[steve2005]

Gib is notorious for making penalty doubles 3SX+3=830
this is typical, doubling with good support for partner
My link

[pilowsky]

The alert doesn't say it was a penalty double.

[steve2005]

pilowsky, on 2021-February-06, 13:55, said:

The alert doesn't say it was a penalty double.

alerted as showing biddable spades, that is asking for penalty

[TylerE]

It's also showing a fit for partner, a very UNpenalty like property.

[sfi]

TylerE, on 2021-February-06, 16:53, said:

It's also showing a fit for partner, a very UNpenalty like property.

2S already showed the fit, so the double has to be taken in that context.

[johnu]

Sound double that was unlucky to result in 3 doubled overtricks. On a good day, there may have only been 1 overtrick.

[pilowsky]

I made the earlier comment because I find that (at least in the current iteration of GIB) when GIB doubles for a penalty it says so.
The message I am familiar with is 'Penalty double -- 9-11 HCP; 12- total points' - I treat any other double as informative.
Here's an example: http://bit.ly/GIBpenalty

That does not mean that the other GIB (or I) might not take it out or leave it in if it does not say 'penalty double', but it does indicate the GIB 'partnership understanding'.

Another example is RONF. I only recently discovered that while this does mean that raising a preempt is not forcing, It also means that any bid other than a raise IS forcing (PREEMPTS; Watson W. p45-46).
On the GIB system notes, this continuation is not mentioned. On the sample card, it says "RONF; 2NT asks feature".
RONF is normally explained as 'raise only not forcing".
Watson writes in the elided words as "a raise is the only non-forcing bid". This phrase suggests a more nuanced meaning.

It seems to me that for the new-comer leaving out 'articles' creates confusion.

I grew up in North of England, used to play on road, so I can cope. Americans seem to have (a) similar disdain. Like Strunk (http://bit.ly/StrunkOmit), they omit so many needless words it's often hard to know what they are saying.

[jardaholy]

Actually, the bots do many very entertaining things, bad double for penalty being just one of them . One example, I met, can be false cue bids. I bid very nice small slam where there were around sixteen tricks, the only problem was, that the shortness, my robot partner bid in an attempt to reach a slam, was small doubleton and - of course, the robot on the lead had got ace and king in that suit so that we were one down even before the card play started . Another nice example is to found out that the bot shows an ace in the suit where YOU have got it. It is usually void, but not necessarily. Once, believe me or not, the bot showed me ace (on the fifth level) in clubs, where I had AK. I decided for revenge and showed him ace in diamonds, where I had void and was very curious, what would happen. I really was not disappointed - the bot showed me AK in clubs on sixth level by his next bid!! It IS depressing sometimes, when you have chance to achieve good result and the bot kills it. Just for that reason, I am developing a small book with nice collection of "One hundred of nice boards played with the robots" It helps.

[pilowsky]

jardaholy, on 2021-February-08, 17:16, said:

I am developing a small book with nice collection of "One hundred of nice boards played with the robots" It helps.

Great idea - be happy to join in .

[nullve]

The worst biddable suit ever:

---

[johnu]

nullve, on 2021-February-08, 19:18, said:

The worst biddable suit ever:

---

Opening a strong 15-17 HCP strong NT with a 13 HCP weak NT hand certainly had no effect on the final contract

[pilowsky]

nullve, on 2021-February-08, 19:18, said:

The worst biddable suit ever:

---

It's easy to see where you were misled. Even though the Nordic countries did invade Scotland a few years ago (8th to 15th century CE) their languages diverged slightly.
You could say they were rune'd.

Back in the 18th Century the word 'biddable' meant ": easily led, taught, or controlled : DOCILE"
No doubt about it what West meant was that he had boundless docility as far as Clubs went.
In fact, he was so amenable to them that if you were to lead one and EW were in a Spade contract; he would be most amenable to it. In
In Swedish, Google translate gives "budgivbar" (BOO jiv BAR) which has the same meaning. (Hope I'm pronouncing it correctly).

So, when East say X (4+ ♠; 11HCP; biddable ♣; 12 total points), he means "Can we please play in spades, I'm not worried about clubs".
Apologies if I adlibbed a bit .

[nullve]

pilowsky, on 2021-February-08, 21:57, said:

In Swedish, Google translate gives "budgivbar" (BOO jiv BAR) which has the same meaning. (Hope I'm pronouncing it correctly).

Interesting guess by Google Translate!

Although

'bid' (Eng. n.) = 'bud' (Swed. n.)

and

'bidding' (Eng. n.) = 'budgivning' (Swed. n.) [lit. 'bid-giving'],

I believe the correct translation of 'biddable' is 'bjudbar' [pronounced "b-yoo-dbar"], from

'bjuda' (Swed. v.) = 'bid' (Eng. v.)
'-bar' (Swed.) = '-able' (Eng.)

The Norwegian equivalent could easily have been 'by(d)bar', but for some reason we always use 'meldbar' instead, where the verb 'melde' (Eng. 'announce') seems to have an English cognate ('meld') used in other card games (e.g. rummy).

[jardaholy]

nullve, on 2021-February-08, 19:18, said:

The worst biddable suit ever:

---

How about this one (from my prepared book "One hunderd deals with the robots")?

---

4C were explained as at least biddable clubs, but there was no additional info about hearts.