[1eyedjack]

Say that in an "all robot" tourney (by which I mean 1 human, 3 robots per table), you (the human) adopt a policy of freely "modulating" the system on a high percentage of hands. Opening the weaker minor, off-shape 1N openers, lying in response to Stayman, that sort of thing. Not (perhaps) "psychs" in the legal sense of the word, because the distortions are not "gross". But absolutely not the action that the system dicates and not the action that a robot would have taken had it been sitting in your seat.

Had you adopted this tactic with a human partner there would be an implicit agreement by reason of frequency, which would be disclosable (thereby diminishing the net long term effectiveness of the tactic against human opps, perhaps eliminating it).

Now, say that you sit at a table with a robot partner and two human opponents, and decide to adopt the same policy. What are your disclosure obligations now?

You might argue along these lines: The robot has no memory. You could psych on a million consecutive hands and the next psych would still come as a complete surprise to the robot. Indeed by then it would have no element of surprise for the human opponents.

The counter argument is that both members of the partnership are required to play the same system, so it is not a disclosure breach so much as a breach of the regulation requiring both partners to play the same system. That said, I think that the requirement for both partners to play the same system is not in the primary legislation but derives from powers devolved to the sponsoring organisation and as such is a "local" regulation. Perhaps universally adopted but perhaps not. In a particular event on BBO it may depend on who is running the tourney.

[aguahombre]

Wrong forum. The 2nd letter in IBLF stands for "Bridge".

[helene_t]

IMO it's clearly fair game. The GIB CC is available to opps and there is no partnership understanding to disclose beyond that.

[barmar]

1eyedjack, on 2013-September-09, 23:33, said:

Now, say that you sit at a table with a robot partner and two human opponents, and decide to adopt the same policy. What are your disclosure obligations now?

You might argue along these lines: The robot has no memory. You could psych on a million consecutive hands and the next psych would still come as a complete surprise to the robot. Indeed by then it would have no element of surprise for the human opponents.

The opponents are entitled to know what your partner knows about your style. Since the robot is oblivious to these psyches, they don't result in any implicit understandings that need to be disclosed.

[jallerton]

This is an interesting question. Compare and contrast with the following situation.

In an all human game, player A regularly plays with player B.
A is a strong player, maybe a bridge professional.
B is a weaker player with a poor memory.
A frequently deviates from the agrees system but B does not usually notice.

Should the A/B partnership disclose A's tendency to depart from the agreed system?

[blackshoe]

jallerton, on 2013-September-10, 12:21, said:

This is an interesting question. Compare and contrast with the following situation.

In an all human game, player A regularly plays with player B.
A is a strong player, maybe a bridge professional.
B is a weaker player with a poor memory.
A frequently deviates from the agrees system but B does not usually notice.

Should the A/B partnership disclose A's tendency to depart from the agreed system?

I think so, yes. Another question is "how should they disclose it?"

[gnasher]

jallerton, on 2013-September-10, 12:21, said:

This is an interesting question. Compare and contrast with the following situation.

In an all human game, player A regularly plays with player B.
A is a strong player, maybe a bridge professional.
B is a weaker player with a poor memory.
A frequently deviates from the agrees system but B does not usually notice.

Should the A/B partnership disclose A's tendency to depart from the agreed system?

Yes they should, and we wouldn't excuse them because of B's poor memory. Nor should we excuse them because B is a machine.

[Vampyr]

gnasher, on 2013-September-10, 16:00, said:

Yes they should, and we wouldn't excuse them because of B's poor memory. Nor should we excuse them because B is a machine.

I agree completely with Andy, and I think that it is obvious. Psyches or deviations can become CPUs, it is true, but everyone seems to be dismissing the matter of MI.

[blackshoe]

Everyone?

[barmar]

How about something like this. A has a history of psyching. After some disaster. B complains, and A promises never to psyche again with him.

Should B take A at his word, or disclose his tendency to psyche? What if A breaks his promise and psyches again, but afterward swears that was the last time?

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2013-September-11, 08:25, said:

Everyone?

No, but a number of people, and it makes me sad that so many people misunderstand their ethical obligation.

[hrothgar]

I admit to being somewhat torn on this.

Lets assume that "true" partnership agreement is the following:

The Robot uses system X
The human makes the bid that he thinks will work best if interpreted as X by the robot

I don't see anything wrong with this sort of behavior.
If you are playing against a human player, I think that you should disclose likely deviations from system X

Personally, I don't find the absent minded human analogy to be interesting.
If your partner can't remember your psyches, he probably can't remember the system that he is supposedly playing.
The whole concept of disclosure becomes kinda silly.

[campboy]

I don't think the absent-minded partner is a good analogy. It's not just that the robot probably won't remember your psyches, it isn't even aware of ever having played with you before. You essentially get a new, albeit identical, partner every hand; a better analogy is an individual.

[mycroft]

The human makes the call he thinks will work best if interpreted by X by *the three robots*. Which, is, of course, the Bridge Legal problem.

[ggwhiz]

barmar, on 2013-September-11, 09:56, said:

How about something like this. A has a history of psyching. After some disaster. B complains, and A promises never to psyche again with him.

Should B take A at his word, or disclose his tendency to psyche? What if A breaks his promise and psyches again, but afterward swears that was the last time?

I read about this situation but B made A promise to pay a fine next time he psyched.

Sat down against somebody A didn't like and he said "Here's the 20 bucks I owe you" handing it to his partner. 1♠

[barmar]

ggwhiz, on 2013-September-11, 18:17, said:

Sat down against somebody A didn't like and he said "Here's the 20 bucks I owe you" handing it to his partner. 1♠

So the Laws don't allow clubs to prohibit psyches outright. But is there anything preventing them from having a "psyche jar", like the "swear jar" that some families have (if you swear, you have to pay a fine)?