[Thranduil]

First hand: https://tinyurl.com/2dqlug3v

I open an 11-count with 1♣, and after a preempt it bids 4♥ labeled as a cuebid - without any clubs support and without any control in ♥. I bid 5♣ as I have a minimum without a single ace, thus don't see any chance for a slam, and we end up playing in a 5-2 fit. It could also have been a 3-2 fit if I had opened a hand with just 3 clubs; my weakest bid would still be 5♣ to sign off.

Second hand: https://tinyurl.com/2cys3lzp

I accept the invite - what else should I do with my nice 13 HCP and a semi-stop in ♠? All I want is play 3NT. And yet, the bot bids blackwood without any extra values. 4NT goes down (would be just one down, but I misplayed it due to being irritated by the bot's bidding) for a bottom.

[steve2005]

Second one is bizarre asking Blackwood with clubs as trump gets you in slam opposite a 1 KC response.
Gib just doesnt have the trick taking capability. 3N is going to be hard to make never mind a slam

[smerriman]

Thranduil, on 2024-December-29, 08:19, said:

I bid 5♣ as I have a minimum without a single ace, thus don't see any chance for a slam, and we end up playing in a 5-2 fit. It could also have been a 3-2 fit if I had opened a hand with just 3 clubs; my weakest bid would still be 5♣ to sign off.

Um, I think you just had a major blind spot here - what was wrong with pass? If West hadn't doubled, you're right that you would have to bid 5♣ with just 3 clubs, but GIB would correctly describe it as showing 3+ clubs, and then it would bid 5♦. But over a double, 5♣ is showing strong clubs. Of course, 5♦ is down too, and 4♥ is a silly bid that has led to many issues in the past, but freely bidding 5♣ doesn't make any sense.

No idea what it was doing on the second hand, yet..

[pescetom]

smerriman, on 2024-December-29, 13:16, said:

Um, I think you just had a major blind spot here - what was wrong with pass? If West hadn't doubled, you're right that you would have to bid 5♣ with just 3 clubs, but GIB would correctly describe it as showing 3+ clubs, and then it would bid 5♦. But over a double, 5♣ is showing strong clubs. Of course, 5♦ is down too, and 4♥ is a silly bid that has led to many issues in the past, but freely bidding 5♣ doesn't make any sense.

Um, I think this is another attack of Stockholm syndrome
Yes the 5♣ human bid was unwise, but does that diminish the sheer stupidity of the robot bid which OP is reporting, or even make any difference?
5♦ is not only down too, but 800 down vs 110.

[smerriman]

Maybe I misunderstood - I saw the OP focusing on the fact it's forcing you into what might be a 3-2 fit, so was replying about that part.

No doubt the ambiguous 4♥ isn't great, that one has come up in some past threads - though it's a tough spot for bidding rules, and I'm not even sure what the right bid is. 4♦ must be forcing, right, so doesn't work out any better, unless 4NT is somehow a natural sign off over it.. I wouldn't have opened in North, not that that changes a whole heap either.

I guess the answer must be double not showing 4 spades.

pescetom, on 2024-December-29, 13:38, said:

5♦ is not only down too, but 800 down.

300, neither robot is doubling 5♦ in the same way that they didn't double 5♣ for 1100.

[smerriman]

The point ranges seem totally messed up the whole way in board 2. Why does 2♣ show a maximum of 16 HCP? Why does 3NT then show exactly 16 HCP and 17-18 total points? I guess if you combine those bizarre definitions with the promised spade stopper it's plausible a bad simulation might find a slam on, but still a ridiculous bid.

[Thranduil]

I missed that I could have passed. I read the description of the 5♣ bid, it said "strong clubs" and thought that works as my clubs are much better than what I promised despite having a subminimum opening hand. I am reporting the robot bids for their general stupidity, not specifically because it would have forced me into a 3-2 fit, that was a mistake by me :-)

[smerriman]

Just confirming, do you agree the robot should double (and describe it as what?)

[pescetom]

smerriman, on 2024-December-30, 16:44, said:

Just confirming, do you agree the robot should double (and describe it as what?)

I voted double, as did 85%. Describe it as "Do something intelligent"
Not that I like it, but I don't see any reasonable alternative: certainly not 4♦ or 4♥.

[smerriman]

* describe it to GIB as what?

I hadn't heard of thrump doubles but it seems a reasonable approach, 10+, asking for stopper.