Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Mike Cassel
1 2 3 4 ... 41 42 43 44
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Robot individuals are popular, in part, because you have the best hand. Not that I would know having never played in one that requires an entry fee! It's more fun when you hold good cards.

I like the idea of the human with 10+ hcp instead of best hand. A very constructive and potentially variance-reducing and subtle adjustment. I'm not sure, however, that I want to spend too much time trying to defend with a bot who doesn't defend with any consistency.

Strategic bidding isn't enough either. You have to exploit the bot tendencies not to lead from their suits:
http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?bbo=y&lin=st||md|2SA52HQ9DQ76CAKQT9,SKQ964H73DAKT32CJ,SJT7HAKJ42D985C73,S83HT865DJ4C86542|sv|N|ah|Board%2012|mb|1S|an|Major%20suit%20opening%20–%205+%20;%2011-21%20HCP;%2012-22%20total%20points|mb|P|mb|P|mb|D|an|3+%20;%203+%20;%203+%20;%209+%20HCP|mb|2D|an|4+%20;%205+%20;%2021-%20HCP;%2015-22%20total%20points|mb|2H|an|Free%20bid;%20new%20suit%20–%204+%20;%209-13%20total%20points|mb|P|mb|2N|an|2-5%20;%202-5%20;%202-4%20;%202-4%20;%2016-18%20HCP;%20stop%20in%20;%20stop%20in%20|mb|P|mb|3N|an|4-5%20;%205-%20;%209+%20HCP;%2013-%20total%20points|mb|P|mb|P|mb|P|pc|CJ|pc|C3|pc|C8|pc|CK|pc|CA|pc|D2|pc|C7|pc|C4|pc|CQ|pc|S4|pc|D5|pc|C6|pc|CT|pc|S6|pc|S7|pc|C5|pc|C9|pc|D3|pc|D8|pc|C2|pc|HQ|pc|H7|pc|H2|pc|HT|pc|H9|pc|H3|pc|HA|pc|H8|pc|HK|pc|H6|pc|S2|pc|S9|pc|HJ|pc|H5|pc|D6|pc|DT|pc|H4|pc|S8|pc|D7|pc|DK|pc|ST|pc|S3|pc|SA|pc|SK|pc|S5|pc|SQ|pc|SJ|pc|D4|pc|DA|pc|D9|pc|DJ|pc|DQ|

leading a stiff club here is HOPELESS


or leading your stiff heart on this auction?
http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?bbo=y&lin=st||md|3SKQJ2HA83DJ75CAQ3,S9H9DA98432CJT852,S75HKJT742DK6CK97,SAT8643HQ65DQTC64|sv|E|ah|Board%209|mb|2H|an|Weak%20two%20bid%20–%206+%20;%2010-%20HCP;%209+%20total%20points|mb|P|mb|3N|an|1-%20;%2018-21%20HCP;%20partial%20stop%20in%20;%20partial%20stop%20in%20;%20partial%20stop%20in%20|mb|P|mb|P|mb|P|pc|H9||pc|


finally not leading partner's bid suit here
http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?bbo=y&lin=st||md|2SAK842HK72DACKJT3,ST65HAJ3DQ75CAQ94,SJ93HQT94DT962C85,SQ7H865DKJ843C762|sv|N|ah|Board%2012|mb|1C|an|Minor%20suit%20opening%20–%203+%20;%2011-21%20HCP;%2012-22%20total%20points|mb|P|mb|1D|an|One%20over%20one%20–%204+%20;%206+%20total%20points|mb|1N|an|One%20notrump%20overcall%20–%202-5%20;%202-5%20;%202-5%20;%202-5%20;%2015-17%20HCP;%2018-%20total%20points;%20stop%20in%20;%20stop%20in%20|mb|P|mb|P|mb|P|pc|S5|pc|S9|pc|SQ|pc|SA|pc|HK|pc|H3|pc|H4|pc|H5|pc|H2|pc|HJ|pc|HQ|pc|H6|pc|H9|pc|H8|pc|H7|pc|HA|pc|S6|pc|S3|pc|S7|pc|S8|pc|S2|pc|ST|pc|SJ|pc|D3|pc|HT|pc|C2|pc|C3|pc|D5|pc|C5|pc|C7|pc|CJ|pc|CQ|pc|CA|pc|C8|pc|C6|pc|CT|pc|C9|pc|D2|pc|D4|pc|CK|mc|10|

Given the current state of GIB intelligence not only does a robot individual entrant need to be a good card player, and a good tactician in the bidding, you have to get lucky and depend on bot opponent defensive idiocies.

The endgame simply has to be an online live individual with the inability to know who else is at your table. The event HAS to be structured so that your tablemates have “roughly” comparable bridge skill. That will be a thorny problem to solve because you have to have enough entrants so that folks are not playing the same hands and also not be too widely disparate in playing ability.

The next iteration of this kind of competition has to be flighted. The novelty of a 96 board robot individual at a $40 entry fee when less experienced card players have no realistic chance of placing will wear thin quickly and is not conducive to building table counts. Reaching the ‘endgame’ may take a number of intermediate steps involving bots and a more rigorous process of determining what level to place the entrants to minimize the varying player strengths.

You can complain about your idiot CHO bot, but we don't really need to see frustration boil over when a live partner loses their mind when you are having a good set.
July 18
Mike Cassel edited this comment July 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
28 38 & C$48 3 course selections
July 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I find this discussion thoughtful and challenging.
It is in such sharp contrast to the currently televised WSOP where players do all they can in their actions and demeanors to not pursue active ethics.
Not trying to disparage poker. It's just a different game.

However, and not trying to pollute this thread, I find that some of the successful strategies to win the upcoming robot individual involve pokerlike misdescriptions.

In any event I applaud the contributions here and the efforts we make to be actively ethical bridge players in live bridge
July 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So???
why not add that creating tool when you want to make a comment?
July 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
if you want to build momentum for events like this you have to recognize that stratification is necessary.
we can decry the demise of of open events and masterpoints earned when you HAD to play against the best

The ACBL embraced flighting and it is successful…maybe to a fault. How many Gold Rush adepts drop out when they realize they can't compete in less limited events. (And that letter to the editor wishing that life masters should not continue to play Gold Rush!)

In golf variable strengths are equalized by a handicap. In Go the weaker player starts with more stones on the board. The road bridge has taken via stratification and flighting: A X Y in a different section that B C D makes sense to me. I want to feel like I have a shot if I am playing my best.

If this kind of event is to have ‘legs’ it will have to make more accommodations. I think it is in the best interests of bridge to offer contest conditions that encourage as many as possible to compete.
July 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
C$41 today
July 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm speaking to the dialog box when you click on the “Reply to this discussion” link and you see the 4 suit symbols

BUT NO COMPASS icon

Let's say you want to discuss a suit combination
July 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Given the security limitations where you have to have deal pools I think there were other strategies where the organizers could have reduced variance in the competition.

I look forward to the next iteration of online individuals that will address some of the valid concerns raised on bw threads.
July 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Conditions may be the same for everyone but that doesn't mean the contest is fair for everyone

It's fair for bot-experienced BBO matchpoint players.
It' not fair for experienced BOT players who are not expert card players.
It's not fair for ACBL tournament players who have no or paltry bot experience.
It's not fair for ACBL members who are not Flight A declarers

I had a thread re. Venn diagrams http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/venn-and-the-art-of-robocycling/
If there is a subset of BBO bot players who only played in IMP games they would be at a disadvantage in a matchpoint contest
(Peg Kaplan has a recent thread about the demise of live KO & Swiss events that has a component that many newer players don't get IMP experience as they learn the game in clubs).

There is a contingent of ACBL members who play or practice on BBO who don't play with robots. I was in that contingent until two weeks ago. There is a learning curve. It takes time to understand the bot's understanding of auctions, propensity to not lead their suit against NT, their general incapacity to cope with unusual bidding.

BBO robot players evidently like matchpoints more than imps. Otherwise the contest would have been set up for crossimps.
This is perfectly understandable. A top board is more satisfying than a 10imp win for bidding and making a vulnerable game. And who doesn't like having the best hand at the table? Best hand IS fair for everyone and it is not difficult to learn that you don't raise partner with 4 card support and a bare minimum opening. (I'd be curious to know what percentage of bot best hand contracts are contested at the 1 level. WAAY more than live bridge)

If the contest was being marketed to ACBL tournament players who are bot-inexperienced it I think you would not score it via matchpoints which offers a bonus to playing NT and ‘gaming’ LHO, RHO, and CHO. Best strain, safest part scores, safety plays are hallmarks of IMP play that can be detrimental to high matchpoint percentages.

Dirty Harry said that “a man's got to know his limitations”

If you are not a Flight A declarer your chances of doing well are nil. An open event without strats or flights is not fair for you.

Conditions may be the same for everyone but that doesn't mean the contest is fair for everyone.
July 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Carl,
The allure of the game would be dampened if you shackled the human to a common first bid.
By the same token I think BBO bot players prefer seeing 90% and 100% matchpoint scores vs. 6&10 imp pickups. And they like having a neverending stream of above average hands.

This contest was not designed to appeal to the pool of ACBL & BBO members who are not robot-experienced.
There was no effort to create fair contest conditions.

Your idea to increase fairness seems to me, even though well-intentioned, to be a form of censorship.
The organizers were never interested in a “par” like contest.

Kudos to jlall for a nice effort on Saturday…
If you look however at his card, the bots were horrible defenders
Bd 7 takes the cake

http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?bbo=y&lin=st||md|1SKQ2HQ962DAK64C94,SA98HT8754D85C632,SJT3HA3DT732CAQ85,S7654HKJDQJ9CKJT7|sv|B|ah|Board%207|mb|1C|an|Minor%20suit%20opening%20–%203+%20;%2011-21%20HCP;%2012-22%20total%20points|mb|P|mb|2N|an|Balanced%20invite%20–%202-5%20;%202-5%20;%202-3%20;%202-3%20;%2011-12%20HCP;%20partial%20stop%20in%20;%20partial%20stop%20in%20;%20partial%20stop%20in%20|mb|P|mb|3N|an|3+%20;%205-%20;%205-%20;%2014-21%20HCP;%2022-%20total%20points|mb|P|mb|P|mb|P|pc|S4|pc|SK|pc|SA|pc|S3|pc|S9|pc|SJ|pc|S5|pc|S2|pc|D2|pc|D9|pc|DA|pc|D5|pc|DK|pc|D8|pc|D7|pc|DQ|pc|D4|pc|H4|pc|DT|pc|DJ|pc|S7|pc|SQ|pc|S8|pc|ST|pc|C9|pc|C2|pc|C5|pc|CT|pc|S6|pc|H2|pc|H5|pc|H3|pc|C7|pc|C4|pc|C6|pc|CQ|pc|D3|pc|CK|pc|D6|pc|C3|pc|H6|pc|H7|pc|HA|pc|HJ|pc|CA|pc|CJ|pc|H9|pc|HT|pc|C8|pc|HK|pc|HQ|pc|H8|

The East bot had a guaranteed set with 4 tricks won vs 3N. Instead of knocking out the bare HA in dummy, establishing its King while it still had club control.
It led a club from the K into the AQ

My experience, albeit limited, leads me to believe that the winning strategy in a 96 board event is to hope for bad bot opponents and to be careful how and where you do your deviating from more straightforward play.

I averaged near 70% last weekend, but was nowhere near average today when things went from not very good to worse when I tried to get back above average. Last weekend the bots were very friendly. Saturday only once or twice.
July 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Does GIB play SSGTs?
haven't played enough to notice
July 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I feel certain that BBO can create conditions that eliminate cheating with an all human individual.
1. A common convention card. To include a standardized signaling method
2. No human conversation or interaction at the table. No identification of players possible
3. No two hands shared by the same contestants
4. Severe consequences for posting/sharing any unauthorized information/methods

As I've stated elsewhere the fairest contest conditions would require multiple flights so that your partners & opponents are not too disparate in experience

and scoring by crossimps to dampen the kind of gaming for playing in NT. IMP scoring will not penalize playing in the safest strains or exploring for minor suit slams.

It behooves the organizers to not poison the pool of potential participants by holding another individual that isn't stratified.
July 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Where is the partial hand creator tool?
July 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There's no question but I am a dolt for making an assumption that my 4N was blackwood.
I might have had a clue, if I had hovered over my 4N, that partner will not be responding with key cards.
With what kind of strong 2 suiter with less than 4 losers and without primary spade support… then hearts and clubs then with no secondary club honors
does the bot with a solid club fit, first round diamond control and essentially 4 winners to cover my less than 4 losers can 4N be passed?

Bob, when 3N at my first call would be an offer to play, but I promise a strong two-suiter, how is 4N ambiguous? I just don't think this is a game that, being ahead of, that I know how to master.

Experienced bot players may have developed workarounds having confronted gaps in the bidding by the bots.

“I don't care to belong to a club that accepts people like me as members.” -Groucho
“My logic is undeniable” -VIKI

Bot Baby Emerald Life Master
July 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hope my mobile hotspot is working in the car as we are moseying toward Toronto. Will the commentary be text or voice or a combination?
July 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
ha ha
11NT

PS to BWinners personnel

There are suit symbols above the “add column” dialogue box
Why not also put in the icon for the handviewer creator
it took me quite a while to find one and figure out how to manipulate a hand to get the one I wanted
July 12
Mike Cassel edited this comment July 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Why I won't be playing in the real event:
http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?sn=s=SATQT86HAKQT6D2CAT&wn&w=S74H98753Dq53C963&nn&n=SK932HJ2DA6CKQJ52&en&e=SJ5H4DKJT9874C874&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=3D4DP4SP4NPPP

If I wanted to play in NT I could have bid 3N over 3
My cuebid of 4 said: Strong two suiter == 4- losers
My 4N description was: 5+; 3-, 5+; 3-; 4- losers

I love the potential of this kind of event
repeating: crossimps NOT matchpoints to diminish gaming the bots, maximum comparisons, and eventually 4 humans at the table in flights or strats to balance the players' experience/expertise however that can be determined.
What would it cost BBO to buy the algorithms for Lehman ratings?

I just don't have the requisite bot experience to put up with the robots' ineptitude for straightforward bidding
This is a grand slam that even Sadie Kumquat can get to with simple blackwood.

I hope the event garners 3,000 entries at an average of $42. Don't know what slice of the entries will accrue to the ACBL, but I hope they use a goodly chunk to work on upgrading these robots' logic circuits.
July 12
Mike Cassel edited this comment July 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A perfect segue into a situation I had at the table today. I had a LHO who, from experience, does not wait to pick the card he/she is going to play to a trick that begins with a card from the dummy on their left.

This is a tell gained, not from close observation, but from peripheral awareness that it is not that person's turn to play but they are already are committed to playing a card without knowing what their partner or RHO is going to play.

If you are aware, sitting in the same chair as this person, that your RHO, the declarer is the kind of person who IS paying close attention to these kinds of tells, is it ‘sharp practice’ to finger a card that you may or may not be intending to play.

Sort of a scroo y@u for paying that kind of attention.
July 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
how can you market a par contest when the bots very rarely defend at par?
July 12
1 2 3 4 ... 41 42 43 44
.

Bottom Home Top