[zhasbeen]

Although GIB has been known to make bidding errors that will severely test your patience, such as leaving you in a cue bid of a suit that opponents have bid and supported, this type of error doesn’t come up nearly as often as the one that I will focus on here. Technically, this one isn’t even a bug:
If I could choose only one improvement in the GIB system it would be its handling of 5-card majors, simply because these bids come up so often. Five card majors are a key component (understatement) of virtually any modern bidding system.
If I were a GIB programmer I would start by requiring a major suit rebid to require at least 6 cards. I’m talking about after opening one of a major. Time and time again GIB rebids moth-eaten 5 card majors, and it is totally unnecessary. Since we already know you have at least 5, don’t tell me the same story twice. While it would be ok to rebid a solid 5-card suit, e.g. AKQJ9, it would probably be easier from a programming standpoint to just promise 6. That would be a big of improvement.

GIB is supposed to be a 2/1 game force system. Rebidding 2NT at the 2 level, e.g. 1S-2C-2NT does not promise extras, nor does a reverse, e.g. 1H-2D-2S. After opening 1 of major the opening bidder’s first rebid should be the one that best describes his hand. That being said, the bidding must continue until game is reached. I can’t stress enough how important this is. When GIB rebids a weak 5-card major at first opportunity the entire auction gets off on the wrong foot. As players, we have no idea what to expect. GIB could have a week 5-bagger or decent 7-card suit. Is my Qx good support for major that GIB has rebid or not? We don’t know.

So that’s part one. Robots: Please don’t rebid your 5-card major. Once you’ve opened it that’s enough. If following that rule makes your rebid too awkward then maybe your hand is too weak to open. Of course this does not apply when responder makes a conventional response such as splinter or Jacoby 2NT that promise support for opener’s major. Then, rebid at 4-level is a sign off, while keeping the bidding lower shows extra values.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
In my opinion the 2nd biggest weakness of GIB’s handling of 5-card majors has to do with simple raise to the 2-level, e.g. 1H-2H or 1S-2S. As players we never know if robot has 3 small trump, or 4-5 decent trump. This makes it extremely difficult for opening bidder to evaluate his hand. This is why in modern bidding we respond at the 3 or 4 level with 4 or more trump and less than 12 total points (counting distribution). With a 9-card trump fit we know we will compete to at least the 3 level, so why not do it at first opportunity and make it tougher for opponents to get into the action? Not only that, but knowing that partner has at least 4-card trump support is a huge advantage in evaluating hands for game or slam when opponents are silent.
I play live bridge at what is possibly one of the stronger clubs in the country, and it’s the way almost everyone plays.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

So that’s it. Improve GIB’s 5-card major bidding. Best places to start are requiring 6 cards for rebid and having only 3-card support for simple raise (1H-2H or 1S-2S). With 4 or 5 card support and less than opening values, jump to the 3 or 4 level at first opportunity. I’d overhaul GIB 5-card majors first, and then chip away at GIBS other problems/bugs. It will bite you almost every session if left the way it is.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

Optional reading from here on:

While I might come across as a pest and complainer to some of the BBO support staff, I’m much more a fan than critic of the GIB robots. I have completed more than 400 tournaments since entering my first one in mid-August. There is no place I’m aware of where you can play more challenging hands in less time than with these robots. Sure they make errors, especially on bidding, but I can guarantee you that more often than not they will put you to the test. They are as good as top human pros (aka “brilliant”) on many hands. The fact that you can see video replays of every hand of every tournament you play is a huge plus (although it can sometimes be depressing to watch myself butcher a hand). The potential for these robots is enormous.

I rate myself “advanced” in player profile, but don’t consider myself to be an expert. I’m good, but not great, in live play at clubs and tournaments--probably in top 15% or maybe a little better. Of the 412 ACBL robot tournaments I’ve finished, 83 have been overall wins, 46% have been in top 3, with average of 26 tables per tournament. I play almost exclusively in ACBL 12-board matches. I’ve withdrawn from several tournaments after serious GIB errors and occasionally when I’ve made a serious gaffe my own. However, I try to tough it out to the end the majority of the time, even when these things happen. If you don’t finish you won’t be able to save the movies although you can see them once after the match.

[Stephen Tu]

zhasbeen, on 2017-October-17, 11:06, said:

If I were a GIB programmer I would start by requiring a major suit rebid to require at least 6 cards.

This is very controversial. I think a strong majority of experts are actually against this, with a few in support such as Woolsey. Although it makes finding 6-2 support more straightforward, there are some drawbacks:

1. Now some other bid needs to be selected as the "catchall". Often this is 2nt. This can result in playing 3nt from the wrong side or with an unstopped suit. Also, this takes away responders 2nt and makes it hard for opener to then show clubs.
Or
2. Some contingent just has opener show their second suit at the 3 level regardless of strength. This leads to guessing games as to whether it is safe to bypass 3nt in order to pursue minor slams. Easier to miss slams or get overboard when both players are very wide range.
3. Since no serious/frivolous 3nt is in use, it is fairly useful for a reverse to show extras IMO.
4. It can be useful for slam evaluation for opener to know he has a 9/10 cd fit after responder directly supports his possibly weak 5 bagger when actually holding 6/7.

There is always room to sniff out 6-2 fit later by bidding suit a third time or eliciting 3rd round preference on doubleton.

As for your other idea, Bergen raises, those are also a minority treatment that just happens to be popular regionally at your local club. I don't hate them, but probably now invitational jump shifts are most common. I agree the current strong jump shift info minor probably isn't best. Bergen, quite a few top players hate it for various reasons. There are definitely both pros and cons.

So I don't think your suggestions should be particularly high on anyone's list. Way more important is fixing the glaring holes in competitive bidding, like advancing takeout doubles, defining doubles as takeout or penalty and responding accordingly, not requiring overwhelming strength to compete so you can push up opps or make two way bids as either a make or a good sac.

[zhasbeen]

"This is very controversial. I think a strong majority of experts are actually against this."
A strong majority? Now, that's a surprise.

I must say that this is very disappointing to get only one response, and a nix at that. I was sure that there would be others who agree with me, or at least think that my suggestions would be an improvement.

I'm very curious to know who the experts are that are among that strong majority. I'm talking top pros like Meckstroth, Rodwell, Zia Mahmood, Bob Hamman, Billy Cohen, etc. Do you know what they play? I don't, but assumed they were not making a habit of routinely rebidding weak or medium 5-card majors. I also see that Bergen is up near the top of power ratings since his return. I know that he and Larry Cohen won 4 Blue Ribbons while promising 6 for a very good 5 for a major suit rebid.
"Expert" rating is a bit vague to me. Some deserve it and some don't. Top pro means something.

One thing for sure is that the robot frequently rebids 5-card majors when better bids are available. Just a couple days ago "he" rebid his average spade suit after my 2D response. After I rebid 2NT he then showed his clubs. From where I come from that shows 6-4 distribution. However, the robot was 5-5. There is just no need to do bid that way, especially when playing 2 over 1, and that isn't even close to the worst bunch of bad major suit rebids that the robot has made.
As far as Bergen raises go, I do like them, but you can still jump raise with 4 or more trump without using Bergen. Anything is better than the way robot handles them now. I looked up your rating and know that you must be a good player as GLM. I find it hard to believe that you endorse this way of playing. I'm sure you'd do just fine if you never rebid another average or worse 5-bagger for the rest of your bridge playing days.

One thing I will agree on is that there are worse problems, such as those you cite under "glaring holes". However, they don't come up nearly as often as the 5-card major headaches. This is reason I thought that focusing on them should be a high priority, since they affect so many deals. There's lots of stuff that needs fixing.

I'll finish by saying that I still believe the robots are pretty amazing. They are extremely useful for practicing card play and have potential to do much more.

[iandayre]

I agree with both of you. I like Bergen Raises. I prefer the "full" version as described in his 1985 book. I also like for a major suit rebid by opener in 2/1 to at least strongly imply 6. This is another concept advocated by Bergen in the same book. But Stephen is correct, rebidding with 5 is considered the more standard approach, and Bergen raises are far from a majority viewpoint. It is true that using 2NT as the "catchall" bid can lead to the problems Stephen mentions.

So I will agree that while I would personally like these changes, they are not a high priority. Here are two that I will add: 1) Cue bid in support of a minor after an overcall should not hold length in an unbid major. GIB with me today after 1C by me, 1S overcall cuebid 2S with 5 Clubs...and 6 Hearts! 2) After 2D on my right, P, 3D, P, I considered balancing. 3H was described as 6+ with 14-18! Gee GIB wouldn't I have bid the first time with that??

To save you the trouble of looking it up, I am a Sapphire LM.

[Stephen Tu]

zhasbeen, on 2017-October-17, 15:56, said:

"This is very controversial. I think a strong majority of experts are actually against this."
A strong majority? Now, that's a surprise.

I must say that this is very disappointing to get only one response, and a nix at that. I was sure that there would be others who agree with me, or at least think that my suggestions would be an improvement.

I'm very curious to know who the experts are that are among that strong majority. I'm talking top pros like Meckstroth, Rodwell, Zia Mahmood, Bob Hamman, Billy Cohen, etc. Do you know what they play? I don't, but assumed they were not making a habit of routinely rebidding weak or medium 5-card majors. I also see that Bergen is up near the top of power ratings since his return. I know that he and Larry Cohen won 4 Blue Ribbons while promising 6 for a very good 5 for a major suit rebid.
"Expert" rating is a bit vague to me. Some deserve it and some don't. Top pro means something.

I did a poll on bridgewinners last year on this issue, specifically looking at 1s-2h-2s. 26% of those who answered were in the promise 6 camp. Obviously not all top pros are on bridgewinners and answer polls, nor are all players on bridgewinners experts. But the bridgewinners crowd tend to be quite a bit stronger overall than the general bridge population. Of the big name players whom I recognize that answered, Woolsey was on the promises 6 side. Rosenberg, Donn, and Martens were on the catchall camp. Weinstein is also in the catchall camp on this sequence but presumably plays differently for something like 1s-2c-2s which is easier to play as promising 6 (since one can say use 2d as an artificial catchall). I also happen to know that Eric Kokish, former top Canadian player, long time Nickell coach, and top bidding theorist, is also in the 2M is catchall camp, not promising 6.

I am probably biased on this issue since I learned 2/1 from Lawrence books which teaches the rebid = catchall method. They were the only books that went into 2/1 auctions with any sort of detail and nuance at all. Particularly his long out of print "uncontested auctions" book. His 2/1 CD is definitely worth checking out if you want to improve your bidding with human partners. Most other books on 2/1 seemed to say nothing more than "well, 2/1 creates a GF, so don't pass below 3nt", bid naturally, muddle through, and didn't present a lot of extended 3rd/4th round auctions where bids aren't obvious. Lawrence goes into much more detail about range differentiation, negative inferences, etc.

Rebid promising 5 really isn't so hard to handle. Just don't assume it's anything special and raise it on 2 immediately! You have the entire 2nt through 3M-1 to work with, there is going to be another call available. If partner bids a 3rd time you can support on 2. If there appears to be an unstopped suit you can take a pref on 2 and partner can raise.

If partner is 5-4 or 5/5 or 6/4, bidding the catchall then the second lower ranking suit over your 2nt helps to limit the hand to a minimum. You aren't any worse off than if they had bid the suit directly, arguably you are actually better off since more information has been exchanged about the hands. You can still take a preference on 2, and partner will know it's two since you bid 2nt instead of raising the major. Or you can bid 3nt with the 4th suit well stopped, and likely be in the right spot. Or you can rebid your own suit as a waiting maneuver, and partner can show extra shape. This way direct "high reverses" can show extra values. Some even have it show both extra values and 5-5 shape.

As for the other issue, it seems hard to always jump raise with 4 trumps without Bergen. How does that possibly work? One can put the limit raises in 2nt, but that would require non-std Jacoby responses which GIB doesn't do. 1M-3M as 6-12 or 4-12 or 0-12 range seems impossible to bid sensibly over.

[zhasbeen]

Well, this is an interesting discussion even if the early feedback suggests that I’ll never see the 5-card major changes I’d like to. I see that nobody commented on the most recent GIB auction I described on hand where bot rebid his mediocre 5-card spade suit before later showing his 5-card clubs. Is that not a 6-4 hand in almost any bidding system? Is that not terrible bidding? Come on, I can’t believe you guys play that way. At least it’s the same for everyone.

As far as LM levels go, you guys have me beat by quite a ways. I had 1199 pts in 1994 before taking a 20-year break from bridge due to work and some other stuff. In April of this year I still had the same 1199 before renewing my ACBL membership in early May, a year or so after retiring. Then, while fixing a guy’s computer, I noticed that he had a BBO icon on his desktop. A few days later I was playing my first hand in 20 years with him at the club. I caught the bug right away. I had forgotten how much I missed it. Many of the same old faces were still there, playing better than ever. I’m now closing in on 200 pts since returning, thanks mostly to our robot buddies. I don’t know how guys feel about ACBL awarding master points for these tournaments, but I’ve had mixed feelings about it. For sure I can accumulate them much quicker than playing in clubs and an occasional live tournament. Knowing that I’m playing against people like you gives me more confidence that they are legitimate. The max you can earn for a 12-board match is .90 whether there are 14 tables or 50, so you have to win a lot (and play a lot) to pile up points. I have played a ton of boards since discovering this place!

Anyway, I’ll take any improvements the crew can implement. Every little bit helps.
Regarding “jump raise with 4 trumps without Bergen. How does that possibly work?” I hadn’t really thought about it, but couldn’t you just jump to 3 or 4, promising less than an opening hand? I realize that you wouldn’t be able differentiate between 7-10 pt and 11-12 hands like you can with Bergen. And then you also have raises with 0-6 pts for really weak hands that are part of Bergen. Hmmm. I think I’d still prefer something that covers the range between 7-12 total pts and throw the ultra-weak hands in with 4 trump in with simple raises. I just think that the 4th trump is so important to know about early in the bidding. In the GIB system notes it says that it uses “law of total tricks”. How can this be, considering the current framework? Maybe it’s a case of the robot knowing when to compete to 3 level and not letting us in on it. Sometimes it sells out at 2 level and sometimes it pushes to 3. If I’m remembering correctly, it has a decent record in those situations.

[Stephen Tu]

zhasbeen, on 2017-October-17, 19:24, said:

Well, this is an interesting discussion even if the early feedback suggests that I'll never see the 5-card major changes I'd like to. I see that nobody commented on the most recent GIB auction I described on hand where bot rebid his mediocre 5-card spade suit before later showing his 5-card clubs. Is that not a 6-4 hand in almost any bidding system? Is that not terrible bidding? Come on, I can't believe you guys play that way. At least it's the same for everyone.

To answer your question, no, it's not 6-4 in every bidding system, and it's not clearly terrible bidding. How is this going to lead to disaster? At this stage, partner will bid 3nt with hearts solidly double stopped, and you'll probably be OK there. With a solid spade suit playable opposite stiff you'll bid 4S and be in the same spot. If partner's only has one heart stop they will normally take preference to 3S or rebid 3D and you'll raise/rebid 3S and again you get to 4S. Now sometimes they will bid 3nt with a solid heart stop, and you'll play 3nt when a 6-2 spade fit was available. At IMPS this won't matter if both contracts make. Can you establish that only 4S will make substantially more often rather than the other way round? Or will out matchpoint 3nt on average if playing MP?

With the 5-5 hand, having the sequence 1s-2d-2s-2nt-3c has exchanged more information than 1s-2d-3c-? We've:
- limited opener's hand
- denied 3+ cd spade fit from responder
- shown stoppers in all suits from responder
In theory having exchanged more information we should be in a better position to continue, judging between 3nt/5c/6c/4s, than the latter auction where 3c is unlimited and responder hasn't shown anything but diamonds yet.

Quote

Anyway, I'll take any improvements the crew can implement. Every little bit helps.
Regarding "jump raise with 4 trumps without Bergen. How does that possibly work?" I hadn't really thought about it, but couldn't you just jump to 3 or 4, promising less than an opening hand? I realize that you wouldn't be able differentiate between 7-10 pt and 11-12 hands like you can with Bergen. And then you also have raises with 0-6 pts for really weak hands that are part of Bergen. Hmmm. I think I'd still prefer something that covers the range between 7-12 total pts and throw the ultra-weak hands in with 4 trump in with simple raises.

Lumping all hands 4 trump 7-12 is just too wide for any hope of accuracy. A 4th trump is a bonus factor, it helps on the margins, boosts a borderline GF into a GF, borderline invite into a solid invite, etc. It doesn't compensate for an entire ace! You can't possibly be accurate making the same bid with the same hands +/- a whole ace. It would be like playing an opening 2nt as 19-24. I don't hate Bergen as much as some people, but you do have to recognize some drawbacks:
- self balancing, sometimes you would have bought it for 2s, they weren't going to balance, and you go down 1 in 3
- you no longer can show suits/shortness for game tries depending on honor location, your game tries have to be generic min/max tries
- expose yourself to lead directing doubles/non-doubles
- can't take advantage of opponent's bidding in the play to locate honors when they push you up into 3 rather than just being self-pushed to 3.
- can't use 3m to show the invitational in minor hand, leaving a hole in 2/1 bidding if playing the rebid 1s-2m-?-3m style as forcing

The main advantage of Bergen I see are:
- can preempt opp from finding spade fit
- prevent partner from making marginal game try and getting too high after 1M-2M knowing facing probable 3 cd support only

[virgosrock]

zhasbeen, on 2017-October-17, 11:06, said:

Although GIB has been known to make bidding errors that will severely test your patience, such as leaving you in a cue bid of a suit that opponents have bid and supported, this type of error doesn’t come up nearly as often as the one that I will focus on here. Technically, this one isn’t even a bug:
If I could choose only one improvement in the GIB system it would be its handling of 5-card majors, simply because these bids come up so often. Five card majors are a key component (understatement) of virtually any modern bidding system.
If I were a GIB programmer I would start by requiring a major suit rebid to require at least 6 cards. I’m talking about after opening one of a major. Time and time again GIB rebids moth-eaten 5 card majors, and it is totally unnecessary. Since we already know you have at least 5, don’t tell me the same story twice. While it would be ok to rebid a solid 5-card suit, e.g. AKQJ9, it would probably be easier from a programming standpoint to just promise 6. That would be a big of improvement.

GIB is supposed to be a 2/1 game force system. Rebidding 2NT at the 2 level, e.g. 1S-2C-2NT does not promise extras, nor does a reverse, e.g. 1H-2D-2S. After opening 1 of major the opening bidder’s first rebid should be the one that best describes his hand. That being said, the bidding must continue until game is reached. I can’t stress enough how important this is. When GIB rebids a weak 5-card major at first opportunity the entire auction gets off on the wrong foot. As players, we have no idea what to expect. GIB could have a week 5-bagger or decent 7-card suit. Is my Qx good support for major that GIB has rebid or not? We don’t know.

So that’s part one. Robots: Please don’t rebid your 5-card major. Once you’ve opened it that’s enough. If following that rule makes your rebid too awkward then maybe your hand is too weak to open. Of course this does not apply when responder makes a conventional response such as splinter or Jacoby 2NT that promise support for opener’s major. Then, rebid at 4-level is a sign off, while keeping the bidding lower shows extra values.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
In my opinion the 2nd biggest weakness of GIB’s handling of 5-card majors has to do with simple raise to the 2-level, e.g. 1H-2H or 1S-2S. As players we never know if robot has 3 small trump, or 4-5 decent trump. This makes it extremely difficult for opening bidder to evaluate his hand. This is why in modern bidding we respond at the 3 or 4 level with 4 or more trump and less than 12 total points (counting distribution). With a 9-card trump fit we know we will compete to at least the 3 level, so why not do it at first opportunity and make it tougher for opponents to get into the action? Not only that, but knowing that partner has at least 4-card trump support is a huge advantage in evaluating hands for game or slam when opponents are silent.
I play live bridge at what is possibly one of the stronger clubs in the country, and it’s the way almost everyone plays.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

So that’s it. Improve GIB’s 5-card major bidding. Best places to start are requiring 6 cards for rebid and having only 3-card support for simple raise (1H-2H or 1S-2S). With 4 or 5 card support and less than opening values, jump to the 3 or 4 level at first opportunity. I’d overhaul GIB 5-card majors first, and then chip away at GIBS other problems/bugs. It will bite you almost every session if left the way it is.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

Optional reading from here on:

While I might come across as a pest and complainer to some of the BBO support staff, I’m much more a fan than critic of the GIB robots. I have completed more than 400 tournaments since entering my first one in mid-August. There is no place I’m aware of where you can play more challenging hands in less time than with these robots. Sure they make errors, especially on bidding, but I can guarantee you that more often than not they will put you to the test. They are as good as top human pros (aka “brilliant”) on many hands. The fact that you can see video replays of every hand of every tournament you play is a huge plus (although it can sometimes be depressing to watch myself butcher a hand). The potential for these robots is enormous.

I rate myself “advanced” in player profile, but don’t consider myself to be an expert. I’m good, but not great, in live play at clubs and tournaments--probably in top 15% or maybe a little better. Of the 412 ACBL robot tournaments I’ve finished, 83 have been overall wins, 46% have been in top 3, with average of 26 tables per tournament. I play almost exclusively in ACBL 12-board matches. I’ve withdrawn from several tournaments after serious GIB errors and occasionally when I’ve made a serious gaffe my own. However, I try to tough it out to the end the majority of the time, even when these things happen. If you don’t finish you won’t be able to save the movies although you can see them once after the match.

I have extensively played money bridge with GIB as partner. Never found 1M-2m/2M*-2M a problem. It is a great waiting bid to get more information. Of course the context has to be 2/1 is game force. Something like 1S-2c-2d-2s you have found spade support at the 2 level allowing very flexible followup.

virgosrock

[zhasbeen]

It’s not only the hand that is bid that way that matters. It’s what you do with future hands. There is a domino effect. What do I do the next time he bids that way? When is he 5-5 or 6-5, and when is he 6-4? Maybe some people can handle it but it’s not for me.
The same is true for rebidding these weakish 5-card majors in other situations. When is my Qx good support and when isn’t it? When should we compete to the 3-level and when should we sell out at 2? While there is always a certain amount of guesswork when it comes to bidding, this takes to another level. There are lots of great writers and players out there and they have different styles. We follow the ones that we are most comfortable with. The 6 or 5 strong rule for major rebid is easier for me and also works for many of the pros. This is not to say that there aren't some great players who are o.k. with rebidding a weakish 5.

“lumping all hands 4 trump 7-12 is just too wide for any hope of accuracy”
I agree with you on this one, but without trying it I would consider as a possible lesser of 2 evils. Not knowing if partner has 3 small or KJxxx for his simple raise seems like more of an evil, but that might not be so when put to the test.
Isn’t your “too wide” argument the same thing you are defending in regards to the rebids we were talking about? That is exactly how I feel about them. There is just too wide a range for what partner could have and make the same bid.
How do you handle major suit raises? My old partner that I used to play Bergen with is now using Hardy raises that define more situations. Part of it is the same thing, though. They take it to 3-level or higher earlier rather than later when holding extra trump. What I like about Bergen is that it worked well in the past and is simple enough for me to remember (most of the time).

While I’m here I’m wondering what you guys do after opening 1NT and robot responds with the 2NT transfer to clubs bid. I get burned at least 60% of the time it comes up. Should I just bid 3NT anytime I have Kxx or better, or always accept the club transfer? The explanation help bubble doesn’t help much when I run my cursor over it. If I remember correctly, accepting the club transfer is more of a command than an option. I’m zigging when I should zag and vice versa.

[Stephen Tu]

zhasbeen, on 2017-October-18, 12:31, said:

It's not only the hand that is bid that way that matters. It's what you do with future hands. There is a domino effect. What do I do the next time he bids that way? When is he 5-5 or 6-5, and when is he 6-4? Maybe some people can handle it but it's not for me.
The same is true for rebidding these weakish 5-card majors in other situations. When is my Qx good support and when isn't it?

I really don't see what your problem is. It's not like responder, after opener's third bid, has to place the contract, and opener has no bids left. You both get more bids! You can support on 2, opener can rebid accordingly. With 6-4 he has easy 4S bid. With 5-5 he can bid clubs again.

When your Qx isn't good support: when all opener has done so far is rebid his suit once at the 2 level after your 2/1, and your raise to the 3 level is expected to have 3 cd support. Bid something else first.
When your Qx is good support: when opener bids his suit a third time, or bids a side suit at the 3 level, and your previous bid was like 2nt denying 3 cd support. Now your Qx is like as good as partner can expect in spades, you support, he should be able to do something sensible knowing you have doubleton only.

Quote

When should we compete to the 3-level and when should we sell out at 2?

This rebidding of weak 5 cd majors should only be happening in 2/1 auctions where responder has forced opener to rebid. People are willingly sacrificing the rebid of the major of saying something significant in order to make higher bids more tightly defined in terms of strength, and/or distribution, or of definitely having stoppers in unbid suits. They will finish describing the hand later. It's utilizing the useful space principle, the cheapest bid 2M is the least defined since you have the most room to unwind it. Higher bids get tighter definitions.

Competing to 3 level/selling out 2 level simply doesn't apply since you are in an uncontested GF auction.

Quote

"lumping all hands 4 trump 7-12 is just too wide for any hope of accuracy"
I agree with you on this one, but without trying it I would consider as a possible lesser of 2 evils. Not knowing if partner has 3 small or KJxxx for his simple raise seems like more of an evil, but that might not be so when put to the test.

KJxxx is really unlikely. With side stiff they'd jump to 4. Else it's a 5332 hand and still a lot of tricks to lose.
So xxx vs. KJxx ..
It simply isn't going to matter that much. Holding a limit raise both styles make a limit raise holding the latter trump holding. So now you are down to the constructive 4 cd hands. KJxx trumps just means you have compensating weakness elsewhere in the hand. You lose fewer trump tricks but more outside tricks. If opener has a game try over a constructive Bergen raise he should have a game try over 1s-2s. If starting over 1s-2s, he can make a descriptive game try showing where values are useful, responder can simply be more aggressive in accepting when holding KJxx in trumps rather than xxx, and also considering overall strength and honor location in context of which game try opener selected. Over Bergen, responder just has min/max available.

Quote

Isn't your "too wide" argument the same thing you are defending in regards to the rebids we were talking about? That is exactly how I feel about them. There is just too wide a range for what partner could have and make the same bid.

You mean the rebid promising 6 or not argument? No. Because you are saying 1s-3s-? and there is zero room to make a decision, and the next bid cements the contract. After 1s-2d-2s-2nt-3c, there is still room below 3nt to explore, and if 3nt is rejected, more room at the 4 level also for further descriptive bids.

For the four suit transfer thing, the way GIB plays, just always accept. There's no way to "super-accept" when playing one-under transfers.

[zhasbeen]

Is it possible to post a jpg screen cap or picture from your hard dive? It's looking like it can only be done through internet since it asks for URL and there is no browse button.

Jim (zhasbeen)

[zhasbeen]

zhasbeen, on 2017-October-17, 11:06, said:

Although GIB has been known to make bidding errors that will severely test your patience, such as leaving you in a cue bid of a suit that opponents have bid and supported, this type of error doesn’t come up nearly as often as the one that I will focus on here. Technically, this one isn’t even a bug:
If I could choose only one improvement in the GIB system it would be its handling of 5-card majors, simply because these bids come up so often. Five card majors are a key component (understatement) of virtually any modern bidding system.
If I were a GIB programmer I would start by requiring a major suit rebid to require at least 6 cards. I’m talking about after opening one of a major. Time and time again GIB rebids moth-eaten 5 card majors, and it is totally unnecessary. Since we already know you have at least 5, don’t tell me the same story twice. While it would be ok to rebid a solid 5-card suit, e.g. AKQJ9, it would probably be easier from a programming standpoint to just promise 6. That would be a big of improvement.

GIB is supposed to be a 2/1 game force system. Rebidding 2NT at the 2 level, e.g. 1S-2C-2NT does not promise extras, nor does a reverse, e.g. 1H-2D-2S. After opening 1 of major the opening bidder’s first rebid should be the one that best describes his hand. That being said, the bidding must continue until game is reached. I can’t stress enough how important this is. When GIB rebids a weak 5-card major at first opportunity the entire auction gets off on the wrong foot. As players, we have no idea what to expect. GIB could have a week 5-bagger or decent 7-card suit. Is my Qx good support for major that GIB has rebid or not? We don’t know.

So that’s part one. Robots: Please don’t rebid your 5-card major. Once you’ve opened it that’s enough. If following that rule makes your rebid too awkward then maybe your hand is too weak to open. Of course this does not apply when responder makes a conventional response such as splinter or Jacoby 2NT that promise support for opener’s major. Then, rebid at 4-level is a sign off, while keeping the bidding lower shows extra values.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
In my opinion the 2nd biggest weakness of GIB’s handling of 5-card majors has to do with simple raise to the 2-level, e.g. 1H-2H or 1S-2S. As players we never know if robot has 3 small trump, or 4-5 decent trump. This makes it extremely difficult for opening bidder to evaluate his hand. This is why in modern bidding we respond at the 3 or 4 level with 4 or more trump and less than 12 total points (counting distribution). With a 9-card trump fit we know we will compete to at least the 3 level, so why not do it at first opportunity and make it tougher for opponents to get into the action? Not only that, but knowing that partner has at least 4-card trump support is a huge advantage in evaluating hands for game or slam when opponents are silent.
I play live bridge at what is possibly one of the stronger clubs in the country, and it’s the way almost everyone plays.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

So that’s it. Improve GIB’s 5-card major bidding. Best places to start are requiring 6 cards for rebid and having only 3-card support for simple raise (1H-2H or 1S-2S). With 4 or 5 card support and less than opening values, jump to the 3 or 4 level at first opportunity. I’d overhaul GIB 5-card majors first, and then chip away at GIBS other problems/bugs. It will bite you almost every session if left the way it is.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

made 6

---