[helene_t]

https://tinyurl.com/yxu2x5o8

Maybe
p-1♠
2♣-2♦
2♥-2♠*

shouldn't be forcing, but the explanation said that 2♥ and 2♠ were both forcing to 3♠. Nevertheless, GIB passed 2♠.

[smerriman]

I guess the "reason" for 2♥ being forcing to 3♠ is that it knows there's combined strength for that level. But having 2♠ as forcing makes no sense, so I guess it's just the description at fault.

[helene_t]

smerriman, on 2019-September-26, 02:22, said:

I guess the "reason" for 2♥ being forcing to 3♠ is that it knows there's combined strength for that level. But having 2♠ as forcing makes no sense, so I guess it's just the description at fault.

I sortof agree but it isn't logical - if 2♥ is forcing to 3♠ then it follows that every subsequent bid below 3♠ is forcing.

Maybe GIB really means that 2♥ is forcing on opener to 3♠, but responder can pass below 3♠? That would make sense. But I suspect it is just a bug.

A bit surprising, though. While it is very common that GIB passes bids which are unlimited and hence should be forcing, it is rare that GIB passes bids that are explicitly forcing.

[cherdano]

This is the kind of thing why BBO might want to think twice about answering complaints "GIB is completely horribly awfully bad" with "But GIB is doing well in robot tourneys". Any time an explanation is misleading, it's an advantage of GIB playing with GIB (who can rely on the internal presentation of the bidding logic, instead of the "less accurate", i.e. often completely wrong, explanations) over GIB playing with a human. I.e., to some extent its GIB who are horrible at being a partner with humans.