[riverwalk3]

From my understanding, a robot accepts a claim if there is a sequence of plays that gets at least as many tricks as claimed against any distribution (including ones inconsistent with the bidding). In yesterday's daylong tournament I played, a robot accepted a claim on a double squeeze. This is the link to the hand:

https://www.bridgeba...|H5|pc|H6|mc|13


At first it looked like an easy 13 tricks, but then East showed out on the first club lead. I won cheaply, then tested spades by leading 3 rounds when the Jack didn't drop, West showing out. I then lead the king of hearts then claimed 13 tricks to see if the robots would accept (not aware of the double squeeze yet), and it did. The robot accepted the claim because there was actually a double squeeze guaranteed once West showed out in spades (implying East was guarding spades), and East showed out in clubs (implying West was guarding clubs): run the hearts, forcing West down to 1 diamond to guard clubs, then cash the top clubs which squeezes East in spades and diamonds (since East discards before you).

In fact, I could have claimed as soon as I won the club lead: If West instead guarded spades, then there would be a simple squeeze against West in spades and clubs. If East guarded spades, then there would be a double squeeze. Otherwise, if spades were 3-3, I could win 4 spades without any squeezes.

I think the robots should be reprogrammed to accept any claim based on top tricks (with the cards played so far), rather than more complex plays, even if they are 100% lines. Even then though, I often abuse the claim function when I don't remember if a card is good or not and playing that card if not good is risky. Most humans don't accept the claims unless you state clearly how you would play it out, and I doubt any human would accept my claim in that deal unless in an expert match where the claimer clearly specified double squeeze.

13 tricks claimed, Score = 92.7%

---

[smerriman]

This has been brought up several times in the past, and users have generally been divided in opinion.

Personally, despite full knowledge that it could be exploited (and exploited not in my favor), I still prefer it left as is. One of the main benefits of robots is that you can play at your own pace, and it is (and I can say this with experience, because the ACOL robot accepts far less frequently) extremely frustrating when you have a completely obvious claim, and it is rejected, which changing logic would regularly introduce.

Yes, those claims would never have been accepted with humans, and there's "no harm" in just playing out a few more tricks until it's clearer. But this is robot bridge, not "real bridge", and I just want to move onto the next hand rather than risk a misclick.

I wouldn't be opposed to a change for more important tournaments, like NABC individuals. Though that's mainly because I don't play in them

[thepossum]

I was lucky to be the recipient of a rather ambitious claim once
I checked double dummy - just an error methinks - but a welcome 100%
For a few moments I almost felt embarrassed at other players in the tourney wondering how I did it

PS But think about it as my whisky affected brain kicks in. How many times have humans done it??