[Stefan_O]

Unfortunately, seems like the robot-bidding is only getting nuttier and nuttier by the day recently...?

Here some recent moneybridge examples of weirdo-bids from outer space:

[m1cha]

Not sure what exactly went wrong in (1). It would be helpful to see the labels of the bids.

As to (2) and (3), GIB is eager to bid full game in hearts even in an assumed 4-3 fit whenever it's close to 25 total points and stops for 3NT may be missing. See Rediculous defensive mistakes, 11 + 12 = 26 the limit raise to full game and post #5 in the latter. It's probably not a deterioration, just a statistical accumulation. I 've had those. Hoping you have better days to come.

[Stefan_O]

m1cha, on 2017-February-26, 20:44, said:

Not sure what exactly went wrong in (1). It would be helpful to see the labels of the bids.

well, everything was normal up to/including the 3♣ bid.
X=takeout
2♥=4+h, 0-16TP (maybe 16 is not "normal", but...)
3♣=4+♣, 10+hcp.

Then, suddenly out of nowhere, comes the ridiculous 4♣ bid explained as "13+ total points". Thanks for telling us.

[Stefan_O]

And on the 3rd one, of course, you already are in 3♥X.

Hardly the ideal spot for raising to game.

[m1cha]

Stefan_O, on 2017-February-27, 14:29, said:

well, everything was normal up to/including the 3♣ bid.
X=takeout
2♥=4+h, 0-16TP (maybe 16 is not "normal", but...)
3♣=4+♣, 10+hcp.

Then, suddenly out of nowhere, comes the ridiculous 4♣ bid explained as "13+ total points". Thanks for telling us.

Those "13+ total points" are already in the take-out double. The trouble is in the range of the 2♥ bid. It should be limited to 7 or 8 points, i feel, because with more you could bid 3♥, 4♥ or something else. Partner cue bidding seems to be an attempt of showing a strong hand (18+ points) without fit. Not such a bad move considering it thought you might have 16 points, as I said, the real problem is in the wrong definition of the 2♥ bid. That 3♣ bid by West is also interesting, I couldn't reproduce it. It appears West must have less than 5 cards in each minor and less than 4 cards in each major and an unbalanced distribution, which is a contradiction in itself. It seems you were "lucky" to experience a very rare bidding situation. Well, I wouldn't have been glad about it either.

Stefan_O, on 2017-February-27, 14:32, said:

And on the 3rd one, of course, you already are in 3♥X.

Hardly the ideal spot for raising to game.

Definitely. But you see, what I meant is: There must be a rule in GIB to tell the program to progress to full game whenever there are sufficient total points. Then in this special case when a game has been reached by getting doubled in a part score, there should be another rule to cancel the first rule. Apparently this second rule is missing. I don't know any details about the GIB program but I can easily imagine that in order to implement the second rule it may have to be inserted in a dozen or even a hundred places. Which would mean that this rule is not on top of the to-do list for the GIB programmers. But it's just a guess. Maybe we will hear something.

As a gift of consolation (and although I realize it supports your original point ) here's a bidding sequence I had this evening. I was South to open 1NT with a 3235 distribution, 14 HCP. Let's see if you understand the bidding. I didn't.
1NT - p - 2♣ - X;
XX - p - 2♥ - p;
2NT - p - 3♠ - p;
3NT - p - p - p.
Well, 2♣ is Stayman of course, the double is for the lead, "biddable ♣". I found that a redouble shows rebiddable clubs with two stops on my side, denying both majors, no restriction on the point range. That seemed much better than just bidding 2♦ or passing because it showed the ♣ were really safe, so that was my choice. After that everything went wrong.
2♥ were described as "3- ♣, 4+ ♥, 8+ total points" according to the label which doesn't make sense at all because I had already denied a ♥ fit. Actually the label seems to be wrong and GIB only does it with a 5-card hearts suit and an invitatioinal hand (less than 10 points). If that's correct and if I had known it, I could have passed the bid with my doubleton.
Not knowing it, I tried to sign off in 2NT. Which couldn't work because 2NT shows a maximum (17 HCP)! 3NT also shows a maximum (17 HCP)! There is only one way to show a minimum: bid 3♣ - which is kind of insane since in practice it's more or less forcing to 3NT because 3♣ can hardly be a good contract. I want to play NT here, after all that's why I promised two stops in their suit.
Then came 3♠ from partner showing "4+ ♠; 4+ ♥" etc., another nonsense bid because I had already denied the spades and had no way of correcting to heearts.
Anyway, I had no reason to believe a 7-card fit would be significantly better than NT, so I corrected to 3NT which was the final contract and I went down 4 due to a bad distribution, bad play (why waste effort on this one) and partner having a minimum hand with 8 HCP, 4531 distribution.
In conclusion, the 2♥ bid would not be bad at all if it reliably promised 5 cards, strictly invitational (3♥ is stronger, I believe) but the 2NT reply should be a sign-off with minimum.