[uva72uva72]

My link

IMPs, ACBL robot individual

When Al Roth publicized bar bids in his 1950's system book, he defined them as describing a 4-6 major-minor hand with 9 or fewer HCP. The Walsh system, which is the direct heir of Roth-Stone, has perpetuated that definition. This hand doesn't come close - too many points, too few ♣. As a result, I'm -200 in 3♣ when I should be +120 in 1NT. North has no reason to pull 1NT to 3♣ - enough points to make 1NT a good bet and the knowledge that partner has at least 4 ♦ on this auction. North also has no reason to raise to 2NT - partner has a max of 14 and the stiff ♦J is not pulling full weight.

Ironically, the only way for South to play the hand in NT is not to bid it. The one North who rebid 2♦(!) heard North bid 2NT.

The only other winning action was to pass the hand out. I tried doing that for a while but found that I was missing too many 12 opposite 9 3NTs that other participants were reaching.
.
The real answer is to redefine the requirements for North's bid so that it only makes it with a weaker hand containing more ♣.

[mike777]

really you find you are missing many manyt 21 hcp 3nt hands that most others find....hmmm

[lycier]

---

It seems I had ever played and posted this hand about one or two month before.(I remembered my topic is Strong bard bid )
Now here we shouldn't care about the result.
As a bard bid,its definition is two suited,6-11TPs on Gib CC.
For this hand,also have 11hcp,so bidding 3♣ as a bar bid still meets its standard.
Of course,too wide range is not the best policy.

This post has been edited by lycier: 2015-May-16, 08:00

[Bbradley62]

Personally, I think the description "barf bid" is more appropriate than "bard bid".

[Bbradley62]

This is a popular topic:
http://www.bridgebas...strong-bar-bid/ (Georgi says v34 will include an improvement)
http://www.bridgebas...te-description/ (Again, GIB's plan to make a bar bid is thwarted, but maybe not...)
http://www.bridgebas...5-distribution/ (Consensus suggests bar bid should show 6-4; staff doesn't respond)
http://www.bridgebas...s-gibs-bar-bid/ (Staff never commented on suggested improvement)
http://www.bridgebas...d-1d-1s-1nt-3c/ (another 4-6 suggestion; no staff reply)
http://www.bridgebas...over-a-bar-bid/ (from the other perspective)
http://www.bridgebas.../52215-bar-bid/ (Staff participated, but no action taken)
http://www.bridgebas...obot-confesses/ (entertaining banter)
http://www.bridgebas...-bid-available/ (GIB's plan to make a bar bid is thwarted)

[lycier]

Bbradley62, on 2015-May-16, 07:29, said:

This is a popular topic:
http://www.bridgebas...strong-bar-bid/ (Georgi says v34 will include an improvement)
http://www.bridgebas...te-description/ (Again, GIB's plan to make a bar bid is thwarted, but maybe not...)
http://www.bridgebas...5-distribution/ (Consensus suggests bar bid should show 6-4; staff doesn't respond)
http://www.bridgebas...s-gibs-bar-bid/ (Staff never commented on suggested improvement)
http://www.bridgebas...d-1d-1s-1nt-3c/ (another 4-6 suggestion; no staff reply)
http://www.bridgebas...over-a-bar-bid/ (from the other perspective)
http://www.bridgebas.../52215-bar-bid/ (Staff participated, but not action taken)
http://www.bridgebas...obot-confesses/ (entertaining banter)
http://www.bridgebas...-bid-available/ (GIB's plan to make a bar bid is thwarted)

Great.
However we don't know wether this issue should be discussed or not.So to keep silence is best.

[iandayre]

lycier, on 2015-May-16, 08:03, said:

Great.
However we don't know wether this issue should be discussed or not.So to keep silence is best.

Lycier,

It is one thing to say that we should be patient with BBO, should not make personal criticisms, and I agree. It is another to say that BBO can dictate which topics can be discussed on this board, and which cannot. They have no right to do this, although I wouldn't necessarily say they are attempting to do so. This is a very valid topic of discussion. Three things are clear: This has come up many times before, BBO has taken no action to correct it, and, most importantly, GIB's usage of this treatment is distinctly at odds with standard practice.

I think we are due both an explanation and some corrective action.

[lycier]

---

It seems BBO have fixed this issue.
Here is my evidence hand.(I do know I shouldn't bid 3♣,please you see its explanations on 3♣.)

[1eyedjack]

lycier, on 2015-May-17, 01:53, said:

It seems BBO have fixed this issue.
Here is my evidence hand.

BBO may have fixed the issue but I don't see that this hand is evidence one way or the other. The main complaint about bar bids is that GIB makes a bar bid on a strong hand with insufficient shape (length in minor). Only when GIB is dealt such a hand, given an opportunity to make a bar bid, and rejects that opportunity, will we have evidence of its being fixed.

[lycier]

iandayre, on 2015-May-16, 12:28, said:

Lycier,

It is one thing to say that we should be patient with BBO, should not make personal criticisms, and I agree. It is another to say that BBO can dictate which topics can be discussed on this board, and which cannot. They have no right to do this, although I wouldn't necessarily say they are attempting to do so. This is a very valid topic of discussion. Three things are clear: This has come up many times before, BBO has taken no action to correct it, and, most importantly, GIB's usage of this treatment is distinctly at odds with standard practice.

I think we are due both an explanation and some corrective action.

Please respect the facts,just like speaking falsehood.
On this forum,all are personal criticisms for everyone to post,are there some public criticisms?
Don't stir up the trouble again.

[Bbradley62]

1eyedjack, on 2015-May-17, 02:01, said:

lycier, on 2015-May-17, 01:53, said:

It seems BBO have fixed this issue.
Here is my evidence hand.(I do know I shouldn't bid 3♣,please you see its explanations on 3♣.)

BBO may have fixed the issue but I don't see that this hand is evidence one way or the other. The main complaint about bar bids is that GIB makes a bar bid on a strong hand with insufficient shape (length in minor). Only when GIB is dealt such a hand, given an opportunity to make a bar bid, and rejects that opportunity, will we have evidence of its being fixed.

I think Lycier is noting the fact that the description says 6 total points, not an upper limit of 11, and 6 in the minor, not 5.

However, are we really concluding that BBO has updated GIB and not posted an announcement saying so?

I wonder if this new hand is different than the others (in GIB's mind) because it was opened 1♥ instead of 1m.