tx10s

Another example (I have not figured out how to copy hand pictures to this forum): RHO opens 1H. With 18 HCP, I double, LHO passes and "partner" bids 3C, showing 9-12 points. I bid 3NT, which I find out is described as 22-25 HCP?!? In whose universe but that of the BBO programmer fairies? Let's count the ways this is wrong: 1: Opp has opened and robot has 9HCP. Unless we are playing with a Pinochle deck, that is impossible 2: Since "partner" had promised 9 points, why does player need 22-25 HCP to bid 3NT, which is not even a jump bid? 3: If player actually had 22-25 HCP, they would be investigating slam, not bidding 3NT, which is a shut-out in the real bridge world, although not in BBO robot's imitation bridge world. I keep hearing the excuse that computers cannot think. What that is really saying is that the program is flawed. At least BBO could admit that instead of using the "computers cannot think" excuse.

Actually, based on experience, the robots get 2-4 HCP leeway

Perhaps someone at BBO can explain how this happened to me (and quite a few others on that hand). I do not have the exact hand layout, but I can describe it well enough to explain the situation. RHO opened 1S, I had 16 HCP and 2 little spades, so I doubled. LHO passed, and my robot "partner" bid 2S, described as forcing. I had pretty much equal support for the other three suits, so I bid 3S, also described as forcing. The robot then bid 4C, described as 4+ clubs and 10+ points. I only had 4C, so I passed. Imagine my surprise when robot showed with only 3 clubs but SIX hearts. Those of us who bid it straight up ended up with poor scores. Those that overcalled 1NT even with no spade stopper were transferred to hearts and only went down one. What was really sad, is if the robot had bid hearts, 4H would have made because the robots could not lead through the robot "partner's" K of spades. I find it hard to believe that any simulation would exclude bidding the 6 card heart suit by the robot in this situation.

Can the same be said about computer programmers, since they determine what the program does?

Last time I had a robot make a Michaels bid, a response from me of either 3H or 4H were both described as 9-12 points and 3+ hearts. There was no bid for 4H, a spade void and 16 points. Obviously, I should have bid 4H anyway, but why the ridiculous bid description? Another time, after robot made an inverted minor bid, the bids of 3, 4 or 5 of that suit all had identical bid descriptions. There are other numerous instances where GIB gives no correct bid, a lot more common then happens in real bridge. So my question, is GIB really that bad, or do the programmers use it as an excuse to maximize the "no correct bid" situation?

Then I apologize, sorry for my misinterpretation.

I scored in 15 of the 20 tournaments that I posted about. That my be a shortcoming to an expert like you, but I was quite pleased with those results.

It took 5 days for me to receive the message that the files I sent last Saturday were too bid for the rt@tr.bridgebase.com mailbox. I tried sending one of the files to the support@bridgebase.com site, but I am no holding my breath with expectations.

Did you even read my post? I looked at potential finesses, not ones actually taken. Please dispute the data rather then play psychologist.

Antrax: Please excuse me for using your message to post, but I cannot get the code style to work in Fast Reply Well, your programmer is one cocky little SOB. He (or she) did not wait much more than a week to change the program back to the 40-60 finesse split. After Bbradly62 tested 11 tournaments I played after my comment and found that now 52% of the finesses favored the player, I pretty much gave up, especially, when at the same time, access to all hands from 2014 was deleted, leaving only 3 weeks of data instead of the normal ~ 2 months that BBO usually keeps. I did decide to monitor the finesse distribution just to see if it stayed “normal”. Much to my surprise, the first three hands I played all averaged less than 40% of the finesses in favor of the player, so I started documenting the tournaments I played. The first 11 tournaments averaged 40.7% of the finesses oriented in favor of the players. At that time, something was apparently changed, as the next 9 tournaments averaged 52% in favor of the players. Since the change occurred on February 8, I understand why Wilson Cat’s data was normal, and I never made a ridiculous claim of 90% of the finesses being offside, as if that were the case, it would be too obvious. I know you do not believe anything I write, so below is a table summarizing the results, followed by a complete listing of all 339 potential finesses in those 20 tournaments. I am assuming you will not accept my data as such, so I sent a Power Point file to BBO support which has a picture of all 240 hands with my finesse picks listed below each hand. It is a 25 Meg file and I had to split it so it could go through gmail, so posting it here is virtually impossible. I also sent a Word file with the finesses list as it would probably be easier to look at then this very large forum post. As I said earlier, I chose all potential finesses whether or not they were or should have been taken. There are always some marginal picks that all may not agree with, but I did my best to use a consistent approach in these picks and I seriously doubt you are going to find enough of my picks that you disagree with to change my conclusion. Hrothgar keeps asking why “we would do this”, and I truly believe it is not a “we”, but a “he” (or she), and I do not have a clue why. By the way, this is not the only bias I found, just the easiest to prove, (or so I thought). Not all of the bias is against the players, for instance there seem to be way too many cheap slams available in Robot Bridge. I reviewed about 60 tournaments and found that 30 total points made slam over 75% of the time. A lot of people are bidding these cheap slams, so I know I am not the only one who has observed this. Additionally, 24 total points seems to make game a lot more often than one would expect. Again, a lot of people are bidding the 24 total point games. I do not have the raw data for either of those, and at this time, it is not even worth pursuing. I only bring them up to show that I do not think everything is biased against the players. My whole objective in this futile exercise was to improve Robot Bridge by getting the program to deal fully random hands. I am curious, do any of you actually play Robot Bridge? I will check back in a little over a week to see what reasons that you have that my data is crap. Hopefully it will involve more than Hrothgar trying to intimidate me with his advanced degree from MIT. Of course, I will be surprised if any of you actually looks at all the data. In the end, it is your game and you can do whatever you want with it. Data # Date Tourn Win Loss % Running Avg Running Avg last 9 1 2-Feb 3250 9 14 39.1% 39.1% 2 2-Feb 3741 5 11 31.3% 35.9% 3 2-Feb 4653 7 12 36.8% 36.2% 4 3-Feb 9794 12 9 57.1% 41.8% 5 4-Feb 7401 4 11 26.7% 39.4% 6 5-Feb 2979 4 9 30.8% 38.3% 7 6-Feb 7612 6 9 40.0% 38.5% 8 6-Feb 8558 5 10 33.3% 38.0% 9 7-Feb 4251 8 5 61.5% 40.0% 10 7-Feb 4742 6 8 42.9% 40.2% 11 8-Feb 9418 8 10 44.4% 40.7% 12 8-Feb 84 11 3 78.6% 43.4% 78.6% 13 9-Feb 5411 10 14 41.7% 43.2% 55.3% 14 9-Feb 6821 12 11 52.2% 44.0% 54.1% 15 10-Feb 2896 7 6 53.8% 44.5% 54.1% 16 10-Feb 3918 5 6 45.5% 44.6% 52.9% 17 11-Feb 7057 4 4 50.0% 44.7% 52.7% 18 11-Feb 9806 8 9 47.1% 44.9% 51.8% 19 12-Feb 3299 11 12 47.8% 45.1% 51.1% 20 12-Feb 5848 15 9 62.5% 46.3% 52.9% Totals 157 182 46.3% “No finesses” includes 2 way finesses or finesses that do not make any difference (ex: one side hold A with QJ in separate hands so two tricks no matter where K is located). The first letters are AKQJ (Ace, King, Queen, Jack, the last of the letter combinations is one of CDHS (clubs, diamonds, hearts or spades). Then there is a gap with a single letter, NSE or W for north, south, east or west. Tournament 3250 Feb 2 Hand 1: KD S in front AQD W: Loss, AH W in front KQH N: Win Hand 2: AKS S in front QS W: Loss, KD W in front AQD S: Win, KC E in front QC S: Win Hand 3: AQC S in front KC W: Loss, QD E in front AKD S: Win, AH N in front KQH E: Loss Hand 4: QH W in front AJH N (KH S): Win. QS E in front AKJS S: Win. KD S in front AD W: Loss Hand 5: KJS S in front AQ10S W: 2 Losses, QH N in front KH E: Loss, KDE in front AJD S: Win Hand 6: AQD S in front KD W: Loss Hand 7: AKJC S in front QC W: Loss, KJD S between AD E and QD W: Loss and Win Hand 8: AQS E in front KS S: Win, KQC S in front AJC W: Loss Hand 9: No finesses Hand 10: KC S in front AJC W: Loss Hand 11: No finesses Hand 12: AQC S in front KC W: Loss Totals: 9 Wins, 14 Losses Tournament 3741 Feb 2 Hand 1: KH E in front AQH S: Win, QD S in front KD W: Loss Hand 2: No finesses Hand 3: AQJD S in front KD W: Loss Hand 4: No finesses Hand 5: AKJ S in front QS W: Loss, QC N in front KC E: Loss, KH W in front AQH N: Win Hand 6: No finesses Hand 7: No finesses Hand 8: AS S in front KS W: Loss, QC N in front KC E: Loss Hand 9: KH S in front AHW: Loss, QC E in front AKJ C S: Win Hand 10: KJS S between QS E and AS Q: Win and Loss Hand 11: AQC W in front KC N: Win Hand 12: QH N in front KH E: Loss, KD S in front AD W: Loss, QC N in front KC E: Loss Totals: 5 Wins, 11 Losses Tournament 4653 Feb 2 Hand 1: No finesses Hand 2: KQS S in front AJ10S W: Loss, AJ10H E in front KQH S: Win Hand 3: QH S in front KJH W: Loss Hand 4: AC E in front KQC S: Win, QS N in front KS E: Loss, AD E in front KD S: Win, KQH W in front AJH N: Win Hand 5: KS E in front AQS S: Win, KH N in front AH E: Loss Hand 6: AQS S in front KS W: Loss, KQD E in front AJD S: Win Hand 7: No finesses Hand 8: KQS S in front of AS W: Loss, KC W in front of AJC N: Win Hand 9: No doable finesses Hand 10: KC N in front of AQC E: Loss Hand 11: AQJH S in front of KH W: Loss, AQD S in front of KD W: Loss, KJC N in front of AQC E: 2 Losses Hand 12: AKJH S in front of QH W: loss (Q has to be W to set contract) Totals: 7 Wins, 12 Losses Tournament 9794 Feb 3 Hand 1: AS W in front of KQS N: Win, KD E in front of AQD S: Win Hand 2: KQD S in front of AD W: Loss, KH N in front of AQH E: Loss, QC S in front of KJC W: Loss Hand 3: AD E in front of KQD S: Win Hand 4: No finesses Hand 5: No finesses Hand 6: KD S in front of AQD W: Loss Hand 7: AQH E in front of KH S: Win, KJC S in front of AQC W: 2 Losses, KD W in front of AQD N: Win Hand 8: AQD W in front of KJ10D N: 2 Wins Hand 9: AQH E in front of KJH S: 2 Wins Hand 10: AJC S (KC N) in front of QC W: Loss (1 way finesse), KJD N in front of QD E: Loss (1 way finesse) Hand 11: AQC S in front of KC W: Loss Hand 12: KS W in front of QS N: Win, KH E in front of AQH S: Win, KC W in front of AQC N: Win Totals: 12 Wins, 9 Losses Tournament 7401 Feb 4 Hand 1: KQC N in front of AC E: Loss Hand 2: KJC S between AC W and QC E: Win and Loss Hand 3: KQH N in front of AJH E: Loss Hand 4: KD S in front of AD W: Loss, AQS S in front of KJS W: Loss Hand 5: No finesses Hand 6: No finesses Hand 7: AQJH E in front of KH S: Win, AQJS S in front of KS W: Loss Hand 8: KS W in front of AS N: Win, KJC S in front of QC W (1 way finesses): Loss Hand 9: KH N in front of AQJH E: Loss Hand 10: QH S in front of KJ H W: Loss Hand 11: KD E in front of QD S: Win, QC N in front of KJC E: Loss Hand 12: QD N in front of KD E: Loss, KC N in front of AC E: Loss Totals: 4 Wins, 11 Losses Tournament 2979 Feb 5 Hand 1: KD E in front of AJD S: Win Hand 2: KS N in front of AS E: Loss, AKH W in front of QH W: Loss Hand 3: KS N in front of AQS E: Loss Hand 4: No finesses Hand 5: KQS S in front of AJ10S W: Loss, QC E in front of KJC S: Win Hand 6: KH S in front of AH W: Loss Hand 7: QD W in front of KJD N: Win Hand 8: No finesses Hand 9: No finesses Hand 10: AC W in front of KC N: Win, AH N in front of KH E: Loss Hand 11: AJH N in front of KQH E: Loss Hand 12: KD S in front of AQJD W: Loss, AKC S in front of QC W: Loss Totals: 4 Wins, 9 Losses Tournament 7612 Feb 6 Hand 1: KH S in front of AH W: Loss Hand 2: KS W in front of AS N: Win, QD S in front of KD W: Loss Hand 3: AKH S in front of QH W: Loss Hand 4: KS S in front of AS W: Loss, AH S in front of KH W: Loss Hand 5: QS E in front of AKJ S S: Win, AD E in front of KD S: Win Hand 6: KD E in front of AQD S: Win, AKJ S W in front of QS N: Win Hand 7: No finesses Hand 8: AKC W in front of QC N: Win Hand 9: KQD N in front of AD E: Loss Hand 10: AKJ C S in front of QC W: Loss Hand 11: KS N in front of AQJS E: Loss Hand 12: AD S in front of KD W: Loss Totals: 6 Wins, 9 Losses Tournament 8558 Feb 6 Hand 1: AQS S in front of KS W: Loss Hand 2: KH W in front of QH N: Win Hand 3: No finesses Hand 4: AQH S in front of KH W: Loss, KQC E in front of AC S: Win Hand 5: KJS N between AS W and QS E: Win and Loss Hand 6: KD S in front of AQD W: Loss Hand 7: AKJC S in front of QC W: Loss Hand 8: KD E in front of QD S: Win, KH S in front of AH W: Loss Hand 9: No finesses Hand 10: AQC S in front of KC W: Loss Hand 11: AS W in front of KQS N: Win, AQJD S in front of KD W: Loss, QC N in front of KJC E: Loss Hand 12: AKJD S in front of QD W: Loss Totals: 5 Wins, 10 Losses Tournament 4251 Feb 7 Hand 1: KH S in front of AH W: Loss Hand 2: QD N in front of KJ D E: Loss, KC W in front of QC N: Win Hand 3: No finesses Hand 4: KS E in front of AQS S: Win Hand 5: KS W in front of QS: Win, QH E in front of AKH S: Win, KD E in front of AD S: Win Hand 6: AQC S in front of KC W: Loss Hand 7: KS E in front of AQS S: Win Hand 8: AQS N in front of KS W: Loss Hand 9: No finesses Hand 10: KJS W in front of QS N: Win, KH S in front of AH W: Loss Hand 11: KS E in front of AS S: Win Hand 12: No finesses Totals: 8 Wins, 5 Losses Tournament 4742 Feb 7 Hand 1: AQH S in front of KH W: Loss, AQJ D W in front of KD N: Win Hand 2: AC S in front of KC W: Loss, AKJD S in front of QD W: Loss Hand 3: KH E in front of AQH S: Win Hand 4: AQJS S in front of KS W: Loss Hand 5: KS E in front of AQS S: Win Hand 6: No finesses Hand 7: QS N in front of KJS E: Loss, KH E in front of AQH H S: Win Hand 8: AD N in front of KD E: Loss Hand 9: KQS S in front of AS W: Loss, KD N in front of AD E: Loss Hand 10: KH E in front of AQH S: Win Hand 11: No finesses Hand 12: KC E in front of AQC S: Win Totals: 6 Wins, 8 Losses Tournament 9418 Feb 8 Hand 1: KD S in front of AD W: Loss Hand 2: No finesses Hand 3: KS S in front of A W: Loss, KC W in front of QC N: Win (one of 2 finesses that can’t be taken as no way to get to dummy, counted as one) Hand 4: No finesses Hand 5: QS N in front of AKJS E: Loss, AKJ S in front of QD W: Loss Hand 6: KH S in front of AH W: Loss Hand 7: No finesses Hand 8: Q10H N in front of KJ9H E: 2 Losses Hand 9: KD W in front of AD N: Win, KC S in front of AC W: Loss Hand 10: KS W in front of QS N: Win, QH E in front of AKH S: Win, KDE in front of AQD D: Win Hand 11: KS N in front of AQS E: Loss Hand 12: AQH s in front of KJH W: Loss, KD E in front of AD S: Win, AQC W in front of KJC N: 2 Wins Totals: 8 Wins, 10 Losses Tournament 84 Feb 8 Hand 1: No finesses Hand 2: AQS S in front of KS W: Loss Hand 3: AC N in front of KC E: Loss Hand 4: No finesses Hand 5: KH E in front of AQJH S: Win (KC finesse is worthless because K cannot be dropped) Hand 6: KS E in front of AS S: Win, AQC E in front of KJ10C S: 2 Wins Hand 7: No finesses Hand 8: KQS E in front of AS S: Win, KQD W in front of AD N: Win Hand 9: KD E in front of AQJD S: Win Hand 10: KS N in front of AS E: Loss, AD W in front of KD N: Win Hand 11: QC E in front of AKJC S: Win Hand 12: KC E in front of AQC S: Win, QS E in front of KJS S: Win Totals: 11 Wins, 3 Losses Tournament 5411 Feb 9 Hand 1: AKJS S in front of QS W: Loss, AQC S in front of KC W: Loss Hand 2: KS W in front of AQS N: Win, AQD S in front of KD W: Loss, AJH N in front of Q10H E: Loss. AC E in front of KC S: Win Hand 3: AD E in front of KQD S: Win, KQS W in front of AJS N: Win Hand 4: AQS S in front of KS W: Loss, KH S in front of AQH W: Loss, KC N on front of AQC E: Loss, AD S in front of KD W: Loss Hand 5: KJC N between QC W and AC E: Win and Loss Hand 6: KC S in front of AQC W: Loss, KD E in front of AD S: Win Hand 7: KH S in front of AQH W: Loss Hand 8: KS E in front of AQS S: Win, KD W in front of AQD N: Win Hand 9: AH S in front of KH W: Loss Hand 10: AQD N in front of KD E: Loss Hand 11: Q10S N in front of AJS E: Loss, KH S in front of AH W: Loss, QD E in front of AKJD S: Win Hand 12: AKJD S in front of QD W: Loss, KS W in front of QS N: Win Totals: 10 Wins, 14 Losses Tournament 6821 Feb 9 Hand 1: KJD S between AD E and QD W: Win and Loss Hand 2: KH W in front of AH N: Win, KQC E in front of AJC S: Win Hand 3: AQS S in front of KS W: Loss. KC W in front of AC N: Win, QD E in front of AKD S: Win Hand 4: QC E in front of AJC S: Win, QH N in front of KH E: Loss Hand 5: KC E in front of AQC S: Win Hand 6: KJS N in front of Q10S E: Loss Hand 7: QH W in front of AJ H N: Win, KC E in front of AQJC S: Win Hand 8: AKJD S in front of QD W: Loss Hand 9: QH S in front of KH W: Loss, AQD S in front of KJD W: Loss. AQC E in front of KC S: Win Hand 10: AH N in front of KQH E: Loss, AQC S in front of KC W: Loss Hand 11: AC E in front of KC S: Win Hand 12: AH S in front of KH W: Loss. KC W in front of QC N: Win, AQD N in front of KD E: Loss Totals: 12 Wins, 11 Losses Tournament 2896 Feb 10 Hand 1: KS S In front of AQ W: Loss Hand 2: KS S in front of AQJ S W: Loss, KD E in front of AQD S: Win Hand 3: KC W in front of AQJC N: Win Hand 4: KJH S in front of Q10H W: Loss Hand 5: KJH N in front of QH E: Loss Hand 6: AQJS E in front of KS S: Win, KJC S in front of QC W: Loss Hand 7: No finesses Hand 8: No finesses Hand 9: KD E in front of AQD S: Win Hand 10: KH S in front of AH W: Loss, KJD W in front of QD N: Win Hand 11: KQC W in front of AC N: Win Hand 12: KD E in front of QD S: Win Totals: 7 Wins, 6 Losses Tournament 3918 Feb 10 Hand 1: No finesses Hand 2: No finesses Hand 3: KJC S between AC W and QC E: Win and Loss Hand 4: No finesses Hand 5: No finesses Hand 6: KS S in front of AS Q: Loss, QD E in front of KJD S: Win Hand 7: AH S in front of KH W: Loss, KJK10D N in front of AQD E: 2 Losses Hand 8: AQJ S E in front of KS S: Win, AD E in front of KQD S: Win Hand 9: AKJ H N in front of QH E: Loss Hand 10: KJD W in front of Q10D N: Win Hand 11: No finesses Hand 12: No finesses Totals: 5 Wins, 6 Losses Tournament 7057 Feb 11 Hand 1: QH S in front of KH W: Loss Hand 2: AKH S in front of QH W: Loss Hand 3: KS N in front of AQS E: Loss, AQD E in front of KD S: Win, KJC W in front of AQC N: Win Hand 4: No finesses Hand 5: AQJ S W in front of KS N: Win, QC N in front of KC E: Loss Hand 6: No finesses Hand 7: No finesses Hand 8: No finesses Hand 9: No finesses Hand 10: No finesses Hand 11: QD W in front of AKJD N: Win Hand 12: No finesses Totals: 4 Wins, 4 Losses Tournament 9806 Feb 11 Hand 1: No finesses Hand 2: QD S in front of KJD W: Loss Hand 3: KS E behind AS N: Loss Hand 4: QS W in front of AJS N: Win Hand 5: KS E in front of AQS S: Win, AHS in front of KH W: Loss, QD W in front of AJ10D N: Win Hand 6: AS W in front of KQS N: Win Hand 7: AS N in front of KQS E: Loss, KD S in front of AQJD W: Loss Hand 8: AQC W in front of KC N: Win, KJD S between AD W and QD E: Win and Loss Hand 9: AQS E in front of KS S: Win, KQC S in front of AC W: Loss Hand 10: No finesses Hand 11: No finesses Hand 12: KS E in front of AQJS S: Win, KQH N in front of AH E: Loss, KQC S in front of AC W: Loss Totals: 8 Wins, 9 Losses Tournament 3299 Feb 12 Hand 1: KD S in front of AQD W: Loss Hand 2: QH N in front of KH E: Loss, AQS E in front of KS S: Win, AQD S in front of KD W: Loss, AQJC S in front of KC W: Loss Hand 3: KH S in front of AH W: Loss, KC S in front of AC W: Loss Hand 4: KS S in front of AQS W: Loss, KJD N between QD W and AD E: Win and Loss Hand 5: QS S in front of KJS W: Loss, KC N in front of AQC E: Loss Hand 6: KJC S in front of Q10C W: Loss, KQH E in front of AJH S: Win Hand 7: No finesses, just very bad robot bidding Hand 8: AQH E in front of KH S: Win, KS E in front of AQS S: Win Hand 9: KJS W in front of QS N: Win, KH E in front of AQH S: Win Hand 10: KH E in front of AQH S: Win Hand 11: QH W in front of KJH N: Win, QC N in front of KC E: Loss, AQ10S S in front of KJS W: Loss Hand 12: KJD E in front of AQ10D S: 2 Wins Totals: 11 Wins, 12 Losses Tournament 5848 Feb 12 Hand 1: QD E in front of AKJD S: Win, AC E in front of KQC S: Win Hand 2: AKJDS in front of QD W: Loss Hand 3: QH E in front of AJ10H S: Win Hand 4: KJS S between AS E and QS W: Win and Loss, QD S in front of KJD W: Loss, AQJC E in front of KC S: Win Hand 5: AS E in front of KS S: Win, KH S in front of AQJH W: Loss Hand 6: QD N in front of KJD E: Loss Hand 7: AQS S in front of KS W: Loss, KD W in front of AQD S: Win, KC W in front of AQC N: Win Hand 8: KD E in front of QD S: Win, AQC S in front of KC W: Loss Hand 9: QS W in front of AJS N: Win, AQC S in front of KC W: Loss Hand 10: KJS E in front of AQ10S S: 2 Wins, KQC E in front of AJC S: Win Hand 11: KD E in front of QD S: Win Hand 12: KS N in front of AS E: Loss, KJD S between QD E and AD W: Win and Loss Totals: 15 Wins, 9 Losses

Before you jump all over me, yes I know there are 240 hands in 20 tournaments, not 120. That is what I get for trying to reply too quickly and not pay attention to side details.

Actually, I constructed 9 data sets showing the same result. Unfortunately, some of the earlier ones were not properly documented as they were originally for my own interest. I did provide two sets of data showing the date and tournament number so others could verify or refute that data. I'm not sure how to provide the raw data short of printing out each hand (240 for each of the two data sets) and describing every potential finesse and which direction was favored by the cards involved in that finesse. I would appreciate if anyone would like to review those tournaments and tell my why my analysis is wrong. Since people got confused when I split the potential finesses by who played the hand, I have simplified below those tables for easier understanding. A review of either set would prove or disprove my contention. I know that would involve some work by someone else, but a lot less work than printing out all 120 hands and going through an explanation of all 274 or 319 potential finesses (depending on which data set was chosen). I understand if no one wants to do that much work. At this point, I believe the subject has been beat to death and all of you can believe what ever you want. From my standpoint, the finesse distribution is now normal, and that was the goal of my post in the first place. I will admit that I am cynical enough that I will look at another 20 tournament some where down to road to confirm that the finesses distribution has remained normal. Date Tourn Win Lose 31-Dec 5357 4 7 1-Jan 9466 8 8 1-Jan 9705 7 7 1-Jan 864 2 3 2-Jan 7203 5 6 3-Jan 3698 4 12 4-Jan 9091 9 11 4-Jan 92 9 9 5-Jan 5308 5 12 5-Jan 6810 5 13 6-Jan 1798 5 1 6-Jan 3864 3 8 6-Jan 4027 7 2 8-Jan 3839 7 12 8-Jan 4589 5 13 10-Jan 1077 2 9 11-Jan 5532 4 11 11-Jan 6086 4 4 12-Jan 1855 5 10 12-Jan 2753 5 11[code] Totals 105 169 Date Tourn Win Lose 30-Dec 8543 7 12 30-Dec 8087 4 10 28-Dec 6682 9 12 27-Dec 9647 8 10 26-Dec 5426 2 9 25-Dec 8188 8 9 25-Dec 7119 10 6 22-Dec 274 10 11 22-Dec 9197 5 7 21-Dec 3321 4 16 18-Dec 8278 7 9 15-Dec 341 5 8 15-Dec 9043 4 7 13-Dec 4753 8 14 12-Dec 5947 4 6 11-Dec 8708 6 8 10-Dec 2817 5 10 9-Dec 7999 5 6 9-Dec 6195 9 10 7-Dec 4475 7 12 Totals 127 192

You are correct, I did miss that. Your nasty comment is noted but totally irrelevant.

Well Mr. MIT (I graduated from Cal Tech myself), you apparently need a basic lesson in probability. As you know, with one finesse, (or coin flip), there are two possible outcomes, Onside (I will call Y, and Offside, I will call N). With two finesses, the combinations are NN, NY, YN, and YY, thus 25% will have no finesses, 50% will have 1 finesse and 25% will have 2 finesses. I am sure you understand that this can be expanded to any number of finesses, and a basic Excel spreadsheet can calculate the number of combinations for an number of finesses. I found that 20 tournaments had an average of about 280 finesses. 280 finesses have a total of 1.94267E+84 possible combinations for the 281 total outcomes (0 to 280 Y) These average 280 finesses had an average of 112 finesses in favor of the player. There are 9.5056E+80 combinations for 112 or less finesses. Thus, the chance of getting 112 or fewer finesses on side out of 280 total finesses is about 1 in 2000. My data showed the same 1 in 2000+/- outcome (within a fairly narrow margin)all 9 separate times. For your example, the chances of getting 400 or fewer heads in 1000 coin flips is about 1 billion to one. In other words, the greater the number of coin flips or finesses, the less likely the final count will be very far outside (as a percentage of the total) from the middle outcome, as in a bell shaped outcome distribution. When I did the analysis, I was not sure what the outcome would be, I just had a feeling that the hand distributions were not random, and unlike others, I actually accumulated the data to see what the distributions actually were. Your problem is you are looking at small cluster distributions rather than total outcomes, which is what I did. If you would like to tell me what is wrong with my calculations, I am willing to listen. If you think I am lying or did not obtain the data correctly, I posted two sets of 20 tournaments with my calculated outcomes. I do not know if you are associated with BBO, but someone from there can double check my calculations if they want to. BTW, I am not assuming some conspiracy that the finesse distribution just happened to change after my post. I had complained to BBO support service about the distributions and they said that their programmers would look at the issue, so I am assuming someone looked and "corrected" the situation. Since BBO has long insisted that the hands were totally random, I would not expect them to ever admit that they made the change.

I have a hard time taking your comments seriously. I simply looked at various randomly selected tournaments to determine how the finesses were splitting. They were looked at after the fact without recording which actual finesses were taken. I may be only a Bronze Life Master, but I can guarantee you that I can identify finesses and which direction they favor. The fact that the split so consistently averaged 40% over so many sets of tournament is a very strong indication of built in bias. The fact that the split "miraculously" changed to 50% after my posting leaves a strong indication that someone found the bias and "fixed" it. I suspect it was an input variable to the dealing program, but obviously I could never prove it.

The last two columns cover the total. The first set of 4 columns just break down the finesses by hands played by the player and hands played by the robots, thus the last two columns are sums as you describe.

An interesting point, but my finesse calculations were only based on potential finesses, I did not record which finesses were actually taken, as my analysis was done after the hands were played by just looking at the card distribution.

Finesses Player Robots Total Date Tourn Win Lose Win Lose Win Lose 29-Oct 254 5 8 0 0 5 8 28-Oct 4033 1 6 1 2 3 7 28-Oct 2207 7 10 0 0 7 10 27-Oct 7233 4 8 1 0 4 9 26-Oct 9970 7 2 2 1 8 4 25-Oct 5406 8 8 1 2 10 9 24-Oct 9445 3 9 2 1 4 11 24-Oct 8268 2 9 0 0 2 9 23-Oct 2680 7 5 1 1 8 6 23-Oct 2038 1 3 0 0 1 3 22-Oct 7000 4 4 1 0 4 5 22-Oct 5668 2 5 2 3 5 7 21-Oct 718 6 5 2 6 7 21-Oct 524 4 9 2 4 8 11 20-Oct 3821 4 11 0 0 4 11 19-Oct 9454 5 6 0 0 5 6 19-Oct 7468 4 4 1 1 5 5 18-Oct 2709 6 0 1 1 6 18-Oct 1277 5 7 2 2 7 9 17-Oct 7281 4 6 0 0 4 6 Totals 83 131 18 18 101 149 Thanks for the tip, it works well. Attached is another set of data in my finesses evaluation, dates are 2014

Thank you to whoever fixed my post

When I see how to make nice columns, I will try to post more of my data. I am surprised that this forum has no obvious way to post a spreadsheet, or down load any file for that matter. I am hoping there is a way, and one of you experts can tell me.

Sorry, I had blanks instead of zeros, here is the same data again with the zeros, although still not well presented. I have tried several methods without success, so I will see if I can get Google spreadsheets to work. Finesses Player Robots Total Date Tourn Win Lose Win Lose Win Lose 31-Dec 5357 4 6 1 0 4 7 1-Jan 9466 5 6 2 3 8 8 1-Jan 9705 6 7 0 1 7 7 1-Jan 864 2 3 0 0 2 3 2-Jan 7203 4 6 0 1 5 6 3-Jan 3698 3 9 3 1 4 12 4-Jan 9091 7 10 1 2 9 11 4-Jan 92 6 5 4 3 9 9 5-Jan 5308 4 5 7 1 5 12 5-Jan 6810 4 12 1 1 5 13 6-Jan 1798 4 1 0 1 5 1 6-Jan 3864 3 7 1 0 3 8 6-Jan 4027 7 1 1 0 7 2 8-Jan 3839 7 12 0 0 7 12 8-Jan 4589 3 11 2 2 5 13 10-Jan 1077 2 7 2 0 2 9 11-Jan 5532 3 9 2 1 4 11 11-Jan 6086 4 3 1 0 4 4 12-Jan 1855 4 5 5 1 5 10 12-Jan 2753 3 7 4 2 5 11 Totals 85 132 37 20 105 169 Please remember that totals are Wins: Player wins plus robot losses and Losses: Player losses plus robot wins

That was great sarcasm, but ignores the data. Obviously, if all finesses were offside, the game would be easier. Obviously, everyone plays the same hand, but I'm sure the experts (not me) would know how to adjust their strategy for the bias built into a dealing program. I have already seen that at BBO by all the people who bid the frequent "cheap" slams that the robot program puts out. When I say cheap slams, the average slam hand that I have looked at (about 30) has an average of 29 HCP and barely over 30 total points. Additionally, I have looked for hands with over 30 points that do not make slam, and they are very few and far between.

When I posted this, the data columns lined up nicely. When I went back to add a comment, I see that the data does not present well. In each row, the first item is the date, the second is the tournament number. The third is finesses onside for the players, the fourth is finesses offside for the player, the fifth is finesses onside for the robots, the sixth is finesses offside for the robot, the seventh is the sum of finesses onside for the players and offside for the robots (in other words the finesses that favor the player) and the eights data point is the sum of finesses offside for the player and onside for the robots.

I looked at the same hands, and my count was similar, 73 out of 134, actually slightly more optimistic than your count. I then included all of the tournaments since I made my posting, and the finesses for the players were 53% successful, the highest I have ever seen for that many tournaments in all of my reviews. I think we can agree that there is no significant difference in how we evaluate finesses. Below is a copy of the spreadsheet of the 20 tournaments I evaluated before I posted. (It is interesting that I had the highest success rate after posting my comment, but I will leave conspiracy theory to others.) If you have time to check the previous 20, I would like to know what numbers you came up with. Finesses Player Robots Total Date Tourn Win Lose Win Lose Win Lose 31-Dec 5357 4 6 1 4 7 1-Jan 9466 5 6 2 3 8 8 1-Jan 9705 6 7 1 7 7 1-Jan 864 2 3 2 3 2-Jan 7203 4 6 1 5 6 3-Jan 3698 3 9 3 1 4 12 4-Jan 9091 7 10 1 2 9 11 4-Jan 92 6 5 4 3 9 9 5-Jan 5308 4 5 7 1 5 12 5-Jan 6810 4 12 1 1 5 13 6-Jan 1798 4 1 1 5 1 6-Jan 3864 3 7 1 3 8 6-Jan 4027 7 1 1 7 2 8-Jan 3839 7 12 7 12 8-Jan 4589 3 11 2 2 5 13 10-Jan 1077 2 7 2 2 9 11-Jan 5532 3 9 2 1 4 11 11-Jan 6086 4 3 1 4 4 12-Jan 1855 4 5 5 1 5 10 12-Jan 2753 3 7 4 2 5 11 Totals 85 132 37 20 105 169 Pct 39.2% 64.9% 38.3%