pretender

So I'm trying to get two players to sort of "learn" 2/1 together. Both are experienced card players, but one has played only 2/1 in recent years and the other has only ever played Standard American (or Goren). I want them both to kind of learn it together so that they can build a fresh partnership with understanding of the system and no lingering bad bidding habits from previous partnerships. I've not been active in the bridge circles for many years now, and I remember that the Hardy 2/1 tended to be people's go-to "manual". Is there a newer or updated book that better suits my needs? I also get the impression that Audrey Grant's stuff is too beginner oriented.

http://tinyurl.com/lhhphre I understand that robot race GIBs are probably worse than robot reward GIBs, but this was pretty inexplicable.

http://tinyurl.com/l7atllt I know that GIB has issues with cuebid auctions, but still, the system explanation says 4+clubs for that 4♣ bid, there has to be a better alternative.

http://tinyurl.com/nhfnllz This was played in March, although I doubt GIB has improved much on this tendency. Granted, I did play this hand very well, taking advantage of how GIB operates.

http://tinyurl.com/ogk9ssd http://tinyurl.com/l4v5e7o These hands were played in February, I don't know if the latest upgrade took care of this problem. Even if SOS XXs aren't part of the system, I don't see how GIB decided passing was even remotely a possible action.

Let's add some more details and see if that changes things. This will also answer gordontd's question. What if: The infraction is pointed out by N/S or discovered by W himself before N bids, and W says, "oh, I meant to bid 4♥" or "let me just correct that to 4♥" N still has the option on the infraction, and now chooses to pass. Any difference?

South deals NV vs Vul 1♠ (X) 2♠ (3♥) 3♠ (3♥!!) West's insufficient 3♥ gets accepted by North who passes. Is East allowed to just bid 4♥ (on the belief that pard wanted to bid a vulnerable game)? What's AI/UI here?

I wonder what GIB was simulating that would make it open 4H when DA CK gives it slam http://tinyurl.com/ph9pgf9

http://tinyurl.com/mszh5uw

I explained how the bid could be made logically because people responding on the thread seemed so bewildered. Regarding "a bid accurately (or approximately) describes your hand", let's look at what the bid means. 1S, for all intents and purposes in the SAYC system, indicates a hand with opening values and 5 or more in the suit. Everyone has agreed that having 4 would be considered a deviation that would not qualify for a psych. Now, you make the inference that the opener does not have a 6 or 7 card other suit because the opener did not open in any other suit. The 1S bid itself does not deny the presence of such an outside suit. Certain negative inferences are no longer even alertable in the ACBL. If you choose a bid that is not a support double in a support double situation, you no longer have to alert and mention that this denies 3 card support. Similarly, bidding something other than a support double when holding 3 card support is not considered a psych.

A large part of the discussion seems to revolve around the part where noone can seem to understand the logic of the bid. Here, I'll offer one. Let's say I'm behind and trying to create a swing. I look at this hand and I see slam potential, even if on a finesse. But let's give partner a hand where 6S makes and 6H doesn't. It's not so hard. QJxx Txx AJx xxx or some similar variant. I can make 6S on 3-2S and the heart hook on. But what will happen if I open 1H? Partner will raise to 2H and it'll be next to impossible to get back to slam investigation in spades. What this hand reminds me most of was of JLOGIC's complaint some years ago: http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/40621-good-bid/ That was a crazier bid than the one discussed here, but I defended that bid back then. Based on the my experience with the bidder's (former ACBL president with the initials HP) views on bridge, I truly believed that his creativity and his desire to create a swing action that would win many imps resulted in the 6D bid of that thread. To me, opening 1S for the reason I wrote above is not that far-fetched either. Just because a line of reasoning has flaws or is suboptimal does not mean it was illogical.

I voted not a psych. And I have a reputation for psyching so I know one when I see one. For those claiming this is a gross misrepresentation, check this line from ACBL (probably least lenient jurisdiction on psychs): http://www.acbl.org/learn/psychics.html "If you are playing five-card majors and open the bidding with one spade on a four-card holding, that is not a psych." So assuming you are playing SAYC and 5 card majors, opening with 4 is not a psych according to them. As for those who then have a problem with opening the spades with the longer heart, note that in the ACBL SAYC booklet: http://www.acbl.org/documentlibrary/play/SP3%20%28bk%29%20single%20pages.pdf They only mention "Open the higher of long suits of equal length: 5–5 or 6–6." No mention is made of opening the longer of two long suits of different length.

The fourth hand is the truly crazy one, but not the first time I've seen GIB make a similar mistake. The first two are not surprising, but the third one still seems like something GIB should get right, even if it is sped up for the robot races.

Bidding is one thing, but you would think GIB should excel in the play of the hand, even if we're not getting the best GIB for the robot races. Here are a few hands illustrating play/defense errors that happen way more often to GIB than they should. The "I completely trust your bidding when defending the hand" error: http://tinyurl.com/lm35n3r I've often made 6 of something with GIB not cashing its two defensive tricks, but this is the first time I've seen it not cash the second trick so late in the hand (6th trick) The "It's so unlikely this irrelevant play will hurt me so I'll make this irrelevant play anyway instead of the highest % play" error: http://tinyurl.com/m4qqh8y Sure the play is irrelevant if the weak 2 opener had 6 diamonds, but what if it had 7? And it's not like the bidding description specifically says only 6 diamonds. The "Isn't the whole point of a robot player so that it can calculate the most basic safety plays?" error: http://tinyurl.com/lnjsg6n The "WTF I'd love to hear any reason anybody can come up with for this play" error: http://tinyurl.com/mx4guo8 This hand occurred today. Key point happens at trick 7.

As long as there is no concealed partnership agreement, it is not illegal to my knowledge to play for partner to have psyched or misbid. To answer barmar, the description of the double was just "negative". If the player is going to take the risk that partner may have psyched or misbid, it's reasonable that the player also took it upon himself to interpret "negative" in a specific way. In the end, I think the other posters are right in that East only made his bid and explanation because of the MI from North, and that should be the infraction. However, I'm also not sure it's addressed properly in the laws, even from gnasher's law 16A1. The deal was indeed played online, where the self-alerting came up. Perhaps new laws should be written to address specific issues that might arise from that? Let's take this a step further with a couple hypothetical followups. 1. Actual table result. Let's say South decides he has AI enough to guess that partner has hearts and passes, resulting in 2HX. 2. Hypothetical result. Let's say East explained the double as "points". Without UI, South has no reason to do anything other than correct to spades, at which point the final contract will either be 2SX or 3HX. Let's assume both 2SX or 3HX would be worse than 2HX. If, as some posters have determined, there was an infraction, would you rule that the table result of 2HX wouldn't stand and force N-S into one of the other results?