I found it curious to compare the different choices made by Gib in different situations.
The majority of human (26) choose open South’s hand with 1♣and bid 1NT over 1♥ from Gib. This bid, according to Gib’s understanding, shows 12-14 points and 2-3 ♥.
Gib overbids a little with New Minor Forcing (12+ points according the box) and passes whatever human choose to reply (2NT, 3♦ or 3NT).
Reasonable actions.
Nice to know that Gib can bid NMF with singleton in other major and still happy to pass any NT reply from the partner, that promises no stopper in other major, of course.
Some people who open 1♣ found alternative continuations after 1♥ rebid.
Four of them decided to repeat their ♣.
Note that Gib bid NT without worry about his singleton in ♠ and did not bother to show the ♣ support.
Two other people jump to 3NT. Gib understood that bid as a solid 7 cards ♣ and passed. I am curious to know how programmers solved conflict with 2 ♣Kings in the deck? I mean if Gib expected his partner to have ♣AKQxxxx and it hold ♣K by his own, Gib can not run simulation for possible hands to choose the next action. Is it is mandatory passing in case of conflicts like that?
Finally for 1♣ openers, 3 person bid revers 2♦.
Gib was OK with it. It supported ♦ and passed 3NT.