Surely they count with accuracy

Samuel Butler was the English author of “Erewhon” (published in 1872) and the semi-autobiographical “The Way of All Flesh” (published posthumously in 1903), which are still in print today. He said, “I do not mind lying, but I hate inaccuracy.”

Computer programs (commonly known as robots) do not play bridge with perfect accuracy. However, their strong point is memory — they do not forget the cards that have been played. You would also think that they could count correctly.

Look at today’s deal. How should South play in three notrump?

West leads the heart jack: four, club nine (encouraging), queen.

North pushed into game via Stayman, more in hope than expectation.

East had a tricky discard at trick one. He did not want to throw his singleton and make the position in that suit quickly apparent to South.

He also thought that if he pitched a spade, it might well help declarer. So he decided to part with a club and chose to encourage — a good decision here.

South started with seven top tricks: two spades, two hearts (given trick one), two diamonds and one club. The contract was cold if declarer had just played diamonds from the top, establishing another two winners in that suit.

One robot, though, decided (reasonably, in isolation) that given the 6-0 heart split, East was a heavy favorite to hold the diamond queen. The robot cashed the diamond ace, then led a low club to dummy’s ace, on which West did well to play the king. On the diamond from dummy, though, East discarded a spade, and declarer had to go down.