[Scarabin]

For me, posting "State of the art" is a labour of love. However I am fully conscious that my resources of time, information, and ability are limited. Thus I would welcome any help I can get. There are several areas where I foresee a need ________________ (1) I have covered four robots all based on monte carlo simulations and I could add a fifth, Q+ Bridge but there must be many more robots out there, including some I cannot access. I am appealing to anyone who has such a robot to turn it loose on my sample deals and publish the results. It would be particularly helpful if the robots do not use random (monte carlo) simulations. ___________________________ ____________________________ _____________ ______________ ___ (2) At some stage I will have to wrestle with the question why does one random simulation win the world championship rather than another. Sometimes it looks like pure dumb luck but a gifted analyst could probably sift the hand records to find out. Any takers, please?

[ahydra]

At some point I'd very much like to develop a robot of my own. One that doesn't throw kings under aces or cuebid at the 6-level. But this takes a lot of time which I just don't have.

In the meantime, if you need a little help with setting up simulations / analysing things, I might be up for it. Let me know what it is you're trying to do, and why your posts ________ _________ ____ underscores ____________ .

ahydra

[Scarabin]

Yes, your own program gives complete flexibility. I have been working on a program but the volume of work is mind-boggling.

You might be interested in a program I have discovered. It's called Oxford Bridge and it allows bidding systems to be entered in near normal language. I think the play engine is pragmatic superimposed on random simulation. I am not sure of the actual standard of play because I am having trouble downloading the trial version (perhaps due to my browser or an excess of zeal by McAfee).