Best Hand AI or UI?

[barmar]

Bridge is defined by its Laws.

Tell that to all the thousands of people playing "kitchen table bridge" who have probably never heard of the Laws.

 

Many games get by perfectly well with "house rules". The official rules of Monopoly never mentioned getting money for landing on Free Parking, but it was always part of the game as I learned it.

[barmar]

I've played hundreds (thousand?) of hours of robot bridge, and I also play plenty of f2f and online bridge with humans. I don't notice a huge difference in the games. Yes, I bid a little differently when playing best-hand bridge -- if partner opens and I have a minimum opening hand with support for partner, I just jump to game instead of bidding slowly, since I know it can't have extra values (although sometimes it has extra shape and we miss a slam). But there are human players playing limited opening systems who do the same exact thing -- 1♥-4♥ could either be a weak preempt or a minimum game force.

 

There are also inferences that can be taken when declaring.

 

Can you make any argument that this isn't bridge other than a slavish devotion to outdated laws? It's like people arguing that homosexuality is wrong and evolution isn't true because of things written in a religious book 2,000 years ago.

[Zelandakh]

Tell that to all the thousands of people playing "kitchen table bridge" who have probably never heard of the Laws.

 

Many games get by perfectly well with "house rules". The official rules of Monopoly never mentioned getting money for landing on Free Parking, but it was always part of the game as I learned it.

I doubt anyone has any issue with what Auntie Vera calls her house game. She could play Skat and call it Bridge for all I care. The same is true for Monopoly. Official events are played using the official rules where Free Parking is exactly that, a free place to park your token for a throw.

 

The part of your posts where I do object to is in comparing the idea that the definition of "bridge" is what the governing body of the game call it with the prejudiced view that homosexuality is wrong and the rejection of science through religion. There is nothing religious or prejudiced about the Laws of Bridge. Nonetheless, they do define what is, and is not, bridge. For example, say I invent a game which is identical to bridge except that NT scores 40 per trick. This game has the same skillset as bridge and is indeed even closer to normal bridge than Best Hand. I can even call it bridge when I play it at home. However, it is not bridge. Why is it not bridge? Because the Laws tell me what bridge is. The same is true for Ghoulash and any one of a million other possible variants. How many of these variants do you consider to be "bridge"?

[semeai]

1. Why do we care if Best Hand Bridge is "Bridge" or not? The ACBL has decided to give out masterpoints for it. Seems like a good move for their business and for popularization of the game. If you want to argue against this, please do so directly; I'm not seeing how the semantics of the situation imply this to be undesirable.

 

2. The fact you have the best hand should certainly be treated as AI.

 

3. It's quite fun and highly related to many, if not all, bridge skills.

 

4. A par contest as a side event at a tournament would be fun, and this certainly won't fit any strict definition of bridge. So would a monitored Best Hand side event (more fun/worthwhile as the computer players get better of course). [This is in not in any way to suggest that declarer play against GiB is at all similar to a par contest.]

[barmar]

Why is it not bridge? Because the Laws tell me what bridge is.

The problem is that the Laws are slow to catch up. They only revise them once a decade. So no matter what anyone thinks, we can't call this bridge for another 5 years or so?

 

Furthermore, changes like this are usually made in response to a need. If we didn't have best-hand games to begin with, the law committees wouldn't have any reason to consider allowing them in the next revision. It's a Catch-22: they're not allowed, so we don't try to run them, so they don't change the laws to allow them. A number of the changes in the 2007 Laws were done to authorize regulations that various RAs (ACBL in particular) had already enacted and were enforcing for years.

 

In general, Laws are always behind the times for these reasons. If you don't allow a little civil disobedience, there's no evolution of the laws. Sometimes you have to look to the spirit of the laws rather than strict adherence to the letter.

[Vampyr]

It's a Catch-22: they're not allowed, so we don't try to run them, so they don't change the laws to allow them.

 

No one in this thread is suggesting that the best-hand game should not be allowed; the question is whether a RA should give out their masterpoints for it.

[barmar]

I think giving out masterpoints is needed to force the laws commission to take up the issue. Otherwise, it will seem too inconsequential to bother addressing in the laws.

[Zelandakh]

I think giving out masterpoints is needed to force the laws commission to take up the issue. Otherwise, it will seem too inconsequential to bother addressing in the laws.

So let's also give out MP for Ghoulash tournaments and my variant where NT scores 40 per trick. Or how about forcing the RAs to take up the issue of having "No Holds Barred" bidding systems, where one can assign any meaning to any call providing there is proper disclosure? Why is this particular variant worthy of forcing on the Lawmakers but the other million variants not? At the end of the day this is perhaps an example of the ACBL doing what it wants and the WBF either accepts it or looks powerless. It is a shame that the process tends to work like this. Perhaps the English FA should take a leaf from the same playbook and simply introduce goal line technology in all Premier League games, then see what UEFA and FIFA decide to do about it.

[gordontd]

Can you make any argument that this isn't bridge other than a slavish devotion to outdated laws?

I certainly find it dull and narrow, and would prefer it if there were more robot games available that don't force us to have the best hand.

[gordontd]

it seems like best-hand bridge meets the "primary objective" the WBFLC describes. The intent of the best-hand design is to make the human play more hands. How is making him dummy more going to ensure that the winner is the best in bridge?

There's more to bridge than declarer play - like bidding & defence.

[Vampyr]

I think giving out masterpoints is needed to force the laws commission to take up the issue. Otherwise, it will seem too inconsequential to bother addressing in the laws.

 

Sort of. But if the WBFLC do take up the issue and decide that related variants such as best hand cannot be played under its aegis, what will the ACBL do? They will call the masterpoints for such games something else, and treat them the same as masterpoints (perhaps by offering some sort of "conversion". So perhaps this is a non-issue, since the ACBL will do what they want. I would be interested to know why the proposal to "cut off" the best hand games was rejected. It may earn revenue, but it might actually be counterproductive to the presumed goal of the ACBL -- to promote bridge in North America. Offering people an alternative that is more like a video game (which are much more popular these days than card and board games) may keep those people out of bridge.

 

Of course, the question "what is bridge" goes beyond the best hand issue. Is bridge defined by the mechanics of bidding and playing the cards, suitable for playing as solitaire? Or is the social interaction, with people actually meeting and talking and perhaps even doing unpredictable things an essential aspect?

[Leo LaSota]

No one in this thread is suggesting that the best-hand game should not be allowed; the question is whether a RA should give out their masterpoints for it.

 

There are many different forms of the game that allow for masterpoints. There are many arguments for and against other forms of the game that award masterpoints. As an example, Imp Pairs introduces more randomness than just about any other form of the game. If you are unlucky enough to play a board against a pair that lucks their way into a poor but making vulnerable slam, you are at a tremendous disadvantage. At least in matchpoint events, one board is worth no more weight than any other board. Should Imp Pairs events be allowed to award masterpoints? I believe that Imp Pairs and "Best Hand" robot tournaments should both continue to award masterpoints. While the events have varied amounts of luck involved (Luck plays a much larger factor in Imp Pairs), they also focus on specific skills to succeed at the game of bridge.

[gnasher]

No one in this thread is suggesting that the best-hand game should not be allowed; the question is whether a RA should give out their masterpoints for it.

And the answer is very easy: they're the ACBL's masterpoints and they can do whatever they like with them. The WBF doesn't regulate the issuing of masterpoints by its member organisations, and quite right too. If the ACBL considers that issuing masterpoints for robot games helps it to meet its objectives, I can't see why anyone outside the ACBL should care.

[barmar]

I can't see why anyone outside the ACBL should care.

I guess some people think that it degades the game as a whole, by encouraging these ersatz forms.

 

It kind of reminds me of the people who feel the need to "defend marriage" by preventing gays from getting married.

[Zelandakh]

It kind of reminds me of the people who feel the need to "defend marriage" by preventing gays from getting married.

Yet another improper and degrading insult, once again suggesting that pointing out the Best Hand does not meet the (current) definiton of Bridge is in some way similar to prejudice against gays. Honestly barmar, where do you get off on this crap? By my reckoning you owe me an apology for, effectively, calling me homophobic twice in a public forum without grounds. You are staff here and I expect better from you. I repeat again: there is nothing prejudiced about the Laws of Bridge.

 

As I said previously, why do we not give out MP for Ghoulash? Why not for a bridge variant where NT scores 40 per trick? How about a Best Hand variant where the Human simply plays the par contract without bidding or defence being involved? How about Skat? Where do you draw the line on what is bridge and what is something else? I will say again that the only sensible way of doing that is to look to the Laws. Since you never answered any of the questions I set in this area I assume that you do not have a better way either.

 

The point here is this. Everyone knows that bridge has a problem. Numbers are considerably down in many countries. The pool of young players who are willing to invest the time to gain an interest in bridge is already limited. There is a danger that offering a bridge-like game that is simpler and avoids some of the issues the game has (misunderstandings, grumpy opps, TD rulings, etc) or, as Vampyr put it, is "more like a video game", will channel some of that pool away from getting interested in the full game.

 

In addition to that, it has become clear from reading various threads here that the ACBL use these MPs for seeding purposes. Do you not think that seeding should be based on performance playing Bridge and not various bridge-related games? I have already seen complaints that MP inflation means the goalposts are constantly shifting for those at the bottom trying to work their way up. It is difficult to see how this can make life any easier for them. Unless they give up the normal tournaments to play Best Hand anyway, but that is surely not the aim here.

 

Once again barmar, I would appreciate it if you refrain from any such future personal attacks. I will consider anything further along these lines from you or the other Yellows here as being representative of the views of BBO. If the BBO management disagree with this then I suggest they provide training to their staff members on what is and is not appropriate to write whilst acting as a representative of the company. Please take note.

[uday]

Once again barmar, I would appreciate it if you refrain from any such future personal attacks. I will consider anything further along these lines from you or the other Yellows here as being representative of the views of BBO. If the BBO management disagree with this then I suggest they provide training to their staff members on what is and is not appropriate to write whilst acting as a representative of the company. Please take note.

 

Opinions in our forums don't usually ( ever?) reflect that of the poster's company regardless of who the poster happens to work for.

 

I don't think that you were attacked - however, if YOU think you were attacked, that's not good anyway. We'll have a word.

 

 

U

[barmar]

I'm sorry for the poor analogy I chose. I didn't intend it as an attack, but I see how it could have been interpreted as such.

[blackshoe]

What amazes me is how people are often so completely ready to assume any statement at all is a personal attack. :blink:

[barmar]

In addition to that, it has become clear from reading various threads here that the ACBL use these MPs for seeding purposes. Do you not think that seeding should be based on performance playing Bridge and not various bridge-related games? I have already seen complaints that MP inflation means the goalposts are constantly shifting for those at the bottom trying to work their way up. It is difficult to see how this can make life any easier for them. Unless they give up the normal tournaments to play Best Hand anyway, but that is surely not the aim here.

Except for Leo Lasota, I don't think anyone manages to rack up enough points here to affect their seeding. And Leo did well enough in Philly that I believe his performance in our games reflects his bridge ability, not just his ability at robot bridge.

 

Also, except for the Spingold and Vanderbilt, I don't see masterpoints mentioned in the guidelines for seeding, which are here. It seems like seeding in pair events is done subjectively -- well known expert players get seeded. The formula for seeding the Spingold and Vanderbilt can be found here.

[lalldonn]

As I said previously, why do we not give out MP for Ghoulash? Why not for a bridge variant where NT scores 40 per trick? How about a Best Hand variant where the Human simply plays the par contract without bidding or defence being involved? How about Skat? Where do you draw the line on what is bridge and what is something else? I will say again that the only sensible way of doing that is to look to the Laws. Since you never answered any of the questions I set in this area I assume that you do not have a better way either.

We don't give out MP for those games because there isn't a demand for it. If there was one, someone would start giving out masterpoints for those games as long as they were allowed to do so.

 

 

The point here is this. Everyone knows that bridge has a problem. Numbers are considerably down in many countries. The pool of young players who are willing to invest the time to gain an interest in bridge is already limited. There is a danger that offering a bridge-like game that is simpler and avoids some of the issues the game has (misunderstandings, grumpy opps, TD rulings, etc) or, as Vampyr put it, is "more like a video game", will channel some of that pool away from getting interested in the full game.

Most people would think that is totally backwards, and that getting people interested in a game which is like bridge but simpler is in fact a great way to attract people to bridge. Didn't lots of people learn whist or something else like that before bridge? Besides, to receive their masterpoints these people have to join the ACBL. They have officially become members of a large bridge organization. That sounds pretty good for bridge!

 

Also, since you seem to feel this game is better than bridge as it's similar but lacking in misunderstandings, grumpy opps, and TD rulings, you should consider it a good thing that this game is becoming more popular.

 

 

In addition to that, it has become clear from reading various threads here that the ACBL use these MPs for seeding purposes. Do you not think that seeding should be based on performance playing Bridge and not various bridge-related games? I have already seen complaints that MP inflation means the goalposts are constantly shifting for those at the bottom trying to work their way up. It is difficult to see how this can make life any easier for them. Unless they give up the normal tournaments to play Best Hand anyway, but that is surely not the aim here.

I can assure you this is the least of what you should be worried about if you were concerned about the (in)accuracy of masterpoints and seeding done by the ACBL.

[Leo LaSota]

Interesting. I guess getting people their masterpoints is more important than anything else.

 

Please, ACBL, credit me with the points I need. No, I haven't earned them, but apparently that doesn't matter. :ph34r:

 

What is more important to the ACBL than anything else is to continue to foster interest and participation and keep the game going strong in the future. Fred Gitelman and all of the workers for BBO deserve our continued praise and thanks for all that they do to promote the game of bridge.

 

The ACBL robot tournaments have seen a large number of members participating. This has meant great news for the ACBL by offering another way for gathering additional members, as well as increased participation in ACBL events from many of the members that choose to play in the ACBL robot tournaments. While it is true that there will always be disagreement as to whether these tournaments should be offered as another way for members to earn masterpoints, there is no argument against the fact that regular participation in these events will improve an individual's declarer play. The quote "Please, ACBL, credit me with the points I need. No, I haven't earned them, but apparently that doesn't matter" is very disrespectful.

[barmar]

I wonder what people who object to masterpoints for best-hand games think of Bridge Plus, which also awards masterpoints. These are games for beginners (less than 5 masterpoints), run by a teacher, and where the players are encouraged to ask the teacher for advice during the game. The teacher is allowed to cook the deals, such as to exercise what was taught in a lesson or avoid tough bidding problems that they're not ready for, and can even purchase special "newcomer hands" from ACBL (I don't know if these are actually cooked, they just come with analyses).

[nige1]

Barmar is right that BBO and other Bridge sites are the last tenuous hope for the future of Bridge:

• Exciting tournaments (where you dealt you the best hand and can practice with and against patient and polite robots) are just one attraction.
• On-line teaching libraries and facilities like the Begiiners and Intermediate Lounge
• Free view-graph where you can watch world-class play with live expert commentary.
• Tools for dealing practice hands and double-dummy analysis.
• Above all simplified rules that the beginner can learn relatively quickly: mediating a friendly milieu, reducing the opportunity for mechanical error, minimizing unauthorized information, immensely improving disclosure, and encouraging claims and quicker play.

A game is its rules, so the purists are trivially correct -- On-line bridge it is not traditional Bridge. But on-line Bridge points the way to the future of Bridge -- unless our legal dinosaurs manage to immolate bridge-players in an extinction event.

[barmar]

Suppose we decided to follow the laws for the masterpoint tourneys. So we offered random-hand tournaments for masterpoints, and best-hand tournaments just for fun.

 

If the best-hand tourneys got better attendance, that should be a signal to the lawmakers that players really want this style of robot bridge, since they're willing to forego masterpoints to play it, and it should be allowed in the next version of the laws. That's one way for things to evolve.

 

But suppose the random-hand tourneys do better. That doesn't mean there isn't a strong desire for revising the laws, it might be because players want masterpoints even more. But is it really best to force players to make this choice, when the laws could be revised to allow the best of both worlds?

 

And in either scenario, we reduce players' enjoyment until the next law revision. Are we and ACBL serving our constituency best with slavish adherence to laws that we consider outdated?

[mycroft]

Well, when it impacts the games I choose to play in (BKOs, and my attempt to beat MP inflation enough to ever get out of flight C), then maybe.

 

What if it turned out (I realize this is facetious) that bridge computers could play at the level of chess computers (i.e. better than all but the best humans, or possibly better than all humans)? What if owners and makers of bridge computer software found it more fun to enter games where they were allowed computer assist? Should we still be awarding masterpoints, because it's still the "best of all worlds"?

 

I don't believe that the ACBL is *not* serving its constituency by carefully (albeit perhaps glacially) reviewing whether bridge-and games are "bridge" enough to be rated the same way that 4-people sitting around a table bridge is rated - and even saying "no, this is too far". While I'm sure that robot games for monsterpoints are popular, and you have the statistics I don't have, I still bet that less than 10% of ACBL membership (I'll even go as far as to say < 10% of *active* ACBL membership) has ever played one.

 

It's a measure of skill, sure. It has correlation - perhaps even close correlation - with bridge skill. It might be even harder than an equivalent game of bridge. Should the ACBL be awarding monsterpoints for success in this game? Not necessarily. Maybe they should set up a separate ladder/rating, like the chess world does with separate blitz chess and real chess rankings. Frankly, I'd rather they pay attention to the long-term, well-known issues that exist in GCC FtF bridge than anything doing with games that don't involve 4 humans at a table; but I'm just as biased as everybody else here to my own preferred fun levels.

 

As far as Bridge Plus goes, I wouldn't have a problem with Robot-assisted ACBL masterpoints if they were limited to 5, either. Frankly, as long as it helps 4-humans-at-a-table bridge, I don't care if you award 5 MPs for playing poker well :-).