pilowsky

Try to follow the reasoning presented above. You are not actually competing against the computer. You are competing against another human who is competing against the computer. There are not actually three robots and one human, there is one human - you, and one computer GIB! What is so difficult to understand. It doesn't matter what GIB bids. It only matters what you bid compared to what the other human bids That's why it's called human intelligence! Otherwise, you would use it to heat bread and make toast. FYI the original 'bug' was an actual moth on the circuit board of a mainframe - how about that. from JCR Licklider and the men who made computing personal.

I take it 'we' is Acol? Is that all forms of Acol?

Or perhaps the unpacking of portmanteaux "Flowell"?

It's a transfer to 4 hearts https://www.bridgebum.com/texas_transfer.php different method if you are in Dallas or Capetown!

OK, perhaps I am not being clear, let's try again. How many times do I see commentaries similar to this one on the Forum and elsewhere? You may be interested to know that in a review published by Rahwan et al., in Nature (2019) It was proposed in the title that there is such a thing as "Machine behaviour". Well, I have some bad news for Dr Rahwan and his friends at MIT. They are wrong, there isn't. You can call it Ginsberg Intelligent BridgePlayer or GIB, but it isn't the algorithm that is intelligent it's the human. This fallacy is known as anthropomorphisation: assigning human qualities to non-human things. It is commonly done as a means of satire. I do it frequently on the Forum when I mock my own poor play by ascribing my inadequacies to the incompetence of my friend the North robot (see what I mean…). The Rahwan review starts with the following sentence. "In his landmark 1969 book, Sciences of the Artificial Nobel Laureate Herbert Simon wrote: Natural science is knowledge about natural objects and phenomena." Before I continue, pause to understand the use of the words 'landmark' and 'Nobel Laureate' here: The idea behind this kind of writing is How can you argue with me now? After all my argument is backed by a Nobel laureate. The authors then go on to develop the idea that if Humans have a quality that we refer to as 'intelligence' then so do machines. You might think "well, it's published in Nature, the worlds best scientific Journal, it must be true". Think of the still unretracted paper by Benveniste 1988 showing that water can 'remember' the presence of antibodies. In 2019 alone 14 papers were retracted from another Nature group publication "Scientific Reports" which has an impact factor of more than 4. All sorts of ridiculous ideas flow from this concept of artificial intelligence: when in fact it is nothing more than a perpetual motion machine. Pit four robots against each other and guess who wins? Nobody - that's right nobody is playing. In fact, GIB is not artificial intelligence at all. Only people that believe in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, or have not passed the stage of object permanence could think otherwise. Here I am thinking of people that believe that COVID-19 will magically go away if you stop testing, or that your mother vanishes when she leaves the room. Here is how it really works: When you play in a robot tournament it is exactly the same as playing IRL (in real life) or FTF (face to face). Except that it is better. There is no possibility of cheating. Your opponents cannot kick each other under the table, blink, wink, fart, move their fingers, or do anything else. Even better, they make a pretty good attempt at describing their bid. They do not arrive at the table and say things like we play Acol. Or we play Myxi 2's or some other stuff. They do not behave like a lesion looking for a space to occupy. They never gloat and they never complain. The most important thing that people seem to be unaware of - in the Kruger/Dunning sense of the term - is that when you play in a game against robots, the result that you get is not a result that is compared with robots. You are comparing yourself with actual people. Yes, PEOPLE. So, next time somebody complains about bad bidding or bad play from the robots remember that what they are really saying is that someone (or more likely several other someones) found a better way to bid and play the same hand. Alternatively, the advanced robots played it differently to the basic robots, or two humans played it differently, but again, is this any different to what happens IRL or FTF? It still has nothing to do with 'intelligence' on the part of the robot. In order for GIB to be intelligent, it would need to be capable of several things that humans can do that the program cannot. It would need to be able to learn new stuff. It can't. It would need to be able to improvise. It doesn't. It would need to be able to write long whiny aposiopesical posts on the Forum about...

Hilarious. I suggest you practice the GIB system

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the BBO bidding system. If you speak English at it do not expect it to reply in Latin. That would be highly unusual. This complaint appears regularly here every time someone fails to read the GIB system notes carefully.

Is there any indication that there will ever be a charge to play casual bridge?

If I wanted to hide the important information (aliasing) then sure, I could do a moving average. Do one over 12 months and you will get a straight line. Ask anyone that works on the front line in a hospital and they will help you out with the real explanation. It has nothing to do this mathematics or reporting or statistics or Nyquist.

OK, I just had a quick look. That's exactly what it is a magazine full of articles about bridge players that have been aggregated from other places as well as some originals. Just like a Club newsletter but - well - just like a Club newsletter. I don't think I'll be reading it again. I'm not really fond of static magazines I gave them up about 30 years ago. As for what Prime is at the moment Prime allows you to have at least four things that I find valuable. At any time: You have unlimited use of a table with advanced robots that play GIB. This means that if you are South and North is Declarer, North will play the contract and you can see how the contract is played by the robot. This can be useful. I have asked if there could be an option to allow for me to always be declarer as occurs in daylong tournaments, but there was no reply to my post on the Forum.You can invite a friend to play with you and fill the other seats with robots. This is clearly more convenient than the main club where you would annoy other people while you chat about your system.You get to compare your play with the play of about 12 other players that also played the hands. All of the hands can be easily exported, or recovered later, by copying them (including the movie and traveller) from http://www.bridgebas...p?&from_login=0 this site when you put in your user name. FWIW you get free entry into a weekly masterpoints group challenge format tournament. This tournament is run on the same principle as the Forum challenge that we have talked about elsewhere. Effectively you are playing a 'group challenge' when you play in the prime club since every hand is played about 12 times. If like me you want to check a particular hand you can see what everyone else did and you can also see the effect of the bidding on the robots play. These are the reasons I continue to renew my membership. When I want to learn a new method or see how the robots respond to something I try it out in Prime. Obviously, you can only try out a different bidding system if you bring a partner. The robots only play GIB as outlined on their card. Whether or not BBO becomes a paid site is entirely up to BBO. It is a company, they employ people, they have to make money somehow. What would you like them to do?

You cannot buy robots. Slavery was abolished by Abraham Lincoln. The final decree was on June 19, 1865, I'm told. You can rent their services. I would opt for the East robot. On a good day, his bidding and declarer play are both excellent. I would be very grateful if you could put me in touch with the Novices that you speak of. I've been playing for more than one week and I take lessons yet even the North robot can beat me. Please provide some examples of so-called "bad bidding". In my experience, GIB is extremely accurate and reasonable.

If you wondering why the graph looks like this, it's not a reporting or testing artefact. If it was, the case report graph would look the same.

You are correct. It is not the robots that make the difference. Different operating systems work at different speeds. Given the large number of hands being played simultaneously, this can make a difference. In the world of high finance even nanoseconds matter. Michael Lewis in one of his books describes how Traders in New York would fight to have their computers closest to the main server so that their trades would be completed fastest. This enabled them to make a lot of money at the margins. And we think we have problems!

Since I get a terrible result most of the time, I try to take pleasure in the unusual hands that pop up occasionally while I try and improve. This one appeared today in a best-hand tournament. I had been experimenting with bidding 1NT on anything from 14.5-18.5 HCP, but this looked too awful even for me so I started with 1♦. Interestingly, West's choice might have been easy if I had: Cappelletti 2♠. West made a major-oriented take-out double. My book on TO doubles by Mike Lawrence says "A five-card suit is gold" so I'm not sure about option 5. What do you think? Of course, I am pretty pleased with myself getting to redouble West who usually gets the better of me. Unfortunately, not vul and not IMPS. Here's the link, here's the double-dummy, and here's the deal. Apparently, I should have made an overtrick. [hv=pc=n&s=sqhaqt9daq8653ca9&w=sak632hkjdkcqj654&n=sj875h87632dckt72&e=st94h54djt9742c83&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=pp1dd1hp4hdpprppp]399|300[/hv]

This may be a 'feature' of the version that you use. When I play in Prime, and my partner the North robot is Declarer the result appears in the History at about Trick 6. It turns out that the same thing happens with my Bridge teacher who uses the older faster Flash version. He gets the result faster than me - not just because he's 100X better at Bridge than me . You only see this in Prime (or playing with a partner side-by-side because, in Prime, the robot will declare if it wins the contract. And of course, in space, no-one can hear you scream. This means that your problems should be resolved in January 2021 when Flash is gone. It also means that you have a 5-second advantage over other players. Keep that quiet. Clearly, this would be a problem if using computers in FTF competition at a club. The delay is clearly noticeable as you point out. Unless there is another explanation that I am unaware of.

Where do we keep the irony lung?

It's a good point. Daylong tournaments are not stratified. Free tournaments do not earn points. Perhaps stratified tournaments could be indicated as such in the details section. Correction - when you click on details before you register, it tells you if the tournament is stratified.

I don't agree. I like this feature and would be sorry to see it go. It's easy to close the window.

As an intermittent goulash player I find I get my best results if I treat every hand like an ordinary bridge hand. Problems arise when others get carried away. Bridge is bridge. Luck is other people making mistakes.

Well, it is winter in Australia

Moody! I like that. Jeff Tang talks about aggressive, moderate and conservative versions of gambling 3NT on Bridgebum. If I don't have enough points and still make the contract would that be a silly 3NT? Or just pointless...

all fixed now for me!

my complaint is much funnier - does anyone ever read these?

Just tried to register for day 1 of the free weekend event that is running and 1262 others have entered and I get this error. Any thoughts? (not the greet bit - obviously). I assume it does not mean 'Hello opposition' in some sort of binary language. Unless the North robot knew that it was me. Now 1275. Interesting, now the code is "1040" maybe it's the East robot Oh dear, HY000 - looks like the West robots got involved. I must be in real trouble now. and there are 1279 people registered - who are not me. 1299, 1307 (Australian EST), 1338 at 2046 AEST.code=HY000; 1379 @21:21 HY000...happy to let me play other tournaments. Now working. And happy to see it's matchpoints format.

And then, as if by a miracle - - this hand came up today. My untrustworthy friend the North robot opens 3♣ with this hand.nobody is vulnerable. [hv=pc=n&n=s76h72d42ckqjt973]133|100[/hv] I have [hv=pc=n&s=sqhaq65dakt53ca84]133|100[/hv] Here is the full deal Interestingly - to me anyway, top board was 6♣ Here is the Traveller. But if GIB wanted to be really mean it could've found 6♠X which not vulnerable for +500 would be the best result for EW. As you can imagine, I was delighted with the standard passive lead of the ♣5, but I only made 3NT+3. 2 people made 3N+4, and 13 people chose 6♣, but 4 went off 1. If you imagine that the 3♣ is an upside-down Gambling 3NT (and I know that I'm asking a lot here) then the response of 3NT does make sense. I do understand that the OP is rather different - in that case when the robot bids Stayman I am taking the risk (gamble) that my partner will have additional strength elsewhere. This situation is clearly different. I am taking the risk that all of North's strength is in the ♣ suit. In retrospect, when I look at my hand again, perhaps it is less surprising. My sense is that GIB preempts tend to be 'heavy', but that may be an illusion. When I ran this North hand through a KR hand evaluator the answer was 10.05, but only 6 using the HCP method. What do others think?