Andy_L

For Robot Tournaments (IMPs and MPs) my preference is to play in "live" games as opposed to Instant Tournaments where the hands are from previous play. I "lurk" in IMP & MP games where the field is close to 15 and as the time winds down... I do not join the tourney if the field does not exceed 14 in the last few seconds. Often in the last few seconds you see players entering the tournament hoping the field will reach 15 or exit the tournament because the field is too few. Makes me believe I'm not the only "lurker" waiting / hoping the field will get to 14, where my entry gets the field to 15. Consider adding "Commit ≥ 15" Button to Robot Tournament IMP & MP games where "lurkers" could conditionally (Field ≥ 15) register. Also consider extending the start time an additional 10 seconds or so when Registered Field + Lurkers ≥ 13. The result may be more live games where the field reaches 15 or more.

For Robot Tournaments (IMPs and MPs) my preference is to with play in live games vs. the past hands of Instant Tournaments. At Robot Tournament events I "lurk" in IMP & MP games where the field is close to 15 as the time to start winds down... and do not join the tourney if the field does not exceed 14 in the last few seconds. Often in the last few seconds you see players entering the tournament hoping the field will reach 15 or exit the tournament because the field is too few. Makes me believe I'm not the only "lurker" waiting / hoping the field will get to 14, where my entry gets the field to 15. Consider adding "Commit ≥ 15" Button to GIB Robot Duplicate IMP & MP games where "lurkers" could conditionally (Field ≥ 15) register for the game. Also consider extending the start time an additional 10 seconds or so when Registered Field + Lurkers ≥ 13. The result may be more live games where the field reaches 15 or more.

1eyedjack... Thanks for correction. I did make mistake of confusing "G for Giteleman" with "G for Ginsberg."

I think GIB competed in the first World Computer-Bridge Championship (WBCC) in 1997: also competed in 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2002. GIB withdrew from 2002 WBCC and has not entered the tourney since. The 17th WBCC begins September 23, 2013. The little I understand from reading bits and pieces of this forum is: GIB is constantly updated - but seems to make only small incremental improvements at best, GIB bidding improvements are possible, but GIB play of the hand is what it is and that's that, and GIB is capable of some really poor play and bidding. Has someone built a better mousetrap and are BBO'ers forever confined to GIB because GIB's and BBO's originator are one in the same? How would GIB stack up in head-to-head competition against the other computer-bridge players today? I'm curious to know... aren't you?

"Best Hand for South" I'm guessing this was borne of a couple of main reasons: Make South hands more interesting from a bidding point of view and trying to tip the balance with respect to South becoming declarer in more than South's normal share of hands. With the addition of switching seats when North is declarer South is now playing all the hands where either North or South are declarer... given "Best Hand for South" I'd guess South now plays about 65% of all hands. So... advantages and disadvantages to all things. Advantages of "Best Hand for South" GIB play are: South bids more interesting hands and South plays approximately 65% (guess) of all hands dealt. Disadvantage of "Best Hand for South" GIB play are: distortion of bridge bidding and play. In the bidding and play we all take advantage (unfair advantage) of knowing South's HCP's are equal to or better than any other at the table. This knowledge creates the bidding and play distortion... and can be habit creating when playing lots of hands... bad habit creating. "Random Hand" GIB tourneys are already in effect as $1 GIB tourneys... I'm asking for consideration in adding a $0.25 Random Hand tourney to the mix and evaluating how it received.

I asked question before... perhaps not in correct Forum. I believe the answer was along lines of "it only takes a minute or so". Why is there any delay in posting "Other Tables" results once GIB Tourney results are posted? I guess the delay is purposely built-in... only because I can't see the delay resulting from computer computational time or posting display time.

Why does it take so long after tournament play is complete (via time expired or all players finished all hands) to post "Other Table" results. I would imagine posting would be near instantaneous.

Just my opinion... but am I the only one? When GIB's initial bid (and sometimes rebid) is defined as a minimum holding... How many times have you been disappointed to see GIB's HCP are Q's and J's only? GIB seems to treat the following HCP holdings all the same: QJJJ, QQJ, KQ... QQJJ, QJJJJ, AQ... QQJJJ, AK, AQJ, AJJJ, KQQ, KQJJ. I believe a human player would devalue his HCP holding when it is all Quacks, seems GIB does not. Likewise singleton or doubleton holdings that include a Q or J in a suit not bid by partner are especially subject to being devalued as a component of total HCP holding.

Question: What defines a positive (forward going) reply by GIB to a Help Suit Slam (or Game) Try? In "Topic Title" hand GIB makes a positive reply with an "xxx" holding... And if my memory serves me I've been witness to even weaker positive Help Suit Slam (or Game) Tries replies from GIB. ps "Human declares for North and South": A significant change for the good.

$0.25 MP Robot Duplicate Games require finishing 8 boards/hands within 25 minutes to qualify for BBO MPs. With the existing method (South plays hands where South is declarer... and GIB partner plays hands where North is declarer) BBO has access to the historical statistical averages for how many boards/hands are played by South and how many boards/hands are played by North. Since its "best hand for South" I'll guess for 68% N-S are declarers... and 32% E-W are declarers. Of the 68% where N-S are declarers I'll guess two-thirds are played by South and one-third are played by North. Using above guesses and with change where South now declares for South and North hands... South will be playing approximately 1.5x as many hands as in the past. Finally... my Question: Will the time limit be increased (ex. from 25 minutes to 30 minutes) to account for South additional Declarer play?

Apologize in advance for not posting hand here... Thing is I don't know to "Import" a hand to here. Hand is Hand #7 from: "#6408 Robot Duplicate -(MP)". 3♦ is played by S (29) times. In every case when Declarer (S) plays ♦'s the sequence is A♦ followed by a 2♦ to dummy. In (19) cases West plays small ♦ followed by small ♦. In (10) cases West plays small ♦ followed by Q♦... giving away the ♦ suit. What logic can possibly support GIB's play of the Q♦? In a previous post a reply was given saying (paraphrase): In tournament play the GIB's will act the same.

When a Robot Tournament does not have a full field consider letting "GIB" compete. Add a GIB player to the list of human players so we can see GIB's result vs. ours. Of course, GIB would be a non-BBO masterpointing participant. It would be curious to me to see the GIB result posted... against the field of us humans. If the field were of a small enough size... add multiple GIB players to the field -say maximum of three (3). It would be curious to me to see the results of one GIB player vs. another GIB player; would they have identical results? How varied would their results be? As a last benefit at least I would know the competing GIB would be subject same GIB play as humans are... and I'll be able to imagine in binary code somewhere one GIB cussing out another for a bad result on a hand.

http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?sn=Andy_L&s=S72HAK6DKJT63CAKJ&wn=Robot&w=SA53HQT53D74C8765&nn=Robot&n=SKJ8HJ97DAQ9CQ943&en=Robot&e=SQT964H842D852CT2&d=s&v=e&b=3&a=1D%28Minor%20suit%20opening%20--%203+%20D%3B%2011-21%20HCP%3B%201%29P3N%28Balanced%20--%202-5%20C%3B%202-5%20D%3B%202-3%20H%3B%202-3%20S%3B%2013-15%20HCP%3B%20partial%20stop%20in%20C%3B%20partial%20stop%20in%20H%3B%20partial%20stop%20in%20S%29P6N%283+%20D%3B%2018-21%20HCP%3B%2022-%20total%20points%29PPP&p=H2HAHTH7D3D4D9D8C3CTCAC8D6D7DAD5C4C2CKC6CJC7CQS4C9S9H6C5DQD2DKS3DJH5S8S6DTH3HJSTS2S5SJSQH8HKHQH9S7SASKH4 Thing 1: I'm trying to "post" hand to the "GIB Robot Discussion". Is above correct way to do so? Thing 2: At trick #11 GIB takes a 25% play vs. a 50% play. Even if statistical adjustments could be made to apriori percentages based on bidding (none in this) case and discards during play of the hand... In this case I can't imagine apriori percentages adjusted to anything more than 30% play vs. a 45% play. I can only imagine the difficulties etc of "programming" a robot to play bridge. I guess by this point I just expect BBO's GIB to be better; especially where basic percentage plays are involved. I do enjoy the GIB play: as a learning tool for me and as a competitive venue (the Robot Tournament play). Thing 3: Seems to me GIB has freedom of choice (where close "decisions" in play or bidding are required), just like a human player would. For me this GOB trait is overdone/overweighted. I for one would like to see GIB's decisions in these cases to be more restrictive. In the competitive arena of Robot Tournaments GIB's would then act more the same... increasing the humans role in the outcome and reducing GIB's role in the outcome.