How to raise 1 NT?

[Jschatzman]

I tried to raise partner's 1NT opener with 2NT. Robot partner interpreted this as a transfer to clubs. What system is that? I have yet to figure out what the robots in BBO Prime are doing - I can't understand their bidding (to say nothing of their play!).

 

Also, in SAYC, what do I do if I don't want to transfer, don't have a 6 card suit, but have a balanced hand and want to invite, but not force, game in NT? The SAYC doesn't even list 2NT reponse to 1NT...

 

Thanks!

[Jschatzman]

If there is no interference, I suppose I can bid 2C and then take it back to 2NT.

[pilowsky]

Here are the GIB system notes:

[steve2005]

In SAYC 2NT is an invite which doesn't want to ask for a 4-card major and is listed on SAYC convention card.

Gib plays 2/1 GF see notes in above post.

[pilowsky]

1NT 15-17 may contain 5CM:- roughly speaking this was the system I was originally shown, but it's not what GIB uses and there are many others.

2♣ > 8HCP at least 1 4cm

2NT! - transfer to ♦ - at least 6

2♠! - transfer to ♣ - at least 6

 

And the usual other stuff.

The GIB method is a bit different.

[johnu]

Why would you make a 2NT bid without checking what the bid means if you don't know how the bid will be interpreted? You should always check on bids unless you are 100% sure about the meaning.

[pescetom]

You should always check on bids unless you are 100% sure about the meaning.

 

Unless you are playing bridge where the laws say you can't :)

[johnu]

Unless you are playing bridge where the laws say you can't :)

You are 100% allowed to check on what bids mean when playing with GIB. The reason is that in the history of GIB, GIB has never responded to a human partner in discussing what different bids and sequences mean. No response, zip, nada, not now, not then, not anytime in the future. You are always playing GIB's system, 100% of the time. So if you don't know what a bid means, you could not ask before the session and the best you can do is check the description when the bid comes up.

[pescetom]

You are 100% allowed to check on what bids mean when playing with GIB. The reason is that in the history of GIB, GIB has never responded to a human partner in discussing what different bids and sequences mean. No response, zip, nada, not now, not then, not anytime in the future. You are always playing GIB's system, 100% of the time. So if you don't know what a bid means, you could not ask before the session and the best you can do is check the description when the bid comes up.

 

That is the BBO rule, and not wholly unreasonable either. It is not currently reconcilable with the laws of bridge however, which was my only point. One more thing that we have to decide, one way or another.

[johnu]

That is the BBO rule, and not wholly unreasonable either. It is not currently reconcilable with the laws of bridge however, which was my only point. One more thing that we have to decide, one way or another.

Lots of things in online bridge are not in agreement with the laws of bridge. Starting with the display of dummy (except the standalone windows version), self-alerting, software preventing bids out of turn, insufficient bids, plays out of turn, revokes, etc.

[pescetom]

Lots of things in online bridge are not in agreement with the laws of bridge. Starting with the display of dummy (except the standalone windows version), self-alerting, software preventing bids out of turn, insufficient bids, plays out of turn, revokes, etc.

 

That's a rather mixed bunch.

Electronic play can eliminate the possibility of bids/plays out of turn, insufficient bids, revokes etc and fortunately almost nobody of influence seems interested in the (dubious) argument that these are an inherent part of bridge rather than a mere complication of non-electronic play.

The display of dummy is a relatively trivial matter and also arguably a poor law, but yes this should be reconciled one way or another.

The question of whether one can or not consult one's own written agreements during the bidding is decidedly more important and the current laws are firmly against it: I don't see that playing with a robot is in itself justification for a change, but I am open to a change for many other reasons.

The bottom line is that the laws need to be revised and not just to match up with electronic play.

[sfi]

The question of whether one can or not consult one's own written agreements during the bidding is decidedly more important and the current laws are firmly against it:

It isn't, actually. To quote Law 40B2(b):

Unless the Regulating Authority provides otherwise a player may not consult his own system card between the commencement of the auction period and the end of play, except that players of the declaring side (only) may consult their own system card during the Clarification Period.

Some RA's have explicitly allowed consultation of notes, such as the EBU. BBO has the right to do so in the games it regulates, and it's easy to argue that it has done so when playing with robots.

[blackshoe]

Does BBO regulate any games? I am under the impression they leave that up to whoever is running the event, or whoever started the table.

[blackshoe]

It is not the case that the only way to find out what system your partner plays is to ask him. There is, as someone mentioned upthread, a GIB system card which anyone can read.

[sfi]

Does BBO regulate any games? I am under the impression they leave that up to whoever is running the event, or whoever started the table.

They must regulate at least the robot games, at least nominally.

[johnu]

It is not the case that the only way to find out what system your partner plays is to ask him. There is, as someone mentioned upthread, a GIB system card which anyone can read.

As you should probably know, the BBO system card is based on the ACBL convention card. This barely covers opening bids, and a few responses, and a few initial defensive bids. Once you get into the 2nd round of bidding you are usually on your own unless rebidding after a conventional response. I have never been able to find the section where if you bid game on your own (not opening preempt) you show something like 25-40 points.

[Jschatzman]

Why would you make a 2NT bid without checking what the bid means if you don't know how the bid will be interpreted? You should always check on bids unless you are 100% sure about the meaning.

 

I guess that this "GIB" system, which I had never heard about before, is so foreign to my way of thinking, that I should just give up playing with the robots. It is just too aggravating.

 

Agreed that the BBO UI lets me query what every possible bid theoretically means. The GIB system is so not what I am used to that I probably SHOULD do that until I have the system memorized. However, I note that the robots frequently violate what is displayed as the meaning of their bid.

 

Some specific aggravations:

 

1) It can be very difficult to "sign off" in game because a great number of the bids I am used to making for that purpose are interpreted by the robots as "mild slam try".

 

2) It is inadvisable to make a weak competing bid because the robots interpret it as some super powerful bid even though from the preceding bidding, that is clearly impossible.

 

3) Nearly every bid seems to be a convention. I am used to occasionally being able to make a natural bid.

 

Another thing - the robots seem very happy to be set a high percentage of the time. Is that a modern strategy or is it just what the robots do?

[smerriman]

I guess that this "GIB" system, which I had never heard about before, is so foreign to my way of thinking, that I should just give up playing with the robots. It is just too aggravating.

While GIB is pretty bad, having 2NT as a transfer is pretty common even in human systems. For example (and this isn't what GIB plays), this method of four suit transfers is a popular treatment. It includes a note about how to invite at the bottom given 2NT isn't available.

 

1) It can be very difficult to "sign off" in game because a great number of the bids I am used to making for that purpose are interpreted by the robots as "mild slam try".

I'm guessing you're referring to an auction like 1NT - 2♦ - 2♥ - 4♥ (that's the only sequence GIB describes as a mild slam try). It's also standard to play that as a mild slam try, because if you had no slam interest you'd transfer straight to game with a Texas transfer: 1NT - 4♦ - 4♥. The note at the bottom of the link again refers to the original sequence as being a slam try.

[msjennifer]

I tried to raise partner's 1NT opener with 2NT. Robot partner interpreted this as a transfer to clubs. What system is that? I have yet to figure out what the robots in BBO Prime are doing - I can't understand their bidding (to say nothing of their play!).

 

Also, in SAYC, what do I do if I don't want to transfer, don't have a 6 card suit, but have a balanced hand and want to invite, but not force, game in NT? The SAYC doesn't even list 2NT reponse to 1NT...

 

Thanks!

Sir,

1) Do not pay any attention to what robot bids . 2NT for new players is an invitation to the opener to bid 3NT with good 16 or any 17.It also means that responder had no 4 card Major.(else he would start with 2♣ Stayman.)

The 3♣ bid hence shows 5+♣ with the opener.Bid 3NT.A 5 card suit shall NORMALLY provide the ninth trick.

2)If you wish to continue playing with robot partners either learn its system or else interpret its bid as per normal SAYC and continue to bid as per your hand.

3)There are variations of the so assumed TRANSFER bids.We play 2♠ as either transfer to ♣ or find the range.Opener bids 2NT to show a minimum hand and 3♣ to show a maximum.Similar is a bid of 2NT by responder for ♦ and opener bids 3♣ with a minimum and 3♦with a maximum.Responder then either bids 3NT. or passes with the minor.With a slam ambition two suited hand

he bids the second suit.

Thanks.

[pilowsky]

As someone who spends most (but not all) of their time playing with GIB I can say that before you start messing with its system it's a good idea to understand what it does do inside out.

The first thing I did was join Prime so that I could hammer out boards to see how GIB responds.

The next thing I did was to see how GIB responds to subtle variations in HCP range and shape.

So the system I use with GIB is a bit different to the system in the system notes but it gets me to makeable contracts often.

My next problem is making them more often.

Some of the things will translate into what is referred to as "real Bridge" by some of the people that make posts here.

Many of these people are excellent real-life Bridge players who don't tell us about their experiences with GIB. Although I'm sure they are pretty good at that too.

[msjennifer]

As someone who spends most (but not all) of their time playing with GIB I can say that before you start messing with its system it's a good idea to understand what it does do inside out.

The first thing I did was join Prime so that I could hammer out boards to see how GIB responds.

The next thing I did was to see how GIB responds to subtle variations in HCP range and shape.

So the system I use with GIB is a bit different to the system in the system notes but it gets me to makeable contracts often.

My next problem is making them more often.

Some of the things will translate into what is referred to as "real Bridge" by some of the people that make posts here.

Many of these people are excellent real-life Bridge players who don't tell us about their experiences with GIB. Although I'm sure they are pretty good at that too.

Perhaps REAL bridge means something like LONDON bridge which opens as and when needed.

[pilowsky]

Perhaps REAL bridge means something like LONDON bridge which opens as and when needed.

 

Sounds like an open and shut case to me.

[al_terego]

Robots system (far to be great) outside some "butterflies" about very strong hands is a decent system based 90% on BWS (and ACBL regulations). 4 suit transfers isnt "attached" to a system, is a convention that work in ANY system (assuming the lack of 2NT inviting but gaining superaccept in both minors). Robots system is unitar for all players, and is simple, if you can/want to handle it is ok, if not... your choice, "take it or leave it" :))

[nige1]

Why would you make a 2NT bid without checking what the bid means if you don't know how the bid will be interpreted? You should always check on bids unless you are 100% sure about the meaning.

Unless you are playing bridge where the laws say you can't

If you are playing with and against robots, then they all play the same system. In theory, you have the legal right to consult opponents' system card and, if necessary, ask them about their agreements. That is equivalent to examining the systemic meaning of your own call, before committing to it :)

[Jschatzman]

As someone who spends most (but not all) of their time playing with GIB I can say that before you start messing with its system it's a good idea to understand what it does do inside out.

The first thing I did was join Prime so that I could hammer out boards to see how GIB responds.

The next thing I did was to see how GIB responds to subtle variations in HCP range and shape.

So the system I use with GIB is a bit different to the system in the system notes but it gets me to makeable contracts often.

My next problem is making them more often.

Some of the things will translate into what is referred to as "real Bridge" by some of the people that make posts here.

Many of these people are excellent real-life Bridge players who don't tell us about their experiences with GIB. Although I'm sure they are pretty good at that too.

 

Thanks for the tips.

 

I am beginning to think that while bidding is a critical part of what makes Bridge interesting, it is also its Achilles heel. For my part, I never thought that glancing at the opponents' bidding card before a session was sufficient to capture what they are doing, especially if they have some unusual features in their bidding. Having a photographic memory would be helpful, but I don't have one. If you have to ask one apponent what his partner's bid means all the time the it damages the flow of the bidding, besides which it affords the opponents an unintended means of communication. The ACBL has outlawed some conventions (such as the strong pass/weak 1S system), presumably because they are too disruptive. BIL (and others) outlaws psychics. Having a system that is designed to disrupt the opponents' communication is allowed as long as it isn't TOO disruptive. Kind of like NASCAR allowing innovation but not TOO much innovation... Anyway, playing with the robots has rubbed my nose in this aspect of Bridge which I don't seem to like very much.