Jump to content

1C-1H-2NT


Bbradley62

Recommended Posts

These were back-to-back hands in a GIB tourney.

[hv=myhand=M-11266088-1297745101]320|240[/hv]

When I bid 3N over nmf, I am almost certainly 3235. Why doesn't GIB leave me in 3NT? At one table, the auction was 1N-2C-2D-3S*-3N and GIB left it there, even though that GIB had more to fear in the club suit than my GIB did. Or was my GIB trying to get to 6?

[hv=myhand=M-11266095-1297745101]320|240[/hv]

Why doesn't GIB use nmf here like he did in the first? I guess I could have bid 3 over 3, but I was just trying to sign off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Notice also that the description of 3NT includes "2-3 H, 2-4 S". Shouldn't it actually be "2 H, 2-3 S", since you didn't bid 3 or 3, which would show 3 and 4 cards in the respective suits. And in practice it should be 3=2=3=5 as you say, since with 2=2=4=5 you'd reverse rather than bidding 2NT, and 3=2=4=4 would open 1.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

These were back-to-back hands in a GIB tourney.

[hv=myhand=M-11266088-1297745101]320|240[/hv]

When I bid 3N over nmf, I am almost certainly 3235. Why doesn't GIB leave me in 3NT? At one table, the auction was 1N-2C-2D-3S*-3N and GIB left it there, even though that GIB had more to fear in the club suit than my GIB did. Or was my GIB trying to get to 6?

[hv=myhand=M-11266095-1297745101]320|240[/hv]

Why doesn't GIB use nmf here like he did in the first? I guess I could have bid 3 over 3, but I was just trying to sign off.

Better logically to have responded 2C and 1S on those hands followed by 3NT- although examples have come of GIB pressing on to 4H anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Better logically to have responded 2C and 1S on those hands followed by 3NT- although examples have come of GIB pressing on to 4H anyway.

I can see responding 1S on the second one, although I'd expect to have trouble defining my strength. But, it's absurd to respond 2C on the first hand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The basic algorithm of gib bidding is not to play NT when possible. That's due to two reason I think. One, the original meadowlark bidding database is very badly designed, which always require a few HCP more in your range to bid 3NT. Two, gib does double dummy analysis on a very limited sample size. Therefore, it often finds 3NT difficult after the perfect defense and gib rarely sets the constraints of the sample generating algorithm correct. This really needs a lot of work and I don't think bbo has the resource to improve it by a lot. Also, this is restricted by the computer performance. Of course, an ideal solution would be to buy a lot of high performance computer clusters and doing both double dummy analysis and single dummy analysis. Still, for now, I think there are ways to improve. The algorithm should be set to disallow removing from 3NT in most situations for non-freakish hands.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...