bobtehnoob

Have you seen CGPT try to play chess? It's moves make sense for the first handful of them, but it's just reciting common move responses to its opponents moves, rather than legal moves based on the board state, because CGPT does not know the rules of chess so it cannot compute the board state.

my partner and I play that in a contested auction where both opponents have made calls (ie 1x - 1n - (any) - ???, all systems are off REGARDLESS OF LEVEL (even over x), but there is nowhere for this to be marked on a convention card so we just don't alert or announce the bid made in the fourth seat when it happens, because they are natural and not alertable I think asking e-w their agreements on this is most appropriate, but in general I see nothing wrong with this auction since it should be relatively clear that West's bid could not be gf based on the points everyone else was advertising in their hand I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that a no trump overcall has no requirements in terms of stoppers, and while a spade overcall is probably better bridge, my understanding is that a no trump overcall does not necessarily need to show a stopper I think this situation begs the question "would north-south have taken a further action if they knew definitively that 3d was just "to play"? also, did north-south ask about the 3d bid at any point? you can't always go off what's written on the card because there's a lot of nuance that can't be covered in a cc so you need to ask questions sometimes

Case 1 (1♣) - 1♣ this is a funky one and depends heavily on agreements if you're playing sa/2o1 and 2+ for a 1♣ opener you are generally relegated to 2♣ or 1NT since double generally does not (should not?) promise 2+ clubs. if 1♣ necessarily promises no 4c major then you don't really have a call that is valid for subset condition, since you don't really have a functional way to show exactly: 2+c, 3- h and a, AND opening points this gets really tricky if 1c shows 3+ though that being said, I believe acbl rules permit upgrading the bid to the adequate level to be "good enough" of a comparable call, but with obvious UI consequences afterwards. this is a situation where I'd have to see the offender and their partner's hands to know what is and isnt allowable, but depending on agreements I'd lean towards 1nt showing strength and 2+ clubs or 2c "just bid it at the lowest legal level" being fine enough but with some restrictions on bidding (ie, if they have an agreement that stayman is on when nt is overcalled, offender's partner MUST bid stayman to ask with an appropriate hand) and then it's offender and partner's job to disentangle themselves from where they end up I think it's fine as a once-or-twice shortcut solution to just have offender correct their bid to 2c and have a tableside announcement that this is not Michaels, but a correction of an insufficient bid. Case 2 1♣ - (1♠) - 1♥ double is fine and most people would agree that it is close enough even if some may do it with 3 hearts and a stronger hand Case 3 1♠ - (2♥) - 1NT(Director!) if I am being liberal, I would be ok with x, presumably opener would check for stoppers with 3h if strong enough, and the hand certainly would suit such a double if the insufficient bid wasn't made I would want to see opener's hand though and make sure they aren't making an invitational 2n bid without a stopper in hand already (aka using the UI that partner has a heart stopper)