Resolved

[uva72uva72]

My link

 

IMPS, ACBL robot individual

 

I've been playing inverted minor raises with human partners since 1969 and have never really had any difficulty with them, but I cannot seem to get the hang of BBO's implementation. In this hand, after 3 rounds of bidding, I had figured out little more than what I knew from North's 1♣ bid: 11-21 HCP, 3+♣s. Oh sure, I knew about the major suit stoppers, but nothing about North's strength (slam?game?) and not really much about North's pattern. With my human partner's, I would know from North's second bid (2NT) that he/she held a 4-3-3-3 or 3-4-3-3 12-14 count, and I could judge to play for the 4-3 split in ♦ or a blockage and bid 3NT.

 

But I'm guessing that there is no constituency for changing BBO's treatment. So I'll address my shortcomings in the future by simply avoiding inverted minors whenever possible, bidding (as the majority of players did with the display hand) 3NT when I guess that there's a game and Blackwood when I guess that there's a slam. Seems like a waste of a potentially useful convention, but at least I won't end up playing 3-3 fits; of which, it seems to me, the robot had full knowledge when it passed 4♥ in the display hand and which it should have corrected to 4♠. Not that I would expect to make 4♠, because I'd be willing to bet that the same robots that couldn't cash their ♦ winners when defending 3NT or 5♣ against other declarers would find the ♦ lead against 4♠ and the ruff-sluff at trick 4 that beats it -they have a knack for the sophisticated defenses. But at least 4♠ is not a ridiculous contract.

[1eyedjack]

GIB's handling of inverted minor raises has been a long-standing grievance in this forum. Personally I would have ranked it a higher priority than, say, leading an Ace against 7N (on frequency grounds), which was apparently corrected with version 31. Perhaps the adverse publicity and embarrassment factor attendant on the 7N bug lent it an importance disproportionate to the weight measured purely in terms of cumulative points chucked.

 

If the bidding is not going to be adjusted, then at the very least I would appreciate more detailed system notes, in a web page if not possible attached to the bids themselves, particularly as regards the definition of the 2N rebid and its distinction from 2-suit rebid (and the distinction between alternative available 2-suit rebids).

[Bbradley62]

I would agree that GIB's handling of inverted minors should be very high on the list of proposed systemic changes. There are certainly many more threads here about that subject than there have been requesting Reverse Drury, although I suppose the Drury requests could have come in different forms.

[iandayre]

It could certainly be argued that all bids through 3S here were technically correct. 2H was cheapest stopper, 2S another stopper, and the 3S call showing 4 and nothing in D. Your next call is certainly far from clear-cut. I might also have chosen 4H, which certainly should not have been passed.

[Bbradley62]

The description of 3♠ does not say that it shows a four-card suit; it says that it shows a stopper. I expect that both 2♥ and 3♠ deny diamond stoppers, but the description doesn't say so.

 

According to GIB's convention card, after 1♣ opening:

1N=6-10HCP, no four-card major, no club support

2N=11-12HCP, no four-card major, no club support

3N=13-15HCP, no four-card major, no club support

 

Would 4N be 16-18HCP, quantitative invite to slam?

[iandayre]

I am sure it would be Blackwood. I would like to see 4333 hands with 4 in opener's minor stop using the inverted raise and just bid the appropriate level of No Trump - I guess unless they held 16 or more HCP.

[Bbradley62]

I would like to see 4333 hands with 4 in opener's minor stop using the inverted raise and just bid the appropriate level of No Trump - I guess unless they held 16 or more HCP.

This is my favorite dead horse to beat.