[jammen]

You're on lead after partner has over called 1 ♦. If you lead the 10 of ♠ I'm gonna call you a liar.
♠ Q 10 8 5 4
♥ 8 7 5 2
♦ 10
♣ J 10 4

Dummy hits with A J 7 opposite declarers 9 6 3. So this turns into a Mollo story where the Rueful Rabbit accidentally drops the 10 ♠ on the table when trying to dislodge the ♦ 10.

[smerriman]

Seriously? The robots do stupid stuff all the time, and virtually all of the time it loses. See for example all of the stupid exceptions to leading rules in my post #8 here.

The fact it works once in a while doesn't prove they are cheating; in fact the full analysis shows much more strongly that they can't possibly be cheating.

But perhaps as a result of some dyslexia you actually meant to say the robots are weird. That would make considerably more sense than your actual post.

[jammen]

I see that I failed to say that the contract was 3nt. My post stands. If you lead the 10♠ that is proof of a wire.

[smerriman]

My point stands too, that your point is completely nonsensical.

[johnu]

 smerriman, on 2020-August-28, 17:48, said:

Seriously? The robots do stupid stuff all the time, and virtually all of the time it loses. See for example all of the stupid exceptions to leading rules in my post #8 here.

When having a decision about bidding more, I usually assume the GIB is going to make a poor lead that will let me make the contract. I always feel like writing my congressman and complaining when GIB manages to make a killing lead.