Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Sam Dinkin
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 21 22 23 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It's possible to penalize slow play by both teams in almost all the KO by assessing the penalty in the winner's subsequent match.
Sept. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Strong openings permit a wider variety of artificial responses on some charts.
Aug. 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“1. Whether or not the bid is a singleton or a part of a sequence
2. Whether the bids are one step responses or a jumping all over the place” Any relay where the responses are defined can be described as an asking bid and what it's asking for (which introduces unauthorized information when people ask). Similarly, any initial asking bid can be rephrased as a telling bid (artificial game forcing, not asking). But the rebid would answer anyway. A way to hamper relay systems would be to limit the number of relays in a row by the same player. This would force relay systems to become more inefficient, harder to remember and generally discourage them in ACBL play. Personally I find relay systems much shorter to write and much easier to remember than the myriad standard sequences (but relay is highly counterintuitive). GIB's first system was MOSCITO, a relay system.
Aug. 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I really like the suggestion to explicitly allow everything permissible on the white chart to green chart and higher and qualify the disallowed sections to say “Anything that is not explicitly permitted by the White Chart or is not disallowed below is permissible”. This would permit hard-to-specify-in-the-negative calls like NT as 3-suited or 2-suited takeouts.
Aug. 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Excellent job ACBL, Conventions and Competitions Committee and Conventions subcommittee.

I especially like Red disallowed opening 6 “… In segments of 6 boards or more, a non-forcing 1NT with a void or 10 cards in 2 suits.”

I think this should also be used for Red disallowed opening 2. E.g., “In segments of fewer than 6 boards, an Artificial 1-level opening bid in any seat that could contain less than Average Strength. In segments of 6 boards or more, an An Artificial 1-level opening bid in any seat that could contain less than Average Strength except for an opening bid not showing less than Near-Average Strength that at least one of Natural, Quasi-Natural or with no voids and no more than 9 cards in 2 suits.”
Aug. 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think 2b on the yellow chart (at least three cards in all unbid suits) should replace 17e in the definitions of a purely destructive initial action (a three suited hand). This is currently putting the Weiss convention's cheaper minor for takeout, the Fishbein convention's cheapest suit for takeout, and NT for takeout are all considered purely destructive initial actions.

On the red chart disallowed overcall 2b " at least 3 cards in all the unbid suits“ is contradicted by 3 disallowing ”a purely destructive overcall“. 1 is also contradicted by 3. To actually permit takeout bids showing the unbid suits, the exceptions in 1 and 2 also need to apply to 3. There's a similar problem on yellow chart disallowed overcalls.

These charts are less permissive on NT for takeout than the White chart's permissible ”An Artificial NT overcall at any level for a 2-suited or 3-suited takeout. A 1NT bid in this category must show at least Near-Average Strength.“ Hopefully this is intended and not ”Three-suited" with a capitalization which would limit it to 4441, 5431 and 5440. Perhaps these should be known suits in direct seat?
Aug. 29
Sam Dinkin edited this comment Aug. 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would be playing my same old conventions as on my current convention card which I made in Excel. LaTeX is a typesetting language.
Aug. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, it seems best to award at least as many masterpoints to the team that beat the evening's winner in a 4-way in the afternoon as to the evening's winner.

I also agree that both afternoon winners should count as having survived a round.
Aug. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Je ne lis pas le français.
July 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Computer bridge has a long way to go before it gets to the level of Chess, Go or Backgammon. Take GIB for instance. GIB needs to work on their defense to common bidding methods. E.g., it's defense to 1 Precision is pretty poor. Second, they need to work on their competitive bidding. Their responses and rebids after a top-and-bottom cue bid is not so good. Third, they need to learn more about scouting particular players with regard to how well they adhere to their announced system and carding agreements.

Not knowing opponents' defensive carding agreements, bidding agreements and respective styles will lead to inferior card play and defense, too. The negative inferences available to intermediate-level human players are not available.

GIB also needs to learn to adjust its play style in the face of state of match concerns, form of scoring and recognition that its methods are being countered effectively. That is, GIB needs to learn to adjust its style if its opponents are playing certain methods or just happen to have above average skill at defense. This may mean more sound bidding if their assumptions about likelihood of making a contract at particular strength levels are revealed to be off. They also need to change gears in the other direction to attempt to run up the score against weaker defenders.

They need to learn some face recognition, timing analysis and table feel. They need to sometimes delay to make sure that they don't have a “tell” about what they're thinking about (or not). They need to become expert at voice recognition and psychology to figure out what common explanations mean about the likelihood of it being true or the happiness or unhappiness of the explainer. They would need to learn some about human sociology (smoke breaks) and physiology (late-night play) to temper its view of whether a player is bidding to be dummy or is too sleepy to make the usual play.

GIB needs to be able to learn to call the director and handle misexplanations and hesitations. GIB needs to learn enough lawyering to argue a case before a committee. If GIB wants to play with human teammates, it needs to learn to be a good partner and a good teammate and not be completely mute during the comparison and the break.

This set of tasks looks more like training a really smart generalist program to figure things out.

GIB, you've come a long way, but you're still a baby.
July 13
Sam Dinkin edited this comment July 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
They withdrew the assertion that computer bridge players are better than humans.
July 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Any system design book with the Fibonacci sequence is probably worth a read, especially if you're designing a relay system.
July 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Positioning points go back further than deep-seeding positioning points. Seeding points may be better, but wasn't speaking to that.
July 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The best information we have on seeding is the regular positioning points. Once a team has qualified for a deep bye, I believe it's best to use this best information for accurate seeding within the round.
July 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If the three GIBs together are taking a total of less than 1 min per board, then 5 min per board in the GIB individual would more generous than an 8 min/board live event. And I would expect that would still leave more break time in the GIB individual than the scheduled extra breaks in 4-person play. If everyone paused for a total of four minutes in 4-person play, that would take 16 minutes+ per board.
July 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, it would be best that the purposeful misdeal to give you the best hand is UI if the GIBs you were playing against were participants (since it's not only unauthorized to them, but they're programmed to be unaware of it), but they're non-participants.
July 5
Sam Dinkin edited this comment July 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
GIB will be happy to double based on values that you've shown. Even after you had a chance to double for penalties yourself.
July 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I can't tell for sure, but I suspect GIB counts extra points for shape–including shortness in partner's suit.
July 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, it doesn't seem to have the intuition that this is a holding that will generally win because declarer will finesse (e.g. stiff king behind longer stronger holding and leader not having shown values). I understand there are tough tradeoffs with the current main solution technique.
July 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes. GIB will often lead short honors. Even stiff honors in trump. GIB doesn't like GIB's partner crashing honors. It will also lead small singletons in trump.
July 3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 21 22 23 24
.

Bottom Home Top