[pescetom]

MP all vulnerable, it goes (Pass) 1♠ (Pass) : you hold ♠5 ♥AJT72 ♦632 ♣AQ73.
Your bid playing 2/1?
GIB chose 2♥ (described as Forcing to 3N, 12+ HCP, 13+ total points).

[smerriman]

A classic case of GIB adding 2 points for the void in your suit The HCP bit isn't part of the rule, it'll also do it with ♠- ♥65432 ♦AJ32 ♣AJ73 as that's three points for the void now. Discounting shortness in partner's suit has been a long time request.

[pescetom]

smerriman, on 2023-May-08, 14:35, said:

A classic case of GIB adding 2 points for the void in your suit The HCP bit isn't part of the rule, it'll also do it with ♠- ♥65432 ♦AJ32 ♣AJ73 as that's three points for the void now. Discounting shortness in partner's suit has been a long time request.

So in commercial terms it's merely selling a product with a long known fundamental defect and in bridge terms just intentionally misinforming opponents about agreed HCP, right?

[smerriman]

Well, the former has never been in doubt

For the latter, I don't think the descriptions were actually written for the sake of disclosure / the laws of bridge, and its partner is just as misled. They're written for the entire algorithm to work; if the description was changed to 10+ HCP, then despite being in a game-forcing situation, its robot partner would refuse to bid 3NT later with 13-14 HCP because all of its rules for bidding 3NT are based around things like having at least (25 - partner's shown HCP in the description).

So it imposes a lot of the descriptions in order to make future bids work, even if the description itself doesn't match up with the hand or even the logic used to make it. And the fact that its robot partner is forced to make all decisions based on the description being true makes it somewhat closer to legal.