♠AKQ1097
♥83
♦42
♣J75
At every table the player opened 1♦, double by West, pass by North. At this point East bids 2♠, after which if South sensibly passes the auction ends and the bots score +170 or +200.
Except at my table. At my table East bid 2♦, after which West bid 2NT and East jumped to the cold 4♠, resulting in a completely out-of-my-control 6.6 IMPs loss for me.
Admittedly it's a close decision, and if GIB had decided half the time to go one way and half to go another, then I'd chalk it up as rub of the green. But being the only player to get this opposition bidding seems wrong.
On the second hand again the East bot was the deviator.
At tables where South (in fourth seat) opened 1♣, West doubled, North redoubled, and East bid 2♠. Except at my table, where the bot chose for some reason to bid 2♥. Commonly, over 2♠ South bid 3♣, ending the auction and scoring +130. But having less reason to step in front of a potential penalty double of 2♥, I passed, and North reopened with 3♣, over which East now pressed on with 3♥.
This story had a happier ending for me. I chose, perhaps dubiously, to compete with 4♣, and North, most definitely dubiously, carried on to 5♣. But hold on! West led a trump and I pulled a second round, then led a spade up. West bot, never suspecting his partner held five spades, ducked, and I chalked up +600.
So, overall a gain for me, but still a concern, that the bots are clearly playing differently against me than against the field I am scoring against. Is this a bug or a feature?