[H_KARLUK]

Scoring: IMP

---

Random hands

P 1♦ 1♠ 2♣
P 2♥ P   3♣
X P  3♠   X
AP

-1700

Why GIB did not allow to play 3♣ doubled after my twice pass ?

Is there a chance to play everyday hands instead of highly distributional traps or i am supposed not to buy BBO$ anymore ?

I hire GIB monthly, the hands and bidding there quite normal.

[helene_t]

How was the dbl of 3♣ explained? My guess is that it was undefined, or maybe just showed values.

I suppose this double "should" be penalties, but it is very difficult to program definitions of doubles in all kind of convoluted situations.

When partnering GIB, make sure you check the meaning of a call before you make it.

[Hanoi5]

Do YOU like passing a double with a void? I suppose for a program it's even more difficult.

[Bbradley62]

Why did NorthGib not bid Michaels? (I may not understand modern treatment.)

[gwnn]

Whether or not Northgib bids michaels is a question of partnership agreement. Personally I think it's too weak to bid 2♦ on..

[Bbradley62]

gwnn, on Jul 19 2010, 11:16 AM, said:

Whether or not Northgib bids michaels is a question of partnership agreement. Personally I think it's  too weak to bid 2♦ on..

Thanks. Not surprisingly, another instance of my not knowing current treatments. In the old days, there was no such thing as being strong enough to overcall but not strong enough for Michaels. So... what are "common" criteria for Michaels? and what are GIB's criteria? Sorry for hijacking the thread...

[arigreen]

Thanks Helene for your succinct and accurate explanation.

The X of 3♣ has no specific meaning according to GIB. It is not defined as penalty. It's safer not to make nebulously defined doubles with GIB if you are intending the double as pure penalty.

As for GIB's 1♠ overcall, it prefers to have better suits when vulnerable to bid Michaels.

[barmar]

Hanoi5, on Jul 19 2010, 07:09 AM, said:

Do YOU like passing a double with a void? I suppose for a program it's even more difficult.

It has a King, not a void.

[helene_t]

Bbradley62, on Jul 19 2010, 07:24 PM, said:

So...  what are "common" criteria for Michaels?  and what are GIB's criteria?  Sorry for hijacking the thread...

It is quite common to play it as split-range, i.e. either weak or strong. In that style maybe this hand would qualify.

On this forum I think split-range is not so popular, most would bid Michaels on a broad continuum of hands. For some (most?), this hand is too weak, though.

[H_KARLUK]

helene_t, on Jul 19 2010, 06:03 AM, said:

How was the dbl of 3♣ explained?

How was the dbl of 3♣ <after two pass to his partner's overcall> explained in both vulnerability?? Would completely be a honest question.

GIB supposed to read and understand :

1- West's 8 cards on red suits, total 9 cards in hearts at righty and his hand
2- East's bid obviously minimum 6 cards clubs and a hand not suitable to play in openers suits, then East short in reds but long in black suits
3- South has no 3 cards spades, doesnt want to play a spade contract at any level and wants to punish opps after two pass with enough strength in an advantageous seat!

There's a need to change many features of that software. It dealts and plays very different Best-Random-Hired formats.

Why ? Is there a fun continuously to play misfit hands with offside hooks? Or say you got a fit but 5-0 offside break.

Not nice! How about to quit irrelevant freak deals and allow everyday layouts? I want to see it worths to pay. Three years ago I was one of the guys regularly winning 10-15-20 BB$ there before things changed in root and in my time zone GIB tournaments were full attractive than these.

Customer satisfaction means something there? Do you seriously care?

[Hanoi5]

barmar, on Jul 19 2010, 10:38 PM, said:

Hanoi5, on Jul 19 2010, 07:09 AM, said:

Do YOU like passing a double with a void? I suppose for a program it's even more difficult.

It has a King, not a void.

Wow! I thought it was West who had bid 3♠. Oops...

[655321]

H_KARLUK, on Jul 21 2010, 12:07 AM, said:

Customer satisfaction means something there? Do you seriously care?

Allow me to recommend MsPetey to you as a very desirable partner.

[Bbradley62]

ouch!

[Bbradley62]

H_KARLUK, on Jul 21 2010, 01:07 AM, said:

Why ? Is there a fun continuously to play misfit hands with offside hooks? Or say you got a fit but 5-0 offside break.

Not nice! How about to quit irrelevant freak deals and allow everyday layouts? I want to see it worths to pay. Three years ago I was one of the guys regularly winning 10-15-20 BB$ there before things changed in root and in my time zone GIB tournaments were full attractive than these.

Customer satisfaction means something there? Do you seriously care?

It does not appear to me that GIB events have any more freak hands than would be randomly dealt.

[junyi_zhu]

arigreen, on Jul 19 2010, 07:22 PM, said:

Thanks Helene for your succinct and accurate explanation.

The X of 3♣ has no specific meaning according to GIB. It is not defined as penalty. It's safer not to make nebulously defined doubles with GIB if you are intending the double as pure penalty.

As for GIB's 1♠ overcall, it prefers to have better suits when vulnerable to bid Michaels.

This is just a nonsense. It's really not a tough task at all to program a pure penalty double in such kind of situations. A double after two or more passes should be penalty and shouldn't be pulled. Any simulations should not be allowed in this kind of pure penalty double situations.

[arigreen]

junyi_zhu, on Jul 21 2010, 10:45 AM, said:

A double after two or more passes should be penalty and shouldn't be pulled. Any simulations should not be allowed in this kind of pure penalty double situations.

This would cover auctions such as.

P-1C-P-1H
P-2H-P-P
X

Are you sure you want this double to be penalty? It would be easy for me to make it so, and to disable partner from ever simulating or pulling the double

Please write out the exact rule that you would like me to implement and I'll apply it towards the next release.

[Bbradley62]

Key components of this auction are:
1. opps did not support each other's suit(s)
2. pard bid and I did not support him
3. there is no unbid suit that I might want pard to bid.

[junyi_zhu]

arigreen, on Jul 21 2010, 06:21 PM, said:

junyi_zhu, on Jul 21 2010, 10:45 AM, said:

A double after two or more passes should be penalty and shouldn't be pulled. Any simulations should not be allowed in this kind of pure penalty double situations.

This would cover auctions such as.

P-1C-P-1H
P-2H-P-P
X

Are you sure you want this double to be penalty? It would be easy for me to make it so, and to disable partner from ever simulating or pulling the double

Please write out the exact rule that you would like me to implement and I'll apply it towards the next release.

This double as takeout doesn't make sense to me at all. If the bidder can make a takeout double, he should double at the second round, not the third round. Of course if you implement this as a rule, a lot of bidding sequences would be much easier. Of course some "balancing" fans may not like it. That's their problem though.

Another change I hope you can make in the next release is that 1x p 1y 1NT, this should be natural. Otherwise, with strong NT, you are out of bids. Quite a few players take advantage of this system flaw and psyche when white frequently.