smerriman

It used to be stored in localStorage, not cookies. But not anymore; it appears BBO have shifted it into their database somewhere, so you can't clear it yourself.

Humans are well known to be extremely poor judges of whether something looks 'random' or not. There are some classic studies where people are asked to make up a "random" sequence of coin tosses - all of the results turned out extremely biased due to the humans almost always 'balancing out' heads and tails over short sequences, whereas in reality, random sequences are much more imbalanced, with long streaks occurring regularly. Of course, who declares in bridge is not equivalent to flipping a coin. Some bidders are overly aggressive, and some overly passive. According to MyHands, you played 14 hands yesterday, (not 18), and North did declare on 12 of them. But quite a few of these were a result of poor bidding. For example, on one hand, when you had bid to game in 4♥, North made an insane sacrifice in 4♠ (undoubled) with a 5062 10 count and his partner silent. Once North got to be declarer because South opened 1♦ with a balanced hand in their NT range - normal bidding would have left South declarer. On another, you let North declare in 2♠ when your partnership had 26 high card points between you! (And there was another occasion where he was also left in 2♠ with your side having the bulk of the cards). You can't do anything about an opponent overbidding to become declarer, but underbidding like that will definitely bias your results significantly towards defending much more than declaring, so it's something worth working on. Yesterday, you didn't have E/W declare 21 times in a row; you're probably thinking about the session several days before that, where E/W declared 17 times in a row, when you were sitting N/S. Yes, you had a bad run of cards that session (though again there were definitely occasions of underbidding when you should have been declaring) - but nothing out of the ordinary at all. Actually yesterday, North declared 7 times, South twice, East 6 times, and West 4. You'll always be able to find patterns if you only pick and choose the ones that don't look random to you. You may think that the fact there is an occasional forum post about bias implies maybe there is something going on. But consider that there are 12000 players online right at this second.. one of those players right now is going through such a bad streak of cards that will only happen 0.008% of the time! If they're underbidding on top of that, they'll definitely think BBO is against them.

The robot is called Argine, not GIB. But yes, there are lots of incredibly bad flaws. There's a thread dedicated to them here.

Seems perfect to me. The definition of 'forcing' is 'partner is not allowed to pass your bid'. I think they should have *more* of that description, since there's no better way of describing what a pass of a 100% forcing bid should mean.

What is unusual about this? Yeah, I discovered this the hard way a few weeks ago after finding out that 1N - 2♥ - 2♠ - 3♥ showed slam interest, and you had to start with 4♣ / 4♦ to just show game values. They're not the same definition; one shows 5-6 hearts with 5 spades and one 5-6 spades with 5 hearts. But I have no idea what the convention is.

This is still broken. Saw a streamer looking at double dummy results and getting very confused because of this the other day.

The $5 robot reward used to be 10%. That increase to 30% is pretty insane. These usually have very small numbers of competitors; previously if there were just two entries, you paid $5 for the opportunity to win your entry fee + $4 back. So you need to win about 55% of the time to make a profit. Not bad odds for good Robot Reward players. Now you're paying $5 for the opportunity to win your entry fee + $2 back, which means you need to win over 71% of the time. That's killed off that format of the game, really. This will actually cost BBO money, given there is no good reason to play that format anymore.

There's a certain place in BBO where exporting a hand can result in the description being cut off after a certain number of characters (or after a certain character); not quite sure where, but that's just an issue with the exporter, not the actual GIB definition. There is an issue here in that it thinks 3♥ over 3♣ is 10-13 total points, which is nonsense. Just some generic rule about what to do after the opponents bid a new suit at the 3 level that shouldn't be applicable here. If North has passed 2♠, it would have been a more appropriate definition with a minimum of 3 points. So it doesn't even consider 3♥ over 3♣, since it's too far removed from the actual hand. But as to the actual pass, not so sure there is anything wrong here. The old version of GIB does consider 3♥ as a direct raise to 2♥, and bids it about a quarter of the time. The other 3/4 it think it's a poor choice, sometimes getting raised to 4 where game has no hope, sometimes just performing worse than 2♠. Don't think pass is too mysterious to me. And as to the second pass, if I adjust things so it does consider 3♥, or get North to pass to see whether it will compete to 3♥ over 2♠ instead, it has passing as a pretty clear favorite in a simulation. The Law was made for humans, and simulations should outperform it, so I'm not sure pass is wrong here.

Not saying it's perfect or even good. Just what GIB's standard logic is.

South has shown 6 diamonds, and West at least 2. Can Q ever be a killer under those conditions?

Sorry for hijacking the thread, but just FYI, it's losing, not loosing. Hate correcting spelling online, but it's in every single one of your posts, and it drives me a little bit more crazy each time :)

And then today's tournament, partner opens 1♥ and I have a 19 count. The bidding goes like this: [hv=https://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?d=w&d=n&a=1H(4+!H;%20HCP%2011-20;%20natural)p1s(4+!S;%20HCP%204+;%20natural%20-%20Forcing)p2C(4-6!C;%205+!H;%20HCP%2011-19;%20at%20least%204!C)P2D!(4+!S;%20HCP%2011+;%204th%20suit%20forcing%20-%20Forcing)P3D(4-5!C;%203-4!D;%205-6!H;%20HCP%2014-19;%20natural%20or%20asks%20for%20stopper%20in%20!D%20-%20Forcing)P3H(3!H;%204-5!S;%20HCP%2011+;%20fit%20in%20!H%20-%20Forcing)ppp]350|100[/hv] Thanks, Argine. If the catch-phrase for GIB is 'every double is for takeout', I think Argine's is "every forcing bid is passable". Full hand.

I guess the plan is to go the way of GIB and keep everything secret :( Three more bugs, if they're still worth reporting: [hv=https://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?bbo=y&lin=st%7C%7Cmd%7C3SKT8532HDKJ4CAQ93%2CSAHAJT964DT965CK4%2CSJ64H753DQ72CT852%2CSQ97HKQ82DA83CJ76%7Csv%7CN%7Cah%7CBoard%205%7Cmb%7CP%7Cmb%7C1N%7Can%7C2%2B%21C%3B%202%2B%21D%3B%202%2B%21H%3B%202%2B%21S%3B%20HCP%2012-14%3B%20balanced%7Cmb%7C2S%7Can%7C5%2B%21S%3B%20HCP%2010-18%3B%20natural%7Cmb%7C3H%7Can%7C5%2B%21H%3B%20HCP%2011%2B%3B%20natural%20-%20Forcing%7Cmb%7CP%7Can%7CHCP%209-%3B%20weak%20hand%7Cmb%7CP%7Cmb%7CP%7Cpc%7CS4%7Cpc%7CS7%7Cpc%7CS8%7Cpc%7CSA%7Cpc%7CHJ%7Cpc%7CH3%7Cpc%7CH2%7Cpc%7CS2%7Cpc%7CHT%7Cpc%7CH5%7Cpc%7CH8%7Cpc%7CC3%7Cpc%7CH4%7Cpc%7CH7%7Cpc%7CHQ%7Cpc%7CS3%7Cpc%7CS9%7Cpc%7CST%7Cpc%7CH6%7Cpc%7CS6%7Cpc%7CD5%7Cpc%7CD2%7Cpc%7CDA%7Cpc%7CD4%7Cpc%7CSQ%7Cpc%7CSK%7Cpc%7CH9%7Cpc%7CSJ%7Cpc%7CDT%7Cpc%7CD7%7Cpc%7CD3%7Cpc%7CDJ%7Cpc%7CDK%7Cpc%7CD6%7Cpc%7CDQ%7Cpc%7CD8%7Cpc%7CC9%7Cpc%7CCK%7Cpc%7CC5%7Cpc%7CC6%7Cpc%7CC4%7Cpc%7CC2%7Cpc%7CCJ%7Cpc%7CCQ%7Cpc%7CCA%7Cpc%7CHA%7Cpc%7CC8%7Cpc%7CC7%7Cpc%7CD9%7Cpc%7CCT%7Cpc%7CHK%7Cpc%7CS5%7C]400|300[/hv] Yet another forcing non-forcing situation, with the robots missing a simple game. [hv=https://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?bbo=y&lin=st%7C%7Cmd%7C1SAJ54HT6DAQT82CK9%2CSQ7HAKJ87532DJ9C8%2CSKTHQ4DK753CQJT32%2CS98632H9D64CA7654%7Csv%7CB%7Cah%7CBoard%207%7Cmb%7C1N%7Can%7C2%2B%21C%3B%202%2B%21D%3B%202%2B%21H%3B%202%2B%21S%3B%20HCP%2012-14%3B%20balanced%7Cmb%7C4H%7Can%7C8%2B%21H%3B%20HCP%205-15%3B%20preemptive%7Cmb%7CD%21%7Can%7CHCP%2011%2B%3B%20extra%20strength%2C%20at%20least%2011%20points%20-%20Non%20forcing%7Cmb%7CP%7Cmb%7C4S%7Can%7C2-4%21C%3B%202-4%21D%3B%202-4%21H%3B%205%21S%3B%20HCP%2012-14%3B%20natural%7Cmb%7CP%7Cmb%7C4N%21%7Can%7C3-4%21S%3B%20HCP%2011%2B%3B%20Blackwood%20in%20%21S%2C%20asks%20how%20many%20Aces%20-%20Forcing%7Cmb%7CP%7Cmb%7C5H%21%7Can%7C2-4%21C%3B%202-4%21D%3B%202-4%21H%3B%205%21S%3B%20HCP%2012-14%3B%202%20Ace%28s%29%20-%20Forcing%7Cmb%7CP%7Cmb%7C5N%21%7Can%7C3-4%21S%3B%20HCP%2011%2B%3B%20Blackwood%2C%20asks%20how%20many%20Kings%20-%20Forcing%7Cmb%7CP%7Cmb%7C6D%21%7Can%7C2-4%21C%3B%202-4%21D%3B%202-4%21H%3B%205%21S%3B%20HCP%2012-14%3B%201%20King%28s%29%20-%20Forcing%7Cmb%7CP%7Cmb%7C6N%7Can%7C3-4%21S%3B%20HCP%2015%2B%3B%20to%20play%7Cmb%7CP%7Cmb%7CP%7Cmb%7CP%7Cpc%7CHA%7Cpc%7CH4%7Cpc%7CH9%7Cpc%7CH6%7Cpc%7CHK%7Cpc%7CHQ%7Cpc%7CS2%7Cpc%7CHT%7Cpc%7CH2%7Cpc%7CC2%7Cpc%7CC4%7Cpc%7CS4%7Cpc%7CH3%7Cpc%7CC3%7Cpc%7CS3%7Cpc%7CCK%7Cpc%7CH5%7Cpc%7CCT%7Cpc%7CC5%7Cpc%7CS5%7Cpc%7CH7%7Cpc%7CD3%7Cpc%7CS6%7Cpc%7CC9%7Cpc%7CHJ%7Cpc%7CD5%7Cpc%7CC6%7Cpc%7CD2%7Cpc%7CH8%7Cpc%7CD7%7Cpc%7CS8%7Cpc%7CD8%7Cpc%7CC8%7Cpc%7CCJ%7Cpc%7CCA%7Cpc%7CDT%7Cpc%7CC7%7Cpc%7CSJ%7Cpc%7CD9%7Cpc%7CCQ%7Cmc%7C4%7C]400|300[/hv] OK, so North's double is just 11+ points, and not 'takeout', so maybe I should have passed the double? But Argine went bonkers after that, probably trying to sign off in no trump three times. [hv=https://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?bbo=y&lin=st%7C%7Cmd%7C4SA5HA96DA9CKJ9762%2CSJ92HKJT7D742CA53%2CST87H5DKQJT65CQT4%2CSKQ643HQ8432D83C8%7Csv%7CN%7Cah%7CBoard%202%7Cmb%7CP%7Cmb%7C1C%7Can%7C4%2B%21C%3B%20HCP%2011-23%3B%20natural%7Cmb%7CP%7Cmb%7C1D%7Can%7C1%2B%21D%3B%20HCP%204%2B%3B%20natural%20or%20fit%20in%20%21C%20-%20Forcing%7Cmb%7C2C%21%7Can%7C5%2B%21H%3B%205%2B%21S%3B%20HCP%207-11%3B%20two-suiter%2C%20unknown%20-%20Forcing%7Cmb%7C3C%7Can%7C6%2B%21C%3B%20HCP%2014-16%3B%20natural%7Cmb%7CP%7Cmb%7C4C%7Can%7C3%2B%21C%3B%201%2B%21D%3B%20HCP%2013%2B%3B%20fit%20in%20%21C%20-%20Forcing%7Cmb%7CP%7Cmb%7C4D%21%7Can%7C6%2B%21C%3B%20HCP%2014-16%3B%20control%20in%20%21D%20-%20Forcing%7Cmb%7CP%7Cmb%7C5C%7Can%7C3%2B%21C%3B%201%2B%21D%3B%20HCP%2013-15%3B%20Either%20minimum%2C%20or%20no%20control%20in%20the%20jump%20shift%20suit%7Cmb%7CP%7Cmb%7C6C%7Can%7C6%2B%21C%3B%20HCP%2014-16%3B%20to%20play%7Cmb%7CP%7Cmb%7CP%7Cmb%7CP%7Cpc%7CS2%7Cpc%7CST%7Cpc%7CSQ%7Cpc%7CSA%7Cpc%7CC7%7Cpc%7CCA%7Cpc%7CC4%7Cpc%7CC8%7Cpc%7CHJ%7Cpc%7CH5%7Cpc%7CH2%7Cpc%7CHA%7Cmc%7C12%7C]400|300[/hv] And yet another 1♣ - 1♦ problem, with Argine showing 13+ HCP when holding only 8. Luckily, it then decided to let me make slam when it was never on. Also, still experiencing the claiming issue I mentioned [not in this thread] early on, having claims rejected when I have all top tricks remaining.

Robots don't really play Walsh, just up-the-line.

Robots are free on the first day of each month. I suspect that is when you were playing. Other days, you'll need to pay.

Agree it can never gain. But the actual layout isn't possible, given South has promised a max of 9 HCP with the opening bid, so can't have the ace of diamonds. Of course, East denied an opening hand too. But if you swap the positions of the Q and A of diamonds, then it then technically falls within the described ranges, and it doesn't matter what West returns. Can't easily replicate this on the old version of GIB since BBO heavily changed the definitions of preempts, but I suspect it's a mix of this (excluding most hands where South has the A) and the bug where it miscalculates double dummy on a proportion of hands to cause it to make the worst play.

To a robot, yes; West needs to retain the lead in order to send another club through, which results in an extra trick much more often than it costs, given the high likelihood of West having the K. E.g.: [hv=https://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?s=s4hkqj8653d6ct976&e=sa965h74dkqt874c8&n=sq3hat9dj532cq542&d=n&a=pp3hp4hpp4spp5hppxppp&v=e&p=ckc2c8c7sjs3]400|300[/hv]

mikeh, are you able to complete the auction you started in the other thread with the XYZ system? After 1♣ - 1♦ - 1♥ - 2♦ I'm wondering how to set diamonds and have space to find controls when you run out of space for exclusion. I always find it tricky when 3NT being in play means it takes a long time to say you want a minor to be trumps, thus Soloway here. (My auction same as Cyberyeti.)

Nonforcing invite seems highly unusual to me - why wouldn't you bid 2♣ then diamonds with that hand? I thought jumps to the 3 level were always slam interest in XYZ. Yeah, actually it's hard to find specific references, I just remember seeing an occasional forum post about it but no real definitive answers. And then some are in a Walsh context, some aren't, etc. With Walsh it makes logical sense to me for 1♠ to be natural + game forcing, thus promising 5+ diamonds at the same time and showing 9 of your cards, in the same way that over 1♣ - 1♦ - 1N you can bid 2M to show the game forcing hand with longer diamonds. If you start with 2♦ you've only shown 4 of your cards and it takes a long time to show your actual hand. But not playing Walsh changes things a lot. Except you don't have a fit yet.. how do you pack in agreeing spades / diamonds with / without slam interest and also control bidding into bids above 3♠?

I'm not sure I like the methods; I've seen many recommendations for 1♣ - 1♦ - 1♥ - 1♠ when playing XYZ, but NF has never been one of them. What sort of hands would you bid (and pass) it on? Seems odd to me that to show slam interest with spades you have to bid them at the 3 level, when those are the hands you need the most room to explore. Really dislike 2♦ as weak too; comes up far less regularly than Soloway and is less useful when it does. Like LBengtsson I would bid it here; it does give up playing in spades if partner has 4 card support, but it lets me get in an unambiguous Voidwood in clubs, which I'm not sure I'm going to be able to do by starting with 1♦. I would also be a bit hesitant in partner interpreting 4♦ as strong diamonds with heart support, analogous to the 1m - 1M - 4m sequence, whether that's a good idea or not.

Was the version we've been playing with during the initial trial, prior to these official announcements, the light or full one? Are there any extra details of the difference? With GIB it's disabling sims during bidding, disabling GIBson, and reducing the number of sims; I would suspect Argine doesn't have the capability to disable the first two, so maybe it's just the last? But if it was the first, that would impact what bugs to report (since some wrong bids with free GIB aren't true bugs). Will there be version numbers of Argine / a changelog like there was for GIB? Or any sense of progress as to previously reported bugs this time around? Any updates on your plans for GIB too? (OK, I'm pushing my luck now, lol. I did have a dream a couple of nights ago that I met Uday about the robots..)

Doesn't seem that strange to me. The robot is definitely more *likely* to make a slam move over a superaccept. But just because one is a higher chance than the other doesn't mean you won't get occasions where the non-superaccept sim says make a try and the superaccept sim says don't.

Argine plays 2NT - 3♣ - 3NT as showing both 4 card majors (with 3♥ denying 4 spades and vice versa). While maybe playable, I don't think this is anything to do with Acol. It's also funny how Blackwood is described as Blackwood "in a suit", given it's not keycard - and you can follow up with a queen ask, despite not being able to find out about the trump king! I suspect both of these, and the broken 1♣ - 1♦ sequence, come from the way the FunBridge Argine lets you stitch together all sorts of conventions, rather than being purpose built for a specific system.

There's a whole forum dedicated to that here. Well, dedicated to talking about the robots - not so much anything getting fixed :) But I can usually try to explain *why* the robot does weird things, at least.. .. in this case if you were playing in a paid tournament, it should never have happened, as it should be an easy pass for paid robots. There's a number of places in the code where the robots are basically given a choice between a few different options, and are meant to deal a bunch of hands to figure out which option will work best, but free robots have this feature turned off, and just pick the first one in the list. Which isn't awful in most cases, but can give some silly results in others like here, where 2♠ happens to have a higher priority than pass. Though based on an initial inspection it shouldn't have been, still trying to figure out why it was..

By real do you mean non-robot ACOL? I don't know about that. But with Argine the bid includes game forcing hands with clubs, since immediate 2♣ and 3♣ raises are both nonforcing. Even those are messed up though, with 2♣ 5-10 and 3♣ "8-10 invitational"?! And jumping to 3♣ over the 1♥ rebid shows 4-10 :( (Which means your sequence must be forcing, and is for Argine, though is also very buggy, with an example on the previous page.)