[pescetom]

As things are quiet, I thought this one might amuse Directors and Players and be a valid (although I can imagine much worse, please let us know) competitor for the title of Most Pathetic Director Call. Or maybe you think it has some merit, in which case please explain.

After playing this board, East bickered for a while with his companion and then called the Director to complain that South had "lied" about diamonds forcing him to ruff high with J, thus going down 1 in 3♥.

[pilowsky]

---

[sfi]

pescetom, on 2023-October-12, 14:42, said:

(although I can imagine much worse, please let us know)

I'm struggling to think of another contender. I do sympathise with declarer because they are basically down on any layout where South has five diamonds, but in that case they don't lose anything by ruffing low and getting some good news. In any case, South is entitled to misbid without giving the opponents an iron-clad guarantee of shape.

[smerriman]

sfi, on 2023-October-12, 15:13, said:

but in that case they don't lose anything by ruffing low and getting some good news. In any case, South is entitled to misbid without giving the opponents an iron-clad guarantee of shape.

Adding to that the fact that they didn't lose anything here by ruffing high regardless..

[blackshoe]

I don't know about most pathetic, but it's up there.

[steve2005]

instead of leading A♠ lead a club and pitch a spade
you can later cash A♠ and safely ruff a spade low.

[pescetom]

steve2005, on 2023-October-12, 19:36, said:

instead of leading A♠ lead a club and pitch a spade
you can later cash A♠ and safely ruff a spade low.

To be fair, this was not so obvious (though he rates himself Expert), so it's no surprise he was wondering where he went down. One would have to be pretty dumb to really believe that ruffing high cost anything however.

In any case the presumed damage is inconsequential to the Director, as there is no infraction to start with.

[pescetom]

sfi, on 2023-October-12, 15:13, said:

In any case, South is entitled to misbid without giving the opponents an iron-clad guarantee of shape.

I'm not even convinced it's a misbid, although open to contrary arguments. It's certainly a deviation from system, but relatively minor and it obtains the goals of showing spades plus strength and preempting hearts. North is also a passed hand GiB robot, a dangerous combination: not sure what smerriman (the keeper of the beast) would bid, but 2♠ looks relatively safe in the circumstances.

[blackshoe]

If it was deliberate, it's a deviation. If it was accidental, it was a misbid.

[jillybean]

blackshoe, on 2023-October-13, 15:32, said:

If it was deliberate, it's a deviation. If it was accidental, it was a misbid.

A deviation from what? North is a robot, are we to assume South has agreed to play the bots system?

[pescetom]

jillybean, on 2023-October-27, 19:56, said:

A deviation from what? North is a robot, are we to assume South has agreed to play the bots system?

I think we are.

The question is rather whether the semantic distinction proposed by blackshoe is valid (I don't find it particularly logical, but if it accurately describes common bridge thinking about the two terms then I'll learn to live with it).

[blackshoe]

If South didn't agree to play the bot's system, why is he playing with the bot?

[pilowsky]

blackshoe, on 2023-October-28, 22:36, said:

If South didn't agree to play the bot's system, why is he playing with the bot?

Hope springs eternal from the human breast.

[jillybean]

blackshoe, on 2023-October-28, 22:36, said:

If South didn't agree to play the bot's system, why is he playing with the bot?

He's bored, killing time, hoping to amass master points, who cares.
I think it's stretching things to try to apply the laws of Duplicate Bridge to bot/human partnerships. Or do we have a subset of rules just for this situation?

[pescetom]

jillybean, on 2023-October-29, 11:36, said:

I think it's stretching things to try to apply the laws of Duplicate Bridge to bot/human partnerships. Or do we have a subset of rules just for this situation?

We should have a subset of rules, but unfortunately we don't.
So should we just give up on the idea of playing a meaningful and just game?
I don't think so.*
It's up to the RA (if there is one, but often there isn't and they haven't addressed the problem either) or BBO (but they don't seem interested in facing the problem) or the TD (who is always there and in last resort can dictate his own rules, rather than let the players do so).

Some suggested starting points:
1) if you play with GiB and have your bids auto-explained both to yourself and your opponents, then you have an obvious obligation to follow the system that is documented and explained
2) following a system does not mean slavish adherence, an occasional deviation for obvious bridge reasons is legitimate
3) a psychic deviation that would tend to modify the agreement with a human partner is clearly unethical with a robot partner incapable of adaptation to deviations.


(*) This question is of course valid to some extent for all play on BBO, given its peculiarities and the high frequency of pickup partnerships with no real discussion of agreements. Playing a tournament yesterday I opened 1NT (15-17) and LHO intervened 2♣, RHO failed to alert and asked in chat to the table "natural, partner?". I then received private chat saying that "I had exaggerated" by calling TD

[blackshoe]

pescetom, on 2023-October-30, 14:04, said:

a psychic deviation that would tend to modify the agreement with a human partner is clearly unethical with a robot partner incapable of adaptation to deviations.

This seems like an overbid to me. Exactly how is psyching unethical in this case?

[jillybean]

pescetom, on 2023-October-30, 14:04, said:

(*) This question is of course valid to some extent for all play on BBO, given its peculiarities and the high frequency of pickup partnerships with no real discussion of agreements. Playing a tournament yesterday I opened 1NT (15-17) and LHO intervened 2♣, RHO failed to alert and asked in chat to the table "natural, partner?". I then received private chat saying that "I had exaggerated" by calling TD

How did the TD rule?

[sanst]

pescetom, on 2023-October-30, 14:04, said:

3) a psychic deviation that would tend to modify the agreement with a human partner is clearly unethical with a robot partner incapable of adaptation to deviations.

Sorry, but this I don’t understand. A robot probably can’t distinguish even the most blatant psych from a systemic call and psyching when playing with one would most likely end in a complete disaster. Your human partner might discover your psych in a legal way before you go over the brink, but how does a computer do so without advanced AI?

[smerriman]

'Psyching' with a robot is extremely common and can lead to very good scores. There are zero issues with this when you're the only human at the table. But when you're playing against humans, the issue isn't the computer discovering the psych, but the fact that you have plenty of partnership understanding of how the robot deals with unexpected bidding sequences, while human opponents may not.

[pescetom]

sanst, on 2023-October-31, 03:05, said:

Your human partner might discover your psych in a legal way before you go over the brink, but how does a computer do so without advanced AI?

It doesn't, and that is my point. Under a literal application of current law to the human-robot situation, one could repeat any given psyche ad infinitum without committing any infraction, whereas a competitor playing with a human would soon find himself accused of a concealed partnership understanding. Whilst waiting for more adequate laws and regulations, it seems to me unethical to exploit this unintentional loophole (and yes some people do so: as smerriman points out, some psyches work well with the robot and attent partners often know which).