[rhm]

---

I was South on the above deal and I want to draw your attention to the bidding explanations given.
(Since I do not know how to copy a BBO deal into the forum I have reconstructed the deal, but the explanations and bidding is exactly as shown)
When playing a robot tournament you have to adopt to the system the robots play.
I understand that programming robots to bid well is a tough task.
What I do not understand why explanation for bids are given which are not aligned with what robots bid.
Now I do understand that from time to time you have to fudge a bid, because nothing fits.
However this is not the case here.

I opened the South hand with 2 clubs and after 2 diamonds spades were raised.
Now cue bids started.
I would like to draw your attention to the explanations given for North 5 club and 6 diamond bid.
Why are the explanations in obvious contradictions to what the robots actually do?
How am I supposed to draw inferences from the bidding if the explanations given are nonsense?

Rainer Herrmann

[smerriman]

[steve2005]

Gib needs to show A♥ with 4♥ is efficient bid/

[johnu]

Getting to a (cold) small slam in a playable suit could be considered a success compared to some other GIB auctions.

Why GIB can't just check for aces and bid a grand with only 15 top tricks is another question that could be asked.

[wbartley]

If this is an accurate description of what happened at the table then it's clearly a bug. GIB acknowledges it's in a cue bidding situation but bypasses cheaply showing its first round heart control in order to show a second round club control?

By the way. I've had auctions with GIB where it had TWO first round controls and didn't show either of them in an acknowledged cue bidding situation and the explanations were just like those in your example, "no A of hearts, no A of spades," when it had both of those cards.