Leo LaSota

An interesting point to consider on the 6nt hand for JoeyDinky is that in live bridge, many players play "fast arrival" where the jump to 4S shows a minimum given what has been shown with the hand thusfar. While I probably would open just 1S, I can understand the thinking was that there are only 4 losers (Losing Trick Count), so they decided to open 2C. Also, they probably thought jumping to 4S should be a sign off showing a minimum 2C opener.

Stefanie, How can you state that you have not posted negative comments in this thread? Your other published quote in this thread below would certainly appear to me to be a negative comment about the game that BBO currently runs for the ACBL robot duplicate tournaments. "I actually think that best-hand 3 Robots 1 Human bridge is a joke"

Stefanie, It is very disturbing that you continue to post negative comments about the ACBL robot games. Fred Gitelman asked you politely in a previous thread (copied below) to give the ACBL robot duplicate tournaments a try. Fred even offered to arrange providing you with some BBO$. While everyone is entitled to have their opinions and to post on these forums, it would appear that you are being unreasonable in posting more and more negative comments unless you have participated in these tournmanets with an open mind. Vampyr, on 2012-March-18, 15:48, said: I might do this, but they cost money. In any case I am old enough to know whether I would enjoy playing bridge by sitting in front of my computer facing three robots. In fact I have done this with Hearts, so I have some experience in this area. If money is an issue, send me an e-mail (fred@bridgebase.com) and I will arrange to give you some free BB$ so you can give these tournaments a try. I am at a "serious tournament" myself right now and I may not be able to arrange this until after I get home in a week or so. Maybe you are right that you will not enjoy these tournaments, but you said you found Robot Races to be fun and, besides that, what I really want you to see is that they are real tests of bridge skill - you don't have to enjoy them to see that.

There are many hands in live bridge that I take "more tricks than I should". I would really appreciate it if you or some other "hand junkie on results" would review a large set of hands played and see whether or not the "normal hands" average better than the "unusual bid" hands. You and others may be surprised by what you find, but I guarantee you that the average is better for the "normal" hands.

The off-shape or out of range nt openers sometimes used in robot bridge result in more declarer play practice. What you "learn from playing (many) hands" against the robots is that repeated practice results in improved declarer play for an individual. Of course certain things that work well on a hand against GIB are not "transferable to real bridge play". However, I can speak from my won experience that the declarer play practice against GIB has improved my declarer play in live bridge as well. I can also tell you that I know for sure that participating in ACBL robot tournaments has improved the declarer play in live bridge for many other individuals.

Again, I guarantee you the facts are that I average better scores on the hands where I do only "normal things". If you believe that all of my high scores on hands where I make an "unusual" bid are due to the fact that GIB is not programmed to defend a 1nt opener as possibly being on 14 rather than 15 to 17, you are mistaken. It used to be said that 26 HCP were the combined total typically required to bid and make 3nt with 2 balanced hands. Looking at Meckwell in action, they routinely bid and make 3nt on 24 combined HCP. No one would ever argue the fact that this is good bridge. Hands that you may open on 14 and the robot drives to game on 9 are good tests for making 3nt on 23 combined HCP. While occasionally you may make extra tricks primarily because of the GIB's programming, frequently there will not be ways to make these hands or if there are they require very good lines of play for the declarer.

In a recent game that I completed (ACBL Robot Tourney #4658), boards 2 & 3 were certainly "normal" hands and I would be very surprised if anyone had different auctions than me. On board 2, I held 2335 shape with 16 HCP: xx AJx AQ10 AJ10xx and the bidding went pass on my right - 1nt by me - all pass. I scored an 86.1% on the hand. On board 3, I held 3244 shape with 17 HCP: Kxx Ax AJxx KQ10x and the bidding went 1nt by me - all pass. I scored a 77.8% on the hand.

Apparently you misunderstood my post when you say that "you bid like you have to do to win robot games". There is no need at all to make unusual bids to win robot games. What is needed to win robot games regularly is the ability to declare the hands extremely well. As others have posted, the norm is to declare about twice as often as defend. So it makes sense that the players that routinely declare the hands well will have good results. Although I have not run a set of data on my hands played and the results I have when making all "normal" bids versus hands that I make an "unusual" bid, I am pretty sure that my average is higher on the "normal" hands. Again, I like the declarer play practice and so I open some non-standard nt hands in order to have more practice. I could certainly see your point and some others as valid if it were found that "unusual" bids created much better results than "normal" bids. Again, I believe the reverse is actually true.

The $10 represents my out of pocket expenses because I am able to win alot of BB$ playing in $5 best hand games. Unfortunately, I had to spend $10 out of pocket when BBO did not provide the February $100 reward on March 1. :(

The robots declare and defend many hands very well. Personally, I bid "poorly" by opening alot of hands some number of nt not because the robots are not "good enough at bridge". Rather, I like the declarer play practice. It just amazes me how many people believe that individuals that bid "poorly" and end up declaring more hands than they would otherwise have an advantage over their competition or that this is a secret to becoming real successful at the robot bridge. Many of the players that are routinely light when they open 1nt on 13 or 14 counts for example end up with many zeros or near bottoms because they are not highly successful when they declare the hands. Although bidding style can certainly influence the results that an individual has in any given session, those that are regularly the most successful declare the hands better than most of their counterparts.

While it is true that many players choose to spend alot of money to participate in BBO's ACBL tournaments, I find this to be a realtively inexpensive hobby. Having spent a total of $10 this year so far for 540+ masterpoints, I do not believe that I put alot of money into the online masterpoints.

There is no need for me to "play fast" in order to get more games in. As it is, I usually finish 18 board tourneys in 14 minutes. They are only offered every 30 minutes, and ACBL imposed a rule a year ago allowing max of 2 games in an hour anyway.

I am going to reply to anyone that has been making complaints about some bids that I have made in robot tournaments. While there are certainly examples of hands where I may bid "non standard nt's" and there are a handful of other bids that I make that would not be considered "normal", I can say that I have seen first hand many other players make similar bids and many players make bids that are an even greater distortion from what may be considered "normal". The truth is that I have won just about 50% of the 18 board ACBL robot tournaments that I have played in. While it is true that some great results of mine occur on boards that I make "non-standard bids", I have also had a fair number of terrible results on hands where I choose to make a "non-standard bid". The main reason that I have the track record that I have in the robot games (averaging over 60%) is that I frequently score very highly on what may be considered the "normal hands", such as the 16 count balanced 1nt openers where everyone has the same auction of 1nt-p-p-p for example.

Stefanie, I am not sure how familiar you are with the ACBL nationals, but Hailong Ao (ao123 & hl123 on BBO) won the NABC IMP Pairs in the Memphis nationals that are currently going on. He is a player that I know from my area that has always been a fine card player, but I believe that his declarer play has improved since he began playing the robot tournaments. He is very successful when he plays in the ACBL robot duplicates and he is a very strong player in person. In addition to winning the IMP Pairs, he has reached the semi finals in prior years in both the Vanderbilt and the Spingold.

I agree with Justin that the GIB robots play bridge better than the average human, but they are not currently near the very top human players. I believe that it may not be possible to ever program the GIB robots to play as well as the very top human players. However, it does not matter that the robots are ever programmed to play at the highest level. The fact is that they are already programmed to play well enough that they can be a good test for many bridge skills. Although I am not anywhere near "the very top human players", declarer play has always been a relative strength of mine. I can say that playing the ACBL robot games has improved my declarer play and I believe that it can improve the declarer play of anyone, with the possible exception of "the very top human players". Also, it is correct what many others have already mentioned that the ACBL robot games are one of the truest measures of skill since everyone encounters the same "partner and opponents" on every hand.