[wyman]

barmar, on 2012-March-27, 16:07, said:

Ams might avoid opening 1NT, to avoid the pro transfering and forcing them to play the hand.

Wait, and you mean... pros would open/rebid/overcall 1N with all sorts of trash just so they can play the hand???

Well, this is outrageous! Such a game cannot be called bridge!

[Leo LaSota]

pigpenz, on 2012-March-25, 09:19, said:

some people put alot of faith(time and money) in those masterpoints

While it is true that many players choose to spend alot of money to participate in BBO's ACBL tournaments, I find this to be a realtively inexpensive hobby. 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.

[dwar0123]

barmar, on 2012-March-27, 16:07, said:

You're correct, they're skewed. I checked a few days of my robot tourneys, and it was 67% declarer play, 33% defense (not including the 21% where I was dummy). I'm not sure that this makes it "not bridge", though -- it still exercises all the same skills, just in different proportions. There's nothing in the definition of the game that depends on these percentages, and any given session is going to be skewed away from the long term averages.

It does mean that players who are better declarers than defenders have a slightly bigger advangage in robot games than regular bridge. Is that really enough to make this "not bridge"?

It is enough in my opinion, but fair enough, to a large extent bridge is what we want it to be. A key point to consider though is that as far as I know this is the first sanctioned game that deviates from the norm in this regard. There is no precedent for this and hence I think just doing it is somewhat dangerous without thoughtful discussion and debate. Is it still bridge if we give the 2nd best hand to the human players partner? Where do we draw the line? We have never had to draw this line before and I am doubtful it is in bridge best interest to start moving this line about.

And don't forget the extra information regarding the distribution of high card points, I imagine that can have a fairly large impact on how hands play out.

I think once the arguments are fully understood on the subject the majority of players would rather not see artificial hand rotations. If I am wrong I can live with it, I won't like it but right now it doesn't seem like enough discussion has been done about it.

[pigpenz]

Leo LaSota, on 2012-March-27, 17:24, said:

While it is true that many players choose to spend alot of money to participate in BBO's ACBL tournaments, I find this to be a realtively inexpensive hobby. 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.

Leo
I was referring to what it costs to play in sectionals, regionals, nationals( not counting others costs).....BBO is cheap.......but it sounds like it is really cheap for you if you have had to only spend $10 so far this year.....I bet most people who play in the acbl games spend that much per day, but its still cheaper than the ticket for one session at a sectional.

Heck I would love it if they had sectionals or regionals on line...even if they were robot tournaments

[dwar0123]

wyman, on 2012-March-27, 16:32, said:

Wait, and you mean... pros would open/rebid/overcall 1N with all sorts of trash just so they can play the hand???

Well, this is outrageous! Such a game cannot be called bridge!

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.

[Leo LaSota]

dwar0123, on 2012-March-27, 20:49, said:

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]

Leo LaSota, on 2012-March-27, 21:07, said:

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]

Leo LaSota, on 2012-March-27, 17:24, said:

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]

Leo LaSota, on 2012-March-27, 21:07, said:

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]

Leo LaSota, on 2012-March-27, 21:07, said:

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]

barmar, on 2012-March-27, 22:23, said:

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]

mycroft, on 2012-March-28, 14:31, said:

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]

Leo LaSota, on 2012-March-28, 16:18, said:

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
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

[Leo LaSota]

pigpenz, on 2012-March-28, 17:14, said:

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

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]

Leo LaSota, on 2012-March-28, 18:14, said:

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]

barmar, on 2012-March-29, 09:52, said:

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.