BBO Discussion Forums: 6-12 - BBO Discussion Forums

I never noticed this but how can 6-12 be the right range here?



Yes I know I misplayed it and should have made 10 tricks. Also, nice ♣9 switch by gibE. I am the worst bridge player who has ever learned to post on the internet and GIB is by far better than I am.

6-12 can't be the right range despite all that. You can't bid the same way with Axx Kxxx xxx xxx and Axx AKJxx xxx xx.

gwnn, on 2016-May-01, 14:11, said:

No, you are right.

Gib North has options here.
Logically, something like:
2♥ ~ 6-9
3♥ ~ 10-11
4♥ ~ 12+

(In more advanced methods, perhaps also has the option of first forcing with 3♣.)

On this hand, presumably, N should bid 4♥ over pd's takeout-X.

Yes that sounds about right. I just wanted to start out with the basics, that 6-12 is definitely the wrong range.

Its bidding sequence is very strange.

First, I checked and replayed it :

Result : 2♥N+2
I would get same result here.
It is first time for me to see such bad responding 2♥, I would comfirm this Be not a Gib regular responding, very very strange, so I have to imitate Gib bidding at below.


Result : 4♥S=
Now you see this is a familiar bidding sequence of normal Gibs.

Your version evaluates it as 13+, but that doesn't mean that 6-12 is the correct range.

Stefan_O, on 2016-May-01, 15:14, said:

Here are exact Gib CC :

2♥ = Free bid,new suit --- 4+♥,6-12 TPs

2NT = Two NT to double --- 2-5♣, 2-5♦,2-4♥,2-4♠,12-13hcp, stop in ♣.

3♣ = 13+TPs

3♥ = Jump in competition --- 4+♥,10-12 TPs

3NT = Two NT to double --- 2-5♣, 2-5♦,2-4♥,2-4♠,14-17hcp, stop in ♣.

4♣ = 5+♠, 13+TPs, forcing to 4♠

4♥= 5+♥,14+TPs

Quote

I would say that 6-12 TPs is a better acceptable option.
Assume it indicates 6-12 HCP, obviously it is a wrong range.

What do you mean by "better acceptable"? 6-12 TP for 2H, 10-12 TP for 3H. Don't see that one of these is wrong? I know that TP is not the same as HCP. I am saying that 6-12 TP or HCP, anything, is clearly wrong. The CC you wrote is self contradictory. It should be 6-9, 10-12, 13+. Can you ever agree that GIB is wrong about something?

gwnn, on 2016-May-01, 16:40, said:

Hi Gwnn :
Keep calm , please.
As a expert, your comment really made me surprised !
Even Stephen Tu ever said " Gibs is a kind of rigid...", however sometimes it is necessary to keep system flexible --- that's to say the bridge needs more logic thinking and judgement in any situations.
Here I would take a example according to your method.



According to your rigid method, this hand is worth of 10 TPs, but saddness that its result is 3♥N-1.
May I ask you a serious question?
For you, how to keep Gib bidding system flexible ?
You meant it is unnecessary for the players to make logic thinking and basic judgement in some situations?

As a bidding system, if without compatibility and tolerance, it is not a mature solution !

Any ideas?

Since we know that GIB's explanations have this "least common denominator" feature that Barmar has explained, it might be helpful to know if there is some criteria that helps GIB decide whether to bid 2♥ or 3♥ when it has 4♥ and 10-12 total points. Even if there is, it's unlikely that this hand qualifies for the weaker option rather than the stronger one.

lycier, on 2016-May-01, 15:54, said:

Where did you find this, please? Link?

What does it give as meaning for double of 2C?

Thanks

1eyedjack, on 2016-May-01, 22:45, said:

No link. While I play with/against Gibs, I can click many optional bids and then remember their meanings.

As for the meaning for double of 2♣, on the Gib CC, north double says " Responsive double --- 3+♦,4+♥,4+♠, 8+TPs."

Lycier, I asked you three questions in my previous post and you answered none of them. Well, you answered my last one implicitly with "no, I can never 100% admit GIB is wrong". All I got were vague comments about rigidity and maturity. No thanks. Of course I know that sometimes when I make an invitational bid to the 3 level and my partner rejects, we could go down and I will wish I had bid only 2. That doesn't make the range 6-12 correct. Maybe it could be 6-10. I'd be OK with that. But can't you see that 6-12 is too wide? (this is a question, feel free to answer it)

Stefan_O, on 2016-May-01, 15:14, said:

I don't think that we can survive without those "more advanced methods". It is not that complicated. With a balanced GF in response to double, start with a cue bid rather than leaping to 4 of an unbid major on a mere 4 card suit.

An often repeated problem is GIB's failure to account for off-shape doubles that are possible when doubler has extras. Advancer invariably assumes at least 3 card support for all unbid suits. For as long as you give the double a complex definition, you cannot avoid correspondingly complex continuations.

With less than GF values of course you have to bid your 4 card major, but then there should be room for doubler to remove.

Sometimes it is smart to overcall at two level with the range of 6-12 TPs in the process of willing overcall and responding,

Sometimes it is smart to answer simple yes/no questions with yes/no answers out of common courtesy. OK this time I really will stop reading/replying to your posts. Sorry again for everyone.

I have answered your question! However my answer can't let you become happy.
6-12 TPs, it probably comes from shape points, 3♥=10-12TPs, usually it needs more hcp to support it.
If don't know how to keep system flexible, that is a fake expert.
The bridge isn't a science and there is no perfect system in the world.

Lycier, gwnn asked you a direct yes/no question, whether 6-12 for 2♥ was too wide a range. He wanted you to just say "yes" or "no". You basically answered "no" without actually writing "no", but everyone else disagrees with you. Look if 2H is that wide a range, either you miss a lot of games because doubler passes looking for a plus score, but then is surprised when there is a 12 count over there. Or doubler raises aggressively and goes down at 3 a lot because advancer has the more normal expected 7-8 count. The more standard range would be maybe 7-9 or 7-10 TP.

The example you posted, where jumping to 3H gets you overboard, is really a bad example. For one thing, on that hand E/W are making 5 of a minor. You weren't ever going to buy it for 2H, the opps should compete to 3c at least. So 3h down is actually a good result for you. For the other, with both majors the advancer should responsive double 2c instead.

Stephen Tu, on 2016-May-02, 10:01, said:

First, you said " You weren't ever going to buy it for 2H, the opps should compete to 3c at least. "

Now I would check and replay it :

Result : 2♥N=

If you specially emphasis on " the opps should compete to 3c at least. "
Ok, I would help opp to overcall 3♣, but its explanation....



Now you see that 3♣ says " 4+♣,17-18TPs ".
If compete to 3♣, opener will be asking for trouble, very difficult to handle with the following sequence.

Stephen Tu, on 2016-May-02, 10:01, said:

For the other, with both majors the advancer should responsive double 2c instead.

---

Result : 3♥N-1
After my responsive double, just as you earlier said, opener will of course compete to 3♣, but south Gib pass, so I would better bid 5-card ♥.
Stephen Tu, if I only hold 4-4 majors, facing to opp's 3♣ and pd's pass, it seems my only choice is pass.

In fact, that is a old issue.

lycier, on 2016-May-02, 16:21, said:

So, all you've done is point out more bugs in GIB's competitive bidding to be fixed. Opener should be able to bid 3c over 2h competitively just on holding 5 cd clubs, without it being a game try. 5+ clubs, say 12-16 TP, not the 17-18 it apparently is now. Just because GIB's bidding as opps is also broken doesn't mean that we should break NS bidding 2H on super wide range to cater to your sort of hand. BOTH sequences should be fixed, then GIB is more effective bidder both as NS and EW on these hands.

If you bid 2H on super wide range, you just miss way too many games, even if EW remain silent. The original post, 12 HCP and 5 cd suit 2H is completely ridiculous, or you think that is actually the right bid? Even slightly weaker, you are missing a hell of a lot of games.

Getting to 3 on 10-11 is perfectly fine, even if you go down one occasionally, because of all the games you'll bid and make (that wouldn't be bid if partner has minimal takeout double and passes 2H) as compensation, along with the hands where EW can make something and it works as a good sac.

None of your example hands is at all justifying your belief that 6-12 is a reasonable range for 2H. They are just pointing out more GIB sequences that ought to be optimized/fixed.

Quote

3H is a reasonable call having made responsive double over 2c, now you show both the 5th heart and the 4 cd spades. But it's not really the best call over 2c IMO.

Holding 4-4 in the majors, one can make a responsive double over 2c, and over 3c passed back to you, you can double again if at the top end of your range, or you can pass with a minimum if partner chose not to bid.

And here, although opener is right to bid 3c, the range of 12-18 is again too wide IMO. Probably should be ~12-16.