smerriman

When you challenge a robot you can play it immediately. Are you sure you followed the instructions in the first post, rather than attempting to challenge a human named GIB?

You can see the timestamp of when the challenge finishes when you click on it - if it's a very tight timeframe as is likely, reject and issue a new one.

8-8 vs Stephen Tu http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:51d6e6cc.db2d.11ea.b96d.0cc47a39aeb4-1597079828

Under 5 days to go, and several people are well behind schedule.

https://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:57f89b8b.d913.11ea.b96d.0cc47a39aeb4-1596848769&u=smerriman&v3b=web&v3v=5.6.6 smerriman 8-8 povratnik

Oh wow. It consistently opens yours, and consistently passes the OPs and my linked hand. I have no idea how it elects to open or pass then - have experimented and can't find a clear pattern.

I am 99% sure that opening bids are not one of the bids that can be overridden by simulations, thus can't differ between different versions of the bots. GIB simply passes all 3145 12 counts in all seats.

There's one player on BBO who sits in the main bridge club and psychs every single hand. Literally, over a thousand times in the last month (averaging -2 imps/board). Have reported them numerous times, yet nothing happens. I guess they enjoy upsetting every player that is unfortunate to join and BBO doesn't care.

A low diamond still works in your second case though, doesn't it? Is there a case where it differs?

GIB is many things, but it is at least consistent. Over three years and it still passes opening hands.

Yes, sorry, I misunderstood and thought that spreading them out would mean singles with robots could never play other singles with robots (which was probably unfair one way or the other), but that wouldn't be the case in opposite directions anyway.

If people in your tournament don't like playing with robots, why not just disable them? If they're allowed, biasing the tables doesn't seem right.

http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/news_fetch.php?id=969

Robot rebate is human-declare, so the beauty was all nige1's work :) Very cool.

I think you're on track to thrash the best MP average in a challenge event so far. No pressure, wouldn't want you to fall apart playing GIB ;)

I think Solitaire is a bit broken at the moment. There have been a few other threads where GIB's description was as if it had forgotten several bids earlier in the auction - eg this one.

https://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:74e6b015.d2ac.11ea.b96d.0cc47a39aeb4-1596144872&u=smerriman&v3b=web&v3v=5.6.5 7.5 - 8.5 vs pilowski https://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:28cb45d9.d346.11ea.b96d.0cc47a39aeb4-1596210887&u=smerriman&v3b=web&v3v=5.6.5 7.5 - 8.5 vs zupey https://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:b1ce4216.d409.11ea.b96d.0cc47a39aeb4-1596294869&u=smerriman&v3b=web&v3v=5.6.5 9-7 vs heart76

Where in your results did you show that South did not get higher HCP counts? I cannot see any signs of this in any of your results. Only the irrelevant IMP scores. Edit - in fact, don't bother replying. Had enough of feeding this troll.

There have been lots of examples of recent posts where people claim there is bias in the the *dealing algorithm*, with claims that one side gets dealt more HCP than the other, hands are more distributional than expected, suits don't break as expected, finesses always lose, and so on. None of these have anything to do with IMPs, since they affect all N/S at the other tables equally. I can't think of a single example of a recent thread where someone is complaining anything resembling what are you suggesting. Do you have an example?

OK, you cannot seriously be anything other than trolling this forum now if you can't even follow basic logic. But I'll try once more, who knows why. Here are some very basic questions for you to answer. If IMPs averaging to 0 proves the lack of bias, who do you think will get more IMPs if there is a bias? The side that gets dealt more HCP? What if the HCP are distributed evenly, but the hands are always Goulash-style? Why would Goulash not average to 0? In particular, who do you think will get more IMPs if there is a bug in the algorithm that will result in South getting dealt 13 spads every hand? N/S will make 7S. Every other N/S will make 7S. N/S will receive exactly 0 IMPs. No matter *what* the dealing algorithm is, the average number of IMPs N/S will receive per hand is 0, because IMPs solely measure how N/S compare to all other N/S at other tables, no matter how bad/good the hand. That's the whole point of duplicate scoring. Or take daylongs. There is clearly a bias there, since South is always given the best hand. Are you saying the human scores in a daylong should average more than 0 IMPs? Because last I checked, that's mathematically impossible.

The number of IMPs each side get is completely unrelated to whether dealing is biased or not. You stated that the end average being 0 means there is no bias, but that's 100% false - it would also be 0 if there *was* bias, like in my example.

Suppose the deals were biased and South was dealt 13 spades every hand. N/S would get 0 IMPs every hand. So that proves the deals are generated at random, right?

Ginsberg's Intelligent Bridgeplayer - the first word coming from the original programmer Matthew Ginsberg; the second word being unintentional sarcasm.

Thanks, had a stray space after one username in the list of people.

Yes, though 'advanced' doesn't mean they don't still have major issues :P