My experience with asking AIs questions like this is that half of the time they give you an answer that's subtly wrong (but looks correct), and the other half of the time they give an answer that's technically correct but missing the details that would actually solve your problem.
I haven't tried it with WBF laws in particular, but wouldn't expect good results.
That question cannot be answered definitively since since generative AI is non-deterministic . It would also vary according to the model used, the exact prompt, the context provided and so on. In general it is likely that in the right circumstances AI would be right most of the time, but it is not authoritative, and the correct approach would be to follow up references and verify its answers.
The real problem is not knowing whether or not to trust what it tells you. Mostly it will be right, but you won't know whether or not it is on this occasion. Better to ask here!
It works best when you understand what it can and cannot do. It is very fast at finding and quoting the right law. It is not always perfectly accurate, but I find it very helpful for quickly locating the relevant sections.
If I spend time to add clearer instructions and more supporting documents, I believe it can become even more reliable.
I called it “Junior” because it behaves like a junior director — it may make mistakes, but it is still useful. It is most suitable for players or directors who already know the laws and can review the answers carefully.
Using Ai for a bridge query. In brief, I asked Ai Me:”Is the purpose of a revoke penalty in bridge to restore equity” Ai:”Yes — the purpose of the revoke penalty in bridge is to restore equity, not to punish.” Ai then gave me an example of a revoke, which I then queried example 3” Me:”In the revoke rules, I don’t think your Ai>“Example 3 – Defender revokes but declarer wins the revoke trick East fails to follow suit, but declarer wins the trick anyway. No trick transfer is required, because the revoke did not gain an advantage.”<Ai is strictly correct as if the revoker wins a subsequent trick, then one trick is transferred” Ai replied >”You’re absolutely right 👍 — thanks for spotting that.
Under Law 64A, if the defender revokes but declarer wins the revoke trick, then: • If the revoking side wins no subsequent trick → no adjustment. • If the revoking side wins a later trick → one trick is transferred.
So the “no trick transfer” statement I wrote in Example 3 was oversimplified.” Me: So be wary of Ai answers.
Comments
My experience with asking AIs questions like this is that half of the time they give you an answer that's subtly wrong (but looks correct), and the other half of the time they give an answer that's technically correct but missing the details that would actually solve your problem.
I haven't tried it with WBF laws in particular, but wouldn't expect good results.
That question cannot be answered definitively since since generative AI is non-deterministic . It would also vary according to the model used, the exact prompt, the context provided and so on. In general it is likely that in the right circumstances AI would be right most of the time, but it is not authoritative, and the correct approach would be to follow up references and verify its answers.
The real problem is not knowing whether or not to trust what it tells you. Mostly it will be right, but you won't know whether or not it is on this occasion. Better to ask here!
If you use a general AI tool, the result is often not too good. But if you create a custom version, the quality improves a lot. If you have a ChatGPT account, you can try the one I am creating at
https://chatgpt.com/g/g-68fbe90dd66c819188d5f3ef7a6c636b-junior-td-assistant
It works best when you understand what it can and cannot do. It is very fast at finding and quoting the right law. It is not always perfectly accurate, but I find it very helpful for quickly locating the relevant sections.
If I spend time to add clearer instructions and more supporting documents, I believe it can become even more reliable.
I called it “Junior” because it behaves like a junior director — it may make mistakes, but it is still useful. It is most suitable for players or directors who already know the laws and can review the answers carefully.
In brief, I asked Ai
Me:”Is the purpose of a revoke penalty in bridge to restore equity”
Ai:”Yes — the purpose of the revoke penalty in bridge is to restore equity, not to punish.”
Ai then gave me an example of a revoke, which I then queried example 3”
Me:”In the revoke rules, I don’t think your Ai>“Example 3 – Defender revokes but declarer wins the revoke trick
East fails to follow suit, but declarer wins the trick anyway. No trick transfer is required, because the revoke did not gain an advantage.”<Ai is strictly correct as if the revoker wins a subsequent trick, then one trick is transferred”
Ai replied >”You’re absolutely right 👍 — thanks for spotting that.
Under Law 64A, if the defender revokes but declarer wins the revoke trick, then:
• If the revoking side wins no subsequent trick → no adjustment.
• If the revoking side wins a later trick → one trick is transferred.
So the “no trick transfer” statement I wrote in Example 3 was oversimplified.”
Me: So be wary of Ai answers.