why bidding 6nt forces? "Bot" to bid 7

[iplaybridg]

There is way too many times, when I ask "bot" for controls, and then try to set the contract at the highest possible contract. (That's the whole idea behind bidding right?)

 

Almost every time that I've gone through control asking, the bot will not allow you to bid any other suit, and if you bid 6nt, they will bid 7.

 

I still believe even to this day, that the only one who can set the contract is the one asking for controls. Since the "control asking partner" has not told the partner necessarily what their hand contains.

 

It's just like the partner who opens a no trump should not be the contract setter, only the other partner knows exactly how mnay points are between them.

 

I would propose that the program for bots take (remove) any programming that asks bot to bid 7 of it's suit, if partner bids 6nt.

 

Comments?

[manudude03]

That was supposed to be fixed in the last update (or maybe the one before). Georgi?

[ArtK78]

You have to be very careful in your bidding. Before making any control bids, move your mouse pointer over the bid that you are planning to make. You may be surprised by the point range attached to some of your bids.

 

I remember once or twice "setting the contract" by leaping to a slam only to have GIB bid one more. Then I checked out the meaning of my leap to slam bid and found that I had shown 33 HCP and a long suit. Since GIB had 4 HCP, he had to bid one more.

[iplaybridg]

You have to be very careful in your bidding. Before making any control bids, move your mouse pointer over the bid that you are planning to make. You may be surprised by the point range attached to some of your bids.

 

I remember once or twice "setting the contract" by leaping to a slam only to have GIB bid one more. Then I checked out the meaning of my leap to slam bid and found that I had shown 33 HCP and a long suit. Since GIB had 4 HCP, he had to bid one more.

 

I agree, but some of the point ranges preclude you bidding slam at all. Many of the "lower" bids are sign offs. I think the point ranges should be significantly lowered, since the point ranges primarily only work for no trump, distribution is the key to many of the slams. Thanks for your point, it's well taken.

[georgi]

There is way too many times, when I ask "bot" for controls, and then try to set the contract at the highest possible contract. (That's the whole idea behind bidding right?)

 

Almost every time that I've gone through control asking, the bot will not allow you to bid any other suit, and if you bid 6nt, they will bid 7.

 

I still believe even to this day, that the only one who can set the contract is the one asking for controls. Since the "control asking partner" has not told the partner necessarily what their hand contains.

 

It's just like the partner who opens a no trump should not be the contract setter, only the other partner knows exactly how mnay points are between them.

 

I would propose that the program for bots take (remove) any programming that asks bot to bid 7 of it's suit, if partner bids 6nt.

 

Comments?

 

Thanks for reporting this.

 

But this case is supposedly changed since the latest GIB update. 2011/10/18.

 

After using the suit-RKCB, even if you asked for Q or trumps, then for kings, 6NT will be sign-off bid and GIB will not proceed.

 

It should be applied for any cases where you see Blackwood (X) in your 4NT. Could be your or partner suit, it shouldn't matter for 6NT.

 

Can you provide a recent example of this situation happening on robot tournament or any web version activity with GIB?

 

If you have used say 4NT over Hearts, but then say over the reply of 5♣/5♦/5♥/5♠ you bid your own suit you planned to bid, then the case would be different and GIB most certain will pull to the appointed suit level.

[Bbradley62]

GIB will now pass a 6NT decision after a suit RKC instead of insisting on bidding the suit in a grand slam.

Almost every time that I've gone through control asking, the bot will not allow you to bid any other suit, and if you bid 6nt, they will bid 7.

Note that the GIB update appears to specifically apply to RKC auctions, whereas OP is discussing "controls", which may or may not be different.

[hv=lin=pn|iplaybridg,~~M53667,~~M53665,~~M53666|st%7C%7Cmd%7C4SQKAH5KD38JAC9TQK%2CS3469TJH4AD57C58J%2CS258H2679JQDQKC6A%2C%7Crh%7C%7Cah%7CBoard%201%7Csv%7Ce%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C2N%7Can%7CTwo%20NT%20opener.%20Could%20have%205M.%20--%202-5%20C%3B%20%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C4D%21%7Can%7CTexas%20--%206%2B%20H%3B%205%2B%20total%20points%20%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C4H%7Can%7C2-5%20C%3B%202-5%20D%3B%202-5%20H%3B%202-5%20S%3B%2020-21%20HCP%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C5H%7Can%7C6%2B%20H%3B%205-%208421%20HCP%20in%20H%3B%2012%2B%20total%20points%20%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C5N%7Can%7C2-5%20C%3B%202-5%20D%3B%202-5%20H%3B%202-5%20S%3B%2020-21%20HCP%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C6H%7Can%7C6%2B%20H%3B%205-%208421%20HCP%20in%20H%3B%2012%2B%20total%20points%20%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C6N%7Can%7C2-5%20C%3B%202-5%20D%3B%202-5%20H%3B%202-5%20S%3B%2020-21%20HCP%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C7H%7Can%7C6%2B%20H%3B%205-%208421%20HCP%20in%20H%3B%2012%2B%20total%20points%20%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cpc%7CSJ%7Cpc%7CS2%7Cpc%7CS7%7Cpc%7CSQ%7Cpc%7CH5%7Cpc%7CHA%7Cpc%7CH2%7Cpc%7CH3%7Cpc%7CS4%7Cpc%7CS5%7Cpc%7CH8%7Cpc%7CSK%7Cpc%7CC4%7Cpc%7CC9%7Cpc%7CCJ%7Cpc%7CCA%7Cpc%7CH6%7Cpc%7CHT%7Cpc%7CHK%7Cpc%7CH4%7Cpc%7CD3%7Cpc%7CD5%7Cpc%7CDK%7Cpc%7CD6%7Cpc%7CHQ%7Cpc%7CC2%7Cpc%7CCT%7Cpc%7CS6%7Cpc%7CDQ%7Cpc%7CD4%7Cpc%7CD8%7Cpc%7CD7%7Cpc%7CC6%7Cpc%7CC7%7Cpc%7CCQ%7Cpc%7CC8%7Cpc%7CCK%7Cpc%7CC5%7Cpc%7CS8%7Cpc%7CC3%7Cpc%7CDA%7Cpc%7CS9%7Cpc%7CH7%7Cpc%7CD9%7Cpc%7CH9%7Cpc%7CDT%7Cpc%7CDJ%7Cpc%7CST%7Cpc%7CHJ%7Cpc%7CD2%7Cpc%7CSA%7Cpc%7CS3%7C]360|270[/hv]

In this case, GIB did still overrule questioner; the fact that questioner misled GIB shouldn't be relevant to our discussion about GIB.

[hv=lin=pn|iplaybridg,~~M32804,~~M32802,~~M32803|st%7C%7Cmd%7C3S39H78QKD7QKC4TQA%2CS47TH2345AD2C78JK%2CS26JQAH9TJDTJAC36%2C%7Crh%7C%7Cah%7CBoard%202%7Csv%7Cn%7Cmb%7C1S%7Can%7CMajor%20suit%20opening%20--%205%2B%20S%3B%2011-21%20HCP%3B%2012-22%20total%20points%20%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C4N%7Can%7CBlackwood%20%28S%29%20--%203%2B%20S%3B%2021%2B%20total%20points%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C5S%7Can%7CTwo%20or%20five%20key%20cards%3B%20queen%20--%205%2B%20S%3B%2011-21%20HCP%3B%202%2B%208421%20HCP%20in%20S%3B%2012-22%20total%20points%3B%203%2B%20controls%20%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C5N%7Can%7CQuery%20kings.%20Have%20all%20keycards.%20Does%20not%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C6S%7Can%7CNo%20king%20%28below%20S%29%20--%205%2B%20S%3B%2011-21%20HCP%3B%202%2B%208421%20HCP%20in%20S%3B%2012-22%20total%20points%3B%203%2B%20controls%20%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C6N%7Can%7CSignoff%20--%203%2B%20S%3B%202%2B%208421%20HCP%20in%20S%3B%2021%2B%20t%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C7S%7Can%7C5%2B%20S%3B%2011-21%20HCP%3B%202%2B%208421%20HCP%20in%20S%3B%2012-22%20total%20points%3B%203%2B%20controls%20%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cpc%7CH6%7Cpc%7CHK%7Cpc%7CHA%7Cpc%7CH9%7Cpc%7CD2%7Cpc%7CDJ%7Cpc%7CD6%7Cpc%7CDK%7Cpc%7CS3%7Cpc%7CS4%7Cpc%7CSQ%7Cpc%7CSK%7Cpc%7CD8%7Cpc%7CDQ%7Cpc%7CS7%7Cpc%7CDA%7Cpc%7CH3%7Cpc%7CHJ%7Cpc%7CS5%7Cpc%7CH7%7Cpc%7CD9%7Cpc%7CD7%7Cpc%7CST%7Cpc%7CDT%7Cpc%7CH4%7Cpc%7CHT%7Cpc%7CS8%7Cpc%7CHQ%7Cpc%7CC2%7Cpc%7CCA%7Cpc%7CC8%7Cpc%7CC3%7Cpc%7CH8%7Cpc%7CH5%7Cpc%7CC6%7Cpc%7CD5%7Cpc%7CC4%7Cpc%7CCJ%7Cpc%7CS6%7Cpc%7CC5%7Cpc%7CS2%7Cpc%7CD4%7Cpc%7CS9%7Cpc%7CC7%7Cpc%7CCQ%7Cpc%7CCK%7Cpc%7CSA%7Cpc%7CC9%7Cpc%7CSJ%7Cpc%7CD3%7Cpc%7CCT%7Cpc%7CH2%7C]360|270[/hv]

[cloa513]

Is there a date for these hands? Perhaps a myhands link would be better.

[Bbradley62]

Is there a date for these hands? Perhaps a myhands link would be better.

Both are from the last couple of days. Myhands links expire after a couple of months, and then you're left with empty graphics.

[georgi]

Note that the GIB update appears to specifically apply to RKC auctions, whereas OP is discussing "controls", which may or may not be different.

 

In this case, GIB did still overrule questioner; the fact that questioner misled GIB shouldn't be relevant to our discussion about GIB.

 

Case #1 is not relevant to this change.

 

Case #2 yes. It will be investigated what forced GIB out of the new rails.

[Bbradley62]

Case #1 is not relevant to this change.

Agreed. But it is still a report from a player about something he thinks GIB did wrong. Can it be looked at simply in that light? (North hand forcing to the 7-level opposite what he thinks is 20-21 balance HCP is certainly not clear.)

 

Should 5NT and/or 6NT be understood to deny three-card heart support? Both descriptions include "2-5 H".

Edited October 28, 2011 by Bbradley62

[Bbradley62]

By the way... why is there no penalty double at the end of the auction at Table 1?

[barmar]

By the way... why is there no penalty double at the end of the auction at Table 1?

GIB has learned how badly he defends against grands holding sure tricks. :)

[xxhong]

Yes, there missed some important logic links in gib bidding. For example, if 5H invites 6H, 7H shouldn't be bid. Also, 6NT is not an invitation to bid 7H. I think the fix is really easy, "if partner's bid is 6NT, my bid is pass".

 

Agreed. But it is still a report from a player about something he thinks GIB did wrong. Can it be looked at simply in that light? (North hand forcing to the 7-level opposite what he thinks is 20-21 balance HCP is certainly not clear.)

 

Should 5NT and/or 6NT be understood to deny three-card heart support? Both descriptions include "2-5 H".

[georgi]

Agreed. But it is still a report from a player about something he thinks GIB did wrong. Can it be looked at simply in that light? (North hand forcing to the 7-level opposite what he thinks is 20-21 balance HCP is certainly not clear.)

 

Should 5NT and/or 6NT be understood to deny three-card heart support? Both descriptions include "2-5 H".

 

Ok, but what would be the idea to bid it? 5♥ and 5,6 whatever would be played by South.

More likely could be 5NT to be pick a slam like supper support or too strong support, say AK doubleton. But as GIB picks 6♥ player corrects again.

 

South supposedly has 2+, so 6 and 2 means we have fit, why would South deny the 5♥ and trying to get 460 instead of 450.

 

North could have void in cards, so hearts contract to be safer.

 

 

Yes, there missed some important logic links in gib bidding. For example, if 5H invites 6H, 7H shouldn't be bid. Also, 6NT is not an invitation to bid 7H. I think the fix is really easy, "if partner's bid is 6NT, my bid is pass".

 

Seems like that. 5H invites to 6H, but not to NT contract. That's why the logic could be let's play on the suit we confirmed we have. 6NT could be stop bid as the idea of #1, but in some cases player just squeezes the GIB with particular board invented conventions, which understandably GIB can't be prepared.

[Bbradley62]

why would South deny the 5♥ and trying to get 460 instead of 450.

 

This hand was played at matchpoints. ( http://online.bridgebase.com/myhands/hands.php?traveller=6597-1319673001-34399771&username=iplaybridg ) It's my understanding that you get more matchpoints for making the same number of tricks in NT than you would in a suit, and that people therefore sometimes choose to play NT despite having an 8-card major fit. I'm quite certain that if this hand were published as an ATB, the vast majority would blame North for the bad score. It's not at all helpful for you to argue otherwise.

 

Of course, on this particular hand, 6NT makes and 6♥ doesn't, but that may be beside the point... :P

[barmar]

Should 5NT and/or 6NT be understood to deny three-card heart support? Both descriptions include "2-5 H".

In a Blackwood auction, 5NT asks about kings, it's not an offer to play NT. It also implies that you have all the keycards.

 

I think the 2-5H in the description is probably wrong. If you leap directly to 4NT, I suspect GIB assumes you're setting the last bid suit as trumps.

[Bbradley62]

Should 5NT and/or 6NT be understood to deny three-card heart support? Both descriptions include "2-5 H".

In a Blackwood auction, 5NT asks about kings, it's not an offer to play NT. It also implies that you have all the keycards.

 

I think the 2-5H in the description is probably wrong. If you leap directly to 4NT, I suspect GIB assumes you're setting the last bid suit as trumps.

The auction we are talking about here is hand #1 above, which does not include a 4NT bid. In hand #2, which does include 4N, the suit is spades.

Edited October 29, 2011 by Bbradley62

[barmar]

I expect that GIB treats Texas transfer as setting the trump suit as well. GIB probably has a general rule that says that once you've agreed on a major suit as trumps, you're playing in that suit. If it goes down because of a ruff, too bad.

[iplaybridg]

I'm sorry, if I'm the only one who feels this way. 6nt is a signoff, or should be. The only partner who should be setting the final contract is the one who was asking for controls. i.e. Aces and the K of trumps. I believe that the bot should never pull 6nt to 7. So there. LOL Thanks for the great discussions.