[Stephen Tu]

I suppose I can see that it is "fair" but playing in this way starts to be a different game than bridge which is supposed to be full disclosure game with occasional psyching, not a "make everyone guess" free for all rampant psyching against handicapped opponents not knowing they are playing a different game.

I think gaming "bridge vs. 3 robots" for max BBO tourney score should be discussed in a different thread not brought up in a question presumably intended to ask what's best in a game with humans.

[1eyedjack]

The unfortunate confusion resulting from raising the point has been the issue of frequency; namely, an unwarranted inferred assumption that a high frequency in a robot tourney might be acceptable in F2F. While a high frequency in a robot tourney MAY be a long term optimal strategy (in that environment) each individual occasion is, as far as the robots are concerned, the first occasion in their combined cybernetic lives. IF it is a long term winning strategy (in that environment), that results from each isolated event providing a small statistical edge.

The sole relevance (to this thread) of the high frequency in robot tourneys is that it provides the opportunity to amass a lot of data over a short time frame that would not be possible in F2F. From that large population you hope to prove the small statistical edge afforded to an isolated psych, which then (hopefully) can be compared with an isolated psych at F2F.

It is certainly appropriate to consider whether robots are handicapped (contrasted with humans) in combatting psychs and, if you so conclude, to adjust your conclusions accordingly (which, incidentally, might not require entirely discarding those conclusions). The robots' greatest handicap, in my view, is their lack of memory, which affords the human an opportunity for "rampant" psyching for the effect of multiplying up each small statistical edge on an arithmetic basis. But it would be wrong to include that particular handicap in any adjustment for this purpose.

Robots may have other handicaps, but also they do play a 57% game, and in my experience/opinion their naive defences against a declarer who has psyched generally has sound logic behind it where blind faith is assumed. Blind faith may not be that far removed from F2F reality if, as this thread indicates, lying in response to Stayman is a strict no-no.

There are two entirely separate reasons why lying in response to Stayman MIGHT be worthwhile.
1) It may be expected to guide you to a superior contract, regardless of whether oppo are aware, and
2) It may confuse the oppo (which effect may more than compensate for occasions when reason 1 is reversed and you land in theoretically a worse spot).

I have only been considering the second point. Most of the other responders have been addressing the first, and with whom I broadly agree.

[Stephen Tu]

I think the main problem with using results against robots as your argument for concealment is their lack of defensive signalling. They have a strong tendency to either lead the right suit but then switch, or find the right switch and then not continue that long suit. These are the exact hand types where being in 3nt is a mistake. Unless you are carefully recording statistics and manually correcting for "hmm humans would never get this defense wrong" conclusions would be invalid.

[Vampyr]

Stephen Tu, on 2014-March-18, 09:56, said:

It is not possible to disclose system info to the robots. Thus you are operating with a tendency that in real life would have to be disclosed to human opponents, but vs. robots you can't. I suggest this is against the spirit of bridge law, even though in a robot tourney there is no enforcement mechanism and lots of people do these things.

I don't understand this. It seems entirely reasonable to do what you like against robots.

[Stephen Tu]

I can see how people see it's reasonable/fair since it's a tactic available to all the human competitors, just to me it seems unsporting. It's like using a cheat code in a video game. The robots have a bug/limitation, and you are exploiting it, I don't see it as winning bridge strategy as I can't see it working effectively against humans.

[Zelandakh]

I do not see the problem in using a cheat code in a video game either, providing the game is not multiplayer. The only person you are cheating is yourself since you effectively cut out some of the playability.

[helene_t]

it is more akin to exploiting weak pairs in a pairs tourney for example by preempting more against pairs that play fishbein and less against pairs that are bad constructive bidders.

[ArtK78]

Stephen Tu, on 2014-March-19, 10:35, said:

I can see how people see it's reasonable/fair since it's a tactic available to all the human competitors, just to me it seems unsporting. It's like using a cheat code in a video game. The robots have a bug/limitation, and you are exploiting it, I don't see it as winning bridge strategy as I can't see it working effectively against humans.

Let's take this out of the Robot context and back into real life play. Suppose you knew for a fact that a legal treatment or convention (10-12 1NT, multi, etc.) would be beyond the ability of a particular field to handle (and likely to lead to good results), not because of its technical merit, but because of its unfamiliarity. Would it be "unsporting" to use such a convention in that field? Keep in mind that I am stating as part of the conditions of contest that the convention is allowed by the sanctioning body for that event.

[mycroft]

I believe quite strongly in the captain theory, and 1NT is the most "Captaincy" call in most system's toolbox. You bid NT naturally, your partner is captain. If you want to mastermind after that, don't bid 1NT (or, if you have to bid 1NT so you get to play the hand, find another partner, thanks). You know nothing about partner's hand, and yet want to show a 3333 because you're scared of a crap suit in a flat hand. Partner knows you have a flat(-tish) hand; partner usually isn't looking at 9xxx himself, so he probably has a good idea about your suit quality. Even when he is looking at 9xxx, frequently the suit breaks 3-2 and you're in the right spot anyway (and it's fun to watch the honours crash).

[eagles123]

eagles123, on 2014-March-17, 13:01, said:

---

I held this hand earlier today. I bid 2d thinking my H holding was so rubbish and I have stops in all the other suits so my p signed off in 3N. I know p could have had a hand that 4H was good but 3N wasn't (if holding 4H) but was lying about stayman right? If not when is it right to lie?

thanks,

Eagles

dear oh dear this wasn't one of my cleverest ideas

[wank]

eagles123, on 2016-March-31, 18:10, said:

dear oh dear this wasn't one of my cleverest ideas

maybe so, but not worth having nightmares over 2 years later imo.