jamegumb

With all the above, I concur.

This is a frequent complaint. My main question regarding GIB's simulations: Does the bot base its decision on which outcome is more frequently correct? Or based on the expected outcome of each outcome? That is, let's say the bot simulates this 100 times, of which 60 times 3S and 4H go off 1, and 40 times 3S and 4H make. It's right in this case to pass 60% of the time, but it's such a spectacularly wrong decision when incorrect that you'd still want the bot to pull the double.

Presumably GIB operates under the "no double, no trouble" maxim. (Yes, from my experience this sort of bidding behavior - or non-behavior - is an issue with the bot.)

Should the robot know to throw you in with a diamond at trick 9?

I did. I don't know what the record is, but I haven't heard of anyone topping 20K. (I may have been able to do that with optimal play and had I not missed a minute due to a distraction.) I can't play faster than GIB - at least, not on game/slam contracts. GIB often takes a while on part scores. So, compared to others, I think I let the computer play a lot more hands than I do. It's the opposite of masterminding. I open 1NT in these contests rarely, and I often raise 1M to 4M since that almost always plays there (you're assisted a lot in the bidding knowing that partner's hand is not as good as yours, so searching for slam is pointless if you've got 15HCP and partner opens). And I make a lot of 4SF bids in the hope that GIB will assume the reigns in NT. Also I double opps a lot, to again make my GIB the declarer. Fast connections help; with a good connection I can see about 50-55 hands. Bad connections mean about 40-45 hands. Assuming each hand you see is worth an average of 150 points or so, this means a fast connection is worth about 1500 points on average. That's a bunch.

18670 just now. And I know I left points on the table (chickened out on a grand or two; partner had a game on the last hand but we ran out of time - I'd stalled for about 1 minute earlier playing).

OK, looking at recent fastest bingo results from February 23 to March 28 (http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/news_fetch.php?id=1059) - the best time is over 3 minutes; the average of the top 8 times is 3:58. Compare that to the results from January (http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/news_fetch.php?id=955) - all eight fastest times are under 3 minutes, and the average of the top 8 times is 2:46. What gives? Are the robots getting slower? Or is there some other explanation for what's happening here? Even if there were a significant decline in bingo play, these numbers still seem significantly off.

Has anything changed in the last two updates to make GIB open more hands? Sure seems like its standards for starting the auction have declined.

Maybe the natural bidding helps GIB sniff out psyches?

Which leads itself to the question of what inferences GIB makes off the opening lead. (As well as what inferences it makes from the bidding - does GIB just assume that North would never drive to slam with a useless doubleton)?

I dunno. Give south: J82 AJx AJxx AQx The 5-0 split has chances, while the spade contract could be down on two heart ruffs.

Maybe GIB read declarer for: Kxxxx K Jx KQJxx ? (or Kxxxxx K x KQJxx)? The one time it got it right was when Blackwood was used. So maybe it believed (in cases without Blackwood) that two aces might be out.

Would either Robot double 4H? And does West alone have enough to double it? Partner presumably could be much weaker, and North/South could have much better shape.

I do a mix of strategies A, D, and F. When embroiled defending a part score battle, I generally try to play reasonable defense quickly as long as I can until the contract seems decided. Then I click random cards as fast as possible.

Just to answer this: yeah, I played a fair amount of video games in my youth. But the best "training" for playing this is probably trying to set records on Minesweeper. Like the robots, it takes a while at the start. But at the end of hands often it's moving the mouse up and down as fast as you can. While trying to arrange plays where you lead something your partner has a singleton in (so that it automatically drops). I know about enabling "auto-play singletons", but that only helps on a few tricks; I try to arrange to make this apply as much as possible, but that often requires a little extra thinking to play tricks in the right order, so it may just break even.

Oh, I've played plenty with bots and I've read many threads. I think I've just come to terms to play well within my partner's limitations, with this one little exception. (I should also note my experience with GIB is mostly related to the Robot Races. I'm not expecting it to play that well - after all, I don't. I'd just like it to remove takeout doubles to five card unbid suits.)

If this is indeed a bug, I'd sure appreciate some sort of fix. This is far and away my number one peeve playing with the robots. (Actually, it may be my only complaint; well, outside those times it follows a takeout bid by bidding a minor and then later a major which it describes as having 4+ of the minor and 5+ of the major, even though it often has only 3 cards of the latter.)

I posted two of these hands in the past weeks: http://tinyurl.com/7aa7q5b http://tinyurl.com/72hj9d9 Yes, this is a known GIB "feature".

Whatever version fixed it, I just want to say thanks to the makers for telling the bots that a jump to six is almost never an invitation to seven. So nice to have auctions end 1S-2NT-6S-swish.

To the good people running BBO - You've got an exportable history for BB$ won/lost. Could that be modified to include tournament type, scores, and results (like the recent tournament history in the software has)? Would make it a lot easier for those of us who want to see how well we've done here throughout the years.

Yes, I know better. Yet it still happens: http://tinyurl.com/72hj9d9

Yes, I screwed up the defense here late (though I suppose it's possible that declarer has QT6 in spades and Qx in hearts, in which case playing the spade king before the jack would be foolish). The double still needs to be taken out: http://tinyurl.com/7aa7q5b (And this is why it's so dangerous to double with shapely hands and GIB as your partner. I knew better.)

In playing in any tournament with unlimited boards, I'd almost always choose A. FWIW, when you have minimal (~12 pt) hands, you've got more information than in a normal game when opps bid. Your partner has to have *something* - even if both opponents also have 12-point maximums, partner's got 4 points. So later competition is a bit safer. I'd also argue that if you're able to analyze that you have no safe action if RHO opens, you're thinking too much (during the tournament) about these hands. Time is points is BB$.

I think GIB's long had a problem understanding the maxim that "takeout doubles should be taken out". (Perhaps it runs simulations to indicate that this rule shouldn't be followed, but for whatever reason I've ended up surrendering quite a few doubled contracts while GIB sat on a 5-card or longer unbid suit.)

Was just about 5 minutes into a Robot Race when the game stopped responding - my partner was dealer and wouldn't bid. Other people in the tournament kept playing. This ever happen to anyone else?