[mikl_plkcc]

---

I had 9 playing tricks and 4 defensive tricks so I opened 2♣, followed by 2♠ over the expected 2♦.

The robot then bid cheaper minor, showing it could give me nothing, and I rebid the suit, which should turn off the game force.

The robot, to my surprise, bid 3NT holding a void in my suit! I corrected to 4♠ as my suit was self sufficient, and the robot pulled it to 5♣!

What did it think that my 4♠ wasn't showing a long, strong suit?

[hrothgar]

mikl_plkcc, on 2025-July-22, 16:27, said:

What did it think that my 4♠ wasn't showing a long, strong suit?

With 9 tricks in hand, why did you think that 3N was a bad contract?

Even if you're worries about the Diamonds, you need to understand that

1. The robots are really really bad
2. There's a lot of risk in correcting to Spades

[Huibertus]

With 9 tricks at hand, and expecting no help from partner, why would you want to be anywhere else then in 3NT? The ONLY thing you need from partner is ♦ King protected for the lead, or a long enough ♦ suit so they can never cash 5 of them.

You're not going to make more tricks in ♠ then you are in NT very often. In this case you can, provided they do not lead ♦ against 3NT AND you guess the ♦ right in 4♠ as luckily there is a guess so you have a chance. That's the only scenario. Good job by the bot to assesses 3NT is the place to be!

[mikl_plkcc]

My partner has told he has absolutely nothing, not even a single trick. So it means that I have no protection on ♦ at all. Therefore I want to stop at 3♠.

[msheald]

A human partner would have passed 4S. Robots are really bad with this type of bidding progression, as has been noted. Best regards.

Mike

[pescetom]

I think you showed poor judgement in passing 3NT, especially opposite GiB.
But I agree that GiB's description of 3♣ and choice to bid 5♣ are both terrible.

[johnu]

mikl_plkcc, on 2025-July-24, 05:13, said:

My partner has told he has absolutely nothing, not even a single trick. So it means that I have no protection on ♦ at all. Therefore I want to stop at 3♠.

If you read the bidding descriptions, GIB did not say they had nothing. 2♦ and 3♣ both say less than 12 total points, less than 11 HCP. So GIB could easily have a diamond stopper, or even several.

Even if GIB used the standard definition of cheaper minor showing a 0-4 point hand or thereabouts, they may still have a legitimate diamond stopper.

Not only that, your hand has 9 solid tricks in NT. Even if GIB doesn't have a diamond stopper or even great length, if the opponents don't lead a diamond you have 9 tricks off the top. And when GIB refuses to support your rebid suit, it means they have shortness, so likely to have 4+ cards in the other suits. Opposite your doubleton diamond, 4 small is good enough to prevent opponents from having 5 top diamond winners 62% of the time, again, assuming that the opponents even lead diamonds.

[mycroft]

...and if you keep reading partner's explanations, you'll see that 3NT *did* promise something: "7-11 HCP, partial stop in ♣, partial stop in ♦".

Now, as someone who regularly plays "cheaper minor 2nd negative", I can't imagine having "7-11", But if I decided to "2nd negative" with this hand, I'd definitely ensure we got to game!

Yeah, passing 4♠ is right. The robots are not good (but at least they're consistent). But as others are saying, you have misdescribed your hand as well; showing more of a broken spade suit and more outside than the 7-solid and 2 aces you have. And it probably thinks that opposite AJT9xxx and a 22 count (guaranteeing fitting honours in one of its suits), it can make 11 tricks in their suit, while having 4 losers in 4♠. They're probably not wrong, either; but that's not what you have, and not what most would expect for 2♣, then 2, 3, and 4 spades. But if your suit was solid, why didn't you sit for 3NT?, (the robot would "think").

[johnu]

mycroft, on 2025-July-24, 17:22, said:

And it probably thinks that opposite AJT9xxx and a 22 count (guaranteeing fitting honours in one of its suits), it can make 11 tricks in their suit, while having 4 losers in 4♠.

Why would GIB think there was a good fit in one of the other suits when opener has shown a one suited spade suit hand? This is GIB authorized panic at having a void opposite partner's suit and bidding anything to escape from 4♠. I'm actually surprised that GIB didn't continue trying to avoid spades after the 5♠ bid.

[smerriman]

johnu, on 2025-July-24, 17:53, said:

This is GIB authorized panic at having a void opposite partner's suit and bidding anything to escape from 4♠. I'm actually surprised that GIB didn't continue trying to avoid spades after the 5♠ bid.

Yes and no, less authorized panic and more that it thinks the two hands combined have enough strength to keep bidding constructively at the 5 level, due to its nice 3 total point void and partner's 22-24.

Not passing 3NT was just bizarre, it's the right place to play even opposite a 0 count.

[hrothgar]

mikl_plkcc, on 2025-July-24, 05:13, said:

My partner has told he has absolutely nothing, not even a single trick. So it means that I have no protection on ♦ at all. Therefore I want to stop at 3♠.

That is a claim that you are inventing from whole cloth.

You need to actually learn how the people (or in this case the programs) that you playing with actual bid.
You can't simply assume that they ascribe to the same discredited methods you are reading in 60 year old books.

[mycroft]

johnu, on 2025-July-24, 17:53, said:

Why would GIB think there was a good fit in one of the other suits when opener has shown a one suited spade suit hand? This is GIB authorized panic at having a void opposite partner's suit and bidding anything to escape from 4♠. I'm actually surprised that GIB didn't continue trying to avoid spades after the 5♠ bid.

Because a "one suited spade hand opposite a void" would have started with 3♠, not 2 (or would have passed 3NT expecting to take all those spades, whatever entries they have, and my shown sorta-stoppers). So clearly, instead of "9 tricks in spades", partner must have "lots of spades, but they won't run, and enough Walrus points to open 2♣." And when it simulates that, it gets...?

I'm not saying it's a *good idea*. I am saying that *given its system* and what it would have done with the hand in the OP (or conversely, what hand it would have for the auction OP chose), I can absolutely see a sim saying that average outcome is higher in "5-of-partner's 2nd suit" than in 4 spades.

[mycroft]

Well, hrothgar, he does have a point. If partner *did* have (and show) absolutely nothing, he wants to play 3♠. And he left the opportunity open for partner to take it (which isn't a bad idea, given "normal" ways of playing "cheapest minor 2nd negative" - "bid 4♠ with anything that looks like a trick". Good job, even if 3♠ directly over 2♦ is arguably better, especially if it's explicitly "I have 8.5-9 (only) tricks in (only) spades" (and therefore passable).

But partner didn't pass. And partner bid 3NT instead of 4♠. Assuming you have bid this hand to show "I have 9 tricks in spades, I know you're a bad hand but bid game anyway with a sniff of a trick", and you trust your partner to know that, then 3NT doesn't show "I don't believe you and anyway, I'm the better declarer" (*)(**), it shows a hand that says "man, I heard you. I don't think I cover any of your losers, but I can stop them from taking 5 tricks off the top, and then you can make your 9". And, as you have been saying throughout, OP should assume partner *also* can play bridge and trust them this time(***).

(*)Given this particular partner and BBO programming, partner can't even mean that, as you'll be hopped over into GIB's seat to (mis)play it yourself. But, yakno, real life.
(**)One of the things weaker players learn is that "misfits do not play well in NT". But they only remember it when partner bids NT. And so, used to playing with players at their level as they are, they take out 3NT to a suit because *they know* their partner has bid 3NT as a "last hope". And usually they have, so it works out. And frequently, their "last hope" actually does have an entry/a trick (but no more) and they get away with it. One of the issues with "playing with weaker players most of the time" is learning "how to trust partner" (and in this auction, the answer is "not at all").
(***)See (**).

[hrothgar]

mycroft, on 2025-July-25, 10:07, said:

Well, hrothgar, he does have a point. If partner *did* have (and show) absolutely nothing, he wants to play 3♠.

And what point is this?

"If I invent an agreement with partner, I can then claim this is all their fault" sounds about right...

[Huibertus]

mikl_plkcc, on 2025-July-24, 05:13, said:

My partner has told he has absolutely nothing, not even a single trick. So it means that I have no protection on ♦ at all. Therefore I want to stop at 3♠.

Exchange ♦J for ♦9, ♦K for ♦4, ♣Q for ♣5 and partner has a Yarborough. How many tricks can they make against 3NT in that case? FOUR. And how many tricks do they make against 4♠? FOUR.

You missed the point completely. UNLESS they can (and do) cash five ♦ s this is 3NT. And you're NOT making more tricks in ♠ on the vast majority of hands.

---

As for them HAVING a 5 card ♦ AND being able to cash them, here's one out of MANY hands where that's not even possible, and then partner doesn't even have a 5 card ♦ yet...

---

Again, if you want to improve, try to FIND out what you do wrong rather then POINT out what partner does wrong.

[mycroft]

hrothgar, on 2025-July-25, 16:52, said:

And what point is this?

"If I invent an agreement with partner, I can then claim this is all their fault" sounds about right...

Well, it has be benefit of being the agreement he was actually playing (even if GIB is weird about it).

2♣-2♦ almost forced; 2♠-3♣ "cheapest minor 2nd negative"; 3♠ is now passable (even the explanations say "forcing to 3♠"). How that system has played for 50 years (and how I play it today, in the one pair I play it).

But, as you said, partner *didn't* pass with his zero-count. And didn't bid 4♠ with a sniff at a trick. In fact, partner bid 3NT, saying "if you think you have 9 tricks, we can take them in NT. But I don't think you can take 10 in spades."

But as I said, players at a lower level bid 3NT as a panic call on a misfit, not a "I have soft values that won't take tricks, but can stop suits so your hand can take tricks." And after playing 3NT off the first 5 (or 6!) diamonds more than once they learn to pull their partner's 3NT to something that might make, but at least doesn't go down as much. Not because it's a good bid playing with a partner that can think, but because playing for panic is likely to be right.

[pescetom]

 mycroft, on 2025-July-26, 16:52, said:

2♣-2♦ almost forced; 2♠-3♣ "cheapest minor 2nd negative"; 3♠ is now passable (even the explanations say "forcing to 3♠".

What it explains IIRC is "Cheaper minor:11- HCP: forcing to 3♠".
Anyone unfamiliar with the convention will have difficulty figuring out what is going on.
"Negative response: cancels game force" would be much clearer.