[pescetom]

My newly inflated level dropped abruptly to a mere 1 during the tournament today, quite possibly in disgust after this board.

Which may well be partly my fault, I never much understood GiB's attempts at convergence on 3NT and/or its ability or willingness to retreat to its minor with slam interest. Here it explains that 3♣ would show clubs (?) and (ignoring my suggestion of diamonds like a demure virgin) bids a cryptic 3♥, described as 3+ cards. Fearing some 4=3=5=1 with a loser in each of the latter three suits I correct back to Moysian spades, it often plays that well and may have a tenace to protect.

Come non detto

[smerriman]

The database bid is 4♦ over 3♦. But doesn't seem too surprising that an advanced robot might sometimes conclude 3♥, keeping 3NT / 4♥ / 4♠ / 5♦ all in play, might work out better double dummy at MPs, given its assumption of double dummy play (e.g. since it's never getting to 6♦, it will think 4♠ is "better" than 5♦ on this hand even though it actually isn't, while hands that end in 3NT or 4♥ will outscore 5♦ on a lot of deals too. As usual, not saying it's a good bid.)

[johnu]

pescetom, on 2025-May-13, 14:57, said:

I correct back to Moysian spades, it often plays that well

Yes, it plays so well that it should be cold after the opening lead. 2 rounds of trump and then run diamonds.

[smerriman]

johnu, on 2025-May-13, 17:18, said:

Yes, it plays so well that it should be cold after the opening lead. 2 rounds of trump and then run diamonds.

But of course, it makes its usual fatal assumption that everyone else is in the same contract at MPs, so thinks 4♠= will be a bad score when there's a good chance of an overtrick.