jardaholy

A couple of days ago, I presented a specific contribution to BIC2 here. In short, my idea was that before improving the BBO by providing video chat etc., it would be better to improve the bidding, card play or at least signalling made by the robots. I got several responses and the basic idea there (in the longest one), in short, was that BBO daylongs represent specific form of competition (game), which is different from "normal" bridge and this new form should be taken as it is, including (sometimes) bad play of the robots. Okay, I understand that and take it. But some features of BBO, in my opinion, should be still improved, because they are not about different sort of game, but about not optimum quality of the product (BBO) as a whole. First, there should be detailed manual available, much much better than the current one. If the manual says that the robots normally signal the count during the play (naturally) and, in a specific board, the signal is an opposite one (high-low with three small in the suit), the player should know, why the robot did that (because there must be straight logical explanation) - at least the explanation should be that the signals made by the robots are random on some conditions (and what are such conditions). Secondly - the explanations of the bids made by me or by the robots during the bidding should be thoroughly reviewed and the clear drawbacks (bugs) should be corected. See the following board [hv=pc=n&s=sq65ht5d83cqj9754&w=sah93dk7654cat862&n=sk93hakqj8daj92ck&e=sjt8742h7642dqtc3&d=w&v=n&b=12&a=1ddp2cp2dp3cp3hp4cp4hp5cppp]399|300[/hv] I was sitting South. 4♥ is reasonably good contract and, in fact, I have no such big problem with the bidding of the robot on the opposite side of the table. One can ask, why, the hell, I bid this 5♣ nonsense. The answer is a totally confusing explanation of the robot´s bids, I got: 2♦ = 2-4♣, 2-4♦, 2-4♥, 2-4♠, 18+ total points, at best stopper in ♦, forsing to 3♠ (why to 3♠??), 3♥ = exactly 4♥, 4♥ = at maximum 4♥(4-♥)! Why should I lose several % of the topscore in (paid) Zenith daylong played relatively well not because of bad play of the robot (which I can accept) or me (which I have to accept), but due to badly programmed and verified explanations of the bids (during normal tournament in the club, I would probably call the director for such explanation - even during the game, because I would feel insulted by the opponents making me fool)? The main problem is that such bad explanations are not rare at all. Okay, it may be one in forty boards, but it is still too much. Jaroslav

Last year, I enjoyed BIC1, and when I found out that BIC2 would be organized soon, I started thinking whether to take part or not in BIC once more. There were pros and cons and the pros (to have magnificent possibility to compare my bridge with the players worldwide) finally won the cons. Right now, one day after the last board, I must tell, I am happy I took part, finishing at 42nd place (okay, not that big success, but I am satisfied). Still, I would like to mention some cons and perhaps it may help to improve the format and, in particular, sport quality of this competition. First: I do not have that big problem with the mistakes of the robots playing my partners in common regular daylongs. The true is that there were moments in the past, I really was thinking about leaving BBO, because some (so many) mistakes of the robots were really tragic (passing grand slam invite 5NT during bidding or making unbelievable mistakes during the defense - losing tricks in trivial way be discarding top honeurs etc. etc.) Still, the true is that the same way, the robots can kill your result, they can help you improve it making mistakes when you are the declarer, and, of course, they kill the results of the others, as well. Finally, I would say, there is a kind of fragile balance between the cases, they help you and they kill you. However, it is clear that the level of randomness (uncertainty) of your result, although you play your standard level, is much higher - you can play as the God, but if the robot passes your grand slam invite, the eight-boards daylong is lost for you. And, of course, those, who play better, are impacted more in the bad way than those, who are not that good. Anyway, if one takes the daylongs as a magnificent training opportunity only, the purpose of playing them is quite fulfilled. But - BIC is something what is (at least) proclaimed as being on different level - this is real big worldwide bridge event so that the sports/competitive aspects should be pointed out and the highly increased level of uncertainty of your results due to mistakes made by the robots devaluate the quality of the result achieved (both in case, it is good, and in case, it is bad). It is very nice that new developments are made at BBO as videochat etc., but, for me, improving the ability level of the robots significantly would be of ten times higher value. Second: A small addition to the "first". This is not just about spectacular "killing" mistakes - they are not so much frequent, anyway. However, there are quite frequent mistakes or "strange decisions" of the robots, which, as a result, cause that those who call for perfection lose against those, who not (by breaking the rules of bidding system). In BIC training, I got balanced 3-3-3-4 12HPC without any medium values (tens, nines) and my partner opened one club. I have no other bid than 2NT (11-12 HPC, invite according to the bidding explanation). My partner bid 3 clubs and I decided, with club support and values in all suits around to bid 3NT. I got something like 11% for that board, because my partner jumped to five clubs immediately (in the MP tournament, without no obvious reason!) - and there was very large group of "better" players, who just jumped (incorrectly, in my opinion) directly to 3NT after the opening bid, passed. Similar board appeared even once more in the same daylong, where bidding in (even more) non-standard way a real success. I am sure (or at least I hope) that, in a long term, more correct way would be rewarded, but my objection is the same as above - the level of randomness of your result is significantly increased this way and if it is not that bad in common daylong, it is bad in BIC. (Beware - this is not about the fact that it is better to hide the information about your hand sometimes, I know and use this aspect of bridge). Third: In "common" daylongs, you get the best hand and you play the board as the declarer quite frequently. In the Zenith daylong and, in particular, in BIC, there is no such rule so that you defend the same number of boards where you are the declarer in. The problem is that the robot, your partner in the defense, does not provide signals, or provide them in a very limited manner (and even, quite often, breaks the signal rules, which are explained in GIB manual). It is a real torture when you are left in a pure guess situation just because you do not have signal, you could have had even from the beginner on the opposite side. Once more, the consequence is that the randomness of your result is higher - and the same is valid, of course, for the other players - so that the real value of your result is not that big you would like to. Back to the "first" and "second" point - I understand that improving the level of play of the robots can be very challenging task, in general, because bridge is (fortunately) very tough game. But I do not understand what would be that difficult in just improving just signaling made by the robots (which can be programmed quite simply, at least some signals, in my opinion). Back to "first" - that would be of ten times higher value for me than the video chat at BBO. Fourth: I have one specific point directly related to the "third". I have been playing bridge on different levels for more than forty years. I was never educated that my first lead against NT contract should be passive (after the bidding sequence as 1NT-3NT or something like that). I have almost never seen such approach in the world championship games, which I could follow thanks to BBO. I really think that passive leads like that are statistically worse than active leads in a long term. So, my first, big, but smallest problem here is that my robot partner often does not vote for active lead and we miss a very straightforward best defense. But my bigger (psychological) problem is that even if I follow the strategy of the active lead and it should have been successful in the given board (there is real risk that it could have been a losing one, of course), my robot partner still does not return the suit and we lose the contract, as well. Still, the biggest problem is not directly connected just with the objectively best defense line. One of the big advantages of the active lead against NT contract is that the intention and next moves of the defending line are outlined for both partners, whereas passive leads leave you very often in the pure guess situation (see "third" point above) even strengthened by the fact that you do not get any relevant signals from the partner. And all the matter is even more complicated by the fact that even the robots lead actively sometimes. I understand that the solution is difficult here and my objection would be perhaps disproved, but perhaps there are many players, who would agree with me. Fifth: I really can see that cheating has become big subject for the organizers of BIC. However, if splitting all players in smaller groups than before in combination with smaller total number of players than in BIC1 leads (in qualification phase) to the results obtained by comparison of performance of four, three or just two (!) players, whereas, in some other daylongs from the series the result is made from 10 or more tables, I dare to say that some results may be simply almost useless. Still, that was not the biggest issue for me - I just decided to qualify and, for me, the championships started by the finals, where reasonable number of comparisons (probably an optimum compromise between the anticheating effect and the aim to have the most objective results) was done. Last but not the least. I tried to analyze my boards at first (BBO records provide very nice apparatus for doing that) and I also look at some extraordinary results of the other players to see, what I can do better. And here, I got a bit confused. In the finals, I opened the results of one player achieving more than 70% in one daylong. A half of his boards (the most successful ones) was bid in a very nonstandard way - opening one in minor suit with very typical 1NT opening hand ( balanced 15-17 points) and jumping to 3NT in the next round or opening one in minor suit with minor doubleton or tripleton and five card side major suit etc. Actually, I did not select this player randomly - I remembered him from BIC1, where he achieved unbelievable result of 89% in one daylong, bidding 10 boards out of 12 boards in very non-standard way and making 100% in half of the boards (typically by a bidding sequence where he jumped to 3NT after opening one in minor with 12-14HPC, getting one over one response and jumping to 3NT immediately). Since this player was very successful both in BIC1 and in BIC2 (as well as he has been at BBO generally), it seems that there is some alternate way of bidding at BBO, which is completely different from the system bid by the robots (and the players), which is still extremely successful at the same time and which is completely beyond forty years of my bridge experience. It is really a mystery for me. I know that the players sometimes just try to turn over the wheel in the badly started tournament, but this seems to be systematic approach, which, by the thinking of me as graduated statistician, should finish the 12-boards daylong with one or two 100% results, six 0% results and the rest somewhere between... I hope that some players will find my comments interesting and wish them good luck in the next BIC.

Well, this is THE question! I got PhD in probabilistic risk analysis and I earn my money in this area for almost 35 years. I started playing daylongs at the begining of Covid-19 pandemia and played approximately 30 boards a day, i.e. more than 11000 boards by now so that the data sample is big enough to make some conclusions. I absolutely do not believe that the boards are truly random. During last several months, I met the hands with 6-6 distributions seven or eight times, that is far more than it should have been (just one example, other sick distributions as 7-5, 8-4 etc. are also much more frequent that they should have been). Still, this is not about distribution. In some discussion here, I could read very nice idea that the variance of the results in the boards generated in daylongs is what is much bigger that it should have been. Just because the boards are not flat, at least many of them. That is even possible to do - I can imagine that the software for dealing boards for daylongs simply use, for the pool of boards, boards, which already were played sometimes and produced results with high variability (not allowing you to play board, you already played). Of course, boards with high variance of results must be, in general, more demanding and more interesting than flat boards, where the variance of results is very small (everybody can manage such board and get average result). The main problem I can see, if it is really the case, is that the boards with high variance of results are biased in some specific ways. For example, you can get high variance of results, if you offer the players a board with significantly sublimited game or slam (which also need good card play) You will not get such big variance in results if such game is impossible to be made. But I do not like that, because it has impact on my bidding and play and I am affraid, I will more frequently overbid the board later, in my bridge club, as soon as it is opened after Covid, just because of bad habit I got here. If I have not been absolutely sure about what I am writing here right now, I am even more persuaded after playing one very specific board recently (I do not want to present it right now, because it could be still in play at BBO). This was almost a kind of once-per-life board, you should not meet once per month as here. But this one was even more special. The slam (bid by the robot on the opposite side) looked absolutely impossible to be made, but after several minutes, I found the way, it could be made. It needed just a small thing - the distribution 6-6 in the hand of one of the defenders. And it really was that. I am grateful to BBO for having this miracle experience (and a nice story for my bridge friends), but I am still not sure, whether this way of generation of the boards is good.

It seems to me that I have bad luck in slam bidding with the robots. The example starting this topic is fairly recent... and I have another one, I met right now. But, I really think that it is bug this time. Look at this board: [hv=pc=n&s=sathaq5daqcakq986&w=s86432hj942dj642c&n=skj5hkt3d985cj543&e=sq97h876dkt73ct72&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=2cp2np3cp3np5nppp]399|300[/hv] After 2C opening, 2NT is slam positive response. I have had several accidents recently after positive 2C response from my robot partner (as north promising 11-14 HPC and jumping to 6NT with bad 8HPC and so on). But his was different. Without long thinking I showed my very good suit (perhaps I should not have after the response showing balanced distribution), but decided to avoid any possible complications by jumping to grand slam invitation (5NT). The true is that I did not have 26-28HPC, I should have had according to the system explanation, but my clubs are furtile source of tricks and I am quite trained in playing squezes from almost one year of intensive playing of the daylongs. Well, the last thing, I expected, was that my grand slam invitation would be PASSED.

See this board: [hv=pc=n&s=sakq74hk652dqj2ck&w=s96h943da987ca764&n=st52hajt7dk4cqjt9&e=sj83hq8dt653c8532&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=1sp1np3hp3sp4sp5hp5sp6sppp]399|300[/hv] I was thinking for a while before my first rebid. Considering 2H as slight underbid, I was almost sure, I would be able to control the bidding after limited 1NT bid from my robot´s partner. However, as you can see, north decided to take the control over the board completely to its side. I think, 4S is the weekest bid in such situation, almost surely denying aces in minor suits. Still, I got 5H cue bid from the north, after what I once more refused to go to the slam. No help - two aces cashed, one down and 6IMPs lost (there were many others who were in the same contract after the same bidding sequence).

Just to make some conclusion for myself, I checked today the results achieved on this board. The board was played by 21 players. Since it was "just declare" daylong, the bidding and the first lead was the same 17 players made the finesse in club suit, six BBO masters and two BBO royals among them. Four players, including me, played club ace - two not awarded players and one royal (K). So, I made 7,5% on this board. I started playing the daylongs at the beginning of Covid-19 era and has played around 10 000 boards since that time, but it seems to me that I really may need to spend several more years here to understand how the daylongs should be played. Yes, there is a kind of sad ssrcasm in my statement...

In the manual, total points are defined as HPC + 3 points for each void, 2 points for each singleton and one point for each doubleton. Is it in coincidence with your experience? In just declare MPs daylong, you play the following board [hv=pc=n&s=sat92hkt9dajt7c62&n=sqj74hqdkq9caq873&d=s&v=e&b=3&a=1dp2c2h2sp3sp4sppp]266|200[/hv] HA is led and followed with small diamond. The board does not look very interesting on the first view – since you have got 28HPC and 4 HPC are possessed by the leftie, there are just 8HPC remaining for the rightie - very few for the vulnerable intervention, but it can still almost fit into the explanation – 11-16 total points, with some shortness´s. So, the expected course of the cardplay is successful spade finesse and giving up one trick in clubs (not successful finesse) – another flat board. However, a bit closer look during the play, when you cash the diamond and trump tricks, shows that you should pay some attention to, because you found out that east posses seven hearts, two spades and three diamonds, so that he has got one single club only. That is 7 HPC at maximum (because east can not have both CK and CJ, but with one more singleton and doubleton, he almost fits the explanation – still, would you go to second level overcall with just 7 HPC and a suit lead by pure jack, without 109?). So, after this analysis, you finally play small club to the ace for very bad result, because the complete board is: [hv=pc=n&s=sat92hkt9dajt7c62&w=s865ha4d832ckt954&n=sqj74hqdkq9caq873&e=sk3hj876532d654cj]399|300[/hv] I must tell you that such boards are very demotivating for me to play the daylongs at all. But may be, I just misunderstood, what total point count is.

https://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?bbo=y&lin=st%7C%7Cmd%7C1S63H6432DAT5CQ732%2CSAQJT54HJT85D83C8%2CS987HQDKQJ96CT965%2CSK2HAK97D742CAKJ4%7Csv%7C0%7Cah%7CBoard%2011%7Cmb%7CP%7Cmb%7CP%7Cmb%7CP%7Cmb%7C1C%7Can%7CMinor%20suit%20opening%20--%203%2B%20%21C%3B%2011-21%20HCP%3B%2012-22%20total%20points%7Cmb%7CP%7Cmb%7C1S%7Can%7COne%20over%20one%20--%204%2B%20%21S%3B%2011-%20HCP%3B%206-12%20total%20points%7Cmb%7CP%7Cmb%7C2N%7Can%7CJump%20in%20notrump%20--%203-5%20%21C%3B%202-3%20%21D%3B%202-4%20%21H%3B%202-3%20%21S%3B%2018-19%20HCP%3B%2022-%20total%20points%3B%20partial%20stop%20in%20%21D%3B%20partial%20stop%20in%20%21H%7Cmb%7CP%7Cmb%7C3S%7Can%7CRebid%20suit%20--%206%2B%20%21S%3B%206-11%20HCP%3B%207-12%20total%20points%7Cmb%7CP%7Cmb%7C4S%7Can%7C3-5%20%21C%3B%202-3%20%21D%3B%202-4%20%21H%3B%202-3%20%21S%3B%2018-19%20HCP%3B%2020-%20total%20points%3B%20partial%20stop%20in%20%21D%3B%20partial%20stop%20in%20%21H%7Cmb%7CP%7Cmb%7CP%7Cmb%7CP%7Cpc%7CHQ%7Cpc%7CHA%7Cpc%7CH2%7Cpc%7CH5%7Cpc%7CS2%7Cpc%7CS6%7Cpc%7CST%7Cpc%7CS7%7Cpc%7CC8%7Cpc%7CC6%7Cpc%7CCJ%7Cpc%7CCQ%7Cpc%7CDA%7Cpc%7CD3%7Cpc%7CD6%7Cpc%7CD2%7Cpc%7CDT%7Cpc%7CD8%7Cpc%7CD9%7Cpc%7CD4%7Cpc%7CD5%7Cpc%7CSJ%7Cpc%7CDK%7Cpc%7CD7%7Cpc%7CS5%7Cpc%7CS9%7Cpc%7CSK%7Cpc%7CS3%7Cpc%7CCA%7Cpc%7CC2%7Cpc%7CSA%7Cpc%7CC5%7Cpc%7CSQ%7Cpc%7CS8%7Cpc%7CH7%7Cpc%7CH3%7Cpc%7CH8%7Cpc%7CC9%7Cpc%7CH9%7Cpc%7CH4%7Cpc%7CHK%7Cpc%7CH6%7Cpc%7CHT%7Cpc%7CCT%7Cpc%7CCK%7Cpc%7CC3%7Cpc%7CHJ%7Cpc%7CDQ%7Cpc%7CC4%7Cpc%7CC7%7Cpc%7CS4%7Cpc%7CDJ%7C

Well, that reminds me one real board from my colletion "One hundred boards with robots", played in IMP daylong 26.10.2020. My hand was: [hv=pc=n&s=s97hkjt5d9843cak7&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=ppp]133|200[/hv] I am a conservative bidder so that I decided to pass for several reasons. The first one was that I do did have spade suit so that my opponents could find spade partscore contract leading to good result for them and bad for me. The second reason was that I had opened several 11 HPC boards recently and my partner had pushed me to 2NT contract, or, in one case, even 3NT contract with bad result for me. The true was, I had had bad experience with passing 11HPC daylong MP hands, because it had usually led to 30% result, which is pretty bad, if you need at least 60% to score some reasonable number of BBO points (more than 0,01 point or something like that), but this was IMP board so that I did not expect big loss and would have been surprised with a loss bigger than, let us say, 2 IMPs. So, I passed and could see that my decision was badly wrong, because the complete board was: [hv=pc=n&s=s97hkjt5d9843cak7&w=sq8hq987632dajc85&n=sakjt653hd65cj963&e=s42ha4dkqt72cqt42&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=pppp]399|300[/hv] All players, who opened the bidding, bid and made 4 spades. It should be pointed out that not only my partner, but also west passed the hand, which would definitely qualify for preventive opening.

Yes, it was Zenith MP.

There are daylong boards, you really asked yourselves “Does it make sense to play bridge like that?”. [hv=pc=n&s=s63h6432dat5cq732&e=sk2hak97d742cakj4&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=ppp1cp1sp2np3sp4sppp]266|200[/hv] The bidding was fairly normal and so was also the first lead, HQ. The declarer took it with the ace and played small spade to the ten, holding the trick,continuing with small club from the hand and finessing the queen. How would you continue? Since I was the lucky possessor of the queen, I had to decide, whether to cash ace of diamond immediately or to play small diamond making the robot to carry out its thousands of simulations and guess the position in diamonds, if necessary. However, there may be no need of guess and even if it is, the robots are, in my experience, very successful in that (may be more, one would expect looking at the odds). So, I finally cashed diamond ace and played ten, which took the trick, the declarer following the diamond suit with 3 and 8, my partner with 6 and 9. What now? There was no clear indication of the distribution of the diamonds around the table, but I was sure, that the only continuation making sense are diamonds. So, I played the last diamond and the board was over. [hv=pc=n&s=s63h6432dat5cq732&w=saqjt54hjt85d83c8&n=s987hqdkqj96ct965&e=sk2hak97d742cakj4&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=ppp1cp1sp2np3sp4sppp]399|300[/hv] There was small flesh of idea inmy mind that the very first lead could be singleton, but I could not imagine how the declarer with complete six tricks in spades, four tricks in hearts and two tricks in clubs, i.e. enough tricks for small slam, could risk being limited to nine tricks, if the finesse did not work. It could be nice story about cruel punishment of a real beginner just understanding the principle of finesse and finessing everything everywhere, but it is absolute mystery for me, how advanced computer program can play such a way. At least, there is no problem to run the trumps before the finesse, if the robot finds some justification for making it. So, I missed giving ruff to my partner, finishing the board with nice 50% result.

Thank you very much for the answers! Just one recent example from my collection of boards (played 28.1.2021, BBO IMP1 daylong). [hv=pc=n&s=skqjt84hakqjd63c9&w=s3h87dakjt984ct83&n=sa962ht4d52cakj65&e=s75h96532dq7cq742&d=e&v=e&b=6&a=p1s3d4dp4np5hp6sppp]399|300[/hv] I was thinking about 2C opening, but since I have got very bad experience with reaction of the robot on the opposite side having good values (jumps to 6NT or 7NT in next rounds of bidding), I decided to be conservative. As you can see, it did not help. 4D was cuebid and strong nice hand so that nothing could stop me from bidding slam after Blackwood response promising two aces from five. I expected most of the missing points in the diamond suit so that we really have to be in a good slam. Actually, the first part of my assumption was completely true, because all diamond points were located at the opponents, but the second part was unfortunately wrong...

In Covid-19 time, I started playing daylongs. I have played around 10 000 boards approaximately, mainly in BBO MP1, MP2, IMP1 and JD MP1. I also participated in BIC. I reached 1000 BBO points recently. I like daylongs and play them often. I have several general, but important questions to the daylongs: Question 1: How are the boards for daylongs generated? Is it purely random generation or there is some selection of generated boards? It seems to me - and not to me only - that the boards are selected from much broader population. In comparison with real bridge world in club, these boards are much more entertaining, difficult and didactic. In other words - the frequency of interesting boards separating average, good and excellent players is much higher than in real bridge (sometimes, it seems to me that any almost board represents interesting bridge problem). Is it just my feeling or the boards are selected such a way? Question 2: I understand that a kind of principle of broader pool of boards is applied in any daylong to prevent cheating. My question is: how are concrete boards assigned to concrete players? Is it based on completely random selection or there is some additional selection on the base of characteristics of the players? Do players with more BBO points (BBO masters) get more difficult, more unbalanced, specific in some manner etc. boards? (I would not expect that, but would like to know that for sure). Question 3: How are the PLAYERS divided into the groups playing the same boards? Is it completely random or are the experts put in the groups with more experts than the average players (or something like that) Question 4: Is the development of robots´ bidding and cardplay continuing (Up to now, I collected more than 120 boards with serious robots´ mistakes of various kind)? Question 5: Is there some development of the explanation of bidding system used by the robots, which is available during bidding? There are plenty very strange explanations - like the distributions 5-5-4-0 (5-5 in major suits and 4+ cards in diamonds in addition) or like the situations, there are 48 points (HPC) around the table etc. Some bids are explained as determined for the boards with 25-32 HPC and some even for 32+ HPC. Question 5: (a very important one) Is there some development of GIB manual? It seems to me that it would deserve more details in some areas of bidding, but in particular in carding. As a risk engineer, I completely understand the principles, robots´ defensive play is based on (Monte Carlo simulation), but I am reluctant to believe that it could be such big problem to add a bit more signals to the robots play (o/e, for example), what would immensely improve the play of both bots and human players.

How about this one (from my prepared book "One hunderd deals with the robots")? [hv=pc=n&s=sjt876hda9875cak3&w=skq5hjt96dk43cq97&n=s9hak85432d6ct542&e=sa432hq7dqjt2cj86&d=s&v=e&b=3&a=1sp1np2dp2hp3dp4cppp]399|300[/hv] 4C were explained as at least biddable clubs, but there was no additional info about hearts.

Actually, the bots do many very entertaining things, bad double for penalty being just one of them :) . One example, I met, can be false cue bids. I bid very nice small slam where there were around sixteen tricks, the only problem was, that the shortness, my robot partner bid in an attempt to reach a slam, was small doubleton and - of course, the robot on the lead had got ace and king in that suit so that we were one down even before the card play started :angry: . Another nice example is to found out that the bot shows an ace in the suit where YOU have got it. It is usually void, but not necessarily. Once, believe me or not, the bot showed me ace (on the fifth level) in clubs, where I had AK. I decided for revenge and showed him ace in diamonds, where I had void and was very curious, what would happen. I really was not disappointed - the bot showed me AK in clubs on sixth level by his next bid!! It IS depressing sometimes, when you have chance to achieve good result and the bot kills it. Just for that reason, I am developing a small book with nice collection of "One hundred of nice boards played with the robots" It helps.:rolleyes:

Thank you for the comment. Since I was graduated from probability theory, I completely know, what you are talking about. My idea was (and perhaps still is) that the basic method, the bots use, is really Monte Carlo simulation (which can be very strong tool, as it is in Chess!), but they got implanted some first priority extra rules (use pure Monte Carlo simulation for the first leads, for example, is nonsense, because no human player would play with them). I still think that some rules are implanted, but they are hidden (there may be also difference between simple and advanced bots). If this is the case, it is bad, because to know the rules could help to limit the randomness of results of daylong tournaments and to let better players to win with higher probability. Thank you also for the references, I am thinking about purchasing them.

Thank you for the comment.I play daylongs daily since Covid-19 started and right now, I have got around 11 000 boards played. So, I have nice statistical data to play with (I was graduated from probability theory and mathematical statistics). I was a bit surprised with the case, I put here, because it seems to me that the bots, in fact, really follow two basic rules: 1) they signal HIGH card to the first lead with top honeur in hand 2)they really provide count later (small = odd), provided that there is no way, it could cost the trick. So, there are exceptions...

For some reason, the robot may not follow the simple agreements about defensive signalling, which are described in the BBO manual. [hv=pc=n&s=sak76hqt9dj8732ca&w=sj943h52dkq6ckj43&n=sq852h864dt5cqt97&e=sthakj73da94c8652&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=p1hp1sp2cp2nppp]399|300[/hv] The first lead was ♣10, which I had to overtake with ♣A, I returned ♦3 taken by ♦K. One more round of diamonds was played and the declarer than tool ♥ finesse, my partner playing ♥ eight as the second card in the trick. This time, there was actually no impact on the results, which was 2NT just made and everybody, who arrived in this contract, got the same. Still, I was absolutely sure during playing the board that the declarer possessed just singleton heart. My experience is that the bots provide count pretty fair, just taking care of not to lose trick by spending too high card for that. It is a completely mystery for me, why it did that. Are there some other signals used by the bots, which are not described in the manual?