A good 60% start in the robot pairs NABC. I keep asking for an Isaac Asimov robot required to follow the 3 Laws of Robotics. The First Law states a robot is required not to harm or allow harm to come to a human. BBO refuses my simple request.
Did you play in this event?
Bobby WolffJuly 11th, 2020 at 5:39 pm
Hi Bill,
Despite the fact that the robot pairs has a striking similarity in sound, to my real first name, I managed to miss this edition (as I have all the others).
Yes, I do terribly miss ftof bridge, but when Mr Asimov’s has seen fit to state his added law about no harm to humans from robots but is denied, it puts pause to my acceptance, but even if they did agree, how could they come even close to accepting which, apparently by definition, could be called one versus three by
all human players entered.
Perhaps Asimov’s real motive was no physical harm, and if so and no doubt, we are all hearing calls of “Defund the Robots”.
However good luck to you and I will be pulling for your 60% games to continue.
PeteJuly 13th, 2020 at 2:22 am
It looks to me that a spade shift at trick four will break up the ruffing squeeze.
Pete
Bobby WolffJuly 13th, 2020 at 9:35 am
Hi Pete,
It looks the same to me and furthermore a study of the exact bidding would tend to suggest your defense.
However, since 3NT was bid and made at the other table, also by error, the obvious message is that all players should bid as much as possible since when the opponents err, it becomes critically necessary to be playing a game or slam contract, instead of something lesser.
I’m not quite sure how to often make that happen (here, South could simply respond 3NT instead of 3 diamonds), so, at the very least, if possible, bid em up and let those opponents sleep in the streets by hoping the defense is too slow to switch to clubs (and/or, of course, the easy way, with the king of diamonds onside).
Subscribe to our feed
Bridge-related
A good 60% start in the robot pairs NABC. I keep asking for an Isaac Asimov robot required to follow the 3 Laws of Robotics. The First Law states a robot is required not to harm or allow harm to come to a human. BBO refuses my simple request.
Did you play in this event?
Hi Bill,
Despite the fact that the robot pairs has a striking similarity in sound, to my real first name, I managed to miss this edition (as I have all the others).
Yes, I do terribly miss ftof bridge, but when Mr Asimov’s has seen fit to state his added law about no harm to humans from robots but is denied, it puts pause to my acceptance, but even if they did agree, how could they come even close to accepting which, apparently by definition, could be called one versus three by
all human players entered.
Perhaps Asimov’s real motive was no physical harm, and if so and no doubt, we are all hearing calls of “Defund the Robots”.
However good luck to you and I will be pulling for your 60% games to continue.
It looks to me that a spade shift at trick four will break up the ruffing squeeze.
Pete
Hi Pete,
It looks the same to me and furthermore a study of the exact bidding would tend to suggest your defense.
However, since 3NT was bid and made at the other table, also by error, the obvious message is that all players should bid as much as possible since when the opponents err, it becomes critically necessary to be playing a game or slam contract, instead of something lesser.
I’m not quite sure how to often make that happen (here, South could simply respond 3NT instead of 3 diamonds), so, at the very least, if possible, bid em up and let those opponents sleep in the streets by hoping the defense is too slow to switch to clubs (and/or, of course, the easy way, with the king of diamonds onside).