[hessmike]

I don't know whether to blame this disaster on the new software, on the fact that it happened in an Instant Game, or both. In an ACBL Instant MP tournament, I held AQJ84, AJ4, KQ65, 2. I was in 4th chair. So LHO opened 1 heart, then P-P to me. My hand is too good to balance with 1 spade, so I doubled, planning to re-bid spades over a diamond or club bid by my Bot partner. Now LHO-bot bid 2 hearts and my partner-bot jumped to 4 clubs (although a competitive 3 clubs probably would have been sufficient.) Before I followed through on my plan to bid 4 spades, I clicked on the meaning of the bid and the scary words, "cue bid" came back. So I just passed rather than "cue bid" and hear 5 clubs. The 4 club contract went down for a 3.6% score.
Partner held K1053, Q75, void, KJ9543. At other tables, the bots had responded 3 spades over 2 hearts and the easy spade game was reached. Or, in the cases when my hand balanced only 1 spade, partner bid 3 hearts as a good spade raise. In no cases did the bots in that prior tournament ever bid 4 clubs, despite holding 6 clubs and just 4 spades.
I understand that this is sometimes the price one pays for playing in an Instant event: the bot-actions are different with the upgraded software than they were at the time of the actual "real time" event. But what bothers me in the end is that the software requires every new suit bid over 4 clubs to be a cue bid. It should allow for the actual situation in which I had a combination that I judged too good for a simple 1 spade balance. As such, it should allow me to bid 4 spades over 4 clubs to signify real spades. If not, then in the future I will have to balance with just 1 spade because of situations like this.
There is no empirical evidence in this case on what would have happened had I bid 4 spades over 4 clubs because none of the other 14 players was in my exact situation with a 4 club bid after my DBL and LHO's 2 hearts.

[1eyedjack]

Your hand:

---

The traveller is (currently viewable at the time of writing) here:
http://www.bridgebas...ername=hessmike

Of those who found 4S, the vast majority of Souths started with 1S rather than double. Incidentally, this would be my choice. As long as it does not get passed out you are I think slightly better placed. I do not fault the X as GIB system choice, and it may well be that GIB would have X'd in the South seat. But it is well documented that GIB is not good at dealing with follow-ups when you start with X on non-classical shape, even when X is the GIB system bid. This is another example of that theme - inability to do anything other than cue bid on the next round. There is no way of knowing how the auction would have developed after 1S by South with current version 33.

3 pairs found 4S after X by South, but West's action differed, with a 2D rather than 2H rebid. Again, we cannot predict how North would continue in version 33 had West bid 2D.

It is a regular criticism of GIB that it will bid a minor in preference to a 4 card unbid major opposite a double. I am not sure that this is entirely fair where the minor is a 6-carder but it certainly works out poorly here.

Incidentally, I prefer 2D by West (earlier version of GIB) rather than 2H (version 33).

[mike777]

btw what would 2s in the pass out seat have meant by GIB?

[Bbradley62]

If old West bids 2♦ over a balancing double, why didn't he do so over a balancing 1♠?