Bermy

I really do not think we need make excuses for the programmers, they seem to make enough for themselves. My point is that these robots are becoming very popular indeed, and with the interest of the ACBL and with their US$ I am sure enough investment will come very soon. So let them build the fantasy partner. One that bids and plays like a pro. One that bids your way, One that uses conventions correctly and judges contracts and scores well. I'm not saying make bridge a perfect science, that would be impossible. Let us play with a robot partner we would love to have, and with E/W opponents that really test our skills. Robots are there to simulate partners and opponents at a bridge match. Surely having different systems and conventions will do exactly that. Why have tournaments where everyone is bidding and playing the same way? Have signal systems, why not? Have options on leads, why not? Then tweak you your system and conventions until you find the formula that gets you the best results. Yes we do need partner Gib options. Opponent Gib can play any way it likes, however I would expect strong opposition. Gib is not the only bridge robot around, how about introducing different robots to BBO? Bridge robots have been around for 25 years now, and the development ideas already exist, why should we wait another 10 years for Gib to provide us with an alternative bidding system?

How about this one Mr Ace. http://tinyurl.com/ybazjn2c 16 hcp together with 2 balanced hands vulnerable? No short suit. $0.25 Daylong imps. I have a Gib partner too.

25 years ago I purchased a bridge robot made by Saitek that could not only bid and play better than Gib I also had option of what system and convention I would like to play. The popularity of robot bridge and the funds arriving from huge robot tournaments must force the proprietors to invest in an all round better robot, if we apply enough pressure. I would love to see a bridge robot that: 1) Allowed me to choose my own system. 2) Allowed me to choose which conventions I wanted or didn't want. 3) Bid according to bridge scoring (knowing vul from not vul, push the level up and risk a sac in part scores, double poorly bid contracts and sacs for penalties etc) 4) Play according to the type of tournament, in other words change style for imps, mps and Bingo. 5) Partner to give me more assistance in the bidding. 6) Avoid hysterical overbids and passes. 7) Prefer majors over minors and bid for 4-4 major fits. 8) Lead more aggressively especially to No Trumps. 9) More penalty doubles especially at low levels. 10) Bidding explanations that actually mean something. Perhaps even if Gib could play at one table South in every tournament so players can evaluate just how well or poorly Gib really plays and judge themselves against the Gib score too. Personally I would love to play Precision with the robot. I can imagine that Precision would be far easier to program as every bid has limited parameters and shape, with a clearly defined controlling bidder. However I would not like to comment on the program complexities, but rather have the programmers read what we the players would like to see in the future. I invite other members of BBO and robot lovers to comment here on what kind of Bridge robot they would like to play with and what improvements can and should be done, and I ask the programmers to please stay out of the conversation.

Finally a more satisfying answer, thank you for that. I look forward to these improvements. I hope the new popularity of these robots get you the investment we deserve.

This rather reminds me of sitting at a table with a moderate player who has a high opinion of his own ability to bid. He then insists on playing his own system his own way, which you think is ridiculous. Nevertheless you do so only to find out that he cant even bid his own poor system properly and makes excuses all night. Then a fit like this happens and you wonder what you paying $0.25 for?

"I think the reason for the odd bid in both cases is overcounting for the diamond shortness, so on the shown auction GIB thought he was too good for 3!C but not enough HCP for 4th suit. Obviously diamond shortness should be a negative adjustment if partner rebids diamonds, and not a major plus even when he rebids clubs." With that attitude and if that is your bidding logic....and excuse......that says it all!

More excuses? OK so Im not qualified as a programmer, however that should't disqualify me from commenting here. 25 years ago I owned a little hand held bridge "robot" made by Saitek that could not only bid and play better than Gib, I also seem to remember that I could decide which bidding system I would prefer (2/1 sayc acol precision or Polish club) and it also allowed me to switch on or off whatever convention I wanted or didn't want. The robot bidding and play was far more accurate than modern Gib. Gib has been around for maybe 15 years now and we still have to endure this. And still making basic mistakes that should have been rectified in the last century. 10 years ago I remember reading reports and complaints on how bad the bidding system was and as all can observe......very little progress has been made. All complaints seem to generate nothing but excuses.

No sooner have I finished writing my reply when this happens in the new daylong..........again (sigh) http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?sn=Bermy&s=SAJ82HKJ832DCAQJ2&wn=Robot&w=SQTHQDAJT96532C43&nn=Robot&n=S9653HT96D74CT975&en=Robot&e=SK74HA754DKQ8CK86&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=4D(Preempt%20--%207+%20%21D%3B%2011-%20HCP%3B%203+%20total%20points)PPD(Takeout%20double%20--%203-5%20%21C%3B%202-%20%21D%3B%203-4%20%21H%3B%203-4%20%21S%3B%2015+%20total%20points)PPP&p=HTHAH2HQS4S2SQS9D2D4D8H3DKC2D6D7H5HJD9H9DJCTDQS8H4H8DAH6STS6S7SJHKDTC9H7C4C7C8CJSAD5S5SKD3C5C6CQC3S3CKCA More beginner bridge? Another hole to fix?

And may I add a second thought on a point I'm trying to make. 1000's of new and experienced members are paying and playing with these robots every day now. They are very popular, and if I must admit, a lot of fun. However if a robot partner does this to you in say in imp tourney, the whole tourney is ruined and you may as well withdraw as there will never be recovery from this so you have wasted your money. No refunds are available. Players are paying for these robots, surely they deserve better.

I can comment almost on every article in the robot discussion. "Robot partners cannot be trusted" If the robot has "any" view of South's hand. What hand would South have to have to want to want to play in 4 hearts redoubled? Surely the North robot can read South's explanation that it was a cue bid? North is the control bidder at the last bid.......how can pass be an option? Does the robot assume that the original bid of 4 hearts was natural despite the explanation? No something is very wrong here! Explanation of 4 hearts "Cue Bid 13+ total points forcing to 4NT" So what is wrong here? The bidding logic? The bidding system? The robot understanding of a cue bid? The explanation? I once used to teach beginners, and when they didn't quite know what to do to a take out.......they passed. I rather suspect that is is the problem here too.

Well then is rather appears that they are setting the "wrong" set of rules then. It not the bidding logic that is rotten its the basic bidding system. These are rules that quite frankly don't work at the bridge table. The parameters for finding 4-4 major suit fits are altogether wrong, their 2 and 3 level bids are wrong, take out doubles are wrong and most importantly penalty doubles are wrong. Cue bids are altogether wrong and simply cannot be trusted. To make matters even worse explanations are usually wrong. How hard can it be to program a robot to give the "correct" explanation for a bid, and then respond properly to the information given. The rule of 2 and 4 belongs to us and 3 and 5 belong to he opps do not exits here, so try push the bidding one more level and you can rely on the overbid? Partner plays against you......not with you, surely improvement is needed urgently.

What a load of garbage! Bidding like this I wouldn't expect from a beginner, never mind a robot that thousands pay for every day. How can anyone make excuses for such rubbish? Surely these robot have to show some consistency. One of hundreds of examples of robot incompetence on bidding. Why do we make excuses for this? What we need is better programs and better programmers for our money. Surely a consistent 2/1 or simpler Sayc is really what is required, certainly not this version that these programmers aspire to.

So if everybody agrees that Gib interpretation of double is not sensible......why do these programmers insist on letting the robot bid this way? Why isn;'t someone doing something about it. Surely all it needs is a decent expert bidder to design a proper working bidding algorithm. Its clear to me that the current programmers have their own version or their own agenda on how to bid, and its very very poor. 1000's of people are now paying good money to play with these robots every day, and while I not saying they are not fun, why do we have to endure such rubbish bidding. New players are learning the game all the time, and robots are such a good learning tool. Why teach them this rubbish version of 2/1?

Another extreme example of "Gib cannot bid" What Bidding logic places North in control. Surely by this point in the bidding North knows 4+ D 2- H and less than 3 clubs. What perverse logic removes this obvious penalty double into a take out on a 7 card fit? How do you beat your partner? Either defend the contract undoubled.......not good bridge at all, or risk a rubbish contract. Thanks Partner.......

Oh yes I have seen this one before I honestly cannot understand how Gib treats major suits and suit preferences. What perverse logic passes that heart bid? Who or what programs these things, the overall 2/1 bidding of robots is, to say the least, shocking. Its impossible to bid with a partner that cannot be trusted. I maintain, you have 3 opponents, the humans sitting in your seat, E/W and your partner. Well how do you beat your partner? 2 options really, go to game or bid 4NT yourself........that way you retain control of the bidding and play your human opponents as well as you can. With these 18 and a 9 card fit......4NT and decide for yourself. My point is to avoid giving Gib any control at all. At least if Gib passes your 4NT you will make your contract.

Umm 100% is 100% and you have to do it alone,and as I said 77 played this hand and nobody else opened 1 club and passed the response. Most of the permutations of Norths hand, having already passed in a best hand tournament suit a 1NT contract rather than any suit, including spades. If pass is not he best option then where do you want to play it?

Playing bridge against Gib is different to playing natural bridge with humans. Gib is an AI algorithm not using its 2/1 system properly resulting in people often getting some very poor results. Many players absolutely refuse to play with robots for exactly that reason. However, the popularity of these tourneys is becoming increasingly obvious. So why not develop a stratigy that beats these things at their own game. Firstly let me remind everyone that you are not playing against robots at all, but against all the other humans in your seat, so you have 3 opponants, the human players, East/West and your partner. As in all forms of bridge, Stratigy at matchpoints will differ vastly from that in imps. A few match-point tips. http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?sn=Bermy&s=SJ8542HA8DQJCK982&wn=Robot&w=S97HT7542DAK754CQ&nn=Robot&n=SAQTHKJ3D9862C654&en=Robot&e=SK63HQ96DT3CAJT73&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=PPP1C(Minor%20suit%20opening%20--%203+%20%21C%3B%2011-21%20HCP%3B%2012-22%20total%20points)P1N(2-4%20%21C%3B%202-4%20%21D%3B%202-3%20%21H%3B%202-3%20%21S%3B%206-10%20HCP%3B%207+%20total%20points)PPP&p=DTDJDKD2H2H3H9HAS2S7SQSKCAC2CQC4HQH8H5HKHJH6C8HTSAS6S4S9STS3SJD5S8D4C5C7S5D7C6C3CKH7D6CJDQDAD8D3H4D9CTC9 Look at this hand in 4th seat. Spades are weak opp a passed hand. Game looks unlikely in any suit. Even if pd turns up with 11 hcp and 5 spades without an openner you will probably go down in 4 spades anyway, so making game here is a very small chance, and bridge is a game of percentages. Now with the spade suit as valueless as that, why not open 1 club as if spades were a 4 carder. So Gib responds 1NT and you play the easiest 100% of the day with the overtrick, 77 played this hand most of them going down in 2S.

I have been playing BBO robot masterpoint tourneys for a few years now. I like the idea of earning masterpoints as at least it shows some of my actual bridge achievements, rather than show a self ranking system where everybody who can count to 13 think they are experts. However, what is the value of such masterpoints? For years I have played in robot tourneys trying to accumulate the crumbs of points given out at these tourneys. If the tourneys has less than 14 players One gets as little as .42 of a masterpoint for winning and even less for 2nd and 3rd. A score of over 60% usually gets you about .3 of a masterpoint. If the tourney contains 15-30 players then the winner gets .6 of a masterpoint with less going to the other finishers. Usually a score of over 60% will get you less than .3 of a masterpoint. Each tourney costs 25c and I estimate that any player averaging about 60% (approx my level) will need 4 to 6 games to earn 1 single masterpoint. If the tourney contains over 30 players the tourneys is split and 2 players are awarded .6 of a masterpoint with the remainder of players picking up the rest of the scraps. Suddenly we have daylong tourneys. Now a 60% plus score earns you over 5 masterpoints and a 70% plus score can earn you more than 10 full masterpoints (2000% more for playing almost the same way?), The logic being that if I can score 60% against 16 players I'm likely to have a similar score against 1000+ players. Now suddenly Im earning nearly 200 masterpoints a month for only 2 games and 50 cents a day. What is the point of playing all these other tourneys and instant tourneys where we all have to pay and play for scraps?

What is the point of comparing the results of different boards? What a pity. Peter Hollands gives such a lovely commentary on the Wednesday FDT, however we cant pre-play the tourney to compare our results with the same boards afterward. Surely we should come to terms with collusion, this is a pleasure tourney and purely for fun, if people want to cheat....who cares? Its only their loss really. How much fun is bridge if one cheating? I'd prefer to compare my results with friends who would not even bother about colluding.

When I play the FDT my results are compared to those of my friends. However when I compare the hands I seem to be playing completely different boards to them? How do you explain this?