[Bbradley62]

---

Why does North pass in first seat?

[cloa513]

More importantly why can't North bid 1♠ or double over 1 ♥. The opening is bidding book gap- can't bid 2♠ (GIB has no problem bidding one suit with 4+ in another) too strong, can't bid 1♠ too weak, can't bid any other number of spades not enough spades in hand.

[barmar]

Yeah, it's a tiny gap, although I'm not totally sure it's wrong (there are many players who believe that it's possible for a hand to be in between 1♠ and 2♠, while others say there's no such thing).

1♠ requires 10+ HCP, 13+ TP. It's 1 short on the HCP.
2♠ requires 6-10 HCP, 12- TP. It's 1 high on TP. It also won't bid 2♠ in 1st/2nd seat with a side 5-card suit, void, or 4 ♥

For the response, 2♠ is bid with 13+ TP, while 1♠ is bid with 6+ TP, and the former has higher precedence in the bidding rules. We don't have separate rules for passed vs. unpassed hands; in most cases, a passed hand won't meet the criteria for the 2♠ bid, but this hand slips through the crack because of the opening bid gap.

I think you may then be able to infer that North has a maximum weak 2 with a flaw (the side 5-card suit in this case).

[Bbradley62]

barmar, on 2012-June-01, 11:07, said:

Yeah, it's a tiny gap, although I'm not totally sure it's wrong (there are many players who believe that it's possible for a hand to be in between 1♠ and 2♠, while others say there's no such thing).

1♠ requires 10+ HCP, 13+ TP. It's 1 short on the HCP.
2♠ requires 6-10 HCP, 12- TP. It's 1 high on TP. It also won't bid 2♠ in 1st/2nd seat with a side 5-card suit, void, or 4 ♥

Yes, we've had this conversation before. I still think you have a funny definition of "many players" who would pass. Certainly, they didn't participate in the recent poll about this hand: http://www.bridgebas...age__mode__show .

I'm guessing this is kinda related to GIB's opening 3♥ in first seat with Ax, KQJ9xxx, x, xxx. When I complained about that, you said:

barmar, on 2012-April-12, 00:48, said:

GIB opens that hand 3♥. It wants 13 TP to open 1♥; it will do it with as little as 10 HCP with a 7-card suit, but wants compensating shortness. And while GIB doesn't use these rules, it doesn't meet the rules of 20 or 22, either. While I'm sure there are people who will open it 1♥ (you, I guess), I wouldn't, and I'll bet I'm in the majority.

and

barmar, on 2012-April-12, 08:04, said:

My guess is that it's an opener for 10-20% of players. Anyone who generally opens light would probably not even think twice, and if they're under 20 they'll accept an invitation to game with it. But more traditional players would probably side with GIB and open 3♥.

Poll results were that not a single one of the 26 respondents would open 3♥. http://www.bridgebas...age__mode__show

Please do something to tweak GIB's opening bid requirements to include these two hands.

[barmar]

Bbradley62, on 2012-June-01, 12:33, said:

Yes, we've had this conversation before. I still think you have a funny definition of "many players" who would pass. Certainly, they didn't participate in the recent poll about this hand: http://www.bridgebas...age__mode__show .

10% of respondents pass, that's not insignificant. And I'm not convinced that polls like this are very representative of the bridge community in general, since respondents are self-selecting. I wonder how many intermediate players participate in them. Maybe you think they don't matter, we should make GIB bid like an expert to the extent possible. But the majority of players are intermediate (or worse), and we want GIB to bid in ways that they would be comfortable with.

As an example, bridge teachers and columnists usually write that you shouldn't open a weak 2 with a side void or 4-card major. But if you watch Vugraphs, you see experts opening these hands frequently, and I'll bet if you took a poll you wouldn't find many respondents following that advice. So should GIB "do as I say" or "do as I do"? In general, I think GIB leans towards conservative bidding as we teach, not the aggressive style that experts use when playing against each other.

We also have to worry about unintended consequences any time we tweak rules. If we reduce the minimum HCP required for a 1♠ bid, what OTHER hands might get included that we didn't really want? So do we make special rules for 6, 7, and longer suits so that we don't inadvertently open 5-card suits with hands that are too weak? Is it worth taking risks like this just to handle this infrequent case?

[Bbradley62]

barmar, on 2012-June-01, 15:54, said:

10% of respondents pass, that's not insignificant.

Yeah, I guess the 10% who agree with you are going to be more significant than the 76% who make up the clear consensus. I guess somehow the ZERO who agreed with you on the other poll reflect an important subset of the bridge community too.

barmar, on 2012-June-01, 15:54, said:

And I'm not convinced that polls like this are very representative of the bridge community in general, since respondents are self-selecting. I wonder how many intermediate players participate in them. Maybe you think they don't matter, we should make GIB bid like an expert to the extent possible. But the majority of players are intermediate (or worse), and we want GIB to bid in ways that they would be comfortable with.

So, GIB will soon be bidding SAYC? I think the goal should be for GIB to behave like an Intermediate+ to Advanced player, but I suppose that might be a personal bias. The best way to make GIB comfortable for lower-level players would be to get it to stop doing absurd things by (a) seriously reducing his proclivity to simulate rather than making the book bid, and (b) hire someone who can figure out how to teach GIB to follow general defensive card-play rules, including basic signalling.

barmar, on 2012-June-01, 15:54, said:

So do we make special rules for 6, 7, and longer suits so that we don't inadvertently open 5-card suits with hands that are too weak? Is it worth taking risks like this just to handle this infrequent case?

Sounds like a plan to me.

[barmar]

Where does it end?

I'm reading the Bridge World report on the Bermuda Bowl. In the semifinals, at all four tables they opened 1♦ in 1st seat none vul with AJ852 - QJT9842 2, and when the auction proceeded 1♦ (P) 1♥ (1NT), 3 of the 4 openers reversed into 2♠ (Joe Grue only rebid 2♦). I kind of expect bidding like this in the high pressure environment of a major championship, but I don't think GIB should bid like this.