kurthugo

Completely agree. A bid of 3♠ or 4♣ would fit so it's not like Gib didn't have other reasonable options available. I feel like this might be a bug since I see no reason Gib could have to false cuebid here.

I hear ya and if Gib is just cooperating by finding a reasonable bid that's fine, but it shouldn't be explained as showing AK♦. That just can't be right. It's the explanation that's either simply bad or possibly a bug. Especially since my 3H bid says my hand is strong enough to search for slam, it's gonna be a disaster to lie about specific cards like this.

http://tinyurl.com/y6v76xqb The hand at the link above is from the weekend survivor tournament. I obviously have a monster hand, and when I hear 2S from partner I just need to find my partner with AK of diamonds (among other possibilities) to make 6S an excellent bet (the club finesse will almost certainly be on if i need it given the bidding). 3C by me is described as a cuebid showing the A, GIB responds 3D showing the A, and 3H by me again shows the A. Now comes the unexplainable... GIB bids 4D which it self describes as showing AK of diamonds. Of course, I know he doesn't have enough points to have the A of spades as well, so I place the contract in a nicely bid 6S slam... except the robot doesn't have the K of diamonds, so down 1. So obviously GIB lied. But what could possibly be the benefit of lying about having AK of diamonds here? Sometimes when you have a tough bid I understand you might need to lie a little, but to lie about a control bid to partner in a situation like this is completely indefensible. Can anyone explain this? If this bid doesn't guarantee AK of diamonds then why would you explain the bid as AK of diamonds?? Either don't make the bid (which it shouldn't) or change the explanation. The robot should not lie to partner about specific cards... that is as bad as having the robot lie about the number of keycards in response to a keycard ask. It can only end badly for the partnership.