[jdonn]

Just brainstorming out loud. What if some sort of collatoral amount relative to the stakes being played were forced to be put down if you played a board with favorable vul before one with unfavorable vul, and then when you play an unfavorable board it is returned to you?

Alternatively (and perhaps simpler), what if, should you play a w/r board before a r/w board and get a positive score, you wouldn't be paid for it unless you stay through the next r/w board?

[uday]

Quote

would it be possible to obligate people to play per 4 boards instead of 1?

I can't force them. What if they quit after , say, 1 ?

[Free]

uday, on Jun 19 2009, 07:06 PM, said:

Quote

would it be possible to obligate people to play per 4 boards instead of 1?

I can't force them. What if they quit after , say, 1 ?

Loss of 100 points per quit game or something similar, the current game is finished by GIB like you do now when someone leaves in the middle of a hand. You might make this an option that the creator of the table can select, so the current formula is still available.

I like Josh' idea as well, but it's probably difficult to implement. With random vulnerability it's possible that you've won thousands of points but no money. It would definitely reduce people leaving after 1 board, but may need some practical adjustments to make people stay longer than 3 or 4 games.

Biggest problem with all this would probably be to communicate this properly to the players. Another issue is that you'll need more funds to join a table.

I also had another idea (brainstorming): why not implement some kind of Chicago scoring for MB? I don't have any experience with how accurate Chicago scoring is, but this could actually reduce the luck factor (which is imo important for 1 on 1 money games). Switching seats or vulnerability wouldn't be a big issue, even getting no points from the dealer won't be a disaster. Implementing this is, at first sight, only introducing a new scoring method.

[jdonn]

Having come back later, I don't like my ideas that much, randomizing must be the way to go.

[H_KARLUK]

"Claim" button would be nice! Is it really hard to add?
Good day gentlemen.

[barmar]

H_KARLUK, on Jun 19 2009, 11:09 PM, said:

"Claim" button would be nice! Is it really hard to add?
Good day gentlemen.

How would you explain your line of play to robots?

[jdonn]

barmar, on Jun 20 2009, 11:54 AM, said:

H_KARLUK, on Jun 19 2009, 11:09 PM, said:

"Claim" button would be nice! Is it really hard to add?
Good day gentlemen.

How would you explain your line of play to robots?

Bridge computer games have a claim button, I had an old one called micro bridge companion that (correctly) allowed or rejected claims that were far from obvious.

Perhaps the logical first step is a button that lets you claim all the tricks if there is no way they can be lost on any order of play.

[Free]

jdonn, on Jun 20 2009, 05:59 PM, said:

Perhaps the logical first step is a button that lets you claim all the tricks if there is no way they can be lost on any order of play.

That would be pretty useless since it's too rare. For example QJx vs AKxxxx cannot be picked up according to your rule unless the suit splits 2-2. If there's still a trump out, you can't claim either. Etc.

[jdonn]

Free, on Jun 20 2009, 04:42 PM, said:

jdonn, on Jun 20 2009, 05:59 PM, said:

Perhaps the logical first step is a button that lets you claim all the tricks if there is no way they can be lost on any order of play.

That would be pretty useless since it's too rare. For example QJx vs AKxxxx cannot be picked up according to your rule unless the suit splits 2-2. If there's still a trump out, you can't claim either. Etc.

So play 3 rounds and claim the last three. You don't think that is better than nothing?

[Mbodell]

Perhaps a useful button might be let GIB see all my cards. That way when it is clear to you that you are claiming GIB will not take a lot of time analyzing the various possible lines since he'll know the layout and know what to do.

Not quite as useful as a claim, but this way GIB will play very fast for you and there is no real problem of someone making false claims, as they'll just get perfect defense as a result.

[TimG]

Could there be some sort of claim coup with GIB? Suppose you have AKJxxx a opposite xxx in trumps and claim. GIB will only reject the claim if trumps don't split 22 (or there is a singleton Queen) so that playing them from the top is not good enough. Once you know that line is not working, you can take the finesse.

This sort of thing won't work against humans (usually), but GIB won't recognize the nefarious nature of such claims.

[Mbodell]

TimG, on Jun 20 2009, 06:02 PM, said:

Could there be some sort of claim coup with GIB? Suppose you have AKJxxx a opposite xxx in trumps and claim. GIB will only reject the claim if trumps don't split 22 (or there is a singleton Queen) so that playing them from the top is not good enough. Once you know that line is not working, you can take the finesse.

This sort of thing won't work against humans (usually), but GIB won't recognize the nefarious nature of such claims.

Yes, that can be a problem with a claim button that results in "yes you win the rest of the tricks" vs. "no you don't definitely so play on". But my earlier suggestion of letting GIB see your cards would be safe from this sort of problem. Because GIB doesn't give you feed back, it just plays super fast.

[barmar]

Mbodell, on Jun 21 2009, 02:42 AM, said:

TimG, on Jun 20 2009, 06:02 PM, said:

Could there be some sort of claim coup with GIB?  Suppose you have AKJxxx a opposite xxx in trumps and claim.  GIB will only reject the claim if trumps don't split 22 (or there is a singleton Queen) so that playing them from the top is not good enough.  Once you know that line is not working, you can take the finesse.

This sort of thing won't work against humans (usually), but GIB won't recognize the nefarious nature of such claims.

Yes, that can be a problem with a claim button that results in "yes you win the rest of the tricks" vs. "no you don't definitely so play on". But my earlier suggestion of letting GIB see your cards would be safe from this sort of problem. Because GIB doesn't give you feed back, it just plays super fast.

Except for claims early in the hand, this is probably not going to buy much. On the last few tricks, GIB generally plays pretty quickly, since it has a pretty good count of the hand.

[basy]

Oh, cmon, nothing, nothing at all comes near to taking out as much random factor as switching declarers would. argh

[junyi_zhu]

uday, on Jun 19 2009, 06:06 PM, said:

Quote

would it be possible to obligate people to play per 4 boards instead of 1?

I can't force them. What if they quit after , say, 1 ?

You can implement a feature to enforce both players to deposit a certain amount of money before each hand (or every 4 hands ) (or each rubber if you want to implement a rubber bridge). So when one player quits in the middle of the hand (or rubber), gib would finish that hand for the guy who leaves and the other player and bbo would share the deposit. This also solves the problem of frequent quitting when strong opp declares a game or a slam, cause strong opp would declare better than gib does. Also, this is really a simple method to implement a fair rubber bridge, which would attract more players and penalize those frequent quitters and offers bbo profit from them. Of course, the amount of the deposit should be tested to have a effect to penalize the quitters, but not to penalize too heavily against those unlucky players who occasionally disconnect from internet.

[nickf]

Rain, on Jun 17 2009, 04:03 AM, said:

I always want GIB to declare my hands. He plays better ; )

I'm sorry to hear that.

nickf
sydney

[neilkaz]

nickf, on Jun 30 2009, 11:39 PM, said:

Rain, on Jun 17 2009, 04:03 AM, said:

I always want GIB to declare my hands. He plays better ; )

I'm sorry to hear that.

nickf
sydney

Yes..might be time to study declarer play a wee bit. (Or lots more..like 30 minutes almost every day)

[helene_t]

barmar, on Jun 18 2009, 02:49 AM, said:

Barry Crane's Rule is that the Queen is over the Jack in a minor, under the Jack in a major.

Declarer holding QJ of trumps is more likely to play the queen first, so if the cards get shuffled badly, the queen will often be over the Jack on the next board.

I would be surprised if this has ever been statistically validated. There is 1/4 chance the QJ are in the same hand, maybe some 1/3 chance that they will be played in subsequent tricks, then maybe the chance that the queen is played before the jack exceeds the opposite order by 1/4, then maybe a chance of 1/4 that the cards are shuffled sufficiently badly, then maybe a chance of 4/5 that the deck was dealt clockwise. This gives a probability of something like 50.5% that the queen is over the jack, so we would need appr. 20000 deals in order to discover the trend with anything near statistical confidence.

OK, this is just some made up figures, and I suppose the true probability might be as much as 53%, or it might be less than 50%. Anyway, in practice you will have plenty of more helpful pieces of information (auction, play, opps tanking or smiling).

I wouldn't call it "superstition" as it is based on reasoning. It just happens to be nonsense IMHO.

[barmar]

helene_t, on Jul 1 2009, 07:23 AM, said:

barmar, on Jun 18 2009, 02:49 AM, said:

Barry Crane's Rule is that the Queen is over the Jack in a minor, under the Jack in a major.

Declarer holding QJ of trumps is more likely to play the queen first, so if the cards get shuffled badly, the queen will often be over the Jack on the next board.

That still doesn't answer my question: why the difference between major and minor? That's what Barry Crane's superstition is about. Is it because it's more likely that a major suit will be trumps than a minor suit?

[jdonn]

barmar, on Jul 2 2009, 02:37 PM, said:

helene_t, on Jul 1 2009, 07:23 AM, said:

barmar, on Jun 18 2009, 02:49 AM, said:

Barry Crane's Rule is that the Queen is over the Jack in a minor, under the Jack in a major.

Declarer holding QJ of trumps is more likely to play the queen first, so if the cards get shuffled badly, the queen will often be over the Jack on the next board.

That still doesn't answer my question: why the difference between major and minor? That's what Barry Crane's superstition is about. Is it because it's more likely that a major suit will be trumps than a minor suit?

Maybe that majors are more likely to be trumps. Or is that the reverse of his suggestion?