[pescetom]

jillybean, on 2023-October-30, 22:59, said:

How did the TD rule?

She did not deign to tell me. But I imagine she did at least admonish the opponents, albeit not publicly.
I doubt I was damaged (*) and I did not suggest that I was, although hopefully she checked anyway.

(*) Out of curiosity I checked... we misbid anyway, with partner mysteriously correcting my reply to takeout with 2NT. LHO led hearts to the Ace of RHO who ran a club through my KJ doubleton for another six tricks... not bad for a pair that didn't seem to know each other or the Laws

[Tramticket]

This isn't even close to the most pathetic director call!

Last week a table started bidding the final board of the round after the director had already called the move. They then had the cheek to call the director to complain that everyone else was being too noisy and they couldn't concentrate!

I remember a call complaining that the noise of a table tennis ball in the next room was distracting.

The usual pathetic calls relate to whether a window should be open or shut, the air-condtioning turned higher or lower etc.

One particularly amusing call was by an East/West pair complaining that the previous East/West had taken their chairs with them (they were more comfortable apparently).

Back in the day, when I was still a junior, the director was called to complain that my partner was not dressed appropriately (he was wearing shorts on a hot day).

One director call complained that declarer hadn't stated that he was drawing trumps in his claim. Delarer's last three cards were the ace, king and queen of trumps.

[smerriman]

pescetom, on 2023-October-31, 07:23, said:

it seems to me unethical to exploit this unintentional loophole

I don't see anything unethical from that perspective, nor it even being unintentional in the laws. The only reason it's a law is that if you repeat it, your partner will become aware and their responses will start to change, subconsciously at minimum, to take that into account, and that's something the opponents need to be informed of. There are no such issues with the robot, who will never doubt you have what your system says no matter what. It's only humans who are incapable of doing that.

[pescetom]

smerriman, on 2023-October-31, 12:27, said:

I don't see anything unethical from that perspective, nor it even being unintentional in the laws. The only reason it's a law is that if you repeat it, your partner will become aware and their responses will start to change, subconsciously at minimum, to take that into account, and that's something the opponents need to be informed of. There are no such issues with the robot, who will never doubt you have what your system says no matter what. It's only humans who are incapable of doing that.

The Laws are intended to create fair conditions of contest between all competitors. Do you think competent lawmakers aware of the non-adaptive robot issue would have knowingly saddled the human-human pairs with a gross limitation that human-robot pairs need not respect? I do not, and I am not in a hurry to take advantage of this loophole before it is fixed.

Sure, there is the school that there is nothing unethical in exploiting the limits of the law to achieve a competitive advantage, or even that it is a duty to do so. I'm not of that opinion but it is legitimate. Just as I say nothing to one of our best players who will never mention his partner's revoke unless it is to his advantage to do so, nor mention an opponent's revoke before it is established if this would not be to his advantage - but I do not respect him for this either.

[pescetom]

Tramticket, on 2023-October-31, 10:28, said:

This isn't even close to the most pathetic director call!

Last week a table started bidding the final board of the round after the director had already called the move. They then had the cheek to call the director to complain that everyone else was being too noisy and they couldn't concentrate!

I remember a call complaining that the noise of a table tennis ball in the next room was distracting.

The usual pathetic calls relate to whether a window should be open or shut, the air-condtioning turned higher or lower etc.

One particularly amusing call was by an East/West pair complaining that the previous East/West had taken their chairs with them (they were more comfortable apparently).

Back in the day, when I was still a junior, the director was called to complain that my partner was not dressed appropriately (he was wearing shorts on a hot day).

One director call complained that declarer hadn't stated that he was drawing trumps in his claim. Delarer's last three cards were the ace, king and queen of trumps.

I think only the last one comes close to the spirit of this thread, although it was either an attempt at humour or a sign of impending dementia

The others are non law related affairs that yes, might tediate the TD, but are perfectly normal and sometimes even justified.

An alert TD will not give them the chance to start a new board when the move is imminent: take the board away.

None of us like to be held responsible for thermal conditions and the impossible task of satisfying the related preferences of all players, but occasionally it really is time to turn up/down the heating or whatever.

I remember as a player being told by Director that I could not play with those shorts, however hot the day... it was part of the dress code of the venue (a magnificent Naval Officers Club on a terrace above the port) and I rushed back to the car to put on trousers, well aware that he was right and I should have asked first.

If there was anything TD could do about the table tennis noise then he should do it, IMO. I remember when my players complained (rightly) about the noise from a tournament of Burraco in the next room: the argument between TDs of two different games would probably have been amusing to a fly on the wall

[barmar]

pescetom, on 2023-November-02, 15:53, said:

The Laws are intended to create fair conditions of contest between all competitors. Do you think competent lawmakers aware of the non-adaptive robot issue would have knowingly saddled the human-human pairs with a gross limitation that human-robot pairs need not respect? I do not, and I am not in a hurry to take advantage of this loophole before it is fixed.

The Laws essentially say that psychs are allowed as long as partner has is as much in the dark as the opponents. Surely that's true when partner is a robot. This is the essence of the reason why psychs are allowed as long as you don't do it too often. Since "too often" is defined in terms of whether partner will pick up on the pattern and create a CPU, I don't see how this is really a loophole, it's how it's supposed to work.

In the case of a robot partner and human opponents, it seems like the humans have the flexibility and imagination necessary to guess that you're psyching, but partner never will. So if anything, psyching with a robot partner should be more acceptable than with a human partner.

[pescetom]

barmar, on 2023-November-06, 13:58, said:

The Laws essentially say that psychs are allowed as long as partner has is as much in the dark as the opponents. Surely that's true when partner is a robot. This is the essence of the reason why psychs are allowed as long as you don't do it too often. Since "too often" is defined in terms of whether partner will pick up on the pattern and create a CPU, I don't see how this is really a loophole, it's how it's supposed to work.

It's (the painful compromise of) how it's supposed to work with players capable of adapting to partner's behaviour, as were all players were for the first century of bridge while the current Laws emerged. I don't for a moment believe someone posed the problem of a non-adaptive artificial player with an astute human partner and said "this will do all the same".

barmar, on 2023-November-06, 13:58, said:

In the case of a robot partner and human opponents, it seems like the humans have the flexibility and imagination necessary to guess that you're psyching, but partner never will. So if anything, psyching with a robot partner should be more acceptable than with a human partner.

The fact that robot partner will not imagine you are psyching is never an advantage compared to the same situation with a human partner (otherwise it was not a psych), whether the opponents are humans are not. The difference is that the literal intepretation of obsolete law allows you to psych repeatedly with your robot partner whereas your human competitors cannot do the same.

I struggle to see how you can consider this justified or even less intentional. It strikes me as a self-serving argument from players who have gotten used to an undeserved privilege and are reluctant to give up the bone.

[blackshoe]

As long as the frequency of your psychs with a robot partner is no more than the frequency of your psychs with a human partner, I don't see a problem. If, OTOH, the idea is "my robot partner will never pick up on my psychs, therefore I can and will psych often", then IMO you're doing it wrong.

[smerriman]

blackshoe, on 2023-November-06, 19:19, said:

If, OTOH, the idea is "my robot partner will never pick up on my psychs, therefore I can and will psych often", then IMO you're doing it wrong.

Half of the reason you psych with robots is because they are incapable of changing their system, and put you in positions where "psyching" is the only way to achieve a normal result, with the actual definitions unusable. There is no way the laws could ever distinguish between this and human-like "psychs" without resulting in countless problems.

(The other half is when you are playing against robot opponents who are incapable of punishing them, like making an undefined 4NT bid with 0 points and knowing all three players are guaranteed to pass it out undoubled, which is not relevant to human opponents).

[barmar]

pescetom, on 2023-November-06, 16:05, said:

The fact that robot partner will not imagine you are psyching is never an advantage compared to the same situation with a human partner (otherwise it was not a psych), whether the opponents are humans are not. The difference is that the literal intepretation of obsolete law allows you to psych repeatedly with your robot partner whereas your human competitors cannot do the same.

It's true that you have the advantage of being able to psych more frequently without any legal consequences. But you're assuming that the only downside is legal. If your partner always believes you and never figures out what's going on, you're likely to get a bad board. Human partnerships have the advantage that partner can be flexible, even when it doesn't rise to an undisclosed agreement.

Just because it's legal to psych frequently, it doesn't mean it's a good idea.

Quote

I struggle to see how you can consider this justified or even less intentional. It strikes me as a self-serving argument from players who have gotten used to an undeserved privilege and are reluctant to give up the bone.

I didn't mean that the lawgivers intended that players could psych freely with robots, since they didn't really consider robots at all.

[pescetom]

barmar, on 2023-November-09, 15:35, said:

Just because it's legal to psych frequently, it doesn't mean it's a good idea.

But with the GiB robot it often is a good idea in terms of results, if you know its quirks well (and they are both well known to afficionados and undisclosed to opponents, which is another ethical issue which it behoves BBO to address by bugfixing and/or better documentation).

[smerriman]

pescetom, on 2023-November-09, 15:54, said:

But with the GiB robot it often is a good idea in terms of results, if you know its quirks well (and they are both well known to afficionados and undisclosed to opponents, which is another ethical issue which it behoves BBO to address by bugfixing and/or better documentation).

That is unrelated to psyching and applies just as equally to normal bids. You should indeed to be obligated to inform the opponents of how GIB your will interpret your bid, if the description isn't adequate (which it usually isn't). But not prevented from making bids that are outside of that interpretation.

[pescetom]

smerriman, on 2023-November-09, 16:04, said:

That is unrelated to psyching and applies just as equally to normal bids. You should indeed to be obligated to inform the opponents of how GIB your will interpret your bid, if the description isn't adequate (which it usually isn't). But not prevented from making bids that are outside of that interpretation.

I was referring specifically to undocumented but known tendencies of GiB opposite a psyching partner. You knew that GiB will not bat an eyelid at 4NT from partner with 0 HCP, but most of us reading had no idea of that. A psyche fielded by documented system is already dimly viewed, a psyche fielded by undisclosed but known system deserves ugly adjectives. Nobody expects such things to be alerted, but a page of System Notes documenting actual behaviour seems due.

(the whole official Gib System Notes is just 5 pages of text and a 4NT opening is not even defined).

[smerriman]

Yeah, I know - but GIB also has undocumented and known tendencies opposite an unpsyching partner too, and they are equally (and almost certainly more) important for the opponents to be informed about. It's the disclosure which needs resolving in all cases - not the fact that you should be prevented from psyching, which I don't see as an issue.

[thepossum]

That situation is one of my main frustrations with the GiB (5 card major???) system and I would possibly have bid in a similar way rather than the obligatory NT or whatever

I'm no director and struggle even trying to be disciplined and ethical in my bidding with a system that often has no "correct" bid available

I actually think those diamonds are worth a rebid anyway - can't you relax suit length with a nice suit

I am considering creating a ChatGPT TD using their Gametime plugin - it will not tolerate ridiculous complaints

I imagine a relaxed 1 or 2NT opening option would have been frowned on too
or an occasional relaxed 1S to avoid a reverse option

What are you supposed to do. Maybe just pass lol

People wonder why I avoid duplicate clubs. You want a TD who calls people out and tells them to lighten up occasionally

As someone who still struggles to find the right bid that fits the description with GiB after 6 years, I think people need to be flexible

EDIT Interesting thing (to me) Qplus passed Can I ask what GiB would have done

I come back to my dummy's view on Bridge - I see no intent to mislead and simply someone trying to bid their hand

EDIT 2 I have created said Bridgebase TD GPT with required attitude and philosophy - sadly I can't share it but it saw no real infraction
"In this specific scenario, unless South's bid was a clear and deliberate misrepresentation (which seems unlikely given the description), East's complaint might be more about their disappointment or a strategic misjudgment rather than a valid accusation of wrongdoing. In bridge, as in many competitive games, players are expected to interpret and respond to bids based on their understanding and experience, and not all unfavorable outcomes are grounds for formal complaints."