ACBL Motions for this Fall

[Jlall]

I think the robot would get more than 50% from the limited experience I acquired playing with them. After finishing when I kib most (60+% instead of the a priori 25%) of the retarded things that I see definitely come from the human. This is assuming I kib a random player.

Yeah it would average well over 50 % and it's not even close.

[barmar]

I definitely enjoy the Robot Duplicates, although I like Robot Rewards more (they're more intense because of having to play quickly, I can pass out minimum hands so I don't waste time on part scores as much, and the prospect of winning $$ is exciting). I don't particularly care about the masterpoints; the main reason I play the ACBL Robot Duplicates is because they're 12 boards instead of just 6, and I think they attract better competition than the BBO Robot Dupes. But I don't see a problem with awarding this masterpoints, for the reasons others have given: all the human players are in the same seat, so we're competing with each other, not the bots.

[shyams]

Fred,

 

So far all responses appear to be from ACBL members. So I thought I will share my views...

 

I am based in the UK. I am not an ACBL member and am unlikely to become a member in the future. I guess there are loads of people playing ACBL robot tourneys like me viz. non-members (now and in future)

 

Yet, I play robot MP tourneys on BBO because I like the higher standards of competitors (vs. other tourneys). I think the ACBL robot MP tourneys actually help me become a better player.

 

In summary, I contribute to ACBL revenues (albeit a small amount) without demanding any services in return. I do so because I strongly believe:

 

1. The robots play as good as (often better than) many humans in ACBL online tourneys

2. The ACBL MP tourney on BBO generally attracts a high standard of players

3. Robots dont mind if I take a mini-break for the occasional "real-world" disturbance (e.g. 5 min phone call). In contrast, I have had humans (ACBL members) being rude when I was away from my seat for 20-30 seconds!

 

I have no problem paying ACBL for robot-MP tourneys; I find it odd they have a problem instead!

[hrothgar]

Fred / Uday / et al.

 

I decided to spend a bit of time playing around with the Robot Races this morning in the hopes that I might come up with some better informed commentary. Here are a few – somewhat random – thoughts. Hope that some of this is useful

 

First and foremost, the Robot Races felt fair. When I play a hand, I can generally tell “Wow, I just did something really stupid” or, more rarely, I just did something clever. When I look at more scores – bye and large – I seem to score poorly on hands where I blundered. I score well on hands where I think that I did something decent. I scored about even on hands where that felt down the middle. Associated with this: You best chance to convince members of the ACBL BoD that the Robot Races are real bridge/a real test of skill is to make sure that said members are able to participate in one or more events. I think that everyone would benefit if the audience for your presentation was as well informed as possible. I recommend trying to hold one or more tournaments specifically for BoD members. (Alternatively, set them all up with their own accounts and allow them to compete for free between now and the BoD meeting).

 

Next: From what I can tell, the overwhelming majority of ACBL sponsoring Robot Races are rigged so that South (the player) automatically has the strongest hand at the table. I have some very real problems with this. I might be a stick-in-the-mud, but you're introducing a lot of unnecessary distortions. When I am bidding / declaring a hand, I know with certainty that the other three pairs CAN'T have a better hand than me. This can significantly distort both the bidding and the play. When you are trying to hash this all out with the ACBL one of the broad themes that you need to advance is that the ACBL shouldn't discriminate against the Robot Races when awarding masterpoints because RR and F2F are both “bridge”. Introducing unnecessary deviations like always giving South the strongest hand dilutes this line of argument. (For what its worth, I understand that your customer base probably prefers that they always get the strongest hand. Simply put, I don't believe that the customer is always right)

 

This might seem hypocritical, however, I'm now going to suggest a much more significant change to the game. I don't think that players should ever be dummy.

 

* GIB is non deterministic

* Allowing players to play out all hands where their side declares (should) more closely correlate their scores with their performance

* The GIBs play the hands WAY too fast. On my PC the cards flew by too quick to see. This was a very jarring reminder that this isn't F2F bridge.

[JoAnneM]

When you join the tournament it states that South is going to be dealt the best hands.

[jdonn]

I would want to keep south with the best hand (I think this reduces variance relative to skill level by a lot, not to mention most people probably find it the most fun that way), but it would certainly be a good idea to rotate the hands and have the human declare whenever he would have been dummy (which would reduce that variance even further).

[hrothgar]

When you join the tournament it states that South is going to be dealt the best hands.

I'm well aware of this.

 

I was objecting to the structure and prevalence of this type of tournament, not the advertising.

[helene_t]

I think the argument "one should only get masterpoints for playing against humans" is flawed.

 

Robot duplicates provide a very pure comparison between humans: they all sit south, they all not only have identical cards but also identical partners and opps. None are advantaged by over-ethical opps and unethical partners, or disadvantaged by the reverse. None are advantaged by encountering the weak-NT opps at the boards where opps don't have weak balanced hands, because all opps play the same system.

 

I don't believe any f2f tourney format can provide an equally accurate assessment of player skills.

[JoAnneM]

I agree with jdonn. I often cringe when watching the GIB declare a hand. I would rather the GIBs cringe while I am playing it. :rolleyes:

[Phil]

* Allowing players to play out all hands where their side declares (should) more closely correlate their scores with their performance

This is a feature I've always wanted. I also agree it distorts the bidding when you know another hand can't be better than you.

 

Perhaps if the tourneys were 15 boards, that would make up for the pushes when the GIBs are in the bidding alone, and the length of time would take about the same.

[Vampyr]

I have never played in a robot tournament. It sounds like a lot of people enjoy them. So, if it is as much fun as people here are saying, would you/they really play less if they did not award ACBL masterpoints? If people want to collect masterpoints, maybe BBO should introduce their own.

[TylerE]

They do. And there are robot tournements that award them. And they get maybe 1/5th the business as the ACBL ones, despite identical conditions, so clearly a large part of the customer base for those tournaments IS playing at least in part for the masterpoints.

[barmar]

They do. And there are robot tournements that award them. And they get maybe 1/5th the business as the ACBL ones, despite identical conditions, so clearly a large part of the customer base for those tournaments IS playing at least in part for the masterpoints.

The conditions are not identical. The ACBL Robot Duplicates are 12 boards, the BBO Robot Duplicates are only 6 boards. Or has this changed?

[3for3]

I am not sure the notion that you are guaranteed the best hand is real bridge. It probably doesn't matter often, but can't one take inference about the opponents hands knowing you have as many or more HCP as they do?

 

As an alternative, just guarantee that the player gets 11 or more points. Then no such inference could be drawn.

 

Please note I have never played these events, just wondering

 

Danny

[barmar]

While that's certainly a legitimate objection, I'll bet the people who proposed the motion weren't even aware of that detail. The motion refers to all games with computer participants, not just ones where the deals are cooked in some way.

 

Yes, you can take inferences, but so can everyone else, so it's fair as long as the guarantee is made clear to all players.

 

Fred, if the motion were amended to only prohibit games where the hands were dealt non-randomly, would that be acceptable?

[jdonn]

Fred, if the motion were amended to only prohibit games where the hands were dealt non-randomly, would that be acceptable?

Almost no one would want to play.

[barmar]

Fred, if the motion were amended to only prohibit games where the hands were dealt non-randomly, would that be acceptable?

Almost no one would want to play.

Perhaps.

 

In the case of Robot Rewards, both types of games are offered, and I almost never enter the Random Hands type (I think the only time was when I clicked on the wrong game by mistake). Given a choice, I expect most prefer the cooked version.

 

But if there were no choice, would people really avoid the random game? People enter regular bridge tournaments with no expectation that they'll always get the best hand. I guess the difference is that with a human partner, you still have the opportunity to berate or praise your partner after the hand/session -- the social aspect replaces the expectation of playing most of the hands.

[eyhung]

I think you could do one of two things:

 

1) Change the "cooking" so that the "best hand" is the hand with the greatest distribution (longest two suits) + HCP. That makes it harder to draw inferences about the other hands, and I believe it would also make it more enjoyable for the human player.

 

2) Don't cook the deals at all, but allow the human player to switch seats and declare when they are supposed to be dummy. This means that the human would declare approximately 50% of hands, which would alleviate the "boredom" that Josh mentioned.

[barmar]

While it's certainly boring to be dummy when all the other players are bots, there's still some enjoyment in defending. The bots are actually pretty good at bidding weak, distributional hands, so it's nice to be challenged occasionally to defend when they bid games. If the human gets the best HCP *and* distribution, you'll practically never defend. That's a very different game.

[jdonn]

I don't think it was a bad idea to always give the human 10+ points but choose randomly among such hands instead of always giving the best hand. The threshhold can't be higher though since all four players might have 10.

[eyhung]

While it's certainly boring to be dummy when all the other players are bots, there's still some enjoyment in defending. The bots are actually pretty good at bidding weak, distributional hands, so it's nice to be challenged occasionally to defend when they bid games. If the human gets the best HCP *and* distribution, you'll practically never defend. That's a very different game.

True, I suppose that was in response to the "robot reward" tournaments, where there is a significant luck factor on how many distributionally strong hands GIB gets to play against you. In Robot Duplicates that should be ok.

[Keeper1]

Oddly, I won one yesterday and realized that I only declared three hands (which might of course have had something to do with the result...)

[Elianna]

This is not directly related to BBO, but related to the topic of ACBL motions for fall.

 

According to our District Director (newsletter at: http://acbldistrict23.org/Bridge-News/current.pdf )

 

Finally, management has requested a statement that “the playing conditions at all tournaments shall be substantially equal for all players in one event insofar as possible given space and other considerations.” These last two requests will assist management in dealing with a relatively few players who felt they had special rights and will also put into writing how tournament directors are to deal with players having special needs.

 

How would you interpret this? For example, as not allowing people to bring special lights anymore? Or not allowing those who have problems with those lights to avoid them?

 

Or nothing to do with that and related to something else?

[barmar]

The link mike777 posted earlier doesn't work any more (now it goes to minutes from a BOD meeting in 2006). Here's the correct link to the motions for Fall 2009:

 

http://web2.acbl.org/documentlibrary/about...ego_Motions.pdf

 

See item 093-062, sections 2 and 6 for the motion relevant to Elianna's question. Section 6 specifically says that they should try to accomodate players with special needs. Section 2 contains the wording that Elianna quoted, and there's no implication that this is intended to deny such accomodation.

[Vampyr]

Fred, if the motion were amended to only prohibit games where the hands were dealt non-randomly, would that be acceptable?

Almost no one would want to play.

L6 indicates that the cards must be dealt randomly unless hands from past events are purposely used. It is slightly unclear, but if randomisation really is the law, then no NBO can sanction a game in which the hands are switched for any purpose.