Full Disclosure, robot style

[Vampyr]

A common strategy for playing with robots is opening 1NT on hands that don't match the stated description. There are several advantages to this approach:

 

1. The robot's bids will be very well defined and require little judgment.

 

2. The human will usually end up playing the hand

 

3. The robots will misdefend, expecting the 1NT bid to match the systemic agreement.

 

Now, these and similar issues may or may not be "bridge", but if they are, then number 3 is, unfortunately, cheating.

ting

There is a simple solution to this, one which incidentally is required by the Laws of Contract Bridge; frankly speaking I am surprised it hasn't been implemented already.

 

To wit: Once a player has played with the robots, the robot can state exactly what the player's bids are. When 1NT is opened, the robot can tell its robot opponents (of course it doesn't literally have to "tell" them, as the robot hive-brain will contain the knowledge) what percentage of the 1NT bids are 15-17 balanced, what percentage are 7222 with 13 HCP, etc. Now at least the robots will be able to use that knowledge in their defense. Among other benefits.

 

In addition, crucially for ACBL games, this kind of record-keeping would serve more of a purpose than "just" full disclosure. It would also prevent players from flauting the ACBL regulations by playing conventional responses to a 1NT opening bid whose defacto range is more than 5 HCP (or if Super Chart is being used, which has (more than) two nonconsecutive ranges of (more than) 3 points.

 

How is the defacto range determined, as opposed to a stated range with frequent deviations? This should be fairly simple to determine; in fact there are more than enough statistics on BBO to work out a reasonable criterion. I think that for a large majority of players, about 99% of their 1NT openings are within their stated range. Probably online standards are a bit looser, but anyway this can be determined, and the range for ACBL purposes would be the one that contains, say, 97% of the player's 1NT opening bids.

 

So even if the "best hand" thing remains unchanged, these improvements would at least bring the robot games a lot closer in line with the Laws and the ACBL regulations.

[hrothgar]

 

3. The robots will misdefend, expecting the 1NT bid to match the systemic agreement.

 

 

Players are allowed to psyche to their heart's content so long as

 

1. A partnership agreement isn't established

2. This represents a genuine attempt to improve one's score rather than just screwing around

 

Given that the GIBs are stateless and don't remember previous bidding, it seems hard to claim that even repetitive psyches would establish such an agreement.

You yourself seem to concede that this behavior seems to work pretty well...

[Vampyr]

Players are allowed to psyche to their heart's content so long as

 

1. A partnership agreement isn't established

2. This represents a genuine attempt to improve one's score rather than just screwing around

 

Given that the GIBs are stateless and don't remember previous bidding, it seems hard to claim that even repetitive psyches would establish such an agreement.

 

If it's "the way you bid", then it it subject to disclosure. EDIT: and regulation.

 

 

You yourself seem to concede that this behavior seems to work pretty well...

 

Concede? No, I never suggested it was a good thing, just that it was apparently the way robot-tournament players take the partnership element out of bridge. I actually think that best-hand 3 Robots 1 Human bridge is a joke, but that is not what this thread is about.

[fuburules3]

I think this is just part of the game when you play these sorts of tournaments and if you don't like that aspect, you shouldn't play robot tournaments.

 

It seems like a huge stretch to call this "cheating" and I'm not even convinced it gives you a huge advantage. You can do very well in robot tourneys by just declaring well and bidding normally/reasonably.

[pigpenz]

even practicing with robots with another human certain aspects of bidding by humans, the bots only know their own system.

So you can find results get skewed that way.

 

I was just looking at a hand

[hv=myhand=M-9142473-1331904435]400|300|[/hv]

 

humans were playing something bots expected something else, now granted humans would probably bid differently

like a redouble.

[Leo LaSota]

A common strategy for playing with robots is opening 1NT on hands that don't match the stated description. There are several advantages to this approach:

 

1. The robot's bids will be very well defined and require little judgment.

 

2. The human will usually end up playing the hand

 

3. The robots will misdefend, expecting the 1NT bid to match the systemic agreement.

 

Now, these and similar issues may or may not be "bridge", but if they are, then number 3 is, unfortunately, cheating.

ting

There is a simple solution to this, one which incidentally is required by the Laws of Contract Bridge; frankly speaking I am surprised it hasn't been implemented already.

 

To wit: Once a player has played with the robots, the robot can state exactly what the player's bids are. When 1NT is opened, the robot can tell its robot opponents (of course it doesn't literally have to "tell" them, as the robot hive-brain will contain the knowledge) what percentage of the 1NT bids are 15-17 balanced, what percentage are 7222 with 13 HCP, etc. Now at least the robots will be able to use that knowledge in their defense. Among other benefits.

 

In addition, crucially for ACBL games, this kind of record-keeping would serve more of a purpose than "just" full disclosure. It would also prevent players from flauting the ACBL regulations by playing conventional responses to a 1NT opening bid whose defacto range is more than 5 HCP (or if Super Chart is being used, which has (more than) two nonconsecutive ranges of (more than) 3 points.

 

How is the defacto range determined, as opposed to a stated range with frequent deviations? This should be fairly simple to determine; in fact there are more than enough statistics on BBO to work out a reasonable criterion. I think that for a large majority of players, about 99% of their 1NT openings are within their stated range. Probably online standards are a bit looser, but anyway this can be determined, and the range for ACBL purposes would be the one that contains, say, 97% of the player's 1NT opening bids.

 

So even if the "best hand" thing remains unchanged, these improvements would at least bring the robot games a lot closer in line with the Laws and the ACBL regulations.

 

Stefanie,

 

It is very disturbing that you continue to post negative comments about the ACBL robot games. Fred Gitelman asked you politely in a previous thread (copied below) to give the ACBL robot duplicate tournaments a try. Fred even offered to arrange providing you with some BBO$. While everyone is entitled to have their opinions and to post on these forums, it would appear that you are being unreasonable in posting more and more negative comments unless you have participated in these tournmanets with an open mind.

 

Vampyr, on 2012-March-18, 15:48, said:

 

I might do this, but they cost money. In any case I am old enough to know whether I would enjoy playing bridge by sitting in front of my computer facing three robots. In fact I have done this with Hearts, so I have some experience in this area.

 

 

If money is an issue, send me an e-mail (fred@bridgebase.com) and I will arrange to give you some free BB$ so you can give these tournaments a try. I am at a "serious tournament" myself right now and I may not be able to arrange this until after I get home in a week or so.

 

Maybe you are right that you will not enjoy these tournaments, but you said you found Robot Races to be fun and, besides that, what I really want you to see is that they are real tests of bridge skill - you don't have to enjoy them to see that.

[Vampyr]

Stefanie,

 

It is very disturbing that you continue to post negative comments about the ACBL robot games.

 

I have not posted negative comments in this thread. I have made suggestions for improvements in the format.

 

 

Maybe you are right that you will not enjoy these tournaments, but you said you found Robot Races to be fun and, besides that, what I really want you to see is that they are real tests of bridge skill - you don't have to enjoy them to see that.

 

I did play in a few Robot Races, or Robot Rewards, or something like that, a year or two ago. I said in the other thread that I thought that they were fun for a video game (eg Hearts against three bots which is on my computer). At no time did I imagine that I was playing bridge.

[Leo LaSota]

I have not posted negative comments in this thread. I have made suggestions for improvements in the format.

 

 

 

I did play in a few Robot Races, or Robot Rewards, or something like that, a year or two ago. I said in the other thread that I thought that they were fun for a video game (eg Hearts against three bots which is on my computer). At no time did I imagine that I was playing bridge.

 

Stefanie,

 

How can you state that you have not posted negative comments in this thread? Your other published quote in this thread below would certainly appear to me to be a negative comment about the game that BBO currently runs for the ACBL robot duplicate tournaments.

 

"I actually think that best-hand 3 Robots 1 Human bridge is a joke"

[barmar]

To wit: Once a player has played with the robots, the robot can state exactly what the player's bids are. When 1NT is opened, the robot can tell its robot opponents (of course it doesn't literally have to "tell" them, as the robot hive-brain will contain the knowledge) what percentage of the 1NT bids are 15-17 balanced, what percentage are 7222 with 13 HCP, etc. Now at least the robots will be able to use that knowledge in their defense. Among other benefits.

GIB doesn't deal in percentages. A bid shows specific hand attributes: point range, suit lengths, etc. When GIB is doing its simulations, it deals out hands and uses the ones that match the attributes most closely.

 

We have a hard enough time getting GIB to pick reasonable hands for its simulations with the current design (we've seen some strange declarer plays, which seem to be due to skewed distributions when dealing the defenders' hands). Trying to have it weight different distributions and strengths is likely to exacerbate this problem, not improve things.

 

Plus, I think you overestimate the value of this information. Deviations from normal NT strength or distribution will probably be spread out among many different types of hands, so there won't be a significant percentage of any particular type. GIB is already very bad at protecting itself against low-probability distributions -- it doesn't take safety plays. So knowledge that there's a 5% probability that declarer has 5431 distribution is not likely to help it much, since they won't show up in the simulations much.

[mgoetze]

3. The robots will misdefend, expecting the 1NT bid to match the systemic agreement.

 

Now, these and similar issues may or may not be "bridge", but if they are, then number 3 is, unfortunately, cheating.

 

No, it isn't, because GIB N has exactly the same expectations.

 

Plus, I think you overestimate the value of this information. Deviations from normal NT strength or distribution will probably be spread out among many different types of hands, so there won't be a significant percentage of any particular type. GIB is already very bad at protecting itself against low-probability distributions -- it doesn't take safety plays. So knowledge that there's a 5% probability that declarer has 5431 distribution is not likely to help it much, since they won't show up in the simulations much.

 

http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/47563-how-to-confuse-gib-for-fun-and-matchpoints/

 

I can't imagine that would happen with the GIB of today, which knows about 5422 1NT openings.

[Vampyr]

Stefanie,

 

How can you state that you have not posted negative comments in this thread? Your other published quote in this thread below would certainly appear to me to be a negative comment about the game that BBO currently runs for the ACBL robot duplicate tournaments.

 

"I actually think that best-hand 3 Robots 1 Human bridge is a joke"

 

Yes, this was in respone to another post in which I thought my personal feelings on the subject were misunderstood. I had hoped that the thread would not be deflected onto this one comment and my ideas ignored because of it. Oh well; maybe I will have to post the OP again.

[hrothgar]

If it's "the way you bid", then it it subject to disclosure. EDIT: and regulation.

 

Partnership agreement is subject to disclosure and regulation.

 

Partnership agreement is not the same as choice of bids with a particular hand.

[Vampyr]

GIB doesn't deal in percentages.

 

It could, though, couldn't it?

 

So knowledge that there's a 5% probability that declarer has 5431 distribution is not likely to help it much, since they won't show up in the simulations much.

 

But perhaps knowledge that only, say, 20% of the 1NT opening bids are in the stated range and distribution will prevent GIB from being too wedded to the description.

 

No, it isn't, because GIB N has exactly the same expectations.

 

This does not matter for the purposes of disclosure or regulation. However, if it did, then it would be a failure of GIB N to assess his partner's tendencies. This must be done for accurate disclosure to be a reality.

[Vampyr]

Partnership agreement is subject to disclosure and regulation.

 

Partnership agreement is not the same as choice of bids with a particular hand.

 

It is the same as the choice of bids on 100 hands.

 

Partnership agreements may be implicit (40B1b)and may be based on partnership experience (40B6a). What you and others seem to be saying is that when playing with robots, the partnership's "agreements" are a fiction, and the player is under no obligation to actually abide by them most of the time. This cannot be correct, and cannot be bridge.

 

hrothgar, I am very uncomfortable responding to your posts, for obvious reasons. I shall not do it any more, and would appreciate it if you did not respond to my posts, so that I will not have to leave unanswered points that I disagree with.

[nathan2008]

To Vampyr, you never misdefend 3nt? Do you see how many good leads for robots against NT? In fact, i don't think many human players will make such a great lead. The key in robot game is that all use same def, bidding etc. So what makes difference is the dec play. Every time you must try to make a safe play.

[hrothgar]

To Vampyr, you never misdefend 3nt? Do you see how many good leads for robots against NT? In fact, i don't think many human players will make such a great lead. The key in robot game is that all use same def, bidding etc. So what makes difference is the dec play. Every time you must try to make a safe play.

 

I came in second in the last BBO Forums tournament playing with GIB as a partner

[Bbradley62]

Partnership agreement is subject to disclosure and regulation.

 

Partnership agreement is not the same as choice of bids with a particular hand.

But GIB's use of simulations make it impossible to document his partnership agreements in a way that would be required for "real life" tournaments. This is particularly true for his opening leads, which seem to bear no similarity to what is marked on his convention card.

[hrothgar]

 

What you and others seem to be saying is that when playing with robots, the partnership's "agreements" are a fiction, and the player is under no obligation to actually abide by them most of the time. This cannot be correct, and cannot be bridge.

 

 

The set of strategies that players use in robot tournaments are obvious extensions of the ones that

 

1. Players use in indies with other live opponents

2. Pro's employ with clients

 

If the robot games aren't considered bridge, you're going to be casting a fairly wide net

 

If anything, I'd argue that using these tactics with robots has much less of an ethical taint since the robot's are stateless

 

I am very uncomfortable responding to your posts, for obvious reasons. I shall not do it any more, and would appreciate it if you did not respond to my posts, so that I will not have to leave unanswered points that I disagree with.

 

The odds of my changing my posting habits are somewhere between slim and none, especially given the frequency with which you dredge all this up.

 

With this said and done, I heartily suggest that you learn to use the "ignore" feature which would accomplish your aim without any need for me to feel like I'm doing you a favor.

[Vampyr]

With this said and done, I heartily suggest that you learn to use the "ignore" feature which would accomplish your aim without any need for me to feel like I'm doing you a favor.

 

It's difficult to do this when I have started a thread and met with a lot of disagreement.

 

Since you know I have good reason for not wishing to communicate "directly" with you, your lack of courtesy on this occasion is just proving how truly odious you are. I was prepared to give you the benefit of a doubt.

[hrothgar]

 

Since you know I have good reason for not wishing to communicate "directly" with you, your lack of courtesy on this occasion is just proving how truly odious you are. I was prepared to give you the benefit of a doubt.

 

It is to laugh...

 

You joined the forums, started slinging *****, and now you've transitioned to playing the victim card

 

I'd have a lot more sympathy for your precious sensibilities if you

 

(A) Hadn't started things

(B) Didn't persistently bring up the incident in question in multiple threads

 

Be real... The issue isn't that you're uncomfortable dealing with me or responding to my posts.

You get some kind of sick validation out of these types of interactions.

 

Hell, I should be charging for these emails you dirty, dirty girl...

[nathan2008]

I came in second in the last BBO Forums tournament playing with GIB as a partner

 

Now I usually play Robot Reward, Robot Duplicate, ACBL speedball, ACBL robot duplicate. I find BBO robots are very good. At first, they are always trying to improve GIB version. Everyone wants to make things better, so why do we still criticize on it? Secondly, many players think they are so "good", (actullay they are not.) After their stupid mistakes, they also want to argue with me to find stupid reasons. This will make me mad lol. At least robot will always keep silent. I only play with the people who don't argue too much with me now lol. Finally there are a lot of rude players on BBO. I am tired of that. Like our famous <removed>, really stupid. Never will I play with/against him in my whole life. I will definitely prefer playing with robots than him. Until now i don't understand why people play with stupid <removed>.

Edited April 2, 2012 by barmar
Removed personal attack

[barmar]

It could, though, couldn't it?

Anything is possible, if we're willing to redesign GIB. Your suggestion is more than just a minor tweak, so we're less likely to attempt it.

But perhaps knowledge that only, say, 20% of the 1NT opening bids are in the stated range and distribution will prevent GIB from being too wedded to the description.

That seems to be a pretty extreme supposition. Unless there are lots of players bidding like this, it doesn't seem like there's much value in redesigning GIB to learn about them.

 

It seems like you want us to redesign GIB just because Leo has learned how to get good results against them. Instead of having the computer make things harder for him, why don't you just learn from him and beat him at his own game? If he can get good results by opening out-of-range 1NT, so can you.

[pigpenz]

It seems like you want us to redesign GIB just because Leo has learned how to get good results against them. Instead of having the computer make things harder for him, why don't you just learn from him and beat him at his own game? If he can get good results by opening out-of-range 1NT, so can you.

yes, and some have learned alot from that...but you still have to have good declarer play.

I dont even think some players spend that much time looking at other results, the only way to find out

if its a problem is if people complain about bidding or results.

[mgoetze]

Partnership agreements may be implicit (40B1b)and may be based on partnership experience (40B6a). What you and others seem to be saying is that when playing with robots, the partnership's "agreements" are a fiction, and the player is under no obligation to actually abide by them most of the time. This cannot be correct, and cannot be bridge.

Really, the robot has no idea that you are doing anything other than what is on its card. It has no partnership experience at all, when you sit down with GIB it's as if you're playing the first hand together every single hand.

 

If you played every single hand of your bridge career with a new partner it would be legal to psyche on every single one of them. In reality, humans are not interested in sitting down with you for only one hand.

[barmar]

If we were able to do something like this, I assume you would consider it fair if we also taught partner-GIB how to look in the database of past actions, so it could adjust its bidding accordingly -- e.g. if you frequently open 1NT with 13HCP, it won't always raise to 3 with 10.

 

But really, this is a very hard AI problem, called "classification".

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_classification

 

You don't want to keep the records in too much detail, because then each one will have a very small percentage: 13 HCP 7222 1%, 14 HCP 7222 1%, 13 HCP 4443 1%, etc. This fragmentation will make it very difficult for a sufficient number of hands to show up in the simulations. To solve this, you need to group related hand types together -- e.g. all 13-14 HCP hands, all 5431 hands, etc. This is a difficult problem in general, although maybe the limited context of bridge bidding simplifies it a bit -- we might be able to give it hints about how to group things.