strings11

Assuming that I am correctly understanding this event to be an "indy" format with 3 robots at all tables... I would like to enter. (At least one previous Post suggests otherwise.) I have no problem with any of the conditions of contest. Please enter me.

I see a lot of hearty chortles here about the idiocy of being cautious about vaccinations. Gee, I guess everyone here "knows" that the "fools" who don't believe those (in "AUTHORITY") who claim that "it cannot be proved" that vaccinations can be harmful to the brain development of children in the age range when vaccinations are normally administered - are clearly mentally deficient. Must be they don't play bridge. After all, the companies who might be liable if it were determined that thimerosal or other Mercury containing preservatives were found to affect infant brain development in a way that might engender things like autism; would certainly not attempt to manipulate public perception of such hazards. The semi-official text used is often roughly: Today, except for some flu vaccines in multi-dose vials, no recommended childhood vaccines contain thimerosal as a preservative. (Nice to know that this is true (?) "today", but perhaps one can understand a parent who's scientific data is not current being somewhat concerned.) In all other recommended childhood vaccines, no thimerosal is present, OR ( :) ) the amount of thimerosal is close to zero. (How close to zero is close to zero? Scientifically speaking of course...) No reputable scientific studies have found an association between thimerosal in vaccines and autism. (Kind of, sort of, makes you wonder what the disreputable studies say. And who conducts the DISreputable studies anyway?) So, in short: Before you start castigating everyone who thinks they should be concerned about something that You Know they should not worry about, perhaps you should ask them what their concerns might be? Maybe rather than mirth, you might get the disquieting feeling that there is a reason for you avoid the presumption that those who think differently about a given topic, are not the morons that you would have them be.

It is a bit distressing to find that (if true) it is necessary to 'game' the system to get high scoring hands. I was silly enough to believe that everyone was exposed to 8 identical hands. It seems a bit less like bridge if I must know to bid a slam at board 1 and pray it makes... So, now that I/we know this... Doesn't this knowledge - particularly when it is differentially distributed in the population - skew the value of any performance metric? If I must score a large number of "points" early in the TP event, does a similar metric apply in the MP and IMP events? In other words, if I score a lot of MPs or IMPs on the respective first hands, do I get similar advantages 'in potential' in the remaining hands? Also, it seems absurd to me that one's TCR is adversely affected for the distress caused to the Robots, when one withdraws from a robots-only situation. TCR is supposed to be a measure of a partner's reliability when one expects him or her to finish an event. Applying it as a punishment for offending the sensibilities of robots, causes it to lose any sense of relevance. Now that we introduce the 'strategy' of withdrawing quickly from the "dailies" if one wants to score well, the TCR marches in lock-step with the order of finish, toward the irrelevant. On the issue of event length: I like the idea of 24 boards, particularly as only one of each type of event can be had per day. If the same set of boards were presented to every player in the same order, then the leader-board could be culled to reflect the number of boards played by the player. In other words, all persons playing 8 boards could be ranked against one another, while those playing 12, 16, 18, or any other combination, could be ranked against one another as well. [The ranking for 8 boards could, of course, remain for a person playing a greater number of boards.] Ranking players when only some of them know how to receive hands beneficial to their potential ranking, is misguided!

It was with a sense of "at last - maybe..." that I read the recent update info that suggests that GIB may no longer decide to play me for 32-35 hcp if its deranged 'alert' description so indicates - haven't seen it work yet, but boy, it would sure be nice. However, on the same general trend line is where I rank the preposterous hand evaluation parameters used by GIB. When GIB informs you through the alert system that it has say 10-12 "total" points, it really tells you nothing about the suitability of the hand for your decision to go on to game or slam. Stiffs or better yet voids in p's primary suit receive full value as though it was a void in the enemy suit. Not particularly helpful! High level doubles are especially problematic: if you double the enemy in a pass or correct situation GIB will generally Pass in an OMG I (GIB) don't have enough hcps to bid, p must have a rockcrusher) tone, when it holds an undisclosed SIX card suit [precisely the time that it should bid on in Either of our fit suits (2 9-card fits for example)]. On the other hand, after a competitive auction with a flat hand and a hand relatively replete with 'kings and things' it chooses to bid on. Effectively, GIB makes it unwise to treat it as anything remotely resembling a "partner". It is almost as if it acts as a 3rd opponent, insuring that it can find a way to create a mistake (clearly Yours) which you can be punished for, thus clarifying the inherent superiority of the GIBs. IMHO, GIB takes a point of view on the value of its hand at the outset and NEVER adjust that value in either direction, during the course of the auction. Valuing shortness in p's suit is the most egregious example of this, but there are others. It's almost comical to reconstruct the means by which the robots come to the number listed for its 'total points'. Not knowing how the robots are designed it's hard to know how to make them 'right', but might I suggest that the initial hand evaluation consist almost always of simply high card point count? Perhaps it is already so... I do find it frustrating when a robot refuses to get involved (as in responding) if it lacks at least six nominal hcps. I'd like to see a response with an Ace in the hand - but the robots are never going to do that! Perhaps this means that modified [where some Aces are worth 7 or even 8) and perhaps even fractional hcp values need to be instigated. Another possible improvement might be for the robot to listen to 'where' things are likely to lie, and adjust its perceptions of its values accordingly. Simply put: there need to be more "loops" in the GIB thought process - It needs to adjust its preconceived notions based on developments. The robots should be able to recognize that there are exactly the same 52 cards - and Only those 52 cards - in play, on any one hand. They should be able to draw inferences based on likely distributional configurations; winning, and losing, trick counts; etc., better than I can. If I am given an advantage beyond my skills, then perhaps I will improve my skills through observation of events? Would that be so bad a thing? I should not find it necessary to learn of p's (GIB's) 6-card major during the play to opps, 4Mx +1 contract. If GIB could find a way to actually bidding its cards, rather than expecting p to infer them from opps bidding that would be most pleasant. It doesn't want to overbid its hand so it declines to compete, and then when p fights through the noise of opps bidding to give GIB notice of what is expected, it either assumes p started with 35+ hcp, or has 12 of the opps trumps... [Yes, that's meant to be hyperbole.] I cannot avoid the perception that the robots are intended to insure that they do not 'give a player an advantage' by doing things of which he or she may not be capable. I suppose this is laudable in some view of the world, but I would argue that this nearly always means that the robot will reduce any player's skills to the least common denominator, since the robots induced stupidity eliminates its ability to rise to the current expected level of play. The above notwithstanding, it would be most helpful if the 'alert' descriptions of GIB bids would clarify ALL of the implications of that bid. When a bid is potentially Stayman-ic, informing p that this either is, or, is not, part of the picture, rather than suggesting simply that the bid means 3+ cards in the suit called, would be helpful, and is unlikely to convey any advantage to p other than to allow him to actually understand the bid. One of the less problematic examples of incomplete descriptions is where a Michaels bid by GIB is described as 5+ cards in, for example, the other major. Maybe some are given an advantage by being told that it implies an additional suit, but it hardly seems proper to withhold that information from the description. If having that information provides an untoward advantage, then the player will 'make up for it' in others ways. Playing with robots is generally 'practice bridge'. It will never be for the "World's Championship". Why not try to maximize the value added by making the robots mimic an actual partner? Finally: I availed myself of the 'export deal' mechanism to alert whomever to GIB concerns. However, of late this mechanism does not appear to present itself to me. I thought I seriously tried to use it, but could not find the route? I'll look again, but I would ask that you do so as well. Thank you.

Can partner be "Answering" Keycards? The suit is known, seems to me that answering keycards lets You figure out what it is that needs to be done...

Someone wrote somewhere... Partner needs to know far more urgently that you have a sixth Heart, than that you have 4 Diamonds. Indeed what flavor contract are you willing to play in? If you don't play Hearts, your hand's value is quite limited. In addition, rebidding the Hearts suggests weakness - which you clearly have - if you are of the 'counting HCPs' persuasion. You have a six loser (read: better than average opening) hand. It was good enough to open so don't leave partner dangling, by getting embarrassed now! If partner has a King (and maybe only a Queen) more than his initial response promised, game should be making. If partner drives to slam, you can find a way to value your Diamonds, but until that happy event... get yourself to the proper level in Hearts.

I tend to sub a lot; mostly because I don't have a schedule for when I'm on BBO, and thus don't pre-schedule games. There are a number of issues regarding the current arrangement that distress me to greater or lesser extents: A review of the hand: It would be nice (though I don't expect this change to be implemented) if a person, upon entering a specific table as a sub, could have a quick opportunity to review the preceding tricks of the hand in play, sequentially, simply to come to the point of understanding what everyone else at the table already knows. A relatively short period of time factored for the number of tricks to be reviewed, would provide a result more fair to the rest of the field. The insistent opponent who wants the sub to play a card as quickly as possible - presumably so as to improve that opponent's expected result - should be held at bay - and not be encouraged by a TD also urging the sub to "play quickly". [A common problem is that a sub enters with 4-6 tricks yet to be played, and has no information about whether trump are drawn or, indeed, whether they Should Be. Often, getting this issue right, can decide 100% of the value of the board.] Is the schedule so inflexible that a sub cannot take 15 seconds to get his or her bearings? If the schedule is this inflexible - then change it! Even the Speedball events have a few minutes of leeway in their 'hour'. When a sub is required, flex the schedule a bit - the sub will likely catch up by playing at least as quickly as anyone else at the table, once acclimated. After all, it is not the sub who sat on his thumbs, while the clock dissipated. Right of knowledgable refusal: I would like to know at the point where I am being asked to sub, whether or not the person who will subsequently be my partner is on my 'enemies' list, and also I would like to be able to view any notes I have made in this person's profile - good or bad. BBO has no problem telling me who the partner will be, and where they are from. It would seem no more difficult to access my personally recorded information including the category I have entered for the person. It is more than disappointing to agree to sub only to find that the username did not immediately trigger my memories of past negative experiences. I don't need to repeat most such interactions to be certain of the validity of my prior impression. Simply put, rather than a monochrome depiction of the proposed sub situation, let me see a full-color image of the proposed partner's profile as part of the request to sub. When I enter my willingness to sub in "any tournament", I tend to mean just that: any TOURNAMENT! A Tournament is a Tournament, a Team Match is a Team Match, and BBO's calling a Team Match a "Team Match Tournament" - 'don't necessarily make it so'! If you want to ask me to sub in Team Matches, kindly allow me to check an additional box to this effect. There are persons arranging Team Matches on BBO, whose ego is apparently gratified when no one remains in 'their' games for long, should that person have the temerity to score too well against said organizer. If that's their preference, that is fine with me, simply allow me to avoid being asked to sub in their games. A sub should not be expected to substitute in events run by clubs with which that sub is 'has issues'. Tournament Directors (using the term advisedly) who cannot seem to discharge the unbiased role of a Tournament Director, should properly be disadvantaged for their willful negligence. Personally, I do not want to appear on the list of potential subs available to certain such directors and/or clubs. I have no intention of subbing in their events in the future, and would appreciate not being bothered by the need to refuse them. I suppose I'm asking for an 'enemies list' of directors and clubs, but similar to the option of not being invited to sub as partner to an already listed 'enemy' (mentioned elsewhere here), it seems little enough to ask as an accommodation to a person of whom BBO is asking the favor of serving as a substitute, and thereby enhancing the orderly procession of tournaments. Indeed it would seem reasonable (or is it merely hopeful...) to expect a sort of feedback effect in such situations. TDs who cannot seem to behave in a manner consistent with the authority inherent in that designation (TD), would see themselves restricted to a diminished pool of substitutes (those whom they have not theretofore offended), and any sentient such TDs might poke their heads up, and notice the source of the problem - consequently prompting them to make modifications to their behaviors, consistent with improving the regulation of bridge on BBO. Those not interested in understanding the effect of improperly ruling the game, would eventually, and properly, go the way of the dinosaur, and be supplanted by others more appropriate to the function. TD is at its core a business function, and if you cannot satisfy the needs of customers, you tend to find yourself without customers. Better that the TDs responsible for customer alienation suffer the effects of their behaviors, than that BBO pay a price for the pettiness of such individuals. Often regular tournaments on BBO become difficult to impossible to manage, simply because there are insufficient subs available. Why not allow subs to avoid the need to fight-off the demands of Team Matches for subs, if those subs wish to be available only to Tournaments? Indeed, rather than wait for the seats in a Team Match to be filled by persons volunteering to participate, there seems to be an increasing tendency for people to access the sub list, as a means of initially populating the games they hope to run. My thought: If they can't find participants, without draining the sub list, perhaps there is a sound reason that they are having this problem...? On occasion, when reluctantly agreeing to sit-in on an ill-defined Team Match, I find myself sitting opposite an empty chair, as the Match awaits an additional sub (or several) so that the Match can commence. I no longer remain in such games; I leave, And - knowing where I was - religiously refuse to return. But: I should not be required to make such a conscious selection repeatedly. The software should take up some of this burden, so that I can be about the business of providing the service that I, as a sub, have expressed an interest in providing. Get the Accounting right: BBO claims that it enters a +1 factor for a sub who enters an event and finishes that event. I suggest that a review of the operation of the software is in order. During a period of time when my internet connection to BBO was unstable (and I do not know that the problem was not with BBO itself), I did nothing but substitute for a few months in a row. What I experienced was a steady degradation of my TCR. I was registering for no events, but I was subbing in many - and finishing them. Yet my TCR continuously and dramatically declined - to the point where I was on the verge of becoming ineligible for events. This seems 'real wrong' to me. I don't expect that you show a TCR of 300%, but I think you should be able to manage the math, so that a sub is not punished for failure to start events! The TCR is advertised as a means of making 'runners' accountable. Why not use it in such a way that it has the intended effect?! Yes, I have more pet peeves on the "sub issue". This is enough for this entry! More soon...

While it seems like a really interesting concept, I can't help but feel that I should expect to feel the same level of robo-frustration as in any other event where there are 3 robots at the table. Robot declarers are expert at seeking out any potential loser and making it real. It is as if it says to the defender robots: I know you guys are going to find this so take it now! Going down 1 is an art form it seems. In trying to prevent a human from gaining advantage by using a robot partner as declarer, robots routinely shed tricks apparently to negate any advantage to the human due to the robots' oh-so-rare ability to count to 13? This new format Must be "human declares"! To be genuinely interesting, this new format should almost always have the bids of the robots at the table pre-programmed, as reminiscent of and dependent on the recorded actions of humans. Presumably the choices made by 'experts' are on file. Thus, rather than letting the robots do their own version of what is called 'thinking': actions - at least bidding actions - should be selected ad hoc, from historical data. Of course, there will be outliers in any set of data, but that can be either eliminated, or introduced at a statistically experienced rate. (I would argue for elimination since it is not the response of the robots that we seek to measure here, but that is merely my opinion.) Another thought: perhaps the player could be given the choice as to whether he or she wanted to play with either, 'outliers' included, or, eliminated? There is some potential, I would hope, for an attendant attenuation (just had to say that :) ) of the 'crosstalk' that appears to occur, in general, between robots. [i realize that I will, in due course, be assured that robots do not communicate during the hands; but if robots are constrained to take bidding actions inconsistent with their routine programming, this would seem to lessen their ability to 'appear' to communicate. They are all presumably operating under the same programming, and for robots to be constained to take actions conceived of by actual humans in a defined situation, might make the actions of their fellow robots less clairvoyant.] Robots' hand evaluation is suspect at best: They frequently do not hold the hcp ranges indicated in the bidding explanations, and they are as likely to give themselves a point or 2 for distributional features which are neutral or negative, as for those that are positive. On a similar point, robots seem constrained completely, by their previous interpretations during the hand. In other words, once a robot has decided that partner's bid means this or that, the robot does not have the ability to discard that impression in the light of new possibly inconsistent information. Once it has decided on the size of the box that partner's hand belongs in, partner cannot then escape said box. Creativity, once the 'box' has been robo-defined is summarily punished. If this new format is to be a 'referendum' on how well a particular person performs in a situation previously experienced by human experts; (... and since you are awarding 'masterpoints' for the activity), should it not properly be designed so that the robots are merely surrogates for genuine, expert, humans?

I have been ejected from tournaments repeatedly when the pause occurred two or more players in front of me. Apparently if the clock is running and it times out very near the time a player is required to and does act, the "ejection responsibility" (to coin a phrase) cascades around the table. Naturally this is especially true if one or more of the intervening players is a robot. [They tend to bid quickly (especially when passing), and of course they can never be 'guilty' of anything anyway.] This evening I had a particularly elegant example of transferred "ejection responsibility". I was the dummy at 4S. Just as the opening lead hit the table I was informed that I had 11 seconds to act or else I would be ejected. Seemingly partner was confused by this, because he spent the next 11 or more second pondering his play to the trick - And I was duly ejected for failing to act AS DUMMY! I clicked away at the cards on the table of course, hoping against hope that I could stave off my execution, but NO! Once again - and on the very first hand of the event - I am deemed to have 'run' from a tournament. This problem has been exacerbated in the recent changes in timing, such as the institution of the thirty second action deadline. I do embrace this new timing as there was far too much 'delay-to-improve-your-score-through-averaging' being exhibited at the table. It is still possible to perceive these delay attempts occurring, until the delayer realizes that this strategy is not likely to bear fruit. The assertion has been made that declarer is held less accountable lately for attempting to claim, in that he is less likely to be ejected for having the temerity to end the boredom. It seems that this may be true - or at least I must have been convinced that the situation has improved by the advertising to that effect...? If the transfer of "ejection responsibility" problem cannot be fixed, then please make some allowances in the tournament completion rate. Factor it based on circumstances. (Can you tell how much time occurred on each players 'clock'. If so, you should be able to establish the timing pattern that creates the problem and automatically adjust completion rates on that basis.)