Scarabin

Hi Barmar, I think that must be the reason, however the times seem to be wrong for cities in our area like Auckland also.

For me, posting "State of the art" is a labour of love. However I am fully conscious that my resources of time, information, and ability are limited. Thus I would welcome any help I can get. There are several areas where I foresee a need ________________ (1) I have covered four robots all based on monte carlo simulations and I could add a fifth, Q+ Bridge but there must be many more robots out there, including some I cannot access. I am appealing to anyone who has such a robot to turn it loose on my sample deals and publish the results. It would be particularly helpful if the robots do not use random (monte carlo) simulations. ___________________________ ____________________________ _____________ ______________ ___ (2) At some stage I will have to wrestle with the question why does one random simulation win the world championship rather than another. Sometimes it looks like pure dumb luck but a gifted analyst could probably sift the hand records to find out. Any takers, please?

[hv=pc=n&s=sak5haqj3d73cak42&w=sj9742hk4d94cqj97&n=s83h762dak8652c63&e=sqt6ht985dqjtct85]399|300[/hv] __________ In this post I apply GIB, JackBridge, SharkBridge, and WBridge5 to a very simple deal. (Note, these robots are all current or past world champions.) Finally I examine the deal using Bridgify 104, my favourite double-dummy solver. I won't identify which robot did what because my intention is not to compare programs but rather to examine the current level of play. ________ The contract is 3NT and declarer is South. Diamonds break 3-2 so success requires only a duck on the first round of diamonds and recognition that playing on diamonds is better than finessing in hearts. All very basic. In the bidding 3 of the robots duly bid 3NT, 1 persevered to 6NT but I forced it back to 3NT. __________ ________ ____________________ _________ On my methods West could lead either the CQ or the S4 without changing declarer's play. I decided to try both leads and run the simulations twice. On the lead of the ♣Q all four made the contract (with the obvious overtrick). On the lead of the ♠4 two robots made the contract and two went down. _______________________________ ______________ ____ ______ I like Bridgify 104 primarily because of the neat way it presents its results (It is available on free download from www.bridgify.net and the author is Florian Krugel). When South wins the ♣Q opening lead Bridgify says that leading any card other than the ♠5 will win 9 more tricks. ____________________________________________ ________ ____________________ I like to think that monte carlo simulations see the world as Bridgify does except their data is approximate rather than accurate. This could explain why robots frequently and pointlessly play neutral cards in side suits before grappling with the main problem. And a skewed set of sample deals could explain why they can make and go down in identical problems. I chose this deal as being so easy that I thought no robot would fail to make but robots do not even remotely function like human beings and this is probably why they excite our ire. The team of dedicated men who respond to complaints about Gib will know much more than I about the details of these simulations. I hope to do a few more of these posts and try to draw some valid conclusions. To which end I welcome and value any insights, input or help you may offer.

Watching the Republican Party's primaries prompts me to ask what are libel laws like in America? In Australia a successful defense to a libel case requires that the allegation(or libel) be true and that publication is in the national interest.

Thanks Y66, I am checking out their IT & AI courses.

Yes and I do

Is there any interest in asking bids? Particularly those used in the Roman Club system and in some forms of precision. I think some may have been incorporated into Kaplan Sheinwold.

For some reason my time is shown an hour earlier than it is. Perhaps because of daylight saving time?

When I was young there was a saying "bid to win and play for fun". It was probably never true and arose because the Italian bidding systems won them far more than their fair share of world championships. I seem to remember also that when Reese's Little Major was first introduced England won the European Championship without losing a match and with a record number of victory points. When the Dallas Aces won back the World Championship they had adopted pretty artificial bidding systems. It may be that any system which makes limited bids at the earliest possible stage has the potential to be a winner? Here's a thought, could the way bidding and play is taught be a factor: most bidding books implicitly promise that if you study the system you will be a winner; a lot of books on play manage to convey that of course you'll never be able to play properly but their book will dispel some of your appalling ignorance? I exaggerate of course and there are many exceptions.

Thanks Barmar,Antrax, and Onoway for saying it all for me. Even if it earns me one more post may I make one point clear: I am engaged in writing the most magnificent, most astounding Bridge program the world has ever seen but since it is light years away from completion and I am past my use-by date I have no intention of flogging it or even mentioning it! Here is the thing I have developed an interest in artificial intelligence and the optimum approach to bridge programming. And i would like to post about this, and about what has already been done. Far from trying to sell you anything I would hope to learn from other people's experience. Finally I do not resent Inquiry's threshold of 25 posts I do wonder whether about 10 would not have fulfilled the same function?

Thanks Fred for taking the time to reply. The compliments are sincere as is my appreciation of Bridge Master 2000 I have reached an age where the hassle of actual play no longer appeals and BM gives me an assured supply of interesting hands. Sorry for not appreciating your point: as an ex team of four enthusiast I tend to switch off on overtricks and I do not have your gift of seeing every hand as special.

Hi Inquiry Just to add to my apology on the GIB forum I guess that as I get older I tend to assume BBO and indeed the world is run for my personal benefit! So sorry again

Hi Inquiry, First to answer your questions I bought a stand-alone Gib before I discovered BBO. I also forced Gib to play 6S with the same result. Second may I apologise, I did not mean to stir up a hornet's nest. I am just looking for a way to discover whether any other members share my interests and because the Review forum is not yet available I tend to squeeze posts into other less suitable forums. As a last point may I congratulate you, and thank you for, your ebook on squeezes. I like the suggested approach.

Thanks again and thanks for your patience. What I would like is to discuss Bridge programs and programming in general.I have added a reply to Fred's "Good play by Gib", but I guess I will really have to wait until I qualify for the Bridge material review forum and then see if anyone is interested.

I yield to no man in my admiration for Fred's skill as an analyst and as a programmer but I have to echo cloa513's sentiment that presenting this hand as GIB at its best may be to damn with faint praise. One of the deals I treasure in Bridge Master 2000 is Level4 A-4 which to me is a subtle example of a throw-in although perhaps just beyond my level of expertise. I tried using Jack, wbridg5 and GIB to play this hand. Both Jack and wbridge5 bid to 6 spades. They missed the throw-in but identified the inferior play of a squeeze. Gib rested in 4 spades and took 2 losing finesses. To me this identifies pretty generally their respective standards.

Thanks, Sounds reasonable but unfortunate in that I think a lot of new members might be inclined to post on this forum. Is there a forum I could use to post a synopsis of what I have in mind and obtain feedback on whether it would be worthwhile and also what constitutes advertising and what is fair comment. For instance if I express the view that GIB has the weakest play engine of the professional programs, is that advertising? And if I summarise the efforts to produce an effective play engine: academic papers, commercial and amateur programs, etc., Is that advertising? What I am really saying is that I can produce the necessary posts but don't want to do this if my review posts will breach the forum rules? Thanks again

I can sign in to all other forums but on Bridge Material Review I get the same messages "You cannot post a new topic" and "This topic is locked" as I do when I forget to sign in. In desperation I clicked on "mark this topic as read" in case it made a difference but without effect. Can someone help before I go completely paranoid, please?

So as a next step I registered again under another alias(Aimsear) and tried the Bridge Material Review forum. Same problems, same result. I think it may have something to do with the log-in mechanism but that is just a guess. Still looking for help. Are there any administrators out there? Come on I can hear you breathing.

BBO seems to have denied me access to the Bridge Material Review forum. When I try to access the forum I get the message "You cannot post a new topic" And all the existing topics show "This topic is locked". It seems to be aimed at me personally as other users tell they can access the forum freely. I seem to be able to access other forums. Please help

Thanks Barmar, Will do

FOXX, Thanks for the info. but would there be some sort of warning or notification of such a rule. Are replies from Administrators normally subject to delay?

Thanks have left message for Rain

Thanks for the prompt reply and advice. All the topics seem to be locked and I get a message "You cant start a new topic" ?

I would like to post reviews of available computer bridge programs but the Bridge Material Forum seems to be locked, closed, or whatever. I am probably breaking Water Cooler rules but would appreciate advice or help? scarabin