Help
The particular situation that I address here is that early in the auction we deny game interest, typically by one of us passing partner's partscore bid. Then the opponents balance. The human South then continues to contest the partscore and GIB North then freely bids game, inconsistent with earlier evaluation.
I do accept that hand evaluation changes during the course of the auction. It is possible that, before the auction is contested, the prospect of game, while possible, does not justify the risk of advancing to a higher (and riskier) partscore. But knowledge subsequently revealed by the opponents may change that dynamic.
We have all been in the position where we choose to open 1-suit when the overall playing strength of the hand perhaps justifies a 2C opener, because we anticipate a more controlled auction, relying on not being passed out in 1-suit. We assume, usually (but not always) with justification, that if partner passes the opponents will rescue you in balancing position. That said, it is dangerous to rely on opponents to help you find your games.
As I see it, the problem with GIB is two-fold. (1) Its judgement/AI lacks the sophistication and maturity to manipulate this factor accurately, and (2) Its system lacks the facility to cater both for game tries and competitive bids in these situations (that is, where a game try is initially denied and the auction subsequently becomes contested). Lacking the ability to show both hand types it opts in favour of the game try at the expense of the competitive bid. On grounds of frequency I suggest that if it is going to allow for one to the exclusion of the other, it should concentrate on allowing competitive bids (having denied game interest, remember) at the expense of further game tries.
It may be that all-human partnerships with bespoke methods can cater for both. And it may also be that GIB has aspirations for catering (more accurately) for both. Those aspirations may suggest that it could be inadvisable to apply temporary "quick fix" tweaks which would be inconsistent with the longer term development plans and then difficult or time consuming to undo. But all that said, my personal opinion is that this is a high priority to address.
If this is to be addressed, the next question is how? Is it possible to apply a fix that works generically across all similar situations? Or do we have to report each and every individual instance of this problem arising, and then have that instance, and that instance alone, addressed with a tweak? The first approach would be more desirable, but I lack the knowledge to say whether it is possible. If possible, my preference would be for a "rule" to take precedence over a "simulation" in these situations.
On, tthen, to a couple of recent examples by way of illustration (to add to any in earlier threads). These two example hands have some common factors: They both start with South opening 1N. North then transfers into a major. South accepts the transfer. Crucially: North then passes the acceptance (denial of game interest). E/W then contest the auction. South judges (rightly or wrongly) that competing to 3M is appropriate, and North then bids game. The explanation of South's 3M bid is consistent with a hand that might well have super-accepted the original transfer, and had South taken that action I can imagine that North's bidding game may be justified. But he did not super-accept and by implication should deny a hand that is suitable for that action.
Both hands are robot tourneys with best hand South. The first was MP, the second IMP
s
t
r-m
nd
ing) tr. v. - Any bid made by bridge player with which partner disagrees.