Would you get to 6?

[zhasbeen]

You see the bidding. GIB's 3N bid definition said "partial stop in ♥ "

 

See "tinyurl..." link if you want to see the whole thing, including definitions etc, but try to imagine what you'd do with this hand after reading the definition and seeing only your hand.

 

I thought about bidding 4C before giving up, but didn't see what good it would do me, even if GIB cue bid hearts. Could a partial stopper possibly include the ace or a void?

 

Anyway, most of the field bid 6 anyway.

 

http://tinyurl.com/yddtnb4a

 

[hv=pc=n&s=sakqj5h973dcaq743&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1sp2np3dp3np4sppp]133|200[/hv]

[johnu]

You see the bidding. GIB's 3N bid definition said "partial stop in ♥ "

 

From practical experience, "partial stop" means partial stop or better. I would bid 4♦ over 3NT to show a void, assuming that's what it shows in Gibberish.

[steve2005]

Loser count says- you have 4 losers partner should have a most 7.

This means 5-level should be safe and if partner has extras 6 could be on. Partner doesn't encourage with 3N but still is showing values

 

North bidding NT is ridiculous it has 5 trump. just cue bid A♥ and see what happens

[zhasbeen]

From practical experience, "partial stop" means partial stop or better. I would bid 4♦ over 3NT to show a void, assuming that's what it shows in Gibberish.

[/quote

 

Jacoby 2NT asks for shortness, singleton or void, so 3D showed that.

 

I hate to be always on the defense, but I did think this through. I considered possibility of king, but that would best case. An ace just can't be a partial stopper. It's a first round stop unless it gets ruffed. I considered 4C after 3NT, but what good would that do, even if GIB bid 4H? Partial stop says no ace of of hearts.

But lets say "partial stop or better" could include the ace, I'd still want more assurance than that holding 3 small hearts.

 

Anyway, I wanted it to be pointed out if this is a place where programmers look at the posts. We all know that definitions need a lot of work, and this is just one more to add to the pile. There's no doubt it is not as easy to fix as we sometimes think it should be. If it was it would have been done. I don't think it's overstating it to say that the person who invented GIB is a genius.

[iandayre]

The system bid over 2NT is 4C, showing a good 5 card suit. If GIB bids 4H, you can't miss slam.

[zhasbeen]

The system bid over 2NT is 4C, showing a good 5 card suit. If GIB bids 4H, you can't miss slam.

 

Hi there-

 

I'm looking at Jacoby 2N link and it says 3♦ Singleton or void in diamonds. It's the 2nd line after 3C.

 

BUT...as I look farther down the page it says 4♣ = 5+ clubs!" I'm just glad that my passing didn't ruin a good game; although I would have been in positive territory if not for that one. It was IMPS.

 

I had it in my head that showing singleton or void was first priority after Jacoby 2NT resp, but it's coming back to me now (thanks to you) that there is the other option with 2nd suit. I took a 20-year break before starting back playing earlier this year. However, you'd think it would have come up during the zillion robot tournaments I've played last few months, but if it did I don't remember it.

 

You should come around more.

[virgosrock]

Hi there-

 

I'm looking at Jacoby 2N link and it says 3♦ Singleton or void in diamonds. It's the 2nd line after 3C.

 

BUT...as I look farther down the page it says 4♣ = 5+ clubs!" I'm just glad that my passing didn't ruin a good game; although I would have been in positive territory if not for that one. It was IMPS.

 

I had it in my head that showing singleton or void was first priority after Jacoby 2NT resp, but it's coming back to me now (thanks to you) that there is the other option with 2nd suit. I took a 20-year break before starting back playing earlier this year. However, you'd think it would have come up during the zillion robot tournaments I've played last few months, but if it did I don't remember it.

 

You should come around more.

 

Not sure of HCP if 4C. This time GIBBO was almost right. Showed club stopper, h stopper while upward bound. For all it knows you have shapely 10+ HCP (which it opens on all the time). So it is being descriptive and showing a balanced hand. ok, ok it does have 5S. Not every 5-5 spade fit will make. Given 3NT is showing this, I (very sorry) assign 100% blame to 1S opener. I rarely agree with GIBBy. 4D or even 4C is kosher here.

 

vrock

[zhasbeen]

Not sure of HCP if 4C. This time GIBBO was almost right. Showed club stopper, h stopper while upward bound. For all it knows you have shapely 10+ HCP (which it opens on all the time). So it is being descriptive and showing a balanced hand. ok, ok it does have 5S. Not every 5-5 spade fit will make. Given 3NT is showing this, I (very sorry) assign 100% blame to 1S opener. I rarely agree with GIBBy. 4D or even 4C is kosher here.

 

vrock

 

Thanks for confirming what I just acknowledged. I know that I can always count on you to set me straight. I will refrain from commenting on any further posts of yours, since it is clear that you resent them. However, I might comment on what some of the people who respond to your posts have to say, since you are probably the most active poster here.

 

I’ll take the blame on this one, since I didn’t make the optimum call, and GIB has a tough job. However, my reasoning was not ridiculous. Whether first response to Jacoby 2NT was 3D or 4C, north held the exact same hand that included the ace of hearts. Yet on one sequence the definition says he doesn’t have it, and on the other it says he does. The ace of hearts is not a partial stopper.

 

That said, I now know that GIB will let you know that he holds the ace of hearts if you make the optimum call of 4C, and I’m good with that. The robots have tough job, and 4C happens to be the best call in this case, since it shows shortness somewhere and the second suit all in one bid. With a human you could show the ace of hearts either way, e.g. 1S-2N-3D-3N-4C-4H; or 1S-2N-4C-4H and probably be o.k.

 

While you might become an advanced player someday, you are not there now. I wasn’t trying to put you down when I said that you could improve your game by entering some tournaments, rather than always playing money bridge against a single opponent. The way I understand it, you are matched with a player of equal rank when playing for money. In the MP and IMP tournaments you are competing with players of all levels, including many of the heavy hitters with thousands of master points. In a single session you can compare your actions with 20-30, and often 40 players or more in a single session.

[Stephen Tu]

I don't think it's reasonable to equate "promises a partial stopper" as "denies a full stopper". Only in a auction where full stopper denied in a suit then 3nt bid later can you make that inference.

 

Partial stopper means at least a partial stopper as johnu explained, not at most a partial stopper.

 

You are way more than min and have all the trump honors, can't sign off.

[zhasbeen]

I don't think it's reasonable to equate "promises a partial stopper" as "denies a full stopper". Only in a auction where full stopper denied in a suit then 3nt bid later can you make that inference.

 

Partial stopper means at least a partial stopper as johnu explained, not at most a partial stopper.

 

You are way more than min and have all the trump honors, can't sign off.

 

"I don't think it's reasonable to equate "promises a partial stopper" as "denies a full stopper""

 

Lesson learned. I thought it did.

 

"You are way more than min and have all the trump honors, can't sign off."

 

True, if I believe that the possibility of ace of hearts still existed at the time I made the decision. I did not.

[zhasbeen]

"I don't think it's reasonable to equate "promises a partial stopper" as "denies a full stopper""

 

Lesson learned. I thought it did.

 

"You are way more than min and have all the trump honors, can't sign off."

 

True, if I believe that the possibility of ace of hearts still existed at the time I made the decision. I did not.

 

http://www.acbl.org/learn_page/bridge-terminology/#P

 

GUARD (STOPPER). An honor holding in a suit that will or may prevent the opponents from running the suit.

 

A guard may be:

 

(1) Positive: A, K-Q, Q-J-10, J-10-9-8, 10-9-8-7-6.

 

(2) Probable: K-J-x, K-10-x, Q-J-x.

 

(3) Possible: Q-x-x, J-9-x-x.

 

(4) Positional: K-x.

 

(5) Partial: K, Q-x, J-x-x, 10-x-x-x.

[virgosrock]

Thanks for confirming what I just acknowledged. I know that I can always count on you to set me straight. I will refrain from commenting on any further posts of yours, since it is clear that you resent them. However, I might comment on what some of the people who respond to your posts have to say, since you are probably the most active poster here.

 

I’ll take the blame on this one, since I didn’t make the optimum call, and GIB has a tough job. However, my reasoning was not ridiculous. Whether first response to Jacoby 2NT was 3D or 4C, north held the exact same hand that included the ace of hearts. Yet on one sequence the definition says he doesn’t have it, and on the other it says he does. The ace of hearts is not a partial stopper.

 

That said, I now know that GIB will let you know that he holds the ace of hearts if you make the optimum call of 4C, and I’m good with that. The robots have tough job, and 4C happens to be the best call in this case, since it shows shortness somewhere and the second suit all in one bid. With a human you could show the ace of hearts either way, e.g. 1S-2N-3D-3N-4C-4H; or 1S-2N-4C-4H and probably be o.k.

 

While you might become an advanced player someday, you are not there now. I wasn’t trying to put you down when I said that you could improve your game by entering some tournaments, rather than always playing money bridge against a single opponent. The way I understand it, you are matched with a player of equal rank when playing for money. In the MP and IMP tournaments you are competing with players of all levels, including many of the heavy hitters with thousands of master points. In a single session you can compare your actions with 20-30, and often 40 players or more in a single session.

 

No umbrage was intended. Yet it seems to have been taken. Sorry anyways.

 

vrock

[zhasbeen]

Thank you, vrock. You made my day.

[Stephen Tu]

Yes that's the terminology, but you have to use some common sense. Do you think it's practical to put super long descriptions like partial stopper or better and three times once for each suit? Do you really think partner has gf bid missing all trump honors, but also denies a full stop in all three outside suits also? That would give him a 5 count if you took partial stopper completely literally.

[zhasbeen]

Yes that's the terminology, but you have to use some common sense. Do you think it's practical to put super long descriptions like partial stopper or better and three times once for each suit? Do you really think partner has gf bid missing all trump honors, but also denies a full stop in all three outside suits also? That would give him a 5 count if you took partial stopper completely literally.

 

I understand and have an appreciation for what GIB can do, and how complicated it must be to sync the definitions with the thousands of hands it could encounter.

 

I was defending myself from statements like this:

 

"don't think it's reasonable to equate "promises a partial stopper" as "denies a full stopper".

 

All you'd need is a mini-version of: "5)Partial: K, Q-x, J-x-x, 10-x-x-x." You could compress it to less than half that size--I'd even settle for "no ace"

 

Talk about being unreasonable...geesh. Take a Bridgwinners poll asking if a partial stopper could contain the ace. I think you know what the answer would be, and it would probably be unanimous.

[virgosrock]

Yes that's the terminology, but you have to use some common sense. Do you think it's practical to put super long descriptions like partial stopper or better and three times once for each suit? Do you really think partner has gf bid missing all trump honors, but also denies a full stop in all three outside suits also? That would give him a 5 count if you took partial stopper completely literally.

 

I find descriptions too long-winded as well.

Sorry.

 

vrock

[smerriman]

Take a Bridgwinners poll asking if a partial stopper could contain the ace. I think you know what the answer would be, and it would probably be unanimous.

 

If the description of 3NT was posted to Bridgewinners, I agree it would be unanimous - in favour of Stephen Tu's explanation. I'm afraid it's pretty obvious that such a 3NT bid describes a minimum amount of stoppers in each suit; why would you ever want a 3NT bid to deny a full stopper in every suit?

[Stephen Tu]

Your position here is totally absurd. If you polled, and asked the question "partner is first to make a NT bid which he wrote in the system notes shows partial stoppers in the unbid suits. Do you assume this definition means he denies a full stop in any of the unbid suits, and has exactly partial stoppers, not full?", people would say no, you're crazy. I mean who the hell designs a system where you are supposed to bid NT with Qxx Jxx in the unbid suits, but are not allowed to bid NT with AQx KJx in those suits?? This just doesn't exist in normal bridge. It makes no sense. 1S-2h-2nt. I play that this shows at least partial stoppers in both minors. I don't particularly want to bid 2s on Jxxxx Ax Qxx AKx, just because Qxx is only a partial stop, I don't want define 2nt as full stop both minors. But now by your rules I can't bid 2nt because I actually have a full (double!) stop in clubs, and 2nt is partial stop in both minors??? Because I have partner that assumes shows partial stop unbids denies better than partial stop in unbids?

 

 

Think about what you are saying. You are saying if it says partial stop all suits, that it means exactly partial stop no more. That means the best it can have in any of the suits is Qxx. Because anything stronger is a full stopper the way most people define it, when that person bids NT first.. So that means you have constrained partner to have bid a GF 2nt raise on Txxx Qxx Qxx Jxx.

[virgosrock]

Your position here is totally absurd. If you polled, and asked the question "partner is first to make a NT bid which he wrote in the system notes shows partial stoppers in the unbid suits. Do you assume this definition means he denies a full stop in any of the unbid suits, and has exactly partial stoppers, not full?", people would say no, you're crazy. I mean who the hell designs a system where you are supposed to bid NT with Qxx Jxx in the unbid suits, but are not allowed to bid NT with AQx KJx in those suits?? This just doesn't exist in normal bridge. It makes no sense. 1S-2h-2nt. I play that this shows at least partial stoppers in both minors. I don't particularly want to bid 2s on Jxxxx Ax Qxx AKx, just because Qxx is only a partial stop, I don't want define 2nt as full stop both minors. But now by your rules I can't bid 2nt because I actually have a full (double!) stop in clubs, and 2nt is partial stop in both minors??? Because I have partner that assumes shows partial stop unbids denies better than partial stop in unbids?

 

 

Think about what you are saying. You are saying if it says partial stop all suits, that it means exactly partial stop no more. That means the best it can have in any of the suits is Qxx. Because anything stronger is a full stopper the way most people define it, when that person bids NT first.. So that means you have constrained partner to have bid a GF 2nt raise on Txxx Qxx Qxx Jxx.

 

Don't quite know if I posted the one where they supported diamonds, we had agreed on a major and headed to game and GIBBO in all its glory on Qx in diamonds bid 3NT showing a stopper in D. Knowing it tends to do that when trumps are weak or HCP count might be lower than expected, I passed. down 2 or 3 vulnerable.

 

But I agree with what you wrote Steve.

 

vrock

[zhasbeen]

Peace, you guys. I’m pretty sure that if we were talking to each other in person, you would understand what I’m trying to say and I would understand you. I seriously doubt that we are as far apart as it appears.

 

For example, you and Merriman are filling out a card at an offline club. You ask him what he promises for a certain bid and he answers, “partial stopper”. Would you think it could possibly include the ace? That was what I meant about the taking a poll—the raw term “partial stopper” without considering GIB, writing programs, or any of that stuff.

 

“Your position here is totally absurd…”

Yes, that would be absurd if it was what I thought. Also, what I post here almost always addresses problems I've run into with GIB, which are relatively few considering the number of tournaments I play--600 in less than 3 months. The great majority of the time my biggest problems are figuring how to bid and play the endless stream of tough hands that the robot tournaments dish out. I should probably spend more time studying and play fewer tournaments.

 

I have more to say but am too tired now. I was confused by definitions and tying it in with in with common sense bridge...continued Mon...

 

I was making more out of than it was--like some special GIB treatment rather than what he actually had--a no trumpish hand with spade support and wasted diamond values. The 5th spade was a mild surprise. In many cases my problem is more related to my not having a good understanding of how they work as the definitions themselves. The majority of them the time I just look at what it says and don't go any deeper than that.

 

If I would have just bid it without looking at definition I would have been o.k. although I agree 100% that 4C response to Jacoby 2NT is the correct bid. It was how I played it in past but forgot about it. It could have gone 1S-2NT-3D-3NT-4C-4H and on to 6.

However, I ran my cursor over the 3N bid and when the box opened the cursor landed squarely on "Partial stopper:♥" and it threw me off track. I took at face value rather than a blanket description that would be applied to any NT hand.

 

Anyway, I don't fully understand how the definitions work and have more questions. However, I need to look at a few more hand records before bringing them up.

[smerriman]

All I said is that partial stopper cannot include the ace. Who said anything about stoppers in every suit?

 

You did.

 

You said yourself that you thought "promises a partial stopper" also means "denies a full stopper".

 

GIB's description promised a "partial stop in ♣, partial stop in ♦, partial stop in ♥".

 

Therefore, if your assumption was correct, you are assuming GIB is denying a full stopper in all three suits by bidding 3NT.

 

This is of course nonsense, so your original assumption was also nonsensical.

[zhasbeen]

So much for the peace offering. For some reason, merriman, you go out of your way to put me down. It hurts, and I don't know why you do it. I've read several of your posts in the past and know that you are intelligent. I don't think you are being objective.

On this thing: "You said yourself that you thought "promises a partial stopper" also means "denies a full stopper". This is true, and I stand by it as does the ACBL.

When you make statements like you did it tells me that you haven't read what I said. You just zero in on a part you disagree with and think of a way to pick me apart. I KNOW that the GIB definitions are broader than what we'd use while discussing it before an offline game. I admitted that I was confused.

 

Below is my record for last 7 tournaments, including back-to-back wins yesterday in games of 59 and 34 tables.

The 59-table win was a new record, taking out my old record of 54 tables. However, I'm sure you could find plenty of errors if you were to watch all the replays, as could I.

 

As I was playing, I realized that I would go several hands at a time without even looking at a definition.

As I said before, almost all my posts here contain hands that I've had problems with, which is the same for most of us.

While the great majority of deals are challenging, most of the time GIB is a good partner, or at least acceptable. Sometimes he is great.

 

 

Here they are in order of date, number of tables, overall placing, MP score:

 

11/18/2017 20 2 62.7%

11/18/2017 26 2 68.5%

11/18/2017 32 2 64.9%

11/19/2017 25 2 63.3%

11/20/2017 59 1 74.0%

11/20/2017 34 1 66.2%

11/20/2017 22 3 61.4%

[Stephen Tu]

On this thing: "You said yourself that you thought "promises a partial stopper" also means "denies a full stopper". This is true, and I stand by it as does the ACBL.

 

ACBL does no such thing. There is a humongous difference between stating "this sort of holding is considered a partial stopper", we are all in agreement there with the ACBL def you quoted, vs. "when someone puts in system notes that partial stopper is expected in unbid suits, you should read it as a full stopper is denied". No one, I repeat NO ONE, sensibly makes a system where a NT bid shows exactly partial stoppers in unbid suits but denies full ones, except in auctions where you unambiguously ask partner for a stopper in a specific suit, he denies, then you either ask again then he shows, or attempt 3nt yourself having previously asked for stopper there. This idea of assume partial stopper promised in unbids means exactly partial stopper and no more is your own nonsensical invention.

 

Some might have agreement that "2nt opener shows partial stopper all suits". Does that mean you assume their 2nt opener cannot have a full stopper in any suit?? That wouldn't make any sense whatsoever. The words "at least" are implied. To think that people have to explicitly put "at least partial stopper" in their notes or else the default implication should be "exactly and at most partial stopper" is insane.

 

Nobody is trying to put you down, it's not personal, we are attacking the idea not the person. We just try to correct views that are nonsensical, for the benefit of both you and whoever might read this forum, who may not know which views make sense or not. Things that don't make sense deserve to be shot down.,

[zhasbeen]

how do I delete this? Unintentional double post

[zhasbeen]

"we are all in agreement there with the ACBL def you quoted"

 

That's a relief.

This exchange is one of many times that words have failed me. It's one reason why I only play robot tournaments online. I tried playing with humans on OkBridge several years ago before I finally got tired of trying to communicate with people using only keyboard and mouse. That wasn't the only thing, but it was a big part of it. With the robots I can sit in my easy chair and click away, without using the keyboard once the game starts. That's it--no discussion with anyone until the round is over. I much prefer offline clubs for playing with humans. That's where the real test is.

 

I think I get what you've been saying, but have trouble find the words to confirm it.

" To think that people have to explicitly put "at least partial stopper" in their notes or else the default implication should be "exactly and at most partial stopper" is insane."

 

That's not what I believe, but I don't doubt that you could find a quote(s) of mine that suggests otherwise. What started all this was my not knowing when certain definitions promised the ace and when they didn't. I still don't have clarity in that respect but haven't done all the homework I need to do. Most of the time I don't depend on definitions, and more often than not they've been helpful when I've need them. The trick for me will be learning how taking better advantage of them. I understand that having crystal clear explanations for every deal is not feasible.

 

And there's the challenge of finding fixes for the problems. I read merriman's "what's the purpose of this forum?" post earlier.

 

"Nobody is trying to put you down, it's not personal, we are attacking the idea not the personal."

 

My perception has gone back and forth. Sometimes it feels personal and there are other times it feels more like a teacher scolding when they are trying to help you. Sometimes it can be so frustrating to get you point across that you want to scream at them.

 

Anyway, I know that I've learned some things since I started hanging around here. I appreciate your taking the time to respond to my posts, as well as others.