[smerriman]

zhasbeen, on 2017-November-19, 21:18, said:

All I said is that partial stopper cannot include the ace. Who said anything about stoppers in every suit?

You did.

You said yourself that you thought "promises a partial stopper" also means "denies a full stopper".

GIB's description promised a "partial stop in ♣, partial stop in ♦, partial stop in ♥".

Therefore, if your assumption was correct, you are assuming GIB is denying a full stopper in all three suits by bidding 3NT.

This is of course nonsense, so your original assumption was also nonsensical.

[zhasbeen]

So much for the peace offering. For some reason, merriman, you go out of your way to put me down. It hurts, and I don't know why you do it. I've read several of your posts in the past and know that you are intelligent. I don't think you are being objective.
On this thing: "You said yourself that you thought "promises a partial stopper" also means "denies a full stopper". This is true, and I stand by it as does the ACBL.
When you make statements like you did it tells me that you haven't read what I said. You just zero in on a part you disagree with and think of a way to pick me apart. I KNOW that the GIB definitions are broader than what we'd use while discussing it before an offline game. I admitted that I was confused.

Below is my record for last 7 tournaments, including back-to-back wins yesterday in games of 59 and 34 tables.
The 59-table win was a new record, taking out my old record of 54 tables. However, I'm sure you could find plenty of errors if you were to watch all the replays, as could I.

As I was playing, I realized that I would go several hands at a time without even looking at a definition.
As I said before, almost all my posts here contain hands that I've had problems with, which is the same for most of us.
While the great majority of deals are challenging, most of the time GIB is a good partner, or at least acceptable. Sometimes he is great.


Here they are in order of date, number of tables, overall placing, MP score:

11/18/2017 20 2 62.7%
11/18/2017 26 2 68.5%
11/18/2017 32 2 64.9%
11/19/2017 25 2 63.3%
11/20/2017 59 1 74.0%
11/20/2017 34 1 66.2%
11/20/2017 22 3 61.4%

[Stephen Tu]

zhasbeen, on 2017-November-21, 08:16, said:

On this thing: "You said yourself that you thought "promises a partial stopper" also means "denies a full stopper". This is true, and I stand by it as does the ACBL.

ACBL does no such thing. There is a humongous difference between stating "this sort of holding is considered a partial stopper", we are all in agreement there with the ACBL def you quoted, vs. "when someone puts in system notes that partial stopper is expected in unbid suits, you should read it as a full stopper is denied". No one, I repeat NO ONE, sensibly makes a system where a NT bid shows exactly partial stoppers in unbid suits but denies full ones, except in auctions where you unambiguously ask partner for a stopper in a specific suit, he denies, then you either ask again then he shows, or attempt 3nt yourself having previously asked for stopper there. This idea of assume partial stopper promised in unbids means exactly partial stopper and no more is your own nonsensical invention.

Some might have agreement that "2nt opener shows partial stopper all suits". Does that mean you assume their 2nt opener cannot have a full stopper in any suit?? That wouldn't make any sense whatsoever. The words "at least" are implied. To think that people have to explicitly put "at least partial stopper" in their notes or else the default implication should be "exactly and at most partial stopper" is insane.

Nobody is trying to put you down, it's not personal, we are attacking the idea not the person. We just try to correct views that are nonsensical, for the benefit of both you and whoever might read this forum, who may not know which views make sense or not. Things that don't make sense deserve to be shot down.,

[zhasbeen]

how do I delete this? Unintentional double post

[zhasbeen]

zhasbeen, on 2017-November-21, 11:48, said:

"we are all in agreement there with the ACBL def you quoted"

That's a relief.
This exchange is one of many times that words have failed me. It's one reason why I only play robot tournaments online. I tried playing with humans on OkBridge several years ago before I finally got tired of trying to communicate with people using only keyboard and mouse. That wasn't the only thing, but it was a big part of it. With the robots I can sit in my easy chair and click away, without using the keyboard once the game starts. That's it--no discussion with anyone until the round is over. I much prefer offline clubs for playing with humans. That's where the real test is.

I think I get what you've been saying, but have trouble find the words to confirm it.
" To think that people have to explicitly put "at least partial stopper" in their notes or else the default implication should be "exactly and at most partial stopper" is insane."

That's not what I believe, but I don't doubt that you could find a quote(s) of mine that suggests otherwise. What started all this was my not knowing when certain definitions promised the ace and when they didn't. I still don't have clarity in that respect but haven't done all the homework I need to do. Most of the time I don't depend on definitions, and more often than not they've been helpful when I've need them. The trick for me will be learning how taking better advantage of them. I understand that having crystal clear explanations for every deal is not feasible.

And there's the challenge of finding fixes for the problems. I read merriman's "what's the purpose of this forum?" post earlier.

"Nobody is trying to put you down, it's not personal, we are attacking the idea not the personal."

My perception has gone back and forth. Sometimes it feels personal and there are other times it feels more like a teacher scolding when they are trying to help you. Sometimes it can be so frustrating to get you point across that you want to scream at them.

Anyway, I know that I've learned some things since I started hanging around here. I appreciate your taking the time to respond to my posts, as well as others.

[smerriman]

Apologies if you thought I was putting you down in any way - not my intention in the slightest.

I though the main point of this thread was that you thought the description implied a lack of stopper, and thus the description needed fixing - was just pointing out that if you follow this through to a logical conclusion, you'd get something absurd, so your assumption couldn't have been correct.

But I guess I must have misunderstood

[zhasbeen]

smerriman, on 2017-November-21, 15:46, said:

Apologies if you thought I was putting you down in any way - not my intention in the slightest.

I though the main point of this thread was that you thought the description implied a lack of stopper, and thus the description needed fixing - was just pointing out that if you follow this through to a logical conclusion, you'd get something absurd, so your assumption couldn't have been correct.

But I guess I must have misunderstood

Thanks, merriman--greatly appreciated. People who are insensitive don't do what you just did. I didn't do the greatest job of explaining where I was coming from.

[jdonn]

Partial stopper means partial stopper or better. Common sense must be used. Sorry but I think you were being a bit too literal.

[zhasbeen]

jdonn, on 2017-November-22, 10:45, said:

Partial stopper means partial stopper or better. Common sense must be used. Sorry but I think you were being a bit too literal.

“Sorry but I think you were being a bit too literal.”
No doubt about that part

“"we are all in agreement there with the ACBL def you quoted"”
Finally, following post after post, it was finally confirmed. That was enough for me to let this thing go, but…

“Common sense must be used”
This one strikes a nerve, as do words like “ridiculous” and “absurd”

I would wager that I’m not the only person who has been confused by this one. Of course these people with the double digit, K, Q, R, star, and double digit number ratings will have learned their lesson after a couple years of play or longer. I just learned mine after 3 months. When I enter a tournament I am often “flight B” with my 7 rating, but I have enough common sense to have consistently finished in top 3 overall (45% after 613 tournaments). You give me a great excuse for bringing up my playing record for at least the 3rd time. I know that I’m outgunned by some of you but I’m still pretty good at this.

Remember, not everyone who plays in robot tournaments looks at these situations the way a programmer would. It seems that many, if not most, of the people who post here are programmers that have years of experience playing with robots.
Does it really take a lack of common sense to run your cursor over the 3NT definition without having to ask yourself “I know it says partial stopper, but does it really mean that?”
The players should be able to put their energies into deciding how to bid and play the hands. I was on my 11th board. After GIB’s 3NT bid I ran my cursor over the call and it landed squarely on “Partial stop in [heart icon]” and I ran with it. Normally I wouldn’t bother with definition following a NT response, but I thought it might have a systemic meaning in the context of this auction, and that it did. I would have been much better off with no definition in this case.

Would it be that unfeasible to incorporate “or better” into the definition? It makes such a huge difference in how the definition could be interpreted. Click on tinyurl link in first post of thread, and then look at definition of 3NT bid. It is about a foot wide with “Partial stop” appearing 3 times. You could save 9 characters just by saying “Part” rather than partial. How about saying it only once rather than 3 times, and using the suit symbols? Couldn’t it be something like:
“14-21 hcp; 4+trump; Part stop or better ♠;♥;♦;♣"

Btw, the north hand has only 13 hcp.

[Stephen Tu]

zhasbeen, on 2017-November-23, 10:43, said:

Does it really take a lack of common sense to run your cursor over the 3NT definition without having to ask yourself "I know it says partial stopper, but does it really mean that?"

Yes. The explanation said "partial stopper club, partial stopper diamond, partial stopper heart". A partial stopper is Qxx or worse. So you are positing that partner has Txxx Qxx Qxx Jxx and bid Jacoby 2nt, if you take partial stopper 100% literally and are assuming an "exactly, no more than" qualifier.

You have 16 HCP and think partner made a GF bid with zero aces and zero kings?

Basically this forum has been around a long time and you are the first to have complained about the wording of this as thinking full stopper is denied. (previous complaint was when a takeout dbl followed by cue bid had explicit description "at best partial stopper in x", despite having a full stopper, which was supposedly fixed). Most people are capable of making the logical deduction that partial stopper means "partial or better". Not just from playing with bots, but also from general bridge experience that no one ever defines NT bids as "partial stoppers only, full stoppers not allowed!".

As for adding the "or better", we don't really know how the descriptions are generated here. The descriptions are combinations of descriptions attached to multiple rules as they are matched, it might require quite a bit of work to combine say "partial stopper or better in H; partial stopper or better in D;" into a single "partial stopper or better in H, D". There are many more, much bigger fish to fry than asking for them to spend time on this one to make it more verbose just for you.

[zhasbeen]

Stephen Tu, on 2017-November-23, 11:54, said:

Yes. The explanation said "partial stopper club, partial stopper diamond, partial stopper heart". A partial stopper is Qxx or worse. So you are positing that partner has Txxx Qxx Qxx Jxx and bid Jacoby 2nt, if you take partial stopper 100% literally and are assuming an "exactly, no more than" qualifier.

You have 16 HCP and think partner made a GF bid with zero aces and zero kings?

Basically this forum has been around a long time and you are the first to have complained about the wording of this as thinking full stopper is denied. (previous complaint was when a takeout dbl followed by cue bid had explicit description "at best partial stopper in x", despite having a full stopper, which was supposedly fixed). Most people are capable of making the logical deduction that partial stopper means "partial or better". Not just from playing with bots, but also from general bridge experience that no one ever defines NT bids as "partial stoppers only, full stoppers not allowed!".

As for adding the "or better", we don't really know how the descriptions are generated here. The descriptions are combinations of descriptions attached to multiple rules as they are matched, it might require quite a bit of work to combine say "partial stopper or better in H; partial stopper or better in D;" into a single "partial stopper or better in H, D". There are many more, much bigger fish to fry than asking for them to spend time on this one to make it more verbose just for you.

“You have 16 HCP and think partner made a GF bid with zero aces and zero kings?”

This comment is not even related to the conversation. “Notrump opener –can have 5-card major” or something very close is what definition says. It doesn’t promise a stopper in any suit, since you can have a worthless doubleton. The 3NT response we are talking about is unique to a particular type of auction.

“Yes. The explanation said "partial stopper club, partial stopper diamond, partial stopper heart". A partial stopper is Qxx or worse. So you are positing that partner has Txxx Qxx Qxx Jxx and bid Jacoby 2nt, if you take partial stopper 100% literally and are assuming an "exactly, no more than" qualifier.”

I am looser on the various descriptions of partial stopper. The part I won’t bend on is that it could contain an ace. Part stoppers can’t contain aces; plain and simple. However, I am confident I can handle the current definition as is. It's a definition I haven't seen used anywhere other than these tournaments.

If it’s too hard to change the definition to describe what it really means, then so be it.

“Basically this forum has been around a long time and you are the first to have complained about the wording of this as thinking full stopper is denied.”

This forum makes up a tiny fraction of the players that have entered BBO tournaments and others who will enter them in the future. From my experience forum members are not your typical players either. Most of the exchanges I’ve had since joining have been with members having programming backgrounds to go with their strong bridge credentials. I’ve also looked in on a few threads that I could understand only small parts of. You can’t expect your new customers to apply the same reasoning you do.

“There are many more, much bigger fish to fry than asking for them to spend time on this one to make it more verbose just for you.”

I couldn’t agree more on the underlined part, and I personally don’t need it to be changed. However, I believe it is possible to make a more accurate description than what is in place now that is even more compact.