[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.