Bermy

A wasp just flew over my head and I wondered. Imagine if I were God with a can of insect repellent in front of the full nest. Imagine if a little wasp came out and said please leave us alone we won't harm you, promise. Would I 1) Risk Taking them to another place? 2) Kill them all? 3) Leave them alone?

Think about it. If nuclear war started in that area, how could China not get caught in the fallout? Please all you Chinese people out there, don't get caught napping on this one.

Supply examples from the thousands of hands I have played would be an impossible task, and hardly worth the effort. What I'm saying is that when my partner is holding the other 5 card major suit I need to know about it before the opponents start bidding against us. That good long majors are bid through 2 club Drury and not bidding the new suit. Is this exactly how Drury wanted it. And on the second point 2/1 is most definitely a full system. All its variations are called conventions.

What? Whats that? I hope you not planning cheating robots.

Yes I do and will post it soon. Control Precision works very well with basic CC Wei version of Precision, however managing 1 diamond openings is slightly different since it may contain a single diamond. It is not a real problem I assure you, make sure both partners know that, and that the opponents are alerted appropriately that your 1 diamond opening bid "may contain a singleton diamond". For starters I recommend using CC Wei Precision or Goren Precision, as their bids especially the asking bids are now universal. It is very important both players are playing the same system the same way (Wei)

I cant even begin to tell you what trouble it causes. 3 level contracts that clearly should be played at the 2 level, missed games and even poor misfits. Competition makes it even worse. God forbid you push the bidding up to the 3 level, maybe for a -1 sac and Gib plonks you in 4 with a yarborough. Now its 2 down thank you UNDOUBLED? is that the same as -1 doubled, just Gib giving it back?

No, its you that's not making any sense and I dont know what the editing problems are. Of course you can play any system with Drury (or reverse Drury) if you like, and of course you can try play 2/1 without it (if its still 2/1 then) But it is there and there for a reason. This old 1959 convention was carefully thought out by Drury and his peers. Bridge hasn't changed and neither has the cards. In order to make 2/1 work they had to implement Drury for passed hands, it is then key to the system as it then returns bidding back to its original formats as Culbertson and Reese and others would have it,and as Drury predicted. We don't need to see Drury used, as happens so often, when the non forcing 2/1 bid is a better option.

You know, after years of playing precision with partners who know how, we just love it when 4441's come along. They are so easy if your know how. Usually has 3 outcomes.....horrible misfits, no decent major fit or great fit somewhere(with a crossruff or double fit maybe). If the multi 2D is used properly as I propose, that is to bid the 4 card suit below the singleton (3 or 4 level of course) after a 2D opening, the control partner will have no trouble placing the right contract.

absolutely, but its the passed hand that now changes the entire bidding sequences of all the continuing bids. Now the 2/1 bidding is no longer at a game force, and therefore all continued bidding changes in context especially at 1NT and beyond. I didn't say cornerstone, I said keystone. I find it most objectionable to find natural non forcing 2/1 bids now bid unnaturally. Not the way Drury intended it at all. I think have posted another feed recently on that subject with a match example where the natural 2/1 bid was ignored in favor of a poor 2NT bid. You cannot give the blind partner too much choice.

Thats ok, Im a user too. My message is intended to those who should get it. However I would be more careful when you make claims of "hot air"

Cappelletti is a defensive bidding convention particularly recommended for use against a weak 1NT opening (12-14 HCP) but can also be used against stronger 1NT openings (15-17 HCP).[3] The High Card Points (HCP) range for Cappelletti overcalls is 9-14 points. Its strength is that, by allowing overcaller to show a variety of two-suited hands, it maximizes the partnership's chance of finding its best fit quickly. Over the 1NT opening, the over-calling opponent makes one of the following bids to indicate a one-suited or a two-suited hand:- 2♣ declares a one-suited hand (usually 6 or more cards, but some bid with a strong 5 card suit). Partner is expected to respond as follows: 2♦, an artificial bid ('relay'), asking partner to pass if his suit is diamonds or to bid his long suit at the lowest level. very exceptionally, If Advancer has a good 6 card MAJOR suit of his own, then bid 2 of that major in place of the conventional relay bid. (You are over-ruling your partner!). 2♦ declares both major suits (with a holding of at least 5-4 or 4-5). Partner corrects to his longest major, bidding at the lowest level. 2♥ (or 2♠) declares hearts (or spades) and also an as yet undisclosed minor suit; (at least 5-4 in favour of the major suit). With a tolerance of the major suit, Partner passes. Else Partner bids 2NT inviting Intervener to bid his minor as a last stop; 2NT declares both minor suits (at least 5-4 or 4-5). Partner corrects to his longest minor, bidding at the lowest level. With 15 or more points, a Double for penalties by Intervener is recommended instead of Cappelletti over the 1NT opening; (generally showing values equivalent to a strong 1NT opening, i.e. 15-17 or 16-18 points by partnership agreement (Wiki) Cappelletti. As he wanted it to be played

Gib tip Remember you are playing "best hand" When gib opens with 1 Major and you fit 3x bid 2NT. You will get a lovely description of Norths hand and you will never miss your game contracts. Who needs 2/1? lol

Drury? Your whole 2/1 system is built on Drury from around 1959 on. Bidding went from Goren Culbertson (with Staymen) to Reese and Drury. It is the keystone to 2/1, and what makes it work. If you want to understand modern bidding you must understand the masters. If you are going to preach 2/1, please get your Drury (and Reverse Drury) right.

I would like to get something straight here. I really do not care for the complexities of programming or the difficulties of your job, you are charging &1.25 or more for these robots and they are not up to standard. After 15 to 20 years and 37 upgrades? Others have built better robots while you dither and make excuses, I am interested in bridge and bridge standards. Great writers and bridge theorists have given us great bidding systems over the years that work and work well. Standards have been set, and your Gib system does not meet these standards. My campaign is for better bidding methods and systems with more choice. I wish to see robots that are not programmed by excuses, but by someone who knows something about club bridge and bridge players. You need better bidding specialists, ones without agenda to a particular style. I also want to see bidding explanations that actually mean something, even to a beginner (Who may learn something quick) and are accurate to what the original convention writer intended.

So you call this tournament level bidding? Gib at 55% who does it play against?

While Im not a politician, nor an American, Im a bridge player so I really hope you have saved your Trump card for something special .

Perhaps I am misunderstanding something here. ACBL tourneys seem to be the same as regular ones with robots but $1.25. Why do so many people prefer to pay $1.25 when there is a much cheaper alternative. How can ACBL games be more popular than regular ones? Is it because you get ACBL points too, and that your would pay the extra dollar for it? Robot bridge is fun, but the true standards of Gib bidding and leads and no signals (defence and play is sort of ok) are low and do not warrant official points , and if is so......its because of your dollar?

Pay $1.25 for Gib bidding and leads and no refunds for Gib howlers? Come on people say something. I have enough trouble accepting its worth my $0.25.

How dreary, typical of Gib and their programmers believe that they have a given right to completely redesign 2/1 themselves, Mr Drury had nothing to do with this......it is not Drury its Gib robot rubbish again!!!!!! "A rebid of 2♦ shows a full opening. While not universally accepted, a bid of 2♥ by opener after opening 1♠ is also a weakish bid showing 5 spades and 4 hearts (or better). With a good hand (say 15 or more points) opener may simply jump to game (4 of the major suit). Other bids tend to be natural and descriptive, in effect a game try. With an excellent hand, opener may be interested in a slam and will bid accordingly.

You are not going to change my opinion until you provide your bridge players with a bidding system they can play with. Your robot bidding system is one that should be consigned to the garbage bin. You know, when beginners are taught bridge, they are taught never to repeat bid a pre-empted hand. Gib does this all the time, for players to learn from? When this happens at a table, one knows they are playing with a novice.

The simple answer is, no its not a qualified Cappelletti bid. 2C is the right bid showing the long suit.

Actually ridiculous bidding really a Q a J and a deuce and not even in trumps? Who uses take out doubles with Gib? Everybody knows Gib has absolutly no clue on how to manage a take out. A little Gib advise.......dont touch take outs.

OMG you really don't get it, do you. Its you that is making a fool of yourselves. All can see, and the results show for themselves. Yes, carry on demanding we bid 3H "your" way and play 2/1 "your" way and wonder why we accuse you of an agenda. Next I will be writing about how Gib left me in a 3-3 contract because I made the other bid, or didn't solve the mysteries of your ridiculous explanations. I am not the only one here and this is not the only hand worth complaining about. Are you not watching how everybody is playing or reading what everyone is saying? And for the record its 2NT that was the WRONG bid.

Control Precision is a method whereby we use Wei’s bidding as a language for partners to communicate with one another. “First to bid is always blind unless you open 1 club and do not repeat NT”. Now both partners know their respective roles. We have a blind partner and a control partner. All opening bids are limited. The control partner relays to blind partner how safe it is to bid, while the blind partner gives as much information of its hand as possible. Finally it’s the control partner that places the contract at its best judgment. This is especially important during competitive bidding. Blind partner is simply guided to the right contract, however sometimes blind partner will know it has extra values, usually an outside void somewhere, so we give one more weapon only used in these cases, a Blind Mad bid. :blink: This has the effect of extremely accurate bidding, even in strong competition. By understanding the language of Precision partners communicate with one another until the contact is placed. It even gets better. When exploring slams the control partner can ask for details in exactly what suit it is interested in including trumps and learn where the controls are. What a pleasure it is when you can claim, even before dummy is put on the table.

CC Wei was a bidding theorist, he never actually even played. He didn’t conceive the strong club, he merely simplified it so it could be played by both world champions and club players. He explained the importance if being exact with your HCP and shape and how to count their values separately. He called it Precision because he wanted it to be precise. He then got his team to learn it and play it properly, until unknown team started knocking everybody out of the Bermuda Bowl. Strong Club was not new back then, Belladonna and Gorrozo had been winning for years, does anybody play the Blue Club anymore? Goren and Reese other great theorists showed us how to play Precision simply, with simple approach methods without having to learn those complicated asking bids. Now club players could learn and play the strong club quickly, and if they wanted to explore the complicated avenues of asking bids, they could. Partnerships evolved all around the world, all adding to the original creation, but really what they were doing by making too many changes was breaking down what was essentially a carefully planned and structured universal language, capable of fitting every conceivable hand to its bid. Their results itself proved it worked. Bidding theory today is as complicated now as it was back then, however has everybody forgotten that bidding must work for club players as well as champions if one wants to develop a system properly. Unlike established partnership, club players need a system where 2 players can quickly agree on a basic system and which conventions are on and off and get on with playing. Standards need to be set. Goren, Reese, Culbertson and Wei set these standards. There is nothing crude in the old methods. They work and they are solid and are easy to learn for newer players. You sound like a budding musician who ignores the masters. Modern theorists are too result driven, and one has too much choice. It makes strong club impossible to play. Today on BBO all we are left with is 2/1 only, even then many prefer basic SAYC. From what I have seen on Gib after 20 years of trying, it is going absolutely nowhere. Gib bidding is not programed by any bidding theorists whatsoever; none of it makes any sense to the average bridge player. Some of the bidding logic is at the point where the program is making total fool of itself all over the world, you have read some of my other feeds on that. Must I say most would leave the table if anyone bid with them the way Gib does. We do not need or want another standard thank you. I am setting my standard and it is high. I’m trying to promote a return to Precision from all those players out there who want to try something different. Perhaps you should go read Goren Reese and Wei too and go see who the masters learned from.