[lycier]

---

After 2♣ Drury, it's easy to find too many wrong definitions :

2♦= 4th seat preempt --- 6+♦,9-12hcp.
2♥= 4th seat preempt --- 6+♥,9-12hcp
2♠= 4th seat preempt --- 6+♠,9-12hcp
2N= Two NT opener,Could have 5M ---2-5♣,2-5♦,2-5♥,2-5♠,20-21hcp
3♣= 4th seat preempt --- 7+,9-12hcp,♣Q
3♦= 4th seat preempt --- 7+,9-12hcp,♦Q
3♥=4th seat preempt --- 7+,9-12hcp,♥Q
3♠= 4th seat preempt --- 7+,9-12hcp,♠Q
3N= Strong hand---2-5♣,2-5♦,2-5♥,2-5♠,25-27hcp.
4♣= preempt---8+♣,6-9hcp
4♦= preempt---8+♦,6-9hcp
4♥= preempt---8+♥,6-9hcp
4♠= preempt---8+♠,6-9hcp
4N= no definition

[smerriman]

A similar thing just happened to me in a challenge. I opened 1♥, GIB responded 3nt, and suddenly all of my 4 level bids were 8 card preempts.

[Bermy]

How dreary, typical of Gib and their programmers believe that they have a given right to completely redesign 2/1 themselves, Mr Drury had nothing to do with this......it is not Drury its Gib robot rubbish again!!!!!!

"A rebid of 2♦ shows a full opening. While not universally accepted, a bid of 2♥ by opener after opening 1♠ is also a weakish bid showing 5 spades and 4 hearts (or better). With a good hand (say 15 or more points) opener may simply jump to game (4 of the major suit). Other bids tend to be natural and descriptive, in effect a game try. With an excellent hand, opener may be interested in a slam and will bid accordingly.

[Stephen Tu]

Dude it's called a bug, an obvious mistake in the programming. It's obviously not an "intentional redesign of 2/1"

You obviously know close to zero about computer programming. It's very easy for a line in a table to get transposed, some punctuation mark/delimiter/symbol in the wrong spot or missing or other such things to cause errors like this. Ideally it's caught in testing but sometimes things slip through.

[jdonn]

I just brought it to the attention of the programmer. I think (but can't absolutely promise) that will be able to be fixed without waiting for the next version, because it is an obvious typo kind of error in the code.

[Bermy]

Stephen Tu, on 2017-September-04, 01:15, said:

Dude it's called a bug, an obvious mistake in the programming. It's obviously not an "intentional redesign of 2/1"

You obviously know close to zero about computer programming. It's very easy for a line in a table to get transposed, some punctuation mark/delimiter/symbol in the wrong spot or missing or other such things to cause errors like this. Ideally it's caught in testing but sometimes things slip through.

I would like to get something straight here. I really do not care for the complexities of programming or the difficulties of your job, you are charging &1.25 or more for these robots and they are not up to standard. After 15 to 20 years and 37 upgrades? Others have built better robots while you dither and make excuses,

I am interested in bridge and bridge standards. Great writers and bridge theorists have given us great bidding systems over the years that work and work well. Standards have been set, and your Gib system does not meet these standards. My campaign is for better bidding methods and systems with more choice. I wish to see robots that are not programmed by excuses, but by someone who knows something about club bridge and bridge players. You need better bidding specialists, ones without agenda to a particular style.

I also want to see bidding explanations that actually mean something, even to a beginner (Who may learn something quick) and are accurate to what the original convention writer intended.

[Bermy]

Drury?

Your whole 2/1 system is built on Drury from around 1959 on.

Bidding went from Goren Culbertson (with Staymen) to Reese and Drury. It is the keystone to 2/1, and what makes it work.

If you want to understand modern bidding you must understand the masters.

If you are going to preach 2/1, please get your Drury (and Reverse Drury) right.

[iandayre]

Bermy, on 2017-September-04, 16:21, said:

Drury?

Your whole 2/1 system is built on Drury from around 1959 on.

Bidding went from Goren Culbertson (with Staymen) to Reese and Drury. It is the keystone to 2/1, and what makes it work.

If you want to understand modern bidding you must understand the masters.

If you are going to preach 2/1, please get your Drury (and Reverse Drury) right.

Drury is not a cornerstone of 2/1. It applies only as a passed hand, when 2/1 Game Force is off.

That said, I think GIB plays a pretty normal version of Drury, or at least the far more popular modern form, Reverse Drury. I am not clear on what you find objectionable about it.

[Bermy]

iandayre, on 2017-September-04, 18:39, said:

Drury is not a cornerstone of 2/1. It applies only as a passed hand, when 2/1 Game Force is off.

That said, I think GIB plays a pretty normal version of Drury, or at least the far more popular modern form, Reverse Drury. I am not clear on what you find objectionable about it.

absolutely, but its the passed hand that now changes the entire bidding sequences of all the continuing bids. Now the 2/1 bidding is no longer at a game force, and therefore all continued bidding changes in context especially at 1NT and beyond. I didn't say cornerstone, I said keystone. I find it most objectionable to find natural non forcing 2/1 bids now bid unnaturally. Not the way Drury intended it at all. I think have posted another feed recently on that subject with a match example where the natural 2/1 bid was ignored in favor of a poor 2NT bid. You cannot give the blind partner too much choice.

[smerriman]

You're not making any sense. Whether or not you play Drury has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not you play 2/1. The meaning of bids by a passed hand in 2/1 and non-2/1 are identical. And you still haven't said which part you disagree with.

Edited - you edited in another line, seemingly disagreeing with something, but I still have no idea what.

[Bermy]

smerriman, on 2017-September-04, 19:59, said:

You're not making any sense. Whether or not you play Drury has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not you play 2/1. The meaning of bids by a passed hand in 2/1 and non-2/1 are identical. And you still haven't said which part you disagree with.

Edited - you edited in another line, seemingly disagreeing with something, but I still have no idea what.

No, its you that's not making any sense and I dont know what the editing problems are. Of course you can play any system with Drury (or reverse Drury) if you like, and of course you can try play 2/1 without it (if its still 2/1 then) But it is there and there for a reason. This old 1959 convention was carefully thought out by Drury and his peers. Bridge hasn't changed and neither has the cards. In order to make 2/1 work they had to implement Drury for passed hands, it is then key to the system as it then returns bidding back to its original formats as Culbertson and Reese and others would have it,and as Drury predicted. We don't need to see Drury used, as happens so often, when the non forcing 2/1 bid is a better option.

[Bermy]

I cant even begin to tell you what trouble it causes. 3 level contracts that clearly should be played at the 2 level, missed games and even poor misfits. Competition makes it even worse. God forbid you push the bidding up to the 3 level, maybe for a -1 sac and Gib plonks you in 4 with a yarborough. Now its 2 down thank you UNDOUBLED? is that the same as -1 doubled, just Gib giving it back?

[smerriman]

2/1 is not a bidding system in itself. It solely applies to the meaning of bids by non-passed hands responding to an opening bid. It is 100% impossible that "to make 2/1 work they had to implement Drury", nor your implication that 2/1 without Drury might not even be called 2/1.

Perhaps you are talking about a complete system with another name, which includes the concept of 2/1 game-forcing bids, but I still don't see how there could possibly be a connection.

Quote

We don't need to see Drury used, as happens so often, when the non forcing 2/1 bid is a better option.

Are you saying that with support for opener and invitational values, you prefer making a non-forcing 2/1 bid in another suit and making 2♣ natural?

Quote

3 level contracts that clearly should be played at the 2 level, missed games and even poor misfits. Competition makes it even worse. God forbid you push the bidding up to the 3 level, maybe for a -1 sac and Gib plonks you in 4 with a yarborough.

I have never seen any of these occur with GIB in a Drury sequence. Can you provide examples?

[jdonn]

Update, these explanation are not programmed as lycier showed. It just happens for that user and maybe some tiny amount of others in certain locations due to network/client issues.

[lycier]

jdonn, on 2017-September-05, 22:31, said:

Update, these explanation are not programmed as lycier showed. It just happens for that user and maybe some tiny amount of others in certain locations due to network/client issues.

Yes, I agree.
Now I open a teaching table on bbo and replay this hand :

---

Sorry very much.

[Bermy]

smerriman, on 2017-September-04, 22:25, said:

2/1 is not a bidding system in itself. It solely applies to the meaning of bids by non-passed hands responding to an opening bid. It is 100% impossible that "to make 2/1 work they had to implement Drury", nor your implication that 2/1 without Drury might not even be called 2/1.

Perhaps you are talking about a complete system with another name, which includes the concept of 2/1 game-forcing bids, but I still don't see how there could possibly be a connection.


Are you saying that with support for opener and invitational values, you prefer making a non-forcing 2/1 bid in another suit and making 2♣ natural?


I have never seen any of these occur with GIB in a Drury sequence. Can you provide examples?

Supply examples from the thousands of hands I have played would be an impossible task, and hardly worth the effort. What I'm saying is that when my partner is holding the other 5 card major suit I need to know about it before the opponents start bidding against us. That good long majors are bid through 2 club Drury and not bidding the new suit. Is this exactly how Drury wanted it.

And on the second point 2/1 is most definitely a full system. All its variations are called conventions.