 3. If I can convince my partner to play exclusion blackwood, which would obviously be far superior with his hand, does anything change with respect to agreeing and bidding something different. 4. Anything obvious I didn't ask and should have?

You are of course correct, I misremembered what I had read and while this is a great way to reinforce the lesson it is still a little embarrassing. Oh well.

Edit: I was mistaken, no sense wasting your time with the original post :)

Ya, I was expecting it to be a self splinter, but I checked and it wasn't and I thought if any hand is described by a 4♦ non splinter bid, then my hand was it. I didn't notice the absurdly low total point count until after it was to late. But ya, changing this to a self splinter or some other useful bid would be great, at best it is useless right now and really it is a trap for new gib players who are not familiar with how GIB interprets descriptions(or too lazy to fully read them out and assume they make sense with the rest of the description). Man, you are such a gib apologist, if you were in charge of progress humanity would still be in the stone age. Anyway, I wouldn't bid 4♦ with a human partner unless I had a stiff or void. But it is reasonable as a player to expect that bids have sensible meanings. At least when possible and it certainly is possible here.

I've been wrong an awful lot, but I am pretty sure that a minimum of 12 total points on the 4♦ bid is to low. [hv=sn=dwar0123,~~M29145,~~M29143,~~M29144|st||md|4S458JQKH5JD69QKAC%2CS236AH2346KDJC46A%2CS7H7TAD4578C289TQ%2C|rh||ah|Board%206|sv|e|mb|p|mb|1S|an|Major%20suit%20opening%20--%205%2B%20S%3B%2011-21%20HCP%3B%201|mb|p|mb|1N|an|Forcing%20one%20notrump%20--%203-%20S%3B%206%2B%20HCP%3B%2012-%20total%20points%20|mb|p|mb|4D|an|5%2B%20S%3B%2011-21%20HCP%3B%20biddable%20D%3B%2012-22%20total|mb|p|mb|p|mb|p|pc|DJ|pc|D4|pc|D3|pc|DQ|pc|DA|pc|H2|pc|D5|pc|D2|pc|DK|pc|S6|pc|D7|pc|DT|pc|SQ|pc|SA|pc|S7|pc|S9|pc|C6|pc|C9|pc|CJ|pc|D6|pc|SK|pc|S2|pc|C2|pc|ST|pc|SJ|pc|S3|pc|C8|pc|C7|pc|S8|pc|H4|pc|CT|pc|H8|pc|S5|pc|H3|pc|H7|pc|C5|pc|S4|pc|C4|pc|HT|pc|C3|pc|H5|pc|H6|pc|HA|pc|H9|pc|CQ|pc|CK|pc|D9|pc|CA|pc|HJ|pc|HK|pc|D8|pc|HQ|]400|300[/hv]

I was thinking about this and also believe that part of the problem is that jec plays against a lot of very good opponents that don't otherwise play much on bbo and are thus very underrated. I agree that isolated groups can not be compared to each other with any confidence. I do not agree that means they are a bad idea. If the system is any good, mixing the groups would fix the problem and if the players don't care to fix a what to them is a non problem then it is a non problem. And obviously, that doesn't mean experts would have to play with novices, it just means experts would have to play with people who do play with people who do eventually through how ever many iterations play with novices.

Going by this, it seems the problem wasn't the hand strength it was just the quality of the spade suit? :blink:

The bbo rating site does have norby with a very high rating, at the expert/world class level even without the artificial professional designation. I am sure there are flaws but just checking random people I've played against in the main club it actually seemed about right. On the other hand, it has jec with a very low score, mostly due to a massive negative correction. He appears to have an artificial world class designation too, so I guess that is possible with both professional and world class :) Wonder which is higher in the creators opinion. And really, given the number of hands that jec has played, it really should be accurate for him, so something is not right with the system yet.

Edit: Read faq, apparently there is some correction based on strength of partner/opponents. Rogerclee's correction is pretty massive relative to a few others I looked at, which sounds right. What about using robo tourny results as a way to rate people, not really exactly bridge, but certainty there is a direct relationship between the two and it would be pretty easy to call out that it is a robot tourny rating not a 'bridge playing' rating.

Well it looks like I am the one mostly to blame for this. I thought the 3♠ was very pushy when I made it, but apparently my sanity is in fact in question. :( I was pretty confident that I wasn't showing high card points, due to the lack of a double and hence my defensive values were questionable. I pulled it because I was afraid my partner would be counting on me for more then I had in this regards. This dissonance between these two positions is probably a major sign I am wrong. If I can't trust my partner's double based on my bidding, then my bidding is probably wrong. However, given that I did not double nor bid michaels, what type of hand am I showing with this bid. I know it was stated stronger but I could use an actual example please.

I am very doubtful that gib gives count.

12 total points minimum on the 4♣ bid is to low, gib should be able to find 5♣ bid opposite a more accurate description.

I think you are missing the point of this forum.

There is no weak preempting in 4th seat, it generally shows a minimum opening hand with a long suit. Partner should perhaps have bid 3nt. At least that is my understanding for 2 level bids in 4th seat, see no reason that it wouldn't apply to 3♣ as well.

2/1 gf imps [hv=pc=n&s=sj943h8d76cakq642&w=sa865h754dat3c975&n=st2hqt32dq9854c83&e=skq7hakj96dkj2cjt&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=p1h2c2hp3d3s4dp4hppdp5cdppp]399|300[/hv] So I guess we have 3 questions. 1. Did north have his double given partners bidding? 2. What exactly does south show with the 3♠ bid? 3. Should south run to 5♣ here?

That all sounds about right and maybe I overstated it somewhat, my admittedly poor math suggests that there is a 33% chance that he will have 2 of any 3 of the 2 aces and q♣. The rest of the possible hands that he could have where it would still make or make on a finesse only increase the chances, maybe not all the way to >50% though. Someone should do the math, I'd bet its closer then you think and honestly if my gut is only off by 5-8%, kudos to my gut :) Perhaps the problem is my understanding of what jdeegan meant by it being a very unlikely slam when declining to investigate at the 1 level opposite a poorly defined forcing 1nt by an unpassed hand. To me, to refuse to investigate a slam while still at the 1 level would require the slam to be far less likely then 33%. That is a lot of room to ignore.

My gut tells me that with the auction so far, slam is probably already better then 50%? Partner is more likely then not to have a black ace and that alone puts 6 into play. Adding anything extra in clubs greatly increases the chances.

Thx all, I was afraid 3♣ wasn't forcing and as I can make 4♠ with almost no help, I wasn't sure it was the correct call. 4♠ also seemed to seriously undervalue how little help this hand needed to make slam and as such I was stuck for a bid. Regardless, if you are curious, over 3♣ partner will bid 3nt over which you will bid 4♠ which is all you can make. Partner indeed had no help.

matchpoints. 2/1 gf [hv=pc=n&s=skqjt765hdack9643&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1sp1np]133|200[/hv] 1nt = forcing No special gadgets, suggesting special gadgets would be futile in this partnership.

Wests pass is as crazy as easts bid of 4♠

Whoops, didn't pay attention to diamonds, so it always make 5 and 6 if you get spades right. Edited it out, thx