Why do people play with robots?

[billw55]

It seems people play with the robots quite a lot. Even fairly advanced/dedicated bridge players. But .. why? The forum seems almost overrun with never ending examples of the stupid things the robots do. So why play with them? If for practice, how good can the practice be if the robots are so stupid? If for fun, how much fun is it? (unless you like posting stupid robot tricks).

 

Enlighten me ...

[paulg]

When I want an interactive practice session with my regular partner, either play or in the bidding room, then it is hard to beat the patience of the robots. To a man (or woman), they never say 'faster' and allow us to play at our own pace and don't even mind if we discuss problems to the open table.

[jillybean]

I use the bots to practise my declarer play, with or wthout my partner and to generate interference on the partnership bidding tables.

It's not ideal and at times very frustrating, I think I should be investing in additional BM deals instead.

[pigpenz]

actually most of the time they are pretty accurate but just like real people they do stupid things at times, If I had one complaint about the robots it would be that using the flash based way of playing, the declarer play by the robots is way to fast to follow, so I tend to use the old BBO login so I can follow the robots play.

[helene_t]

They play better than the vast majority of bbo players. And the robot beats the average bbo player by even bigger margins when it comes to speed, accuracy of explanations, board completion rate and politeness.

 

I prefer to play against friends but I prefer robots to random humans.

 

The biggest problem with robots are not the stupid mistakes (which are rare). The biggest problem is that they assume that we play the GIB system as well so it is easy to fool it. If you play precision with transfer responses then the robots defensive bidding, opening leads and sometimes cardplay often becomes confused.

[diana_eva]

It seems people play with the robots quite a lot. Even fairly advanced/dedicated bridge players. But .. why? The forum seems almost overrun with never ending examples of the stupid things the robots do. So why play with them? If for practice, how good can the practice be if the robots are so stupid? If for fun, how much fun is it? (unless you like posting stupid robot tricks).

 

Enlighten me ...

 

The Forum is full of examples of robots' bad play because this is one of the places to report bugs. If you look through those posts, you'll notice that people who report these things are trying to help, and describe the problem in as much details as possible, provide a solution if they think there is a better way to handle this or that sequence. The reports are not meant to emphasize how bad robots are - but to help the programmers improve them.

 

As for why people play with robots? I like to play a quick robot tourney while working, because i wouldn't want to annoy my friends with careless play and i usually have very little time available. When I have time, I still prefer to play with humans.

[jmcw]

Robots provide a level playing field.

 

All participants are constrained to use the same bidding system, and will be subjected to the same unwavering level of defense and play. If the robot does something stupid or brilliant then all players will suffer or gain equally. The robot never gets pissed and will always produce identical bids and play if the human participant also produces the same bid and play (duplicatation).

 

They also provide the fastest and probably easiest was for Masterpoint nuts to accumulate huge quantities, thereby making them appear to be better players.

[matmat]

If the robot does something stupid or brilliant then all players will suffer or gain equally. The robot never gets pissed and will always produce identical bids and play if the human participant also produces the same bid and play (duplicatation).

 

From the gripes i have seen on the forums and some of the results i have seen online, i think this is blatantly false.

 

They also provide the fastest and probably easiest was for Masterpoint nuts to accumulate huge quantities, thereby making them appear to be better players.

 

This is, at least to me, unfortunate. I am glad that BBO is making sufficient profits off of this (I think) to keep the other services free, but the conclusion stated in this quote makes me sad.

[1eyedjack]

Playing in robot tourneys or in the money bridge rooms (which require the use of robots) is a way of playing for money in a guaranteed cheat-free environment with a level playing field. Playing against robots in a main room provides a practice environment to assist your preparation for playing in a robot tourney or in the money bridge rooms.

Players are happy to put up with the odd bizarre action by a robot in order to secure those benefits.

[jmcw]

From the gripes i have seen on the forums and some of the results i have seen online, i think this is blatantly false.

 

I know of no reports where players at different tables making identical bids to conclusion, making the same leads and plays (with identical bidding) have had different results.

 

If you can produce an example, I would be obliged to reconsider my earlier comment.

[mtvesuvius]

From the gripes i have seen on the forums and some of the results i have seen online, i think this is blatantly false.

 

I know of no reports where players at different tables making identical bids to conclusion, making the same leads and plays (with identical bidding) have had different results.

 

If you can produce an example, I would be obliged to reconsider my earlier comment.

http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/46943-leads-singleton-for-a-ruff-and-refuses-to-take-it/

[jmcw]

http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/46943-leads-singleton-for-a-ruff-and-refuses-to-take-it/

 

I could not find an identical case in your link!

 

The bidding is the same but, during play the human spots cards diverge, hence a different result.

[mtvesuvius]

I could not find an identical case in your link!

 

The bidding is the same but, during play the human spots cards diverge, hence a different result.

You're right, sorry. I missed that South led the CK at one table, and the CA at another -- But still, I think a case like that still makes for an uneven playing field. Sometimes it is also just knowing when the robots tend to make mistakes (See my "6 Diamonds Making Eight?" thread).

[xxhong]

For me, it's to make some money in money bridge rooms in leisure time.

It seems people play with the robots quite a lot. Even fairly advanced/dedicated bridge players. But .. why? The forum seems almost overrun with never ending examples of the stupid things the robots do. So why play with them? If for practice, how good can the practice be if the robots are so stupid? If for fun, how much fun is it? (unless you like posting stupid robot tricks).

 

Enlighten me ...

[matmat]

If you can produce an example, I would be obliged to reconsider my earlier comment.

 

 

http://online.bridgebase.com/myhands/hands.php?traveller=M-1308400763-27859274

(i'm the only one who sat EW, so don't pay too much attention to my result, but note that in most cases the auction started

1♣-1N-2♣

and then some of the North gibs did show their spade suit, some did not. Very consistent.

 

http://online.bridgebase.com/myhands/hands.php?traveller=M-1308400763-27859219

(sometimes East rebids 2♦ sometimes 3♦, consistent!)

[jmcw]

You're right, sorry. I missed that South led the CK at one table, and the CA at another -- But still, I think a case like that still makes for an uneven playing field. Sometimes it is also just knowing when the robots tend to make mistakes (See my "6 Diamonds Making Eight?" thread).

 

Really!, I find that quite unbelievable. It is precisely the subtle spotting difference that may lead GIB to conclude an alternative defence, which is exactly how you preserve the level playing field.

 

For a robot to make a "mistake" it would have to produce a different result when the data imputs are reproduced and repeated exactly. Making bad plays or bids are not mistakes for a robot, but rather, the limit of expertise to which GIB has been programmed.

[jmcw]

http://online.bridgebase.com/myhands/hands.php?traveller=M-1308400763-27859274

(i'm the only one who sat EW, so don't pay too much attention to my result, but note that in most cases the auction started

1♣-1N-2♣

and then some of the North gibs did show their spade suit, some did not. Very consistent.

 

http://online.bridgebase.com/myhands/hands.php?traveller=M-1308400763-27859219

(sometimes East rebids 2♦ sometimes 3♦, consistent!)

 

Hmmm. Looks like the Board numbers are different, and the player position seems to vary. In some cases there are 2 players and in others only 1. Not sure if there is identical duplication or not. Perhaps you can provide an easier case?

[1eyedjack]

I may have missed something in the thread or examples, but just because GIB is not guaranteed to make the same decision from the same identical premise in several successive occasions does not make the playing field unlevel. It may make it a bit more random, but in order for it to be unlevel you would have to demonstrate that against *you* it would be more inclined to take one action over another, contrasted with against another player, by reason of your identity rather than pure chance.

[mtvesuvius]

[hv=lin=pn|Player1,~~M304u0fz,~~M4139plq,~~M2267347|st||md|1S9KH4678D58KC47TQ%2CS38QH235KD467C3JA%2CS4567JHTJQAD3C258%2C|rh||ah|Board%2031|sv|n|mb|p|mb|p|mb|p|mb|1D|an|Minor%20suit%20opening%20--%203%2B%20D%3B%2011-21%20HCP%3B%2012-22%20total%20points%20|mb|p|mb|1H|an|One%20over%20one%20--%204%2B%20H%3B%2011-%20HCP%3B%206-12%20total%20points%20|mb|p|mb|3D|an|Opener%20rebid%20--%206%2B%20D%3B%2017-20%20total%20points%20|mb|p|mb|3N|an|4-5%20H%3B%204-%20S%3B%205-11%20HCP%3B%206-12%20total%20points%3B%20partial%20stop%20in%20C%3B%20partial%20stop%20in%20S%20|mb|p|mb|p|mb|p|pc|S5|pc|ST|pc|SK|pc|S3|pc|H8|pc|H5|pc|HT|pc|H9|pc|S7|pc|S2|pc|S9|pc|SQ|pc|D7|pc|D3|pc|DQ|pc|D5|pc|CK|pc|C4|pc|C3|pc|C8|pc|SA|pc|H4|pc|S8|pc|SJ|pc|C6|pc|C7|pc|CA|pc|C5|pc|D6|pc|S6|pc|DA|pc|D8|pc|C9|pc|CQ|pc|CJ|pc|C2|pc|DK|pc|D4|pc|S4|pc|D9|pc|CT|pc|H2|pc|HQ|pc|DT|pc|H7|pc|HK|pc|HA|pc|DJ|pc|HJ|pc|D2|pc|H6|pc|H3|]400|300[/hv]

[hv=lin=pn|Player2,~~R26279vh,~~R3566g2o,~~R3666qmf|st||md|1S9KH4678D58KC47TQ%2CS38QH235KD467C3JA%2CS4567JHTJQAD3C258%2C|rh||ah|Board%2031|sv|n|mb|p|mb|p|mb|p|mb|1D|an|Minor%20suit%20opening%20--%203%2B%20D%3B%2011-21%20HCP%3B%2012-22%20total%20points|mb|p|mb|1H|an|One%20over%20one%20--%204%2B%20H%3B%2011-%20HCP%3B%206-12%20total%20points|mb|p|mb|2D|an|Opener%20rebids%20his%20D%20--%203-%20H%3B%203-%20S%3B%2011%2B%20HCP%3B%20rebiddable%20D%3B%2012-16%20total%20points|mb|p|mb|3D|an|3%2B%20D%3B%204%2B%20H%3B%2011-%20HCP%3B%2011-12%20total%20points|mb|p|mb|3S|an|Invite%20notrump%20game%20--%203-%20H%3B%203-%20S%3B%2015%2B%20HCP%3B%20rebiddable%20D%3B%2016-%20total%20points%3B%20stop|mb|p|mb|3N|an|3%2B%20D%3B%204-5%20H%3B%205-%20S%3B%2010-11%20HCP%3B%2011-12%20total%20points%3B%20partial%20stop%20in%20C|mb|p|mb|p|mb|p|pc|S5|pc|S2|pc|SK|pc|S3|pc|H4|pc|H3|pc|HT|pc|H9|pc|HA|pc|C6|pc|H6|pc|H5|pc|HQ|pc|D2|pc|H7|pc|HK|pc|D4|pc|D3|pc|DQ|pc|D5|pc|C9|pc|CT|pc|CA|pc|C2|pc|D7|pc|S7|pc|DA|pc|D8|pc|DJ|pc|DK|pc|D6|pc|S6|pc|H8|pc|H2|pc|HJ|pc|ST|pc|C8|pc|CK|pc|C4|pc|C3|pc|SA|pc|S9|pc|S8|pc|SJ|pc|DT|pc|C7|pc|CJ|pc|S4|pc|D9|pc|CQ|pc|SQ|pc|C5|]400|300[/hv]

[matmat]

Hmmm. Looks like the Board numbers are different, and the player position seems to vary. In some cases there are 2 players and in others only 1. Not sure if there is identical duplication or not. Perhaps you can provide an easier case?

 

sorry, what?

for the first link, all humans are sitting S except at one table, and there is only one human player in each. dealer and colors are the same for all instances.

 

the second one, the board number changes for a few, but the colors/dealer are fixed.

check the boards bid at helene4's, rina39's, or canit's tables.

same start

same human bidding

different rebids by east, even different followups by west. (EW being robots)

[barmar]

Matmat's first example is not good. The tables where North showed its spades were where South doubled rather than overcalling 1NT.

 

But in the case of the second example, look at tables 1, 4, and 14. They're all board 31, with one human sitting South. At tables 1 and 14 East rebid 3♦, at table 4 it rebid 2♦.

 

Differences in play or defense are more common than differences in bidding, I think. I'm pretty sure some examples have been posted, I don't feel like trying to find them.

 

As for why I play with robots, I simply enjoy it, despite the flaws. Since I know the flaws, my expectations are relatively low, and it meets them. And when I make stupid mistakes, I don't have to worry about being embarassed, or worse getting some stupid comment from my partner about it.

[matmat]

I may have missed something in the thread or examples, but just because GIB is not guaranteed to make the same decision from the same identical premise in several successive occasions does not make the playing field unlevel. It may make it a bit more random, but in order for it to be unlevel you would have to demonstrate that against *you* it would be more inclined to take one action over another, contrasted with against another player, by reason of your identity rather than pure chance.

 

Strongly disagree with (and am somewhat amused by) this.

You're going from the initial position of "robots make the playing field level" to trying to redefine what "level playing field" means.

 

If we are going to claim that the GIBs lead to fairness then they should always act the same way given the same input information. As we know, GIBs are not deterministic and so we do expect to see some differences between its actions despite the same initial conditions. However, the variance that I think I am seeing indicates that either the decisions are really close and accurate simulations have a tough time telling the various actions apart or the simulations go through an inadequate number of hands and the error bars are too big. With how quickly (and often poorly) GIBs appear to be declaring these days (as opposed to what I seem to recall from the past) I would guess that the GIB is set to play way too fast and does not sample an adequate number of hands.

[matmat]

Matmat's first example is not good. The tables where North showed its spades were where South doubled rather than overcalling 1NT.

 

 

You're right re my first one. I missed that and was about to post a correction just now (not that i think hiding ♠KQTxxx when p shows a strong NT is a good idea).

[xxhong]

I did some testing in the gib bidding long time ago. I still remember in one case, gib sometimes bid 7 and sometimes just stop at 6. I think it will take a lot of hands to make the final result converge, perhaps hundreds for many situations and thousands for others. So Gib has no solid way to make the final result converge in many situations because the sample size was around 10 (could be less nowadays). So, I kind of agree that the intrinsic design is rather bad for gib bidding and a lot of fluctuations should be expected in situations that requires a large sample size. Of course, bbo usually says that this kind of random distribution would even out in a long run.

 

One way to solve this problem is to do a large sample sized calculation when a simulation is needed and make a complete set of rules when the simulation is not needed. This is the way to minimize the simulations required. Also, the simulation can be run on a large parallel computer.

Now as it appears, gib makes too many simulations and can often override the system rules with simulation results that might not converge at all.

 

Strongly disagree with (and am somewhat amused by) this.

You're going from the initial position of "robots make the playing field level" to trying to redefine what "level playing field" means.

 

If we are going to claim that the GIBs lead to fairness then they should always act the same way given the same input information. As we know, GIBs are not deterministic and so we do expect to see some differences between its actions despite the same initial conditions. However, the variance that I think I am seeing indicates that either the decisions are really close and accurate simulations have a tough time telling the various actions apart or the simulations go through an inadequate number of hands and the error bars are too big. With how quickly (and often poorly) GIBs appear to be declaring these days (as opposed to what I seem to recall from the past) I would guess that the GIB is set to play way too fast and does not sample an adequate number of hands.

[dustinst22]

Really!, I find that quite unbelievable. It is precisely the subtle spotting difference that may lead GIB to conclude an alternative defence, which is exactly how you preserve the level playing field.

 

For a robot to make a "mistake" it would have to produce a different result when the data imputs are reproduced and repeated exactly. Making bad plays or bids are not mistakes for a robot, but rather, the limit of expertise to which GIB has been programmed.

 

You might want to look again. 2 tables led the same spot card and the robot did something different. Here are the examples:

 

http://tinyurl.com/5ublkms

 

http://tinyurl.com/62xgrf7

 

Both tables played the exact same way (only the KC on trick 1 versus AC which shouldn't make a difference). The rest of the plays were identical. And please don't try to tell me the "subtle" lead of the KC made all the difference and is what made the GIB ruff in this instance(which is the incorrect lead, I might add, since GIB plays standard leads).