[thepossum]

---

Disappointing really

I know I know. Is not HCPs its whatever the other points are

But I was under the impression that quantitatively determined NT slams were HCP based

To be fair it was very close to making

[ali quarg]

Struggling to count to 23+ total points (max. 20) so not a 2♣ opening?
I'm not sure the robot can count either if the description is correct
A 1♠ opening for most ending in 4♠

[LBengtsson]

The South hand is short on HCPs and other bits as ali quarg said. One rule I use with 'balanced' 5422 is to have 4.5-5 honor tricks in the hand. The South hand just has 3.5 honor tricks. The ♥Q7 is not pulling its weight, and changing the hand to ♠QJ10754 ♥Q ♦AK ♣AQJ4 still makes it a 1♠ opener for me.

K&R on the actual South hand of 5224 is just 18.6, on my changed hand of 6124 it is still only 19.55. As soon as you open 2♣ I guess the robot just bids what it thinks it can make, having no idea whether the ♦ suit is open or not with its 6NT bid. The robot assumed you had at least 23HCPs added to its own 10 and bids 6NT as it has enough points for slam.

[thepossum]

19+ HCPs

I count 19

Back to the point people

I could have predicted this attack from you all

23 is distribution which I accept it is short on but it's a basic game force which makes a simple game

Why does the bot start counting distribution points as HCPs when I ask a question

Also when are you all going to stop insulting me

All of a sudden some so called expert distorts 19 HCPs to 23

Hope their students are reading

Back to Bridge and trusting our partners to be able to count and understand the importance of HCPs in a NT contract. I accept distribution can help but not in a quant situation

Would you trust a partner who jumped to 6NT when we are still negotiating a game

Yet again I will request that the troublesome repay offenders on the forum stops deliberately jumping on my threads and ruining my mornings and playing into the hands of my gaslighters

Is it a bug or do other bridge players suddenly give me aces I never promised

I have a tip to less experienced readers. If your partner needs 23 HCPs to open 2C find a better partner. I will accept I may be a slightly light and preemptive bidder but my game stats in such openings back up my decision

[pescetom]

ali quarg, on 2023-April-05, 04:31, said:

Struggling to count to 23+ total points (max. 20) so not a 2♣ opening?
I'm not sure the robot can count either if the description is correct
A 1♠ opening for most ending in 4♠

For me it is not even a 2NT 20-21 opening.

As the man above said, the book auction in a natural system is:
1♠ - 2♠
4♠ - p
and one could do much worse.

If you play 1NT 14-16 and 2NT 19-20 then I can imagine:
2N - 3♣
3♠(5card) - 4♣
4♦ - 4♥
4N(even KC) - 5♠
p

or if you are bullishly quantitative:
2N - 4N
p

[thepossum]

PS Apologies

I have been trying hard to moderate getting upset at seemingly being repeatedly singled out for special attention

But if I have to do that who is controlling who

I am presently running a sim on my hand which makes two nice games and an overtrick given Norths extras

I am curious about the possible wrongsiding for leads - although I accept the Kings provide some cover in that regard

EDIT a few stats from a Sim which show that most hands with 8+ points make either NT or Spade game (87% spades, 86% NT. 10.4 NT tricks, 10.8 spade tricks)
Approximately 2/3 of all hands opposite my 2C will make a NT or spade game
Over to you
Happy to post my results but its all rather dull stuff
A weak double negative we stop one short of game - I don't know if GiB does that though - that is another topic I mean to ask about
Several times cheaper minor (bust?) forcing to (and hopefully stopping at ) the 3 level is followed by a raise to game?

Its a strange paradox being somewhat light gives a better chance of partner offering something

[hrothgar]

Note that the bot didn't investigate slam or invite slam or ask for Aces, rather it blasted directly to 6NT

Regardless of whether or not you believe that this hand is worth a 2!C opening, this seems to be inconsistent with the system that the bot is playing.

FWIW, I do think that this hand is bit weak for a 2!C opening, but its not egregiously so

I think that the auction

1!S - 2!S
4!S

is completely nuts.

I'd expect an auction like the following

1!S - 2!S
3!C - 4!S
4N - 5!D
5!S

[smerriman]

I'll probably regret breaking my resolve and replying to your post, but anyway.

I've told you many times that you cannot look solely at the description, see your hand matches, and think it's OK to bid. The description is meant to show what the bid guarantees, NOT the criteria for making the bid; they are two unrelated things.

GIB's definition of 2♣ in its code is either a balanced hand with 22+ HCP, or a very distributional hand with 19+ HCP.

It is not capable of using "or" in descriptions, so it combines the lowest common denominators.

To GIB, your hand is therefore a completely impossible 2♣ opener, despite the fact it matches the description.

You have to actually understand the purpose of bids before making them.

6NT is an awful bid, don't get me wrong. But so is 2♣. You've said numerous times in the past you're just going to open 2♣ with unsuitable hands whatever others think, which is your choice; GIB will respond by jumping to slam, whatever you think; that's its choice. GIB's never going to change; you can if you want this to stop happening.

[cherdano]

Richard, look at that opening hand again - it's nowhere near good enough for a 2♣ opening. And trying for slam after 1♠-2♠ is absurd - what hand are you hoping for? There is literally no hand that bids 2♠ opposite which slam would be good.

hrothgar, on 2023-April-05, 16:39, said:

FWIW, I do think that this hand is bit weak for a 2!C opening, but its not egregiously so

I think that the auction

1!S - 2!S
4!S

is completely nuts.

I'd expect an auction like the following

1!S - 2!S
3!C - 4!S
4N - 5!D
5!S

[cherdano]

smerriman, on 2023-April-05, 16:48, said:

To GIB, your hand is therefore a completely impossible 2♣ opener, despite the fact it matches the description.

The description include "23+ total points", so the hand doesn't match the description.

[cloa513]

cherdano, on 2023-April-06, 03:39, said:

Richard, look at that opening hand again - it's nowhere near good enough for a 2♣ opening. And trying for slam after 1♠-2♠ is absurd - what hand are you hoping for? There is literally no hand that bids 2♠ opposite which slam would be good.

The test is whether the opener is passable with likely sure game contract not whether slam is possible. That opener is definitely possible to passed at 1S when 4S makes easily and it is around about 23 TP.

[TylerE]

cloa513, on 2023-April-06, 06:14, said:

The test is whether the opener is passable with likely sure game contract not whether slam is possible. That opener is definitely possible to passed at 1S when 4S makes easily and it is around about 23 TP.

If only there was a systemic bid to show a balanced 20 count.

[cherdano]

cloa513, on 2023-April-06, 06:14, said:

The test is whether the opener is passable with likely sure game contract not whether slam is possible. That opener is definitely possible to passed at 1S when 4S makes easily and it is around about 23 TP.

These are two separate points.

1. It is absolutely wrong to try for slam after 1♠-2♠ in a standard system. There is no hand that partner could have where slam is good.
2. It is my judgement that in the style most play for 2♣ opening, including I think Richard, and in the style that I prefer, this hand is nowhere near good enough for a 2♣ opening. If you respond with an ace, and also with borderline hands with a fit, there aren't many hands where you are missing game. Even if partner has the magical ♠K or ♥K, you probably don't have enough entries to repeat the ♣ finesse, and you might not have an entry at all.

Feel free to disagree. If you disagree about 1., I am certain you are wrong. If you disagree about 2., then I'd think you are wrong, or that you advocate a very different style for 2♣ opening than what most strong players use. But you could certainly be right.

[FrankerZ]

This isn't a GIB problem really. If you're going to bid 2♣ with a flattish hand that I wouldn't upgrade to 2NT, you can't exactly complain when it wakes up with a 10 count and thinks 6 something is a good spot. Pretty standard either 1♠ - 3♠ - stop in game or 2NT - 3NT depending on how aggro you upgrade NT-like shapes