[helene_t]

https://tinyurl.com/2ynwcxum

1♥-2♠
3♦-3♠*

*Explained as solid spades and max two hearts, in reality the robot had AQxxx of spades, and 3-card heart support.

[mw64ahw]

Do robots mix up the ♣ with the ♠?

Poor implementation

[smerriman]

To be fair, the human did make the first impossible bid, since a new suit after a SJS is meant to show concentration of honors, not length (since it's never possible to play in a 3rd suit). Holding AQ itself, 3♦ wasn't a possible bid you can make.

But that's by the by, and nothing to do with the error here / wouldn't have made a difference anyway. One of the possible hand types for SJS is a tightly defined balanced range that's hard to show otherwise (often 17-19; GIB plays it as 18-19). This is shown by jump shifting then rebidding NT on your next turn, which leaves opener perfectly positioned, knowing your point range and good 5-6 card suit.

It's important *not* to jump shift when stronger than this range - being able to exclude a balanced range from normal 1/1 or 2/1 sequences makes the higher and lower ranges easier to handle.

And that's the issue; GIB is mistakenly told to jump shift with a balanced 18+ points, but doesn't have any followups programmed for 20+ points, since 3NT is 18-19. All rules fail, and it's told if nothing matches, rebid its suit as a fallback.

[helene_t]

Thanks, Smerriman, that makes sense. At least it doesn't fall back on "pass" anymore so that's an improvement (well, in this case 3♦ might have scored better than 5♠).

I remember a hand where GIB passed my 2NT opening because it was too strong for 5NT but not strong enough for 7NT. I don't think that happens anymore.

[thepossum]

No disrespect to Mr Soloway at all but I often come crashing down too

[mycroft]

Have you got the labelling backwards? i.e. did the robot do the SJS?

SJS's responsibility is to show which of the three types of hand they have; 3♥ ("spades and support") seems automatic.

3♠ should in fact show solid spades (and 3NT *big* balanced hand, maybe with only 4 spades).

[helene_t]

mycroft, on 2024-May-20, 09:30, said:

Have you got the labelling backwards? i.e. did the robot do the SJS?

It was a "human declares" tournament, I think it was Diana and Friends.

[mycroft]

If you're north. then as you see from the explanations, the robot's 3♦ call was out of order, but I'm not sure there is a good call with that hand. Your second call should be 3♥, showing "rebiddable" spades and heart support, and slam-try+ values. That would at least get you to hearts instead of spades. In fact, you likely get propelled, without any actual care, into the 6♥ by South that makes on pretty much any line with the acceptable breaks.

If North was the robot, and bid and rebid spades, well, they should know their system better than we poor humans do, no?

[helene_t]

It was the robot who bid 3♠, explained as solid spades and 2- hearts. I thought I made that clear.

Yes, my 3♦ bid was also wrong, I know that.

[smerriman]

mycroft, on 2024-May-20, 13:05, said:

If you're north.

South is *always* the human. You get swapped to North after the bidding if North ends up declarer.

As for why it doesn't bid 3♥, it only plays the support jump shift case with/without shortness as 4+ card support, though 3+ for hearts would definitely be better. But that wasn't the reason it jump shifted; it was the missing upper bound on the balanced case.

[smerriman]

helene_t, on 2024-May-20, 06:36, said:

Thanks, Smerriman, that makes sense. At least it doesn't fall back on "pass" anymore so that's an improvement (well, in this case 3♦ might have scored better than 5♠).

I remember a hand where GIB passed my 2NT opening because it was too strong for 5NT but not strong enough for 7NT. I don't think that happens anymore.

Oh, nothing has changed there at all, and it will still pass if it nothing matches. In this case there's simply a rule in the Soloway section that says if you get to this point, fall back to the cheapest bid in your jump shifted suit. So it bids that based on a rule, rather than a lack of rule, where it would indeed have otherwise passed.

[mycroft]

Sorry, no, that wasn't clear. SMerriman's explanation was. I apologize.

The explanation makes sense as well. Although I'd never think that given the "none of my three cases apply" rules once it got to 3♦, that it would pick the "biggest lie". That seems - inelegant. Also highly unlikely to be sim-positive over the known 8-card fit or 3NT.