This is probably due to the lack of definition after the bidding develops after a takeout double and a suit bid. A simple rule of thumb would be
2S to be 5+ S, constructive, but nonforcing, 3S as gf with 5 or more spades IMO. I doubt the programmer has the clear definition here. This 3NT bid
is more like a simulation result, where simulation shouldn't be allowed here IMO.
The basic idea of bidding improvement is that you can make a bidding sequence to find the right hand type and the right contract, others can only rely on statistics over a large range of hands, you make a lot of money. I think, in GIB's world, many of its bidding relies too much on the rough
estimation of a very large range of hands.
avi8108, on 2011-May-26, 05:42, said:
Hey
I play the bot tournament.
every now and then I stumble to a bid with the GiB where it supposedly describes a stopper in a specified suit.
I find that many time the GiB WILL NOT have anything resembling a stopper.
Take this bid from today:
having described my hand, I believed the GiB and passed the NT bid, whereas 4
♥/
♠ is cold.
1. how can you differentiate between a real NT bid to a forced one?
2. in this example why didn't the GiB repeat the
♠ or create some other sort of forcing action?