[ccunning]

On board #8, the robot introduced a 3 card diamond at the 4 level, unforced, with 9 points after rebidding spades.
Than on board #10, with 2 aces & a Q, the robot passed an openign 3NT!
Perhaps the person who programmed these robots should take bridge lessons.

[cloa513]

 ccunning, on 2012-April-07, 01:12, said:

On board #8, the robot introduced a 3 card diamond at the 4 level, unforced, with 9 points after rebidding spades.
Than on board #10, with 2 aces & a Q, the robot passed an openign 3NT!
Perhaps the person who programmed these robots should take bridge lessons.

That's funny because GIB usually treats 3NT opening as stronger than 2C,-,2D,-,3NT.

[Bbradley62]

 ccunning, on 2012-April-07, 01:12, said:

On board #8, the robot introduced a 3 card diamond at the 4 level, unforced, with 9 points after rebidding spades.

---

Looks like we're back to "don't pull my 3N unless..."

[Bbradley62]

 ccunning, on 2012-April-07, 01:12, said:

Than on board #10, with 2 aces & a Q, the robot passed an openign 3NT!

---

I wanted to find a table where South opened 3N and gets a full description, but there weren't any. Most Souths opened 2♣ and rebid 2NT, showing 22-24 balanced; at those tables, the final contract was 6N after Smolen. But, this one puzzled me:

---

Why does this sequence show 25-27HCP if GIB's cc says that opening 3NT shows 25-27HCP? Shouldn't one sequence be stronger than the other? It is interesting that GIB thinks the 3N opener denies a five-card major whereas the 2♣-3N sequence doesn't.

[barmar]

The full description of opening 3NT is: Strong hand -- 2-5 C; 2-5 D; 2-4 H; 2-4 S; 25-27 HCP

I think we had a thread a couple of months ago about the difference between opening 3NT and 2♣...3NT. I think my guess was that the duplication was a result of not noticing the redundancy when removing Gambling 3NT from the system.

[Bbradley62]

 barmar, on 2012-April-08, 11:58, said:

The full description of opening 3NT is: Strong hand -- 2-5 C; 2-5 D; 2-4 H; 2-4 S; 25-27 HCP

I think we had a thread a couple of months ago about the difference between opening 3NT and 2♣...3NT. I think my guess was that the duplication was a result of not noticing the redundancy when removing Gambling 3NT from the system.

So, again... knowing how an undesirable situation came to be is not nearly as useful as knowing whether or not y'all intend to fix it...

[barmar]

 Bbradley62, on 2012-April-08, 12:15, said:

So, again... knowing how an undesirable situation came to be is not nearly as useful as knowing whether or not y'all intend to fix it...

We intend to fix everything, eventually.

Is that helpful?

[Bbradley62]

All you need to do is say "we'll look into fixing this inconsistency" in the first place to let us believe you might fix it and to avoid the snarly response...

[barmar]

Unless we say that we think GIB is doing the right thing, I think you can just assume that all the time.

If I say "We're working on it", that makes it sound like we're going to fix it soon. So unless we're actively working on it, I prefer not to mislead. Something like this might not get fixed for years, as there are more important things to deal with.