Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Scott Brozell
1 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In addition on page 3 the first instance of ‘signals’ should be leads; thus:
North leads the queen of hearts. Standard signals.
->
West leads the queen of hearts. Standard leads.
July 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
On page 1 you could indicate your bidding system.

Page 2
leave -> lead

The second paragraph on page 7 might be edited for clarity, perhaps:
However, this won't work even if it does. East will win, and
->
However, a successful club ten finesse cannot prevent a diamond attack. East will win with a top honor and

Thanks for another interesting deal.
July 29
Scott Brozell edited this comment July 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree with the more or less gist that double is risky but normal and the result was unlucky. The full deal and results suggest variability of E/W bidding; in addition to the already mentioned E opening 1C instead of 1D, some W may have opened 1S (perhaps leading to the 4S contracts); overall, i suspect that not many Souths faced this problem.
March 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A. bot-manipulation and bridge:
I am planning an article on this, but here's the jist of my different take. Do you contort your bridge ? (It is your bridge not the robots that you are manipulating.) This is a question of philosophy and strategy.

There is a spectrum of related situations:
if or how much to alter ones game when playing to teach;
play the Vanderbilt or play flight B;
sportsmanlike dump the match to have a better chance to win the event;
follow the simple approach to restore equity or follow some flawed legalese when an irregularity has occurred.
Different players have different answers depending on what they consider to be winning and on how much they want to win.

When i entered the nabc online indiviual i decided in advance not to contort. So as an example, i did not bid as suggested in bold on page 8. (There are a number of older articles with this and similar comments on robot tendencies.) However, i did not play as if oblivious to the robots; the line can be blury.

B. details:
I have only played 96 deals against the robots. Clearly, the robots can and do play double-dummy-equivalent cards that are not single-dummy-equivalent. However, i am skeptical of bullet (2) on page 2. You write “over and over, we have seen” and other humans have written similary, but i think sampling bias is a more plausible explanation. How thorough is your analysis ?

Thanks for the interesting deals. On deal (2) my quick analysis was to duck the dQ; do you think east will overtake and shift to hearts?
March 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There is a name for this treatment; it's called the impossible partner. (Some play it even if they're not playing precision :)
March 14
Scott Brozell edited this comment March 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That's a massive statement ::))
March 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ask not what your robot can do for you, ask what you can do for your robot. :)
March 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't see it. The 8 at trick 2 looks reasonable although given dummy's weak spade spots and the lack of a balancing double, i might have chosen the T. If South is AKQ 985 J983 AT4 then the club shift puts on the pressure.
March 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, i agree that the Q at trick 5 was not optimal.
March 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
2NT is a transfer to the partnership desk. It is not alertable because that can only send UI. :)
March 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You raise two important points.

1. My discussion of the ♣JxW holding in the second paragraph on page 2 was in the abstract. In an actual deal, the defense may become wise to the situation and may be able to get the winkles out or unwinkle the position. 8-)

2. Yes, i screwed up the timing when i made the movie: you should start clubs from dummy before eliminating spades. This both reduces the defense's information and leaves the A as an entry to lead up to the T if LHR unblocks the J. Unfortunately, it is too late for me to correct the published version. Note that the actual human that found the endplay got it right (you can get that movie by clicking on the traveller link). Thanks for reporting this.

Regarding tone, i may have gone overboard with the word play and references to science and sci/fi. But it is paramount to get the bridge right.
March 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, the JxW holding discussed in the second paragraph on page 2 is a winkle:
https://www.bridgeworld.com/indexphp.php?page=/pages/readingroom/bridgedictionary.html#W
Thanks for mentioning that.
March 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
East is the robot declarer. Human souths lead cA or cK; first 3 tricks are equivalent from a human perspective. The line adopted by the robot declarer starting at trick 4 is radically different.
March 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I examined day 2 board 8. I did not observe different robot behavior under identical conditions. I did observe different behavior under what a human bridge player would say are irrelevant changes. Namely, missing cAKQ43 of trump, cA versus cK opening lead from cAK tight holding. A radically different line of play is adopted by the robots. To see the large effect:

3CE, human opening lead cA, result down 1
http://tinyurl.com/yctejrqo

3CE, human opening lead cK, result making 3
http://tinyurl.com/ycb3jmc8
March 12
Scott Brozell edited this comment March 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Feelings, nothing more than feelings.
Feelings, woo-o-o.
March 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes Ulrich, that is also my understanding. I have observed different robot behavior under identical conditions; i noted some cases in my first pass analysis but have not yet gone back to study and verify (day 2 boards 8 and 13).

Let me clarify that my intent is humor. I have no malice towards robot programmers or robots, after all some programmers have and some robots can develop - feelings :)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lonely_(The_Twilight_Zone)
March 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Congratulations !
March 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A minor point: the diagram at the top of page 3 should have one more round of bidding, ie, it's missing “P P X P.”

Your books, Bridge World tournament reports, and Korner are great. Do you have a template file that you edit or do you use the BW GUI to create your Korner articles ?
March 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What's the problem? 1 says “lead my major,” so I am leading my major. :)
March 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks this looks really useful. As a newbie it seems that tips like this should be available in the FAQ or Help or Create. Surely getting a deal from BBO to BW is a common task.?! (Maybe i didn't point around enough with the mouse?)
March 7
1 2
.

Bottom Home Top