dwar0123

Your rhetoric and innuendo is hysterical.

I adore science, I adore it for its proven track record, its unrelenting systematic method of refining our knowledge of the Universe through competitive evidence based testing. Science is a method with a bias for the truth. Man's imperfection certainty dirties sciences purity, but over time sciences bias for truth grinds the impurities out and leaves us with nothing short of flawless beauty. Maybe you are right, I seriously doubt it. The evidence behind global warming is very robust, if future evidence proves otherwise great, but the risk of you being wrong is catastrophic. Global warming isn't just an idea, it is a full fledged theory that WILL be tested with dramatic results one way or the other. I honestly hope you are right because I think you and people like you will succeed in shoring up the global inertia that is preventing the requested changes. I hope you are right, but I am sure you are wrong. Oh and please, just because I love science and intellectual honesty, please don't confuse me with you.

Reality trumps legality.

Counter intuitively the two are not directly linked :) An ice shelf is ice that is already supported by water and as such its melting actually decreases sea level. This is due to ice being less dense then water that is just above freezing.

This is novice and beginner forum, everything is natural except for the specific 2 or 3 conventions they agreed to. I really think you are over thinking this and I am confident that whatever my partner has and what ever he says over 4♥, it will be a reasonable contract.

4♥, if partner can bid 4♠ over that, great, if he picks a minor great, if he has some hearts and passes, great.

If we can look past what I am sure will be regarded as my retarded 4♦ bid, I still put forth the 4♥ bid is ill advised with any possible hand I could have. It may have been induced in part by the silly description of the 4♦ bid which I suggest should also be changed to reflect something more realistic. [hv=lin=pn|Dwar0123,~~M4608,~~M4606,~~M4607|st||md|2S2HJAD2678TQKCJQA%2CS3679TQAHD9JAC3TK%2CS458H689QD5C45679%2C|rh||ah|Board%208|sv|o|mb|1S|an|Major%20suit%20opening%20--%205%2B%20S%3B%2011-21%20HCP%3B%2012-22%20total%20points%20|mb|p|mb|1N|an|Forcing%20one%20notrump%20--%203-%20S%3B%206%2B%20HCP%3B%2012-%20total%20points%20|mb|2D|an|rebiddable%20D%3B%2013%2B%20total%20points|mb|2S|an|6%2B%20S%3B%2014-18%20total%20points%20|mb|p|mb|p|mb|3D|an|twice%20rebiddable%20D%3B%2016%2B%20total%20points|mb|p|mb|p|mb|3S|an|2-3%20S%3B%206%2B%20HCP%3B%209-%20total%20points%20|mb|4D|an|strong%20rebiddable%20D%3B%2025%2B%20total%20points|mb|p|mb|4H|an|4%2B%20H%3B%205-%20total%20points%20|mb|p|mb|5D|an|strong%20rebiddable%20D%3B%2025-30%20total%20points|mb|d|an|6%2B%20S%3B%2018%20total%20points%20|mb|p|mb|p|mb|p|pc|SA|pc|S4|pc|SJ|pc|S2|pc|S7|pc|S5|pc|SK|pc|D2|pc|DQ|pc|DA|pc|D5|pc|D3|pc|SQ|pc|S8|pc|H2|pc|D6|pc|DK|pc|D9|pc|C4|pc|D4|pc|DT|pc|DJ|pc|C5|pc|H3|pc|ST|pc|H6|pc|H7|pc|D7|pc|CJ|pc|C3|pc|C6|pc|C2|pc|CA|pc|CT|pc|C7|pc|C8|pc|CQ|pc|CK|pc|C9|pc|HT|pc|S9|pc|H8|pc|H5|pc|D8|pc|HA|pc|S6|pc|H9|pc|H4|pc|HJ|pc|S3|pc|HQ|pc|HK|]360|270[/hv] Btw, check out what happened to the people who doubled and then bid ♦, which will explain why this result ended up above average. http://www.bridgebase.com/myhands/hands.php?traveller=7978-1334110801-13442427&username=dwar0123

This is the kind of post I am talking about, it adds nothing to the topic of gib bidding and is just further reinforcing the notion that I suck. I am getting tired of it, how many times do I have to agree that I suck before people get tired of beating a dead horse that was NEVER relevant. No wonder there is so much tension in this forum, seriously guys, why is everyone so intent on putting others down? If I had 15 points, partner is still limited to 4. If I had 3 points partner is still limited to 4. My bid is immaterial, my logic is immaterial. There is no way that 11- hcp and twice rebiddable ♥ is a useful or accurate description of that bid. It doesn't matter what kind of other evidence I have to be ignoring to proceed to 3nt, clearly I ignored it, that does not excuse that description. I am not suggesting that bid description should be informed by my 20 points, clearly that would be a horrible idea, but if we are playing with bid descriptions then they should be accurate and they should be telling newbies like me what experts like you already know. If it is limited to 4 points then it should say that. You have issues with full disclosure bidding, that's great, I can appreciate the arguments on both sides, however this isn't the thread to have this discussion. Clearly these bids were made under the auspice of full disclosure bidding and so long as that is what we are doing, we should strive to do it well. If your point is to instead defend known poor/vague bid descriptions as a way to articulate differences between good players and bad players, that would be relevant. However I hope that is not what you are suggesting.

Yes, I appreciate your constructive contribution to the thread. I fully understand that 3nt wasn't a reasonable bid for you. I fully understand that you are a better player and that you are correct. I also fully understand that you are incapable of appreciating how to a lesser player the 2♥ bid is a frustrating example of gross inaccuracies that lead to confusion and unnecessary misunderstandings. I am sure you also do not think its reasonable that a player who has never seen a deck of cards before could miss a guard squeeze. I get it, we are not on the same page here. Given the inaccurate description of 2♥ it is not reasonable for anyone to make that mistake because the only reasonable thing is that everyone is good enough to overlook that description. IE. I shouldn't be paying to play with gibs because clearly I'm not good enough. Well thanks for dragging it off topic again, despite the fact that in my previous post, contrary to your claim, I offered no defense of my bidding. It is almost like I dropped the subject and choose not to mention it again. And really, I kept going back to my 'reasonable' 3nt bid in an attempt to show how the 2♥ bid is confusing. I don't care how reasonable it is to you, you are at a different point in the evolution of your game. I didn't come here for critique of my bidding, I came here to help try and make GIB better, yet everyone seems intent on pointing out my flaws, as if they matter. Yea, the hand was laid out double dummy, clubs were splitting and wtf are we even talking about this for? You really need to move past your biases of what is reasonable, it is self evidently reasonable for me to bid 3nt here because I did and felt it reasonable. I don't need to justify it to you, because that isn't the point, the point is that 2♥ bid is described inaccurately, please fix it. Also, please fix bidding quantitative 4nt too on 2 points, really annoying.

Well, thanks all for the critique of my bidding, even though I posted this in the GIB robot discussion forum, it is nice to know that everyone feels the need to repeat each other on my bidding problems. Message duly received, thanks. Now if we could get back on topic, cover up the south hand and ask yourself these 3 questions. 1. Is the description of 2♥ bid as accurate as it should be? Pretend that people play with robots that know less then you about bidding. 2. Is the description of the 3[nt] bid as having 25-30 points and less then 5♥ accurate? Keep in mind that there are plenty of legitimate hands south could have to make that bid, 7 running clubs and two outside aces for instance. 3. Is bidding a quantitative nt here wise?

Not sure we have discussed it, but I believe 2♥ would be a wjs. What forcing bids are even available?

2/1 imps [hv=pc=n&s=shajt85432dck7532&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=1c1d1h2spp]133|200[/hv] How do you proceed?

I really feel like you can't appreciate this problem from my perspective because you know on some fundamental level that 2♥ was a busted hand. Change his Q♦ into a K and I am cold with a marked finesse. 3 points. I really don't think you are viewing what 11- hcp and twice rebiddable hearts looks like to someone who isn't as sure as you are that 2♥ means i have nothing. I think we have to also tighten up that description of the 2♥ bid.

You hit upon what the real problem may be. The computer lied about the potential strength of his hand. I know that for most people, 2 anything in this auction is a bailout showing a crap hand, but I do not presume to know what gib is doing(i've been punished a few times for that as well). I read 11- and twice rebiddable hearts and suddenly my 3nt seems a lot more reasonable? You may say my 3nt bid is foolish but it is being induced by inaccurate descriptions. Thanks, I am not going to presume to suggest how this gets solved, I am just annoyed that some people here would excuse poor gib behavior just because a less then expert player is reporting it. No matter how bad I am, that is no excuse for bidding 4nt with that hand.

I would argue the 3nt bid was reasonable, maybe you wouldn't do it, but its hardly a gross misbid. I know where all the points are and I have a fair shot of endplaying him a couple of times to score 9 tricks. I in fact made 3nt opposite my 2 point partner. The 6nt bid is irrelevant as it had no influence on the bots 4nt bid. For the sake of argument pretend I passed and went down 1. If it really bothers you what I did after the robot made a gross misbid, chalk it up to frustration, regardless it is irrelevant to the computers bid.

Ok, maybe I should have looked at the point range I was showing before accepting the quantitative invite, even though the displayed point range was flatly forbidden by the auction it would have at least caused me to not accept. However, I believe the robots would be less frustrating to play with if they didn't make such invites with such hands. Perhaps either have the robot actually have the 5-6 points it shows instead of the 2 points it had or lower the range of the 3nt call to something that is actually physically possible. [hv=lin=pn|Dwar0123,~~M6101,~~M6099,~~M6100|st||md|3STAH5QD2TJAC9TQKA%2CS25JQH36TD568C347%2CS3479H24789D3QC26%2C|rh||ah|Board%205|sv|n|mb|p|mb|1N|an|notrump%20opener.%20Could%20have%205M.%20--%202-5%20C%3B%202-5%20D%3B%202-5%20H%3B%202-5%20S%3B%2015-17%20HCP%3B%2018-%20total%20points%20|mb|d|an|Penalty%20double%20--%2016%2B%20HCP|mb|p|mb|2H|an|11-%20HCP%3B%20twice%20rebiddable%20H%3B%2012-%20total%20points%20|mb|p|mb|3N|an|5-%20H%3B%205-%20S%3B%2025-30%20HCP%3B%20partial%20stop%20in%20C|mb|p|mb|4N|an|Quantitative%20invite%20to%206NT%20--%205-6%20HCP%3B%20twice%20rebiddable%20H%20|mb|p|mb|6N|an|5-%20H%3B%205-%20S%3B%2026-30%20HCP%3B%20partial%20stop%20in%20C|mb|p|mb|p|mb|p|pc|S2|pc|S3|pc|SK|pc|SA|pc|CA|pc|C3|pc|C2|pc|C5|pc|CK|pc|C4|pc|C6|pc|C8|pc|CQ|pc|C7|pc|H2|pc|CJ|pc|CT|pc|D5|pc|H4|pc|D9|pc|C9|pc|H3|pc|H7|pc|D4|pc|D2|pc|D8|pc|DQ|pc|DK|pc|HK|pc|H5|pc|H6|pc|H8|pc|HA|pc|HQ|pc|HT|pc|H9|pc|HJ|pc|ST|pc|S5|pc|S4|pc|D7|pc|DA|pc|D6|pc|D3|pc|DJ|pc|SJ|pc|S7|pc|S8|pc|DT|pc|SQ|pc|S9|pc|S6|]360|270[/hv] This was an advanced bot.

Ok, I am confused. I did think it showed essentially the same type of hand as if west had not overcalled, maybe a point or 2 more then a dead minimum. However I didn't think 1♣-x-1♥-p-1♠ showed anything more then an opening hand. 1♥ is forcing and 1♠ is the cheapest bid? Oh wait, maybe you meant that 2♠ here shows the same hand as if I had bid 2♠ over a pass. In other words its still showing the strength of a jump shift. If that's the case, good to know. Kinda funny cause I did have a strong hand even though I thought I hadn't showed it yet and bid 4♣ when partner passed and opponents kept competing.

Wondering if my bid was crazy, it seemed fine to me but this might be one of those cases were I have internalized a really bad habit, my regular partner(my father who taught me) and I do these kinds of bids all the time. However, it caught my bbf regular partner off guard. 2/1 imps. [hv=pc=n&s=s7h96532dkqt762c5&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=p1cd1s3s]133|200[/hv]

standard 2/1 imps. [hv=pc=n&s=sqj8h8543dt92ca74&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1cd1h2d2sp]133|200[/hv] Had a little disagreement about whether or not this was a reverse. Any insight into the expected point count and length of spades for the 2♠ bid?

I'd prefer to be in hearts with such nice honors. but it seems likely my partner is short and if my partner is short surely the opponents are not bidding 4♦ with both having 3+ little ones, in which case hearts are splitting bad making that contract scary even with nice honors. On the other hand, if both opponents are assuming the other is short, 3 top heart honors will be enjoyable to cash. I have no other bid that further describes my hand so I double and let my partner decide. If we defend I am not tempted to lead a heart as there is no side suit they are likely to control that they can use to pitch, it is a diamond lead all the way.

That looks quantitative, I have more then I showed, I have good controls, easy 6nt.

Other then the very safe k♥ the only thing I can think of is east is two suited in hearts and spades and you need to lead a trump to shorten the cross ruff. Hoping east is something like 5521 and was passing hoping to defend a heart contract but decided 2 was to cheap(even w/r) when a spade game was on the line.

That is how I played it for a long time, but I have sense learned that standard treatment for 4♥ in this auction is a splinter showing 6♠ and at most 1♥.

My partner wants a heart lead, I am going to show him the jack.

No, that is not my point. For the sake of argument I am going to assume 'bad play' means giving or using UI, as doing such is bad rather then meaning they play badly. The point I am trying to make is that 'weak' players are so inconsistent that neither you nor their partners can reliable read their tempo breaks. You are just projecting your own concerns about the hand over random noise and getting irritated at coincidental bad results. You are then rationalizing your justification for believing this was UI through your interpretation of the 'thanks for reading my signal' meaning I wanted a club rather then the perfectly legit I didn't want a heart. That's really not what you are talking about, I try to play my best to win within the rules, most people do. What you are talking about is holding others to the letter of the law, which is within the rules but has nothing to do with how well you play. Still was never my point though. I have heard others mention that they have played against some very good LOL's.