[pigpenz]

---

on this one I had a hard time finding out what all the bids means, is there any where
where this is posted? I hovered all over the buttons on the 3 level but didnt check out
any bids at the four level.

3♣ limit raise or better in what though?
3♦ constructive 5+ spades
3♥ nf free bid
3♠ nf free bid

[barmar]

I think there are bugs in this. It's just using the rules for Unusual over Unusual, but they all presume that there was an opening suit. That's why the explanation of 3♣ is "limit raise or better in 0" -- it's supposed to fill that in with opener's suit, but nothing is there. And 3♦ shows ♠ by accident -- it shows "the unbid suit", but there are two of them and it just accidentally picks the highest one.

We should create rules specifically for this situation, not just fall through to the U/U rules. I'm not sure what people normally play in this situation, though (I suspect 99% of players have never discussed it with their partners, and I don't think there are any default understandings to fall back on).

4♥/♠ are natural 6+, 10-15 TP.

The robot will never bid 4♣/♦. If the human bids them, they show 12+ HCP, forcing to 4N, nothing about any suits (the comment in the rules says "mystery cue bids are random GF").

[Bbradley62]

Is it popular current treatment for the 2NT bid to show 15+ total points?

[barmar]

GIB thinks Capp, Michaels, and Unusual 2NT are all constructive bids rather than preemptive.

[Bbradley62]

barmar, on 2012-April-08, 13:09, said:

GIB thinks Capp, Michaels, and Unusual 2NT are all constructive bids rather than preemptive.

"Constructive" means 15+ total points?? All of the documentation I can find (including http://web2.acbl.org...pellettipt1.pdf) indicates that 15/16+ hands start with double over 1NT and that 2-level bids are something resembling 10 to 15/16.

[barmar]

I don't think GIB read that ACBL article. Its Capp bids are stronger than most human players require. What I meant by constructive is that it's bidding to make, not just to interfere.

GIB makes a penalty double with at least 16 HCP. It will bid 2NT with at least 15 TP (I assume it wants extra values because it's forcing to the 3 level). For hands that fit both criteria, penalty double takes precedence; however, simulations are allowed to override penalty doubles, but not 2NT.

You can't really "start with a double" -- once you double, there are no conventional bids to show two-suiters. So you either double for penalty to show a big hand, or you make a Capp bid to show something specific.

Maybe we should lower its standards to human style, I haven't really thought about it much. In general, GIB is not very good about knowing when to sacrifice, so it would be major work to get all the competitive auctions right when the Capp bidder can be such a wide range. I'm not sure I want to open this can of worms.

[pigpenz]

barmar, on 2012-April-08, 12:46, said:

We should create rules specifically for this situation, not just fall through to the U/U rules. I'm not sure what people normally play in this situation, though (I suspect 99% of players have never discussed it with their partners, and I don't think there are any default understandings to fall back on).

generally 1NT 2NT isnt something that happens very often
like you said there are standards for UN vs UN but there is always an opening suit to use at the baseline....here nothing to go by.

My simulations I ran for about 200 hands
4♥4♠ make about 75%
3NT 38%
3♣5%
3♦ 33 %

generally you would think you would want the large hand to be hidden but maybe there is something for having the non 2NT bidder on lead?

3♣♦ forcing for hearts or spades
3♥♠ non forcing
or one could flip flop them

[georgi]

Here looks interesting situation ( 3♣ meaning is bug of course ).

Unlike 1 suit - 2N, where we have known suit length as base here there is just strength promised.

Similar to Rubensohl, some sequences could be:

3♣ - Stayman
3♦ - 5+ ♥
3♥ - 5+ ♠
3♠ - stop ♣ no majors
3NT - stop ♦ no majors