[olegru]

This board from ACBL Robot duplicate been played on 51 tables.
I found it curious to compare the different choices made by Gib in different situations.

---

The majority of human (26) choose open South’s hand with 1♣and bid 1NT over 1♥ from Gib. This bid, according to Gib’s understanding, shows 12-14 points and 2-3 ♥.
Gib overbids a little with New Minor Forcing (12+ points according the box) and passes whatever human choose to reply (2NT, 3♦ or 3NT).

Reasonable actions.
Nice to know that Gib can bid NMF with singleton in other major and still happy to pass any NT reply from the partner, that promises no stopper in other major, of course.

---

Some people who open 1♣ found alternative continuations after 1♥ rebid.
Four of them decided to repeat their ♣.
Note that Gib bid NT without worry about his singleton in ♠ and did not bother to show the ♣ support.

---

Two other people jump to 3NT. Gib understood that bid as a solid 7 cards ♣ and passed. I am curious to know how programmers solved conflict with 2 ♣Kings in the deck? I mean if Gib expected his partner to have ♣AKQxxxx and it hold ♣K by his own, Gib can not run simulation for possible hands to choose the next action. Is it is mandatory passing in case of conflicts like that?

---

Finally for 1♣ openers, 3 person bid revers 2♦.
Gib was OK with it. It supported ♦ and passed 3NT.

[olegru]

OK, people who open 1♣ were able to avoid troubles.
Now lets have more fun.

12 human decided to open 1 ♦.

Six of them bid 1NT over 1♥ response from the bot.
Theoretically, this bidding should not cause the different contract from 1♣ – 1♥ – 1NT.
It did:

---

Gib again started from NMF, but now it does not want to accept partner’s decision and converts NT to ♥.
What is the difference between these two biddings is not clear for me. Also funny to see that bot never mentioned its 4 cards support in partner’s first bid suit, but instead lied about number of cards in his own suit.


Six other 1♦ openers bid 2 ♣ on the second round:
I found that bidding the funnies. (Not during the actual game, of course)

---

At first Gib finds the perfect invitational bid, but after partner scratches to game, bot leaps to slam. WTF? Gib willing to play either partial or slam, but not game?
It is funny to compare this auction with auction after opening 1♣ and reverse.
After 1♦ opening and 2♣ rebid Gib knows that South’s hand is at most 15 points, after 1♣ opening and 2 ♦ revers it “knew” it is at least 17 points.
After 1♦ opening and 2♣ rebid Gib already describe it’s hand as 10-12 points, after 1♣ opening and 2 ♦ revers it holds some un-promised points, only 8+ was shown so far.
Nevertheless, GIB passes after revers and jumps to slam after the current auction.

***

Three more humans open 1NT.
Gib transfers to ♥, bids ♦ as a second suit and then accepts 3NT if partner choose it.
Person who trusted Gib’s second suit bid was not in luck.

---

Just curious, what is the point in bidding ♦ if bot never going to accept this suit as a place to play on any level?

***

Finally, “1 man out” open this hand with 2 ♣!

---

No comments on this.

[iandayre]

I guess I would have done fine. With 2/3 of my HCP in the short suits, I would have opened 1NT.

Surely the jump to 6D is a bug. As you say, part score or slam, GIB won't play in game. I also agree that GIB should have passed after 1C-1H-2D-3NT, but I have found that it is safer to open 1NT with a singleton than rebid 1NT with one.

One bridge point, you state that 1D-1H-2C shows a maximum of 15 points. We are not playing a strong club, so this is incorrect, 2C could be any strength short of a game-forcing jump shift.

[olegru]

iandayre, on 2015-May-14, 12:26, said:

One bridge point, you state that 1D-1H-2C shows a maximum of 15 points. We are not playing a strong club, so this is incorrect, 2C could be any strength short of a game-forcing jump shift.

Sorry, I guess I should choose the different diagram for that scenario, there we can see GIB's understanding of the bidding in the box. Here it is:
Yes, I was wrong: 3NT according the GIB ==16 high cards point, not up to 15 I wrote
It has the perfect sense: Top strength of the hand with no reverse limited by the range of revers

---

[Bbradley62]

olegru, on 2015-May-14, 13:15, said:

iandayre, on 2015-May-14, 12:26, said:

One bridge point, you state that 1D-1H-2C shows a maximum of 15 points. We are not playing a strong club, so this is incorrect, 2C could be any strength short of a game-forcing jump shift.

Sorry, I guess I should choose the different diagram for that scenario, there we can see GIB's understanding of the bidding in the box. Here it is:
Yes, I was wrong: 3NT according the GIB ==16 high cards point, not up to 15 I wrote
It has the perfect sense: Top strength of the hand with no reverse limited by the range of revers

Not only does 2♣ deny game-forcing jump-shift values, it also denies the strength necessary for a jump in suit to 3♣ over 1♥, which is a lower threshold.