[Thranduil]

https://tinyurl.com/2bvwp7su

The robot's 3♠ bid is labeled as "9+ HCP, 10+ total points, forcing" - but the robot only has 7 HCP and a 6-card club suit, something it would want to transfer to clubs with if there was no interference? What is the issue here? The 3♠ bid essentially forces me to bid 3NT as I have no other options, but if I have a minimum as I did here I do not want to play that contract. Luckily I still made it for a top score, so for once a bot error did not result in a bottom, at least :-)

[smerriman]

The robots make a lot of bids which don't match the description; this in itself is often intentional, rather than a bug. This is because the robots do not use the description of a bid *at all* when deciding whether to make that bid; the logic for what it bids is an entirely independent part of the database.

The descriptions are only used for determining *later* bids. I.e. here 3♠ does not mean "I need 9+ HCP to bid this", it means "in all of your future bids, assume I have 9+ HCP when calculating combined points, etc".

People have debated fruitlessly whether this is lawful or not, but that's how it works.

Obviously 3♠ is a silly bid.. here, like other scenarios, it's mainly down to a conflict between HCP and total points; a bean-counting basic robot just counts that it has 9 total points and thinks that's enough to force to game on total points. But it can't bid 3NT itself, because it doesn't have enough HCP. (Add the ♣Q and it will. 3♣ doesn't seem to exist.) Putting things to the extreme, it would also do so with a 7-6 3 count, since that's also 9 total points. But it can't describe it as 3+ HCP, since then its partner is never allowed to bid 3NT without 22+ HCP..

I can't imagine an advanced robot, which is where it actually considers how the hands mesh and resolves most of these silly bids, coming up with a 3♠ bid though.

[msheald]

Just curious - does the failure of bid descriptions to match the actual bid also occur in tournament play when points are awarded? If so, I would think that would be a situation that would be "unlawful" according to ACBL rules. Best regards.

Mike

[smerriman]

Even with human play, you never alert based on what you actually hold, only the agreement. GIBs agreement never changes - the agreement is that future bids will assume the described holding - and it assumes you will stick to it religiously like it does.

Like I said, others disagree, but it is a fruitless debate. The robots won't change, and if you're asking for them to be banned from all forms of online tournament.. well, I'd say far more people prefer playing with them, and thus the laws are what should change.

[msheald]

My apologies. I was not suggesting that ACBL no longer sanction robot tournaments. However, I was suggesting that human ACBL tournaments have higher levels of rules requirements than casual games, and that applies to robot games. And I would expect that robot games would meet all ACBL tournament rules requirements.

Partners make mistakes, so it is not unreasonable to expect that bid descriptions and alerts will not be at the 100% conformity level in human tournaments.

I am confused by your comment - "GIBs agreement never changes - the agreement is that future bids will assume the described holding." I thought that this post was in reference to the perception that there appear to be a number of instances when the GIB bid descriptions do not match the hand. This seems different than your comment.

Like the poster, I've received bottom boards because I've based play and bids upon GIB bid descriptions that turned out to be (in retrospect) inaccurate from my point of view. I couldn't help but wonder how others got good boards if they played with the same information that I had.

Could you provide further guidance? Thank you and best regards.

Mike

[smerriman]

That's not a contradiction. GIBs agreement is not that it has the hand in the description. Its agreement is that its partner will always assume it does and respond accordingly. So much so that it will take a 0% line because it couldn't accept that your own bid might be 1 hcp off what it promised, no matter how many times you've lied in the past (and even if you had no alternative), thus never forming any implicit understandings.

[pescetom]

smerriman, on 2024-August-22, 05:22, said:

That's not a contradiction. GIBs agreement is not that it has the hand in the description. Its agreement is that its partner will always assume it does and respond accordingly.

So it's sufficient to assume (without even good reason) that partner will continue to believe you have the hand that fits the explanation and then you can repeatedly have something different?
I think not.

[smerriman]

Yes. The laws specifically say you are allowed to deviate as much as you like as long as partner is unaware that you are doing so. Humans become aware from past experience; the way the code works guarantees that robots do not.

Obviously, as the human, if your experience with the robot causes you to doubt its explanation and bid as if it had something else, you should disclose that to the opponents. But this by simple definition can never apply to the robot itself.

But the laws weren't written for robots, just as much as they were barely written for online play. If you have issue with a law and the robots, the law should be changed.

[pescetom]

smerriman, on 2024-August-22, 13:40, said:

Yes. The laws specifically say you are allowed to deviate as much as you like as long as partner is unaware that you are doing so. Humans become aware from past experience; the way the code works guarantees that robots do not.

Obviously, as the human, if your experience with the robot causes you to doubt its explanation and bid as if it had something else, you should disclose that to the opponents. But this by simple definition can never apply to the robot itself.

You are missing the point, as OP easily spotted. A human partner quickly becomes aware that robot is repeatedly deviating, so now we are in violation of the laws. It's not enough to disclose the situation to opponents, we should call the director and confess.

[smerriman]

OK; I concede; the only option is to ban robots outright. I'm sure nobody will mind.

[pescetom]

As far as this particular defect is concerned, it would be sufficient to fix the robot so that it gave the right explanation (which seems due, particularly given that it is provided on a payment basis).
The legal aspects of other limitations are more complex and often require new Law (or simple forbiddance), I concede.