I expect you are right that the bot idea is a non-starter. Too bad I think. I think of myself as a relaxed sort of person, but let me be a bit emphatic here.
I think one of the very first and most important lessons in bridge is that with a great many bids, especially conventional bids, there is no such thing as the "right" meaning, there is only an agreed upon meaning. BWS plays a 3NT opening as "solid seven-card minor with little side strength", but with the Gib cc under conventions NOT played it lists the gambling 3NT.
Ok, 3NT openings are uncommon whatever they mean but a 1
opening is very common. How to respond? Here is BWS:
"In response to one club, with four of a major and four-plus diamonds, responder bids: one of the major with four diamonds, one diamond with invitational-plus values (otherwise one of the major) with five diamonds, one diamond with six diamonds."
A true Walsher would skip over 1
to bid 1M holding five
, a four card major and only invitational values.
Who is right? The people who have an agreement are right.
An amusing example from a recent face to face game. I opened 1NT, Lho overcalled with a DONT 2
, partner bid 4
. I alerted as Texas and bid 4
, after which he bid 5
. I was a little worried that he intended 4
as natural, he did, but I kept on as if the 4
call showed
. We ended in a hopeless 6NT, making on bad defense. BWS says Texas is on if the interference is 4
or less, Mike Lawrence says it is on if the interference is 3
or less [imo Todd is correct below where he regards this as the usual way], partner was thinking it was off over any interference. I can't think of any reason to play it as off over 2 level interference but at any rate what is really wrong is to play a convention without agreeing as to when it is on and when it is off. Partner said we had never discussed it, I said that's impossible, I never agree [in a regular partnership!] to play a convention without agreeing as to when it is on, when it is off.
So the educational point is: Conventions, and for that matter natural bids, mean different things to different people. There is no absolute source for finding the meaning, partners must agree on the meaning.
For reasons that escape me, players continue to think that their way of playing a convention is correct, other people's way of playing it is wrong, since they know the right way there is no need to discuss it. A written source is not "right", it's not the last word, but it is written, people can read it, and they can agree to play it as written. Or they can continue on, with one person playing it one way, their partner playing it anther way. As with the Texas example above, it will sometimes work out.
Anyway, I sometimes get a kick out of seeing just what the bots would do. I might try them on the MSC problems. In fact I think I will.