Master points, the laws, the ACBL, that sort of thing...

[Leo LaSota]

Well, it can't be called good bridge :)

But then what can you expect when half the field are amateurs, of course bridge is still a competitive game and there is an advantage in doing such things so such things are naturally done.

 

This analogy is perfectly inline with playing with robots, the problem is the same and the solution is the same. The amateurs(or robots) can hopefully improve over the years. This is qualitatively different then rotating the best hand, which is a systematic flaw with the rules of the tournament that can never be fixed rather then a transient flaw that hopefully fixes itself with time.

 

Of course with pro-am's, there are always new amateurs, but the point of pro-am's isn't good bridge. Hopefully robots will eventually get good enough at bridge that players won't feel the need to bid 'poorly' to steal the hands.

 

The robots declare and defend many hands very well. Personally, I bid "poorly" by opening alot of hands some number of nt not because the robots are not "good enough at bridge". Rather, I like the declarer play practice. It just amazes me how many people believe that individuals that bid "poorly" and end up declaring more hands than they would otherwise have an advantage over their competition or that this is a secret to becoming real successful at the robot bridge. Many of the players that are routinely light when they open 1nt on 13 or 14 counts for example end up with many zeros or near bottoms because they are not highly successful when they declare the hands. Although bidding style can certainly influence the results that an individual has in any given session, those that are regularly the most successful declare the hands better than most of their counterparts.

[dwar0123]

The robots declare and defend many hands very well. Personally, I bid "poorly" by opening alot of hands some number of nt not because the robots are not "good enough at bridge". Rather, I like the declarer play practice. It just amazes me how many people believe that individuals that bid "poorly" and end up declaring more hands than they would otherwise have an advantage over their competition or that this is a secret to becoming real successful at the robot bridge. Many of the players that are routinely light when they open 1nt on 13 or 14 counts for example end up with many zeros or near bottoms because they are not highly successful when they declare the hands. Although bidding style can certainly influence the results that an individual has in any given session, those that are regularly the most successful declare the hands better than most of their counterparts.

That's great to hear, I don't play many robot tournies and was only going off what I read in this thread. If it is already not that much of an issue, so much the better.

[barmar]

Having spent a total of $10 this year so far for 540+ masterpoints, I do not believe that I put alot of money into the online masterpoints.

You must be including the non-ACBL robot games that have cash awards in addition to BBO masterpoints.

[mycroft]

The robots declare and defend many hands very well. Personally, I bid "poorly" by opening alot of hands some number of nt not because the robots are not "good enough at bridge". Rather, I like the declarer play practice. It just amazes me how many people believe that individuals that bid "poorly" and end up declaring more hands than they would otherwise have an advantage over their competition or that this is a secret to becoming real successful at the robot bridge.

I believe you. I also know that if your agreements were "GIB standard", explained as such, and you bid like you have to do to win robot games in real life with real opponents, that you'd be rung up, Conduct and Ethics, on lack of disclosure/unsportsmanlike or too-frequent psychics, within a month.

 

And of course, lack of disclosure helps in getting good results because the robot opponents are defending based on a system you (and everybody else) are not playing. And the robots are probably *less able* to handle "he said he had 15-17, so I won't defend as if he had 13, because he can't have that" than humans are. But they don't complain to the TD as much!

 

*That's* what I think is "non-bridge" about this game (with a second bit being the best hand component, but meh), not who the players in the other seats of the table are. Full Disclosure to opponents is key to the game we call bridge.

 

Leo, while I'm responding to your post and using you as an example, I'm not aiming it at you - I'm aiming this at the game; which I happen to think is a very interesting game (that I have no interest in playing), but not bridge.

[Phil]

Personally, I bid "poorly" by opening alot of hands some number of nt not because the robots are not "good enough at bridge". Rather, I like the declarer play practice.

 

+1

[Leo LaSota]

You must be including the non-ACBL robot games that have cash awards in addition to BBO masterpoints.

 

The $10 represents my out of pocket expenses because I am able to win alot of BB$ playing in $5 best hand games. Unfortunately, I had to spend $10 out of pocket when BBO did not provide the February $100 reward on March 1. :(

[Leo LaSota]

I believe you. I also know that if your agreements were "GIB standard", explained as such, and you bid like you have to do to win robot games in real life with real opponents, that you'd be rung up, Conduct and Ethics, on lack of disclosure/unsportsmanlike or too-frequent psychics, within a month.

 

Apparently you misunderstood my post when you say that "you bid like you have to do to win robot games". There is no need at all to make unusual bids to win robot games. What is needed to win robot games regularly is the ability to declare the hands extremely well. As others have posted, the norm is to declare about twice as often as defend. So it makes sense that the players that routinely declare the hands well will have good results. Although I have not run a set of data on my hands played and the results I have when making all "normal" bids versus hands that I make an "unusual" bid, I am pretty sure that my average is higher on the "normal" hands. Again, I like the declarer play practice and so I open some non-standard nt hands in order to have more practice. I could certainly see your point and some others as valid if it were found that "unusual" bids created much better results than "normal" bids. Again, I believe the reverse is actually true.

[pigpenz]

Apparently you misunderstood my post when you say that "you bid like you have to do to win robot games". There is no need at all to make unusual bids to win robot games. What is needed to win robot games regularly is the ability to declare the hands extremely well. As others have posted, the norm is to declare about twice as often as defend. So it makes sense that the players that routinely declare the hands well will have good results. Although I have not run a set of data on my hands played and the results I have when making all "normal" bids versus hands that I make an "unusual" bid, I am pretty sure that my average is higher on the "normal" hands. Again, I like the declarer play practice and so I open some non-standard nt hands in order to have more practice. I could certainly see your point and some others as valid if it were found that "unusual" bids created much better results than "normal" bids. Again, I believe the reverse is actually true.

now that would be an interesting case for Picket's bridgebrowser software :rolleyes:

Granted on some of the hands where Leo sticks his head out by off shape NT openings GIB doesnt work it out

and he makes the contract, but might also happen against real human opponents also....but look at the ones

where he gets 100% on a board, he also many times is headed for 0% but GIB does something else.

 

with Stephens software you could actually run the statistics and see what the frequency gain is for

opening 13-14 hcp 1NT with singelton or void. So maybe there is a flaw in the robot defending mechanism that

allows that to happen on a more regular basis.

 

In the GIB bot forums we have all posted how GIB tends to lead passively instead of aggressively against 3nt contracts, and

even when leading right, other GIB wins first trick and shifts to another suit....this way of defending does seem

to work for GIB quite alot but never does for me when I try it :angry:

[Leo LaSota]

now that would be an interesting case for Picket's bridgebrowser software :rolleyes:

Granted on some of the hands where Leo sticks his head out by off shape NT openings GIB doesnt work it out

and he makes the contract, but might also happen against real human opponents also....but look at the ones

where he gets 100% on a board, he also many times is headed for 0% but GIB does something else.

 

with Stephens software you could actually run the statistics and see what the frequency gain is for

opening 13-14 hcp 1NT with singelton or void. So maybe there is a flaw in the robot defending mechanism that

allows that to happen on a more regular basis.

 

In the GIB bot forums we have all posted how GIB tends to lead passively instead of aggressively against 3nt contracts, and

even when leading right, other GIB wins first trick and shifts to another suit....this way of defending does seem

to work for GIB quite alot but never does for me when I try it :angry:

 

 

In a recent game that I completed (ACBL Robot Tourney #4658), boards 2 & 3 were certainly "normal" hands and I would be very surprised if anyone had different auctions than me. On board 2, I held 2335 shape with 16 HCP: xx AJx AQ10 AJ10xx and the bidding went pass on my right - 1nt by me - all pass. I scored an 86.1% on the hand. On board 3, I held 3244 shape with 17 HCP: Kxx Ax AJxx KQ10x and the bidding went 1nt by me - all pass. I scored a 77.8% on the hand.

[nathan2008]

i agree with Leo Lasota. I like "best hand" style because we can improve our dec play a lot... no fun in random hands tournement lol. Also in an online game against human, if i don't play normally, others will say i am cheating lol. At least in Robot game, robot always keeps silent even if i make a stupid mistake or play abnormally.

 

ps: to Leo, u should share some tips about how to play better with GIBs lol.

[nathan2008]

my story is very interesting. In january, we had january robot promotion (free!!!!), i played day and night and finally i got 50 bbo$. Then i learn how to play gibs, i checked Leo Lasota's hand every day.... follow his way lol, then i win a lot lol. Thanks Leo!

[pigpenz]

In a recent game that I completed (ACBL Robot Tourney #4658), boards 2 & 3 were certainly "normal" hands and I would be very surprised if anyone had different auctions than me. On board 2, I held 2335 shape with 16 HCP: xx AJx AQ10 AJ10xx and the bidding went pass on my right - 1nt by me - all pass. I scored an 86.1% on the hand. On board 3, I held 3244 shape with 17 HCP: Kxx Ax AJxx KQ10x and the bidding went 1nt by me - all pass. I scored a 77.8% on the hand.

NO Leo

I was referring to several hands where you had received 100% on

they were 2 or 3 hands where you opened some real obtuse 1NT openings, say like 4441 13 hcp , just an example

you were able to bring the contract home even though on these hands GIB could have beaten several tricks.

 

I am just referring to the fact the yes you got 100%, but if GIB had defended differently you would have gotten 0%.

So yes you took your chances and got a good score and you could have just as easily gotten a 0%.

 

Is this good bridge? I dont know?

you do very well with it and do very well with normal things, alot of people have a hard time with the simple

things of bridge.

[barmar]

GIB doesn't know how to take inferences from the play, it mostly bases its simulations on the auction. So if you psyche, it will often go wrong on defense. The kinds of mistakes it makes are often ones that a human player never would (but I think the same can be said for some of its good plays as well). So while you may get lots of declarer play practice, I'm not sure that everything you learn from playing against the robots is transferable to real bridge play.

[nathan2008]

Luckily GIB doesn't play gambling 3NT, i am almost sure that if GIB did, leo would open most hands with 3nt lol

[pigpenz]

GIB doesn't know how to take inferences from the play, it mostly bases its simulations on the auction. So if you psyche, it will often go wrong on defense. The kinds of mistakes it makes are often ones that a human player never would (but I think the same can be said for some of its good plays as well). So while you may get lots of declarer play practice, I'm not sure that everything you learn from playing against the robots is transferable to real bridge play.

But isnt that what we are trying to discuss here......is this real bridge in terms of what the ACBL calls bridge?

I am sure the ACBL has hardly any idea what goes on in the robot games, could be wrong but wouldnt bet my life on it.

ACBL is selling a product, Fred is selling a service. Is it anything different?

 

I am sure Fred could sell an ACBL product where the contract is the same at all tables and lead is the same, then everyone would be

rated on their declarer play....same could be said where there was a game and all you dot to do was be on opening lead against a

redetermined contract. I am sure we would all get better at declaring in one, and get better at leading in the other.....the only thing

that determines what works is wether or not it gets sold.

[Leo LaSota]

NO Leo

I was referring to several hands where you had received 100% on

they were 2 or 3 hands where you opened some real obtuse 1NT openings, say like 4441 13 hcp , just an example

you were able to bring the contract home even though on these hands GIB could have beaten several tricks.

 

I am just referring to the fact the yes you got 100%, but if GIB had defended differently you would have gotten 0%.

So yes you took your chances and got a good score and you could have just as easily gotten a 0%.

 

Is this good bridge? I dont know?

you do very well with it and do very well with normal things, alot of people have a hard time with the simple

things of bridge.

 

 

Again, I guarantee you the facts are that I average better scores on the hands where I do only "normal things". If you believe that all of my high scores on hands where I make an "unusual" bid are due to the fact that GIB is not programmed to defend a 1nt opener as possibly being on 14 rather than 15 to 17, you are mistaken. It used to be said that 26 HCP were the combined total typically required to bid and make 3nt with 2 balanced hands. Looking at Meckwell in action, they routinely bid and make 3nt on 24 combined HCP. No one would ever argue the fact that this is good bridge. Hands that you may open on 14 and the robot drives to game on 9 are good tests for making 3nt on 23 combined HCP. While occasionally you may make extra tricks primarily because of the GIB's programming, frequently there will not be ways to make these hands or if there are they require very good lines of play for the declarer.

[Leo LaSota]

GIB doesn't know how to take inferences from the play, it mostly bases its simulations on the auction. So if you psyche, it will often go wrong on defense. The kinds of mistakes it makes are often ones that a human player never would (but I think the same can be said for some of its good plays as well). So while you may get lots of declarer play practice, I'm not sure that everything you learn from playing against the robots is transferable to real bridge play.

 

 

The off-shape or out of range nt openers sometimes used in robot bridge result in more declarer play practice. What you "learn from playing (many) hands" against the robots is that repeated practice results in improved declarer play for an individual. Of course certain things that work well on a hand against GIB are not "transferable to real bridge play". However, I can speak from my won experience that the declarer play practice against GIB has improved my declarer play in live bridge as well. I can also tell you that I know for sure that participating in ACBL robot tournaments has improved the declarer play in live bridge for many other individuals.

[fred]

But isnt that what we are trying to discuss here......is this real bridge in terms of what the ACBL calls bridge?

I am sure the ACBL has hardly any idea what goes on in the robot games, could be wrong but wouldnt bet my life on it.

ACBL is selling a product, Fred is selling a service. Is it anything different?

 

I am sure Fred could sell an ACBL product where the contract is the same at all tables and lead is the same, then everyone would be

rated on their declarer play....same could be said where there was a game and all you dot to do was be on opening lead against a

redetermined contract. I am sure we would all get better at declaring in one, and get better at leading in the other.....the only thing

that determines what works is wether or not it gets sold.

Probably you were not trying to suggest otherwise, but just to be clear neither I nor my partners see ourselves as "salesmen" as far as our relationship with either ACBL or BBO members are concerned.

 

Our job is to try to develop bridge-related products and services that we think bridge players will enjoy. We see ACBL as our most important business partner. It is not smart business (nor is it our style) to try to "trick" ACBL into giving away their masterpoints for events run on BBO that we secretly think are unworthy. We really believe that we are doing is good for bridge and we believe that the best way to get the ACBL to agree is to provide them with enough (accurate) information so that they can also see the light.

 

It is easy to try to sell a product you believe in.

 

Most of those in positions of power at ACBL know anywhere between a reasonable amount and a lot about our robot games (and some of these people play in them regularly). That is partly because we have made a serious effort to provide such people with information and also because many of them have made a serious effort to study the information that we have provided.

 

I think that the whole discussion about "real bridge" misses the point for a couple of reasons.

 

First, as I have mentioned before in this thread, marketing considerations should not be discounted especially at this time in history where bridge in America could really use a boost. It is fortunate that the powers-that-be at ACBL seem to be understanding this point in increasing numbers.

 

Second, "real bridge" is not a static entity. The game evolves in various ways and on occasion new forms of the game are developed that demonstrate the potential to challenge and entertain large numbers of bridge players. Sometimes old rules have to change or new rules have to be codified in order to support such forms of the game. Organizations like ACBL (not to mention clubs, online sites, etc.) that refuse to adapt to what the players want will not be successful.

 

Yes it is sometimes hard to know where to draw the line, but the same goes for other aspects of bridge (such as system regulation) and life in general. All we can do is hope that intelligent, well-informed, and well-meaning people are responsible for making these decisions.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[barmar]

I am sure Fred could sell an ACBL product where the contract is the same at all tables and lead is the same, then everyone would be

rated on their declarer play.

This used to exist in f2f bridge -- they were called Par Contests. Bridge World occasionally reprints articles about these events from their archives.

[pigpenz]

This used to exist in f2f bridge -- they were called Par Contests. Bridge World occasionally reprints articles about these events from their archives.

yes isnt that how the intercollegiate par hands used to be? I may be wrong but wasnt there just an article in bridge world

how sometimes the best plans dont always work, as far as the par was concerned on those who used to set them up.

 

Leo....I am a hand junkie on results what I was trying to say is.....there are alot of hands where you get 100% but somewhere in the play of the

hand GIB had an oppurtunity to set some of those, esp 3NT contracts....so some of the 100% could have been very easily 0%.

 

Fred...yes you have been good at marketing bridge. whatever works will get supported??? I guess that means numbers, not sure?

[barmar]

I doubt that "whatever works" is the criteria -- that sounds like a variant of the "slippery slope" argument.

 

We think that "best hand" bridge is close enough to "real bridge" that it makes sense to treat it that way. On the other hand, there's no plan to try to get a sanction for Bridge Bingo.

 

I think it's clear that reasonable people can disagree on where to draw the line. I don't dismiss your opinion, I just don't agree. I hope you respect my opinion.

 

If ACBL decides to withdraw our sanction for best-hand bridge, I expect we'd switch these tourneys over to random. We'd probably still run best-hand tourneys, they just wouldn't be able to award ACBL masterpoints.

[Leo LaSota]

yes isnt that how the intercollegiate par hands used to be? I may be wrong but wasnt there just an article in bridge world

how sometimes the best plans dont always work, as far as the par was concerned on those who used to set them up.

 

Leo....I am a hand junkie on results what I was trying to say is.....there are alot of hands where you get 100% but somewhere in the play of the

hand GIB had an oppurtunity to set some of those, esp 3NT contracts....so some of the 100% could have been very easily 0%.

 

Fred...yes you have been good at marketing bridge. whatever works will get supported??? I guess that means numbers, not sure?

 

 

There are many hands in live bridge that I take "more tricks than I should". I would really appreciate it if you or some other "hand junkie on results" would review a large set of hands played and see whether or not the "normal hands" average better than the "unusual bid" hands. You and others may be surprised by what you find, but I guarantee you that the average is better for the "normal" hands.

[pigpenz]

There are many hands in live bridge that I take "more tricks than I should". I would really appreciate it if you or some other "hand junkie on results" would review a large set of hands played and see whether or not the "normal hands" average better than the "unusual bid" hands. You and others may be surprised by what you find, but I guarantee you that the average is better for the "normal" hands.

Leo....it has nothing to do with you....just this afternoon was looking at a result....and see the distribution of results i wondered why did these 3 people make 5 and everyone else only make four.....for some reason the people that all made the overtrick all opened 2nt on a singleton. Its just one of those weird things sometimes that you see when you look at the results.....what makes the bots defend differently or lead differently from one bid to another.....if you do look at the results you will see that there is a difference....so some defences or opening leads are def influenced by what the opening bids are.

 

now as to declarer falsecarding play one card to another in the play of a suit I cant tell on that.... playing a card or not when playing a suit def triggers different defenses by GIB...say GIB leads suit and you have kxx op xxx GIB sometimes for no reason will switch suit if you play or dont play honor card.

[mycroft]

No, Leo, it's not about you or what you do. I don't even care about the results you get (except that I am very impressed with your results at this game!) It's that one of the strategies that is always posted for Robot games is "bid NT first, on anything that looks like it will end in NT". But, the *system you're disclosing to the opponents* isn't that. So either you're psyching repeatedly, or playing a system that you're not disclosing. In real life, that gets you sent to Conduct and Ethics; in Robot games it works, because "everybody's doing it". But it *works* at least partly because the robots don't defend as well when they're defending 15-17 NT and you're playing 13-18 NT, frequently 4441. They misguess queens, misguess suit breaks, *because you're not playing what you say you're playing*. And neither is anybody else.

 

That - and not anything else - is what makes this game "not bridge" to me.

[barmar]

No, Leo, it's not about you or what you do. I don't even care about the results you get (except that I am very impressed with your results at this game!) It's that one of the strategies that is always posted for Robot games is "bid NT first, on anything that looks like it will end in NT". But, the *system you're disclosing to the opponents* isn't that. So either you're psyching repeatedly, or playing a system that you're not disclosing. In real life, that gets you sent to Conduct and Ethics; in Robot games it works, because "everybody's doing it". But it *works* at least partly because the robots don't defend as well when they're defending 15-17 NT and you're playing 13-18 NT, frequently 4441. They misguess queens, misguess suit breaks, *because you're not playing what you say you're playing*. And neither is anybody else.

 

That - and not anything else - is what makes this game "not bridge" to me.

But the fact that you're only fooling robots is what makes me say "It's close enough".

 

If you did this playing with humans, I'd call foul because you're using an illegal way to get an advantage over those other contestants. But the robots aren't contestants, they don't have the opportunity to win that you're taking away from them.

 

Note also that this strategy has little to do with whether the robot tourneys are "best hand" or not. I suppose there's a bit of safety in bidding light, since you don't have to worry about an opponent having a huge hand that they can punish you with. On the other hand, you also can't preempt them.