iandayre

I ducked the second Spade as well - and believe that was the correct play. I won the third round and led the C9, losing to the Q. Remember, even if E cannot now continue Spades, we have only 8 tricks. But the CQ was singleton! So E, who was 3541 and held both the HQ and DK, had to lead a red suit to concede the 9th trick. The same would happen if E held the C AQ doubleton. Not sure it matters whether you pitch 1H and 1D or 2D from dummy on the 2nd and 3rd round of Spades. I am sure that winning the second Spade does NOT sever communications when Spades are 5-3 with the A with W and the Q with East.

duplicate deleted

That line was chosen by a number of declarers, but was not successful. Perhaps we'll get some other ideas.

In all the famous cheating scandals over the decades, the method of cheating has involved illegal communication between partners at the table. Some methods used have been foot tapping, coughing, and placement of pencils. I do not believe that anyone has ever been caught having had improper access to hand records before the event.

You open 1C with AK75, A97, Q98, J95. Partner leaps to 3S, a splinter raise. You end the auction with 3NT and the lead is the SQ Dummy holds 2, KJ6, AJ52, KT762. RHO follows with the S3. Win or duck? If you duck, LHO continues with the SJ. Then what?

In about 1978 George Rosencranz wrote a multi-month article in the ACBL Bulletin called "A Strong Defense Vs. Weak Twos" I started playing it soon thereafter, and I've never seen anything better. I highly recommend it if you can find a copy. It is based on Lebensohl, so the 2NT advance requests - but does not force - doubler to bid 3C. After this start 3S shows invitational values with 4 card length. 3NT shows H stopper(s) along with 4 Spades. A direct jump to 3S over the double is invitational with 5 cards, while a direct 3NT would be to play without 4 Spades. The method agrees with the point made here that there is no need for a 3NT call without a stopper. Similar agreements are in place for direct and delayed (after first bidding 2NT Leb) cue bids by advancer. Both cues are GF, with the direct cue denying a stopper while the delayed one shows one. I recall once having a nice hand with 4252 shape including AQxx of S, and it went 2S -Dbl - P to me. I bid 2NT, then after 3C I bid 3S on the next round. Partner bid 4D, I bid 4S and partner bid 6D! I had extras and went on to 7, making easily. My expert counterpart at the other table in Swiss Teams ended the auction by jumping to 3NT on the first round of bidding. So assuming this hand to be a game force, advancer would start with 2NT and bid 3NT over partner's 3C.

One of GIB's worst problems is that bidding descriptions often show delayed actions to show the same (sometimes even more!) strength and shape than immediate ones. Of course you are right, you would have doubled 2H if you wanted takeout. This would appear to be one of the easier fixes, surely a double like yours of 4H could be re-defined as penalty. As things stand, you must protect yourself but checking descriptions before you act.

A corollary to this is that, in 4th hand, GIB never falsecards with equal honors. If you are playing to the AJT and RHO wins the K, you can be 100% certain that the second finesse will succeed. This applies equally to QJ and JT combinations. Interesting that the programmers allowed this weakness while GIB makes falsecards extensively - sometimes to its own detriment - in other situations

I must agree, 3S is far less of a lie than 3H and is sensible while 3H is not.

Your point about GIB's bidding is valid. I must wonder why you chose to show the SQ you didn't hold. Perhaps GIB then believed you held 5 Spades, therefore 6+ Diamonds.

Not really following this. Are you saying that GIB's definition of 3H is shortness? I don't think so. 3D was "cheaper minor" so did not promise Diamonds.

I am not demanding anything. I already stated that I am pleased with the changes and wanted others to be aware. I have always treated you with the highest respect and you talk to me as if I am stupid. The 2C - 2NT auction doesn't come up that often. But the inverted minor one does, and I am quite certain that the change to the current, superior method did not happen more than 6 months ago in V.33. As long as they improve GIB, then changes are welcome. That's all I have to say on this subject.

OK, I will try to be more specific. For as long as I have been playing in GIB events - almost 2 years - the auction 1m-2m-2x-2NT was game forcing. So GIB would have to bid 3C over 1C-2C-2H with KJx, xxx, AQx, Jxxx or something similar. I know that Jack has complained about this several times, as have I. Just this past week GIB bid 2NT with me in this situation, and the description of 2NT is now 10-12, with at least partial stoppers in the unbid suits. As I said, a big improvement. The other auction is after a 2NT response to a 2C opening bid. Previously one had to bid 4NT to show a balanced 22-24, with 3NT supposedly showing only 19 plus, presumably somewhat unbalanced. This was a nonsense interpretation, and it has now been changed so that 2NT shows exactly 22 balanced. Perhaps not ideal but certainly better than before. There was a thread here perhaps 2 months ago that discussed this auction - perhaps those better than me at searching through the archives can find it. In both cases there is no question that the descriptions have changed. I am just happy for the improvement and wanted to make others aware, but if you wish to comment further, I'd be interested. I've now rechecked the notes for the most recent upgrade in June of this year. There is no mention of either of these auctions.

OK Barmar, I don't wish to be disagreeable, but then how do you explain these changes that I referred to?

We haven't heard from anyone at BBO in some time, nor has a recent upgrade been announced. But there HAS been one, and it is an improvement. One is an auction we have been asking them to fix for quite a long time, after an inverted minor raise and a 2 level suit rebid by opener, 2NT by responder shows at least partial stoppers in the unbid suits and 10-12 HCP. The other is after a 2NT response to a 2C opener. 3NT shows a minimum 22 balanced HCP. I am glad to see these improvements made and am hoping to find others. I wonder why BBO isn't talking?

I believe it is still Standard that a raise by doubler here invites game if advancer has a hand close to a jump on the first round. Here is another point - with a decent 4-4 in the majors hand like the 2-Ace example or a bit less bid SPADES first, and be prepared to compete further in Hearts if the opportunity presents itself. So yes, barring an agreement like theirs, had you bid 1S the first time and been raised, you should go to game.

So pass followed by double shows a BETTER hand according to the description. What nonsense. And yet my long-time contention that the descriptions are essentially broken and need to be completely revamped doesn't get much support.

Have to agree with you. A double is a very bad action - 3H is several degrees of magnitude worse.

I think Jack is right. Wildly distributional hands are hard for human players to evaluate, much more so for GIB. Veterans here will recall a hand GIB held with 7-6 in the minors, both headed by the AKJ I believe. And GIB allowed the opponents to play in 4 of a major!

About a year ago I had GIB perpetrate a similar auction with me, passing a forcing new suit bid by an unpassed hand. In my post, I pointed out that nowhere in the system notes are negative free bids shown, therefore I have every right to assume that a new suit is forcing. My recollection is that someone from BBO agreed, and that in a subsequent release such bids were established as forcing. And I must say, I have not had GIB pass one since that time. Clearly it did so here, and it would seem that the fix must be re-fixed. I am quite sure that Jack is correct, in GIB's methods a negative double followed by a suit bid is limited and non-forcing. So also allowing GIB to pass a new suit bid by an unpassed hand is unplayable.

It would have showed the same as the description of the delayed double. Clearly, if the descriptions were accurate, the balancing double must show less. When I say "accurate" I mean conforming with sound bridge logic, not how GIB interprets the call.

deleted duplicate

You'll find there are some areas of bidding where GIB seems to bid very timidly, and others where it is very aggressive. And there are many nuances in between. I think most will agree that GIB tends to be aggressive when partner opens 2C. So be especially careful not to overbid once you have opened 2C. And for what it's worth, I'd open 1H with the actual hand. If you played this hand in a tournament, probably some did choose that call, and I'd be interested in how the auctions proceeded from there.

Probably because you had a very light hand for a 2C bid, and despite that you launched into Blackwood over partner's 3H call. Then there was your 6C call, another sign of encouragement with your dead minimum at best.