[pescetom]

Is it just me or is GIBBO even worse than GiB at responding to takeout doubles?
Here it masochistically cues the opponents' suit when it not only has a longest unbid suit but that suit is a major.
I have seen this repeatedly recently (maybe I was just lucky before?).

Not only that, but it wilfully ignores standard developments after the cue

Quote

A cue-bid advance of a takeout double shows at least game interest and creates a force until a suit is bid twice or game is reached. (In particular, advancer's two-notrump continuation is forcing.)

(Bridge World Standard)

and of course none of this is defined in the GiB System Notes.

@lorserker are you still here?

[johnu]

pescetom, on 2026-March-07, 15:46, said:

(Bridge World Standard)

and of course none of this is defined in the GiB System Notes.

Of course, not everybody plays Bridge World Standard, and certainly GIB doesn't play Bridge World Standard. In the real world, sometimes advancer makes a cue bid of a minor suit opener in response to a takeout double with 4-4 in the majors and a somewhat minimal hand so that the best major suit fit can be reached.

I don't understand the 2NT by the human ignoring both 4 card majors but it could have led to a solid 3NT, or the pass by advancer.

[pescetom]

 johnu, on 2026-March-07, 18:01, said:

Of course, not everybody plays Bridge World Standard, and certainly GIB doesn't play Bridge World Standard. In the real world, sometimes advancer makes a cue bid of a minor suit opener in response to a takeout double with 4-4 in the majors and a somewhat minimal hand so that the best major suit fit can be reached.

I never met or contemplated that agreement in my real world, but I'm open to others. Can you point me to some documentation that supports it? Italians play the cue as promising another bid (not unlike Bridge World Standard) and mainstream sources such as wikipedia would have the cue bid game forcing with no clear strain.

With a somewhat minimal hand and both majors I would bid hearts, FWIW.
In any case, GiB does not have a somewhat minimal hand with both majors here.

 johnu, on 2026-March-07, 18:01, said:

I don't understand the 2NT by the human ignoring both 4 card majors but it could have led to a solid 3NT, or the pass by advancer.

That leads us back to the agreement, if known and workable.
Given the facts available, WTF (as mikeh would say) H should a human bid with this hand if partner has "11+ TP, forcing" and cannot find a 4cM?
It's not as if GiB has a great track record of distinguishing between game forcing, forcing to repetition of a suit or whatever, or if forcing to 2NT is likely.
Again a question of agreements, but neither the GiB system notes nor its explanations give any hint that it could have a clear strain here.