[Wentys]

There is a BBO ACBL convention card. It's page title on loading says 28Feb, but doesn't say what year! I assume it is outdated, because, e.g. I notice GIB using Drury, not indicated on this CC. The card also indicates that the primary signals to partner's leads is count.

1. Is there a more recent / up-to-date convention card?
2. Do the robots signal, and does my robot partner take any notice of my signals?
3. AI-trained systems (and simulation-based decision making) are not rule-based / algorithmic. So they mostly cannot explain their decision making. Are the newer BEN robots considered worse in this respect?

Thanks
Peter

[pescetom]

Good bridge players are not rules-based and cannot always explain their decision making: "it just looks like 1NT".
But they aren't required to do so, only to explain their agreements about calls. A robot is in the same position and has the same duty.

[msheald]

Often true. As long as a bid that "feels like" is still within the standard category. If a person's bid is not standard, then it is considered either a mistake or a psych bid. Good bridge players meet the same standard as intermediate or beginner bridge players,even though they may feel restricted by standard bidding requirements.
In such cases, it is instructive to send such bidding and hands to the ACBL for guidance. From them, I've learned that almost anything goes with weak overcalls (much to the chagrin of my previous club director!) while other bids are more restrictive.
For example, here is the response from ACBL about a bidding sequence that the BBO director made a mistake and cited the generic "rules" when faced with an unusual bid by an advanced player because the advanced player did not want to follow standard bidding for his hand.

"The term "temporizing bid" is just another term for "artificial bid". Artificial bids require an Alert unless they are specifically listed as exceptions under the Alert Procedures (such as stayman, Michaels Cuebids and others). A 2C response to a natural opening bid that can be made with fewer than 3 clubs is an Artificial Bid by definition. An Alert is required. Since the 2C bid was not self-alerted, it seems the result should have been adjusted to what would have happened had you doubled or entered the auction as you might have done with a proper Alert."

In bridge players are required to play by standard rules and to announce agreements that are not standard or fall within other rules for alerts. Mistakes happen. "Feel like hands" happen, but they still must follow ACBL bidding rules. Best regards.

Mike

[pescetom]

 msheald, on 2026-January-05, 06:20, said:

Often true. As long as a bid that "feels like" is still within the standard category. If a person's bid is not standard, then it is considered either a mistake or a psych bid. Good bridge players meet the same standard as intermediate or beginner bridge players,even though they may feel restricted by standard bidding requirements.
In such cases, it is instructive to send such bidding and hands to the ACBL for guidance. From them, I've learned that almost anything goes with weak overcalls (much to the chagrin of my previous club director!) while other bids are more restrictive.
For example, here is the response from ACBL about a bidding sequence that the BBO director made a mistake and cited the generic "rules" when faced with an unusual bid by an advanced player because the advanced player did not want to follow standard bidding for his hand.

"The term "temporizing bid" is just another term for "artificial bid". Artificial bids require an Alert unless they are specifically listed as exceptions under the Alert Procedures (such as stayman, Michaels Cuebids and others). A 2C response to a natural opening bid that can be made with fewer than 3 clubs is an Artificial Bid by definition. An Alert is required. Since the 2C bid was not self-alerted, it seems the result should have been adjusted to what would have happened had you doubled or entered the auction as you might have done with a proper Alert."

In bridge players are required to play by standard rules and to announce agreements that are not standard or fall within other rules for alerts. Mistakes happen. "Feel like hands" happen, but they still must follow ACBL bidding rules.

The world is a big place and OP did not specify that they were looking for an ACBL card, just that the only vaguely recent card they found was for ACBL.
All hands are ultimately "feel like" to some extent, one has to follow WBF laws and the regulations of RA (which in US is de facto ACBL).

As an aside, GiB almost always alerts and explains (whether required or not) and I doubt it would ever respond 2♣ with less than 3 cards or do many other things ACBL think are weird.
The issue is rather whether the explanations are correct and how partners/opponents could ever have guessed the agreement beforehand.

[Wentys]

Thanks for the responses.

Do the Robots signal when on defense? That ACBL card I referred to says they do - that the primary signal to partner's lead is count.

Thanks

[pescetom]

 Wentys, on 2026-January-06, 06:50, said:

Do the Robots signal when on defense? That ACBL card I referred to says they do - that the primary signal to partner's lead is count.

Here's what the GIB System Notes have to say:

Quote

How GIB Defends
It's difficult to describe precisely how GIB defends. It doesn't use rules and guidelines, like humans often do. It simulates hands based on the auction, using double dummy analysis to determine the average result of each defensive play, and chooses the one with the best average. Sometimes this simulation comes up with the same choice that a human would make (there's a good reason for some of the guidelines -- they actually work well), but not always (some of our rules of thumb have become popular simply because they're easy to remember and "good enough"). When it has a choice of equivalent cards, it will choose based on leading and signalling conventions.

GIB doesn't interpret your signals or make many inferences from the play, it uses simulations based on the auction. However, it's usually able to figure out that when you lead an honor, it's part of a sequence.

GIB usually leads passively against NT (read the book Winning Notrump Leads to understand why). Don't assume it's leading its longest suit. When you lead, it doesn't assume you're leading your best suit, which is why it doesn't always return the suit like a human would.

In suit contracts, GIB's opening lead is frequently a side singleton or doubleton, to try to get a ruff. When it leads a suit bid by the opponents, this is almost always the reason. Read the book Winning Suit Contract Leads for insight on the way GIB leads against suits.

If it leads an honor that's part of a sequence, it uses standard honor leads (K from AKx, A from AK doubleton). If it leads from a long suit, it leads 4th best (but see above: it doesn't always lead its long suit). When leading from 3 small, it leads low against both suit and NT contracts.

It doesn't use any signals when making discards, it just tries to make safe discards. In a suit contract it will frequently discard from a short suit while it has trumps left. Otherwise, it tends to discard from a long suit that's safe to shorten.

When it's following to partner's opening lead, it will usually give an attitude signal:

High spot card with an Ace or King
High spot card with a Queen behind dummy's Ace or King
Low in any other situation
Note that it doesn't give count in this situation, so it's hard to know when you can give it a ruff.


When it's trying to win the trick in third hand, it will play the lowest of equals. Otherwise, when following suit it usually gives standard count signals (high = even); an exception is when it's forced to play equivalent cards in a doubleton, it will randomize them because of "restricted choice".

The new GIBBO version is intended to lead and defend more like a human, various people have asked for an updated description.