[helene_t]

---

For some reason this wasn't doubled. So I won a few IMPs.

[cherdano]

"Not doubled" reminds me - there are number of competitive auctions where 4N is not defined. Which means you can bid it and play ther undoubled because noone knows what to do. I don't recommend trying it vulnerable. But not vulnerable with 2hcp opposite a passed partner...

[pescetom]

cherdano, on 2022-April-16, 14:41, said:

"Not doubled" reminds me - there are number of competitive auctions where 4N is not defined. Which means you can bid it and play ther undoubled because noone knows what to do. I don't recommend trying it vulnerable. But not vulnerable with 2hcp opposite a passed partner...

Vulnerable here, not not vulnerable.
That asides, this represents the long standing ethical (and imminent legal) dilemma about deviating from agreements with a non-adaptive robot partner.

[helene_t]

cherdano, on 2022-April-16, 14:41, said:

"Not doubled" reminds me - there are number of competitive auctions where 4N is not defined. Which means you can bid it and play ther undoubled because noone knows what to do. I don't recommend trying it vulnerable. But not vulnerable with 2hcp opposite a passed partner...

---

https://www.bridgeba...784#entry892784

This was eight down and was also a good score.

[smerriman]

helene_t, on 2022-April-16, 15:16, said:

https://www.bridgeba...784#entry892784

This was eight down and was also a good score.

That one's a bit riskier. But you can freely overcall 4NT over 2♣ and guarantee it will be passed out.

[pilowsky]

pescetom, on 2022-April-16, 14:53, said:

That asides, this represents the long standing ethical (and imminent legal) dilemma about deviating from agreements with a non-adaptive robot partner.

"imminent legal dilemma"? Tell us more...

[LBengtsson]

Six down (vulnerable) is not good bridge...by the robot, as the contract should be X.

When robots can not work out - like human bridge player - that 3♥ by North is a crazy contract, I feel happy

Computer chess now beats any human player, and has done for some years. Computer bridge is still...garbage!

[pescetom]

pilowsky, on 2022-April-16, 18:17, said:

"imminent legal dilemma"? Tell us more...

It's one of the many "new" issues that online bridge laws will have to address. Imminent is to be interpreted in WBF timescales unfortunately, 2017 is like yesterday and 2027 just round the corner.

[cherdano]

Sorry, the WBF should not address the ethics of robot bridge. It's a fun but silly little game. Adjusting The Laws Of Contract Bridge to accommodate it would be as if the AP released a version of its style guide to address, like, bridge forum posts.

[pescetom]

cherdano, on 2022-April-17, 11:32, said:

Sorry, the WBF should not address the ethics of robot bridge. It's a fun but silly little game. Adjusting The Laws Of Contract Bridge to accommodate it would be as if the AP released a version of its style guide to address, like, bridge forum posts.

I think it depends partly on how long the mainstream of robots will remain incapable of observing their partner's behaviour and re-formulating agreements based upon this. At this moment and probably for many years to come there are individuals playing with a non-adaptive robot in a competition against human pairs and it seems reasonable that The Laws Of Contract Bridge should address the related issues. Smarter robots will bring up their own issues too, in particular when they are capable of formulating agreements between themselves that are difficult to disclose (or simply comprehend). Silly would be to pretend the genie is still in the bottle.

[helene_t]

pescetom, on 2022-April-17, 12:57, said:

I think it depends partly on how long the mainstream of robots will remain incapable of observing their partner's behaviour and re-formulating agreements based upon this.

Jack has an option to let robots build up experience with specific humans' lack of discipline, but of course, tournament organizers may choose to switch that feature off.