Join Bridge Winners
All comments by John D'Errico
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I can just hear the bots screaming DIRECKTOR! They have an “undisclosed” agreement to use Brozel, when I assumed they were using Cappelletti.

What does a bot scream sound like anyway? 101110111100111010111011011011011111101?
March 25, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There are a lot of things to learn about BOTS. It does not take Zia to win, but if Zia did spend the time to learn to play against them, he would do well. It is not just the leads, but to learn things like which situations involve restricted choice. And there are many situations that might not seem like a classic RC play.

AJxxx

Kxxx

Suppose that is your trump suit? You are missing the QT32.

Cash the king, see the 32 appear. Now, lead towards dummy, the 10 appears? What are the odds that RHO has the queen?

2-1. This is a case of bot restricted choice.

Left bot, if it had both the queen and ten, assumes that you will always get the finesse right, because it assume double dummy play on both sides. So IF left bot has QT, it will play randomly from the two cards, because it sees that the cards are effectively equals. That means if it does play the ten, then right bot is a 2-1 favorite to have the queen.

Of course, this is not true when you play against human opps.
March 25, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree that it would be interesting. But it might also just reflect on the bot play skills of the opponents. And since most people don't have those skills, it would not be a truly fair test.
March 25, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Their names are Left Bot & Right Bot. And of course, that bane of my existence some days, Center Bot.
March 24, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
They do not look into your hand. Nor do they see their partner's hand on defense or in the bidding. So limited information.
March 24, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As a frequent strong clubber, a card that expanded the space provided to minor suit openings and 2♣ & 2♢ would be helpful. Not that I could squeeze 40 pages of notes into it without microprinting though.

A tablet based convention card might be nifty. Store all your convention cards in electronic form, where they can be now quite expansive, thus a great way to store complete system notes too.

Of course, a tablet convention card would also be a serious problem in this day where people might use a tablet for the wrong purpose. And of course, a tablet would be forbidden to carry into a tournament anyway. But it would make a great convention card.
March 23, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Rajan - Self-alert works great for online or behind screens, because partner is not privy to your self-alert. But in face to face bridge, self-alerts would be a problem, because partner also receives the information.

As far as no alert being required for something as long as it is written on the convention card, that would force someone to study every card for people who arrive at the table. While a great thing if possible, it would make pair games like wading through molasses. Worse, suppose you read and memorized the card of pair A-B yesterday, but they changed something important on it overnight? So you would need to study every card, every time a pair arrives.

The idea of providing cards for general systems is interesting, like the standard yellow card. The problem for more advanced cards is I don't know of any two pairs who are willing to play the same version of precision. Even playing 2/1 with a variety of friends, all insist on subtly different variations when I play with them. So any card filled out in advance would be immediately scribbled all over. This may be something that works better online.
March 22, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I tried to “like” this twice. But that just unliked it. So I liked it eleven times. ;-)

As Jeff says, aiming at students also targets their parents. You may even find that you gain some parent members who start playing with their kids. You may bring some parents (who already know bridge but are not members) into the ACBL. There may also be some teachers who will find the game.

Aiming at students creates a population that may not be heavily involved for some part of their lives. But getting the seed in there helps, even if you only gain a few members. While a person who gets interested in bridge at 65 when they retire is good to have, they will often never progress beyond the novice games. A student who learns bridge has 50+ years of potential play time, and they will help to keep the open ranks alive.
March 19, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I second the motion.
March 17, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ed is also my stock market guru, providing advice on which stocks to buy and sell. Along the way, guiding me into turning a large fortune into a very small one. ;-)
March 10, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Someone who dislikes all their alternative lead choices even more?
March 9, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
True, a false card does not serve any real purpose here, holding Q94. It is a baby false card. Best might be to play randomly from the 94. But for human play, if it might impact how you use your entries, thus wasting an entry to dummy that would otherwise be necessary, I can excuse someone making it, just in case the contract might go down an extra trick.

And while I admit that the difference might be only a few percent on one hand, small differences in any one hand would have measurably improved my standing in this event.

So while I do see where you are coming from, I see no ethical problem with making my opponent work on every hand. My actions on this hand might be useful on the next hand (or when I meet them again next week), when they may need to decide again how much they can believe my carding. The biggest risk is that I may cause partner to not trust my carding, or that we essentially create an implicit agreement to lie on our signals. While I won't do that, what I won't do is go easy on my opponents.

Personally, I think that shows I respect them. I give them my best on every single hand, and expect they will do the same.
March 9, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I enjoyed Richard's efforts here. Well, at least it reflected things I did on a few hands.

I do thoroughly disagree with one statement by Richard: (on board 13)

“East showed out. The robot West had been trolling me by dropping the Nine of diamonds.

It West had been a human I would have had very strong words about sportsmanship.”

Left Bot Opponent (LBO) played the 9 from Q94 on the first round of the suit. Do you seriously think that playing the 9 is unsporting behavior? I'd argue that is just a good falsecard, were it a human defender or not. In fact, as a bot defender, LBO sees the 94 are essentially equals, and it plays randomly from equals. So that was not even a true falsecard, an attempt to mislead you. It was just a random choice.

But if you would seriously claim that a human defender who smoothly played the 9 there was coffee housing, then you are wrong. A true false card is completely legal play, not unsportsmanlike behavior. On this particular hand, a smooth play of the 9 might be seen to possibly have benefit, if it caused you to later misplay trumps.
March 9, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Conversely, if you don't check what seems to be an obvious bid to just play in a contract, you might ruefully find the BOT thinks you have 25-27 total points, and have just made a grand slam try. Bots have no sense of humor.
March 9, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hopefully, he has not learned to defend like a bot. Signals? We don't need no steenkin signals!
March 9, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It slows down my play, in the sense that I check and carefully read EVERY explanation. What would my bid mean, what did the bot intend by its bid? Even in the trivial sequence 1NT-2♡, I'll check that 2♡ is a transfer. I'd also check what the bots thought the range for 1NT was. This is not at all necessary for some bids of course. But the habit is important. Do it compulsively on every bid, and you are safe. Well, somewhat safer.
March 8, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You still have that center hand opponent to deal with.
March 1, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As a charter member of the newly created thought police committee, I move that MIke's comment be flagged on general principles. You WANTED to make a flaggable comment. That should be sufficient. You don't need to worry though, because no committee I've ever seen has ever agreed on anything. ;-)
March 1, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
First or third seat, I would happily open both. Second seat, vul? I try to maintain some standards.

The Bethlehem hand (3 kings) will have me showing those ratty majors, possibly get us too high. I'd rather sit and listen to what happens on the hand than open in second seat vul. Not the end of the world if you do open.

The first hand seems just a bit closer to opening. I'd probably flip a mental coin on that hand. It is a bit quacky, and the stiff king puts me off in second seat vul.
Feb. 16, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
#1 and 2 are really just achievement badges, like merit awards for attendance/performance on a web site (like stackoverflow), of achievement points in a game, celebrating birthdays, etc. Personally, I don't care about achievement badges. But some people do. And if it helps encourage attendance, then for something that costs nothing to implement except some programming time, why not?

Changing strat schemes based on how many points they have earned recently is just a way to ensure that those who play relatively little earn more points. If you play more, then your chance of winning (and winning big) is less, because you got pushed into the higher strat. In effect, it makes the masterpoint accumulations more uniform across the spectrum of players. So everyone accumulates points at closer to the same rate. You might as well award everyone 50 masterpoints per year, just for paying their dues. That will have a similar impact.

Changing seeding schemes makes a lot of sense, if it can be made to more accurately predict current performance. Really, that means implementing a performance metric for players. There are a few of them around that have been implemented, seeming to work reasonably well. Unfortunately any such metric will not handle teams from other countries well, where they have no transferrable record of performance. And this is I think the major failure of seeding in events like the Spingold. In that case, the seeding committee just needs to do a better job, increasing the seeding points awarded for teams with no ACBL experience.
Feb. 16, 2018
.

Bottom Home Top