2/1 robot will not respond 1S with a game forcing hand

[frisbee]

31 Jul 2014, Robot tnmt #7339, board 7, both vul, S deals.

2/1 Robot North holds: ♠AQT52 ♥942 ♦A97 ♣K4.

 

South opens 1♥ and North responds 2♣. Please correct this extremely bad robot bidding. Have it respond 1♠ to show a real suit instead of making a 2/1 game forcing bid in a suit that it does not hold. (A Director would penalize this pair if they bid 2♣ in an ACBL GCC tnmt, even if they Alert 2♣ as artificial.)

 

We have enough trouble breaking 2/1 students of the very bad habit of making a 2-over-1 bid when a 1-over-1 bid is much more descriptive and appropriate. Holding ♠AQT52 ♥942 ♦9 ♣AK74, the correct response to 1♥ is still 1♠ and not 2♣. Developing 2/1 bidders need to understand that it is more important to show their strength AND their distribution than to just make a game forcing bid. Awful bidding by the 2/1 robots when they hold game forcing hands sends students the wrong message. Please correct the 2/1 robot bidding philosophy when it holds a game forcing hand. We will all appreciate it. Thanks.

[Bbradley62]

[hv=bbo=y&lin=pn|frisbee,~~M9405,~~M9403,~~M9404|st%7C%7Cmd%7C1S67H6TQKAD6TC5TJA%2CS39H78D23458QC367%2CS25TQAH249D79AC4K%2C%7Crh%7C%7Cah%7CBoard%207%7Csv%7Cb%7Cmb%7C1H%7Can%7CMajor%20suit%20opening%20--%205%2B%20%21H%3B%2011-21%20HCP%3B%2012-22%20total%20points%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C2C%7Can%7CForcing%20two%20over%20one%20--%2013%2B%20HCP%3B%20biddable%20%21C%3B%2014%2B%20total%20points%3B%20forcing%20to%203N%20%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C3C%7Can%7CRaise%20of%20minor%20--%204%2B%20%21C%3B%205%2B%20%21H%3B%2011-21%20HCP%3B%2012-22%20total%20points%3B%20forcing%20to%203N%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C3H%7Can%7CRaise%20--%203%2B%20%21H%3B%2013%2B%20HCP%3B%20biddable%20%21C%3B%2014%2B%20total%20points%3B%20forcing%20to%203N%20%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C4H%7Can%7C4%2B%20%21C%3B%205%2B%20%21H%3B%2011%2B%20HCP%3B%2012-16%20total%20points%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cpc%7CS9%7Cpc%7CSQ%7Cpc%7CSK%7Cpc%7CS6%7Cpc%7CDK%7Cpc%7CD6%7Cpc%7CD8%7Cpc%7CDA%7Cpc%7CCK%7Cpc%7CC9%7Cpc%7CC5%7Cpc%7CC3%7Cpc%7CC4%7Cpc%7CC2%7Cpc%7CCA%7Cpc%7CC6%7Cpc%7CHA%7Cpc%7CH7%7Cpc%7CH2%7Cpc%7CH5%7Cpc%7CCJ%7Cpc%7CC7%7Cpc%7CH4%7Cpc%7CC8%7Cpc%7CSA%7Cpc%7CS4%7Cpc%7CS7%7Cpc%7CS3%7Cpc%7CS2%7Cpc%7CS8%7Cpc%7CHK%7Cpc%7CD5%7Cpc%7CCT%7Cpc%7CD4%7Cpc%7CH9%7Cpc%7CCQ%7Cpc%7CD7%7Cpc%7CDJ%7Cpc%7CDT%7Cpc%7CD3%7Cpc%7CSJ%7Cpc%7CHT%7Cpc%7CD2%7Cpc%7CS5%7Cpc%7CHQ%7Cpc%7CH8%7Cpc%7CD9%7Cpc%7CH3%7Cpc%7CH6%7Cpc%7CDQ%7Cpc%7CST%7Cpc%7CHJ%7C]360|270[/hv]

[steve2005]

not saying it would be a good bid but if Frisbee bids keycards instead of 3♣ will find 3 KC and bid 6♣ expecting it to be pretty good!

[Leo LaSota]

31 Jul 2014, Robot tnmt #7339, board 7, both vul, S deals.

2/1 Robot North holds: ♠AQT52 ♥942 ♦A97 ♣K4.

 

South opens 1♥ and North responds 2♣. Please correct this extremely bad robot bidding. Have it respond 1♠ to show a real suit instead of making a 2/1 game forcing bid in a suit that it does not hold. (A Director would penalize this pair if they bid 2♣ in an ACBL GCC tnmt, even if they Alert 2♣ as artificial.)

 

We have enough trouble breaking 2/1 students of the very bad habit of making a 2-over-1 bid when a 1-over-1 bid is much more descriptive and appropriate. Holding ♠AQT52 ♥942 ♦9 ♣AK74, the correct response to 1♥ is still 1♠ and not 2♣. Developing 2/1 bidders need to understand that it is more important to show their strength AND their distribution than to just make a game forcing bid. Awful bidding by the 2/1 robots when they hold game forcing hands sends students the wrong message. Please correct the 2/1 robot bidding philosophy when it holds a game forcing hand. We will all appreciate it. Thanks.

 

While you may think that bidding 2C with a 5332 hand when partner opens 1H is "awful bidding", many would disagree with you. I would certainly bid 2C with the given hand in a partnership that plays Flannery, since there would not be a 9+ card spade fit unless the opening bidder holds a huge hand. Given that GIB does not play Flannery, there are some hands where it would be advantageous to respond 1S first. However, setting a GF at 2C leaves a world of room for slam exploration. Therefore, when you have a known 53+ heart fit it frequently works well to start with a 2C GF bid on 5332 shape.

[Bbradley62]

If 2♣ is the approved bid for this hand (which I hope it's not), then at least the description should be changed to remove "biddable clubs". Other piddling comments/questions about the descriptions:

• Should 3♣ be at all limited in strength?
  
• Should 3♥ show extras with 3 hearts, in lieu of a fast-arrival 4♥ over 3♣?
  

[Bbradley62]

not saying it would be a good bid but if Frisbee bids keycards instead of 3♣ will find 3 KC and bid 6♣ expecting it to be pretty good!

Which GIB would presumably pull to 6♥.

[helene_t]

While you may think that bidding 2C with a 5332 hand when partner opens 1H is "awful bidding", many would disagree with you.

I would bid 2♣ if that promises a GF hand with 5+ spades, or if it promises 3-card heart support any distribution, or if it was the only forcing bid available. Or if I were playing some other system in which 2♣ is the correct bid with this hand.

 

But that's besides the point. 2♣ shows "biddable clubs". So it is not correct in the GIB system. GIB is not supposed to make up some clever artificial system on the fly. It is supposed to play the GIB system, for better or worse.

 

So this is a bug.

[iandayre]

While I hesitate to argue with someone who has had as much success as Leo, I agree with Frisbee here. And even if he thinks 2C is a reasonable response, I doubt that any call but 1S would get any votes in an expert poll. Of course the hand would never be included in such a poll since 1S is so obvious.

 

That said, this does now appear to be something ongoing with the GIBs. I had a robot holding KJ10xx, KJx, KQxxx, Void respond 2C to my 1H opener! Fortunately my splinter rebid of 3S did not throw things completely off the rails and we reached 6H for a good score, although 7H was pretty much cold and made on this occasion. I held Void, AQxxxx, Axx, Axxx.

[frisbee]

"A Director would penalize this pair if they bid 2♣ in an ACBL GCC tnmt, even if they Alert 2♣ as artificial."

 

Some have asked me privately why this is not allowed in ACBL tournaments, and the simple answer is that it is not permitted by the ACBL General Convention Chart (GCC) which is required to be followed in the great majority of ACBL tnmts. Unless playing in the elite sections that permit more than GCC-level conventions, you cannot bid 2♣ without a club suit.

 

The ACBL tournaments on BBO specify that players must follow the GCC, despite what some players get away with and despite what some directors do not want to object to. I hope the ACBL Robot tnmts are also forced to follow GCC, but the Robots have been programmed otherwise ... and this needs to be corrected.

[steve2005]

"A Director would penalize this pair if they bid 2♣ in an ACBL GCC tnmt, even if they Alert 2♣ as artificial."

 

"CONVENTIONAL RESPONSES WHICH GUARANTEE GAME FORCING OR BETTER VALUES. May not be part of a relay system." are allowed. (from GCC)

 

So it is allowed but Gib doesn't play it. And why you who want to play it unless you have put all sorts of work into working out a complicated artificial system is beyond me.

 

Just bid 1♠ and bid NMF or fourth suit forcing if you later need an artificial force.

[frisbee]

Thanks for the correction, Steve. The Laws have changed at least four times and the Convention and Alert charts many more than that since I started playing.

 

The GCC does state what you printed. Also notice that the Alert Chart specifies that such a game forcing bid is Alertable. So players must remember to Alert such a bid (2♣ in the auction under discussion) when it is made and to be prepared to recite exactly what your meaning of the bid is ... "game forcing" is absolutely not acceptable as an explanation; as with any Alert it must be described fully and not simply given a (common) name of a convention. As the GCC mentions, such a bid cannot simply be used as a relay.

[gordontd]

Thanks for the correction, Steve. The Laws have changed at least four times and the Convention and Alert charts many more than that since I started playing.

If the laws have changed four times since you started playing, you must have been playing for 40 years so that doesn't seem unreasonable.

1975

1987

1997

2007

[frisbee]

I became a director in 1973 when I was a club manager. :)

[georgi]

31 Jul 2014, Robot tnmt #7339, board 7, both vul, S deals.

2/1 Robot North holds: ♠AQT52 ♥942 ♦A97 ♣K4.

 

South opens 1♥ and North responds 2♣. Please correct this extremely bad robot bidding. Have it respond 1♠ to show a real suit instead of making a 2/1 game forcing bid in a suit that it does not hold. (A Director would penalize this pair if they bid 2♣ in an ACBL GCC tnmt, even if they Alert 2♣ as artificial.)

 

We have enough trouble breaking 2/1 students of the very bad habit of making a 2-over-1 bid when a 1-over-1 bid is much more descriptive and appropriate. Holding ♠AQT52 ♥942 ♦9 ♣AK74, the correct response to 1♥ is still 1♠ and not 2♣. Developing 2/1 bidders need to understand that it is more important to show their strength AND their distribution than to just make a game forcing bid. Awful bidding by the 2/1 robots when they hold game forcing hands sends students the wrong message. Please correct the 2/1 robot bidding philosophy when it holds a game forcing hand. We will all appreciate it. Thanks.

 

Thanks for reporting.

 

Fixed in v31.