[1eyedjack]

---

From North's perspective it has to be a virtual racing certainty that there are five cashing Spades against 3N.
I thought that I done enough to push them to 3♠
The description of my 3♣ bid includes "16 total points", which I actually had for a change.
3♣ does not imply any game interest. The earlier bid of 2♣ denies any interest in game, and the cards have not been redealt within a round of bidding. I don't think I should need 16 total points to bid 3♣. Having already denied game interest I should be allowed to decide that I do not want to defend 2♠ without partner then getting excited.

[billw55]

Why bid clubs a third time with a crappy five card suit? I prefer to double 2♠. Is such handhogging normal when playing with robots?

Of course this has no bearing on the bizarreness of 3NT.

[1eyedjack]

You may be right. My reasoning was

1) I know that the opponents are in a 9 card fit at the 2 level. I do not expect North to respond 1N with a 4 card ♠ suit.

2) I am pretty confident that we have at least an 8 card ♣ fit. I am not absolutely certain but I expect GIB to respond 1♦ rather than 1N with 3-3-5-2 shape.

3) Given both of the above I am confident that I want to be in 3♣, at least rather than defend 2♠. What would be the purpose of doubling 2♠? The sole purpose of doubling would be to provide partner with a choice of contracts. But I am not interested in providing a choice, as I know where I want to be. One of the choices that North might be minded to consider is passing out the double. I don't object to that at the 3 level but I would rather that they got there first.

[Antrax]

billw55, on 2013-November-05, 07:23, said:

Is such handhogging normal when playing with robots?

Yes, in fact. And much worse than that.
Not sure 2♣ denies game interest, it's pretty wide-ranging.

[1eyedjack]

Antrax, on 2013-November-05, 09:12, said:

Not sure 2♣ denies game interest, it's pretty wide-ranging.

I think this is an interesting observation.
I noticed that the explanation places an upper limit on the total points of the 2♣ rebid, but without doing the sums I had simply assumed that it was calculated as the maximum at which in context South would have no game interest. My assumption derived from my expectation of its standard meaning outside of GIBberish.

But here, North's 1NT has an upper limit of 10 HCP while South's 2C shows an upper limit of 16 total points. Granted that we are not comparing like with like there does appear to be some scope for sufficient values for game.

One of the problems here is that the only game in the cross-hairs is 3NT, and South's total point count, while being relevant in the ensuing partscore battle, is rather irrelevant to assessing the merits of 3NT, where South's HCP (undefined per the explanation) would be of greater interest to North.

It may well be that the programmers intended 2♣ to deny game interest, assigned it what they thought was a maximum total point count consistent with that conclusion, but reckoned without the imagination of North, having failed to actually tell North in no uncertain words that whatever he thought of the matter, South was not interested in 3NT.

[Antrax]

IIRC, in SA 2♣ can be (11)12-17 HCP - with more you jump shift, with less you don't open. If responder finds a fit, he may be interested in 3NT opposite the top of the range.

[Bbradley62]

Antrax, on 2013-November-06, 15:26, said:

IIRC, in SA 2♣ can be (11)12-17 HCP - with more you jump shift, with less you don't open. If responder finds a fit, he may be interested in 3NT opposite the top of the range.

In SA, I'd jump in suit with 16 total (not HC) points, making this bid roughly the same minumum strength as a 1NT opener. In BBO's step-by-step convention card (called simply "SAYC"), 2♣ is specifically called a sign-off. In the "BBO Advanced 1.3" card, 2♣ is called a non-forcing minumum, not specifically a sign-off.

[Antrax]

Huh. I guess it's one of those cases where someone taught me whatever they felt like and called it "SAYC".

Why would you want to game force on a strong NT 5-4-2-2 opposite a balanced six-count, though?

[1eyedjack]

off-topic, but I like playing inverted minor rebids when partners are agreeable. ie
uncontested 1C-1N-3C = signout. 1C-1N-2C = 1RF (not GF but no upper limit)
The point being that 1N expresses a fit (the vast majority of the time if not guaranteed by agreement), a 2C signout is highly unlikely to be respected by the opps, and when they balance you are in turn highly likely to take the push to 3C.
Actually not entirely off-topic. The OP hand is a good example of 1C-1N-3C-P (except that GIB does not play that, and my impression is that it is a minority treatment among humans)

[Bbradley62]

Antrax, on 2013-November-06, 18:25, said:

Why would you want to game force on a strong NT 5-4-2-2 opposite a balanced six-count, though?

First, with 5422 and a Strong NT strength, I'd likely open 1NT (assuming the 5card suit is still a minor). Second, I don't see the phrase "game force" anywhere in my previous post. I agree with BBO's SAYC definition of 1♣-1N-3♣: Invitational, 6+♣, 16-18 (total) points. With a minimum 1N bid, partner should pass.

[Antrax]

Oh, I completely misread the auction, sorry. I thought the opening bid was 1♠ for some reason. 1♣-1NT-2♣ is strictly a signoff. Sorry for the confusion.

[billw55]

1eyedjack, on 2013-November-05, 09:06, said:

You may be right. My reasoning was

1) I know that the opponents are in a 9 card fit at the 2 level. I do not expect North to respond 1N with a 4 card ♠ suit.

2) I am pretty confident that we have at least an 8 card ♣ fit. I am not absolutely certain but I expect GIB to respond 1♦ rather than 1N with 3-3-5-2 shape.

3) Given both of the above I am confident that I want to be in 3♣, at least rather than defend 2♠. What would be the purpose of doubling 2♠? The sole purpose of doubling would be to provide partner with a choice of contracts. But I am not interested in providing a choice, as I know where I want to be. One of the choices that North might be minded to consider is passing out the double. I don't object to that at the 3 level but I would rather that they got there first.

I guess I was thinking in terms of describing my hand, and letting partner place the contract. Yes, chances are high he will bid 3♣, but I would prefer to at least include him rather than misdescribing my hand. All of which is fine with a human partner, but maybe entirely meaningless with a robot. Future considerations like failure of trust, tilting, etc are off the table.

[helene_t]

The description of opps' bidding suggest (bizarely) that they could easily have a 4-4 fit. And the description of your bid is 6+clubs, 16 total points. IOW even if you don't have a spade stopper it is quite possible that opps take their 4 tricks and then you have nine top tricks.

So it is not shocking if the sims show that 3NT makes reasonably often, and that even when it is down it is not (much) worse than 3♣ which could also go down on a bad day.

I think it is fine that GIB makes decision that way. Trying to program a "I described my hand so now I shut up" rule might be fine is specific situations like after our preempts, but in general I think GIB's strategy is fine.

In this auction, however, it would be better if it credited East with a 5-card spades.

[ArtK78]

My experience with Robots on BBO tells me that when you take a lot of bids on a minimum hand, even when you know it is right to get to the contract that you are bidding (3♣ in this case), the bots will take this as showing extras and will bid again. This explains the 3NT call.

There are two ways you could have dealt with GIB on this hand. One would be to pass 1NT. Later, you might get away with a 3♣ call, but I can't say that for sure.

The other way is to rebid 2♣ and not bid again. Even when you know that you should be competing to 3♣, it is far too dangerous playing with bots to compete - they will hang you almost every time.