sater1957 Posted April 2, 2006 Report Share Posted April 2, 2006 I like the money bridge feature. Well thought out. One immediate suggestion though....Make the human always declarer. Just switch positions between human and bot after the auction. In my opinion it makes no sense for the human to watch the robot play. If the idea is to match the skills of the two humans let the bots do as little as possible. Hans van Staveren Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uday Posted April 3, 2006 Report Share Posted April 3, 2006 Agree, on the list. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccccwwww Posted April 3, 2006 Report Share Posted April 3, 2006 I agree on this issue. I find GIB declares much better than most BBOer. I am confident to let my robot partner be the declarer. And somehow disappointing if opps declarer is robot. it rarely make mistakes :) ;) . If always let the human player be the declarer, so performance( most of it is declarer's play like in INDI) plays more role in winning money. The other suggestion is the stakes. Instead of real score points, is it possible to let four robots play the board to get a reference score, players win (lose) the score difference ( or IMP) between your real score the reference score . That sounds like play real bridge. In current stake system, if u get a poor hand, it is frustrating to see u are going to lose big money (opps; game or slam), even u set opps slim game, u only win a little for a excellent defense. I know it will be evened out in a long run, but after I played two days of money bridge (about 100 brds), the prevailing factor is " were u dealt good hands? " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted April 3, 2006 Report Share Posted April 3, 2006 In current stake system, if u get a poor hand, it is frustrating to see u are going to lose big money (opps; game or slam), even u set opps slim game, u only win a little for a excellent defense. That happens in f2f money bridge, why shouldn't it happen in BBO? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kfgauss Posted April 3, 2006 Report Share Posted April 3, 2006 In current stake system, if u get a poor hand, it is frustrating to see u are going to lose big money (opps; game or slam), even u set opps slim game, u only win a little for a excellent defense. That happens in f2f money bridge, why shouldn't it happen in BBO? This is true, but a nice variant to have sometime in the future might be imped money bridge, which exists, though less frequently I think, f2f as well. Andy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rain Posted April 3, 2006 Report Share Posted April 3, 2006 But then if someone abandons the game when he should be declaring, the GIB robot will finish playing, leading to an unfair advantage. I think quitters should be penalised anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted April 3, 2006 Report Share Posted April 3, 2006 This is true, but a nice variant to have sometime in the future might be imped money bridge, which exists, though less frequently I think, f2f as well. IMPed money bridge would seem allow collusion between players... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted April 3, 2006 Report Share Posted April 3, 2006 posting cancelled Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arrows Posted April 20, 2006 Report Share Posted April 20, 2006 maybe give the player a choice when his/her bot's going to be the declarer, "Do you wanna be the declarer?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.