[baraka]

I have been playing abridge for quite some while now and there is one frustrating type of hand that cant be described using your actual GIB system...


Say RHO opens 1C and I have a 6-7 LTC, a 5 or more cards suit with an exactly 4 cards suit of a higher ranking. Say 1453, 2452 or 1462. I cant double because I dont have the Spades, I cant show my 2 suits with a reverse, I'm too weak. If I bid my Diamonds I will probably loose the possible heart fit. I'm stuck ! It's an impossible hand to describe !

Solution... Forget weak jump overcalls. After RHO has oppened, LHO already has a pretty good idea of where to go. Play Roman Jump Overcalls (RJO). A jump overcall shows a 6-7 LTC, the suit bid plus the next higher ranking one. The higher ranking suit is always exactly 4 cards, the lower is 5+. Loop around from S to C skipping the opponents opening suit. This thing has real preemptive and descriptive value. So...


On a 1C opening... 2D = H/4 & D/5+, 2H = S/4 & H/5+ and 2S = S/4 & D/5+

On a 1D opening... 2H = S/4 & H/5+, 2S = S/4 & C/5+ and 3C = H/4 & C/5+

On a 1H opening... 2S = S/4 & C/5+, 3C = D/4 & C/5+ and 3D = S/4 & D/5+

And a bit more risky...

On a 1S opening... 3C = D/4 & C/5+, 3D = H/4 & D/5+ and 3H = H/4 & C/5+

But it does not have to be so messy if you also play equal level correction after a takeout double. Just plan your bidding accordingly.

[hrothgar]

baraka, on 2014-June-10, 08:13, said:

I have been playing abridge for quite some while now and there is one frustrating type of hand that cant be described using your actual GIB system...


Say RHO opens 1C and I have a 6-7 LTC, a 5 or more cards suit with an exactly 4 cards suit of a higher ranking. Say 1453, 2452 or 1462. I cant double because I dont have the Spades, I cant show my 2 suits with a reverse, I'm too weak. If I bid my Diamonds I will probably loose the possible heart fit. I'm stuck ! It's an impossible hand to describe !

Solution... Forget weak jump overcalls. After RHO has oppened, LHO already has a pretty good idea of where to go. Play Roman Jump Overcalls (RJO). A jump overcall shows a 6-7 LTC, the suit bid plus the next higher ranking one. The higher ranking suit is always exactly 4 cards, the lower is 5+. Loop around from S to C skipping the opponents opening suit. This thing has real preemptive and descriptive value. So...

Regardless of the merits of this method, I dont think that it should be described as a Roman Jump Overcall which traditionally described a 5-5 hand pattern

[baraka]

hrothgar, on 2014-June-10, 08:18, said:

Regardless of the merits of this method, I dont think that it should be described as a Roman Jump Overcall which traditionally described a 5-5 hand pattern

It's called a Michaels cuebid. A 5-5 hand pattern is described with a Michaels cuebid.

[hrothgar]

baraka, on 2014-June-10, 19:21, said:

It's called a Michaels cuebid. A 5-5 hand pattern is described with a Michaels cuebid.

While it is true that a Michaels cue bid shows a 5-5 pattern, this is not its distinguishing feature.

Lets assume that RHO opens 1D

If you play Michaels cue bids and Unusual NT,

A 2♦ cue bid shows 5-5 in the majors
A 2NT overcall shows 5-5 in Clubs and Hearts

If you play Roman Jump Overcalls

A 2♥ overcall shows 5-5 in the majors
A 2♠ overcall shows 5-5 in spades and clubs
A 3♣ overcall shows 5-5 in clubs and hearts

I know that there are places on the internet that claim that RJO shows 5-4 patterns.
I am pretty sure that they are wrong. I have a bunch of the original source material which consistently show that the RJO required 5-5 shape.

I'm not ruling out the possibility that there is an aberrant hand or two where someone chose an RJO with a 5-4, but this is best regarded as a deviation not the actual agreement.

[baraka]

hrothgar, on 2014-June-11, 02:32, said:

While it is true that a Michaels cue bid shows a 5-5 pattern, this is not its distinguishing feature.

Lets assume that RHO opens 1D

If you play Michaels cue bids and Unusual NT,

A 2♦ cue bid shows 5-5 in the majors
A 2NT overcall shows 5-5 in Clubs and Hearts

If you play Roman Jump Overcalls

A 2♥ overcall shows 5-5 in the majors
A 2♠ overcall shows 5-5 in spades and clubs
A 3♣ overcall shows 5-5 in clubs and hearts

I know that there are places on the internet that claim that RJO shows 5-4 patterns.
I am pretty sure that they are wrong. I have a bunch of the original source material which consistently show that the RJO required 5-5 shape.

I'm not ruling out the possibility that there is an aberrant hand or two where someone chose an RJO with a 5-4, but this is best regarded as a deviation not the actual agreement.

Semantics, semantics, semantics !!! I DON'T CARE WHAT IT'S CALLED. It's the idea that counts. Call it what you want !!!!

[hrothgar]

baraka, on 2014-June-11, 12:26, said:

Semantics, semantics, semantics !!! I DON'T CARE WHAT IT'S CALLED. It's the idea that counts. Call it what you want !!!!

Fine. Lets call it a "Weak Jump Overcall".
I'm sure this will help accurately disclose our methods to the opponents...

[Bbradley62]

So, is the suggestion that these jump overcalls should be 4/5+ hands (as in the original post) or 5/5 hands (as discussed later)?

[Stephen Tu]

Either of which would be ridiculous to put in GIB, because standard one-suited weak jump natural overcalls are orders of magnitude more common than Roman jumps or Roman like jumps, in circles ranging from beginners to experts.

baraka, the GIB system has plenty of outright bugs in it now. We should be concentrating on reporting those so that they get fixed, not so much "please insert my pet convention here", because GIB has to cater to the average BBO player, who is NOT playing this. If anything, GIB ought to be playing FEWER gadgets (e.g. transfers after 1M-1nt-2nt-?, Cappelletti which it butchers now anyway?) not more.

[baraka]

Ok. Had to think a bit before answering that one. Let me start by stating that bridge is a bidder’s game. You can be the greatest card player in the world, it will do you no good if you are too often in a bad contract. On the other hand, you may well be an average card player but if you are consistently in the right contract, you will always perform. An extension to that statement is that if you can arrange for the opps to be in a bad contract, you will also perform. The secret to being in the right contract is ‘Picture Bids’. The secret to having the opps in a bad contract is disruptive bids. The more picture bids conventions and the more disruptive bids conventions you have, the better off you will be.

As for GIB, the reason it is off so often is not because it has too many conventions. It is because it has too few. With too few, it has too many branches on it’s decision tree. As for the players, more conventions would be a better learning experience. Isn’t that what bridge is all about… a learning experience ? The bids are explained anyway !

So, to that effect, when I play at the club, my partner and I play…

BETSY on opp’s 1NT (15-17) as described in my `Cappelletti post. This convention is both descriptive and disruptive.

RJO (as described in my RJO post) along with Mod Michaels cues (6-7 LTC) and «same level corrections» which does not promise extra after a TO double is corrected at the same level as the response. It works the same way as RJO. The way I play Mod Michaels is 2NT = 2 lowest, Cuebid of minor = highest & lowest, Jump Cue of minor = 2 highest. If the opening suit is a major… Cuebid = other major & a minor and a jump cue of the major = I have 9 tricks if you have a stopper in the opps major (bid 3NT). How many times have you been stopped from bidding because you had that major and not the other one. How nice !

It is ridiculous to bid 1NT(15-17) in sandwich position if not a past hand. Partner will have 2-3 TP and it will be a disaster. Play 5-5 or better (6-7 LTC) even if not passed and play Astro Cues also in sandwich position. It promises a 4-6 or 4-7 in the other 2 unbid suits. The lower cue = long in lower unbid suit. The higher cue = long in the higher unbid suit. Perfect picture bids !

Vasilevsky… After LHO opens a major, P, 1NT (forcing) by RHO… if you pass and they end up in 2S you will have to enter at the 3 level which wont be very comfortable. Remember that the 1NT bidder might have a very weak hand and that partner was unable to bid. So… after the 1NT(forcing)…

X transfer to C
2C transfer to D
2D transfer to Other Major
Cue bid : Strong takeout
2 Of Other Major (4 cards, Weak Takeout, 4441 type)
2NT : 2 Minors 5-5
3Min : Min/6 & Other Maj/4

Descriptive and very disruptive !


And I have others if you want !


Regards

[helene_t]

baraka, if you want to tell us about your favorite conventions I think you should do so in a different forum, for example general bridge discussion. Obviously they won't be implemented in GIB. But that doesn't necesarily mean that other people are not interested in them.

[gordontd]

baraka, on 2014-June-11, 12:26, said:

Semantics, semantics, semantics !!! I DON'T CARE WHAT IT'S CALLED. It's the idea that counts. Call it what you want !!!!

You are the one who is using names in an unusual way!

[Stephen Tu]

baraka, on 2014-June-23, 08:31, said:

As for GIB, the reason it is off so often is not because it has too many conventions. It is because it has too few. With too few, it has too many branches on it's decision tree.

This notion of yours is simply wrong. It is not from lack of conventions. There are just too many spots in the DB where the *natural* bid options it has are poorly defined. The strength requirements or distributional requirements for bids are simply far off from what they should be. Giving it more obscure conventions won't fix these holes, there isn't a convention to fix "don't pull partner's 3nt into a 4-3 fit for no particular reason" or "don't bid slam because partner guessed to bid game in competition and your buggy DB thinks that promises 25 hcp". Those are "common sense" type rules that have to be programmed into GIB, there is no convention for them, and really the vast majority of the bug reports (read through old threads on this forum!) are of this type. Really, go through a ton of threads on this forum. How many of these bugs really would be fixed by addition of a convention, vs. simply redefining natural bids with more proper constraints, or re-prioritizing the selection of multiple natural options? Adding RJO or any of your other conventions listed here isn't going to fix GIB horrendous overbidding or underbidding or misbidding on completely irrelevant auctions. Playing BETSY instead of Capp might improve GIB because GIB plays Capp so badly and Capp is a dodgy convention to begin with, but it's still impractical, because while probably 90+% of players have heard of Capp, well < 1% have ever heard of BETSY.

Quote

[various pet conventions]

You do realize that most world class experts get along perfectly fine not having any of these pet conventions of yours, and still would clobber you without them? Conventions can sometimes plug a hole, and are often employed, but having reasonable natural definitions for bids, with good judgment on when to employ them, is far more important generally. A very large percentage of the time, playing natural vs. playing a convention, should lead you to the exact same contract! An expert pair, playing a very simplified card with very few, only the most common conventions, will still get to much better contracts on average than an intermediate pair who decided to play 4 times as many gadgets, deploying every interesting looking one from the convention encyclopedia. Once every few sessions, the lesser pair may get a "system win", a hand that fits their gadget selection perfectly, that is poorly handled by more natural bids, but they would still get overwhelmed from bidding too much/not enough on other boards.

These pet conventions of yours that you mention above are very rarely used; if they were so clearly superior they'd gain greater popularity.

[1eyedjack]

I used to go through a phase of thinking that all I needed to do was to bid effectively, and the card play would take care of itself.

Then it began to dawn on me that if I could play the spots off the cards, maybe the bidding is not so important.

Over my youth I used to swing back and forth between these extremes like a pendulum.

I am currently in a "card play matters" phase. But of course both are very important to win at a top level. I would certainly no longer place system as the critical component the way that I did in my formative years.

[Phil]

The term is fine as is the description.

The suggested venue to use RJOs is not.

[concorde7]

baraka, on 2014-June-23, 08:31, said:

Ok. Had to think a bit before answering that one. Let me start by stating that bridge is a bidder’s game. You can be the greatest card player in the world, it will do you no good if you are too often in a bad contract. On the other hand, you may well be an average card player but if you are consistently in the right contract, you will always perform. An extension to that statement is that if you can arrange for the opps to be in a bad contract, you will also perform. The secret to being in the right contract is ‘Picture Bids’. The secret to having the opps in a bad contract is disruptive bids. The more picture bids conventions and the more disruptive bids conventions you have, the better off you will be.

As for GIB, the reason it is off so often is not because it has too many conventions. It is because it has too few. With too few, it has too many branches on it’s decision tree. As for the players, more conventions would be a better learning experience. Isn’t that what bridge is all about… a learning experience ? The bids are explained anyway !

So, to that effect, when I play at the club, my partner and I play…

BETSY on opp’s 1NT (15-17) as described in my `Cappelletti post. This convention is both descriptive and disruptive.

RJO (as described in my RJO post) along with Mod Michaels cues (6-7 LTC) and «same level corrections» which does not promise extra after a TO double is corrected at the same level as the response. It works the same way as RJO. The way I play Mod Michaels is 2NT = 2 lowest, Cuebid of minor = highest & lowest, Jump Cue of minor = 2 highest. If the opening suit is a major… Cuebid = other major & a minor and a jump cue of the major = I have 9 tricks if you have a stopper in the opps major (bid 3NT). How many times have you been stopped from bidding because you had that major and not the other one. How nice !

It is ridiculous to bid 1NT(15-17) in sandwich position if not a past hand. Partner will have 2-3 TP and it will be a disaster. Play 5-5 or better (6-7 LTC) even if not passed and play Astro Cues also in sandwich position. It promises a 4-6 or 4-7 in the other 2 unbid suits. The lower cue = long in lower unbid suit. The higher cue = long in the higher unbid suit. Perfect picture bids !

Vasilevsky… After LHO opens a major, P, 1NT (forcing) by RHO… if you pass and they end up in 2S you will have to enter at the 3 level which wont be very comfortable. Remember that the 1NT bidder might have a very weak hand and that partner was unable to bid. So… after the 1NT(forcing)…

X transfer to C
2C transfer to D
2D transfer to Other Major
Cue bid : Strong takeout
2 Of Other Major (4 cards, Weak Takeout, 4441 type)
2NT : 2 Minors 5-5
3Min : Min/6 & Other Maj/4

Descriptive and very disruptive !


And I have others if you want !


Regards

Can you explain Betsy's convention please ?

[johnu]

baraka, on 2014-June-11, 12:26, said:

Semantics, semantics, semantics !!! I DON'T CARE WHAT IT'S CALLED. It's the idea that counts. Call it what you want !!!!

I'll call it "Not going to happen". No matter what you call it, it is used by a small minority of players and is far from mainstream. BBO is not going to waste time on a marginal convention. Maybe if it was possible to choose this as an option, but there are no options in the BBO system, so never seems the right estimate.

As it is, BBO is having way too much trouble fixing bugs in run of the mill common bidding situations which should have been fixed years ago.