Gibbelletti again

[pescetom]

Cappelletti is already a poor alternative to Multilandy without adding the twist of 2M being only 4+ in the major.

If BBO restore the tricks function to Dealer I am confident I will be able to demostrate what a poor choice this is.

 

[DD fans will be quick to note that 3NT happens to make on this hand, but only a quarter of the field actually made it and 2♠-2 was 20%.]

[pilowsky]

Cappelletti is already a poor alternative to Multilandy without adding the twist of 2M being only 4+ in the major.

If BBO restore the tricks function to Dealer I am confident I will be able to demostrate what a poor choice this is.

 

[DD fans will be quick to note that 3NT happens to make on this hand, but only a quarter of the field actually made it and 2♠-2 was 20%.]

 

[hv=https://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?lin=st||pn|customer,opp1,~~M17926,opp2|md|2S63HJ943D8CKT7432,S94HAQ6DKQ543CAQ8,SAQJTH72DAT962CJ6,SK8752HKT85DJ7C95|sv|b|rh||ah|Board%204|mb|1N|mb|2S!|an|Cappelletti%20-%20spades%20and%20a%20minor%20--%203-%20!H;%204+%20!S;%2011+%20total%20points%20|mb|P|mb|P|mb|P|pc|H5|pc|H9|pc|HA|pc|H7|pc|H6|pc|H2|pc|HK|pc|H3|pc|H8|pc|H4|pc|HQ|pc|ST|pc|DA|pc|D7|pc|D8|pc|D3|pc|D2|pc|DJ|pc|S3|pc|D5|pc|HJ|pc|S9|pc|SJ|pc|HT|pc|D9|pc|S7|pc|C2|pc|D4|pc|S2|pc|S6|pc|S4|pc|SQ|pc|C6|pc|C5|pc|CK|pc|CA|pc|DK|pc|DT|pc|C9|pc|C7|pc|DQ|pc|D6|pc|S5|pc|C3|pc|S8|pc|C4|pc|C8|pc|SA|pc|CJ|pc|SK|pc|CT|pc|CQ|]400|300|

That's what happens when you use a '10' instead of a 'T' - the computer thinks it's 2 cards.[/hv]

[smerriman]

It's not like this is even unintentional. The old version of the database specifically says:

 

11+ total points, biddable clubs or diamonds, rebiddable major -> bid 2M

11+ total points, rebiddable clubs or diamonds, biddable major -> bid 2M

 

That's it, no other conditions, but both cases specifically listed.

 

Why the programmer Fred Matt, or whoever (the exact same rule existed in his pre-BBO version) thought this was a good idea is beyond me..

[Stephen Tu]

Why the programmer Fred (the exact same rule existed in his pre-BBO version) thought this was a good idea is beyond me..

 

Don't blame Fred; he (or rather BBO) bought GIB from its developer Matt Ginsberg. And even Ginsberg probably isn't solely responsible for this rule, as I believe he got the original bidding database from Meadowlark bridge (Rod Ludwig).

[LBengtsson]

More Crappelletti, than Cappelletti :(

[smerriman]

Oops, no idea why I wrote Fred, meant to write Matt. But you're right; it could have originated even earlier. Still seems very strange to be deliberate, regardless of who came up with the idea, compared to most other issues which are unintentional bugs. Was it a common usage back then?

[thepossum]

A cursory sim gives me -97 points*

 

I did not do much ruling out of extremes and considering possible games and slams so who knows what the real average is - the variance is extreme

 

EDIT Just checked and I don't think I made a stupid error

EDIT 2 I will double check when less busy or others have corrected me

EDIT 3 I am back wasting time trying to work out all the combinations but I can't be bothered - I like nice simple sims with all their faults - but after a cursory non-motivated exploration of more complex factors I still get a big negative score. Fill me in though for my script. Does East have enough for game or for a double. And how do you account for the value of disrupting a possible game. I am sure David can give us the accurate figures. I reckon its likely to be negative though

EDIT 4 I moved the 2D to the 2S and have gone from -90 or so to -58 approx. Maybe Mr Cappelletti or Mr Hamilton can help us out - and who was John Pottage? It must be cool to be a good enough Bridge player to introduce complicated conventions into the game