[aguahombre]

I just realized another element making robot bridge a different game.

False claims accepted, and false concessions. These happen at all levels of play --- even in the Vandy and the World Championships. Perhaps these could be programmed in, with a limit on how many times the human player can attempt a false claim

[barmar]

 aguahombre, on 2012-March-23, 10:22, said:

I just realized another element making robot bridge a different game.

False claims accepted, and false concessions. These happen at all levels of play --- even in the Vandy and the World Championships. Perhaps these could be programmed in, with a limit on how many times the human player can attempt a false claim

You want us to allow claims just so that players can make false ones?

Should we also allow insufficient bids, bids/leads out of turn, etc. so it will be more like f2f bridge?

[aguahombre]

 barmar, on 2012-March-23, 10:54, said:

You want us to allow claims just so that players can make false ones?

Should we also allow insufficient bids, bids/leads out of turn, etc. so it will be more like f2f bridge?

I am sure you are just continuing it, fully realizing I was not making a serious recommendation.

[pigpenz]

 aguahombre, on 2012-March-23, 10:56, said:

I am sure you are just continuing it, fully realizing I was not making a serious recommendation.

I did think it was interesting last night when Bessis had the hand where he overcalled 2♣ on 2 Aces he claimed for making 5 and the commentators made no mention that at the other table they claimed for six.

[JLOGIC]

 mgoetze, on 2012-March-21, 04:58, said:

I'm pretty sure noone is competing for masterpoints in the BB, either.

ACBL awards (red) masterpoints for the bermuda bowl

[mgoetze]

 JLOGIC, on 2012-March-25, 00:37, said:

ACBL awards (red) masterpoints for the bermuda bowl

Well yes but what I mean is you surely weren't sitting there thinking "gee if I can just beat this team and get to the quarterfinals I will get xxx more masterpoints!"

Or were you?

[pigpenz]

some people put alot of faith(time and money) in those masterpoints

[jillybean]

 pigpenz, on 2012-March-25, 09:19, said:

many people put alot of faith(time and money) in those masterpoints

FYP

[aguahombre]

 jillybean, on 2012-March-25, 09:31, said:

 pigpenz, on 2012-March-25, 09:19, said:

Too many people put alot of faith(time and money) in those masterpoints

FYP

FYF

[barmar]

Although I doubt masterpoints are the chief motivator for world champions, they do get articles written about them when they win Player of the Year (most Platinum points in a calendar year) or Barry Crane Top 500 (most mastpoints in a calendar year). For most players, masterpoints are just attendance points, but it's practically unheard of for winners of these races to not be champions -- you have to win LOTS of regionals to catch up with players who win or place in major events like the Vanderbilt (and these champions also often play in regionals, so you have to beat them). Bragging rights for these races are well earned.

[dwar0123]

Have to chime in with those that dislike the idea of the acbl sanctioning a game that gives the best hand to a specific player on every deal. Note, I don't dislike these conditions of play separately, but both of them taken together is demonstrably wrong.

If you want to play a bridge like game where you always get the best hand, great.

If you want points for playing bridge, you should be required to play bridge.

Playing where you are assured of the best hand skews the game in at least two unacceptable ways.
1. You have very significant UI about the distribution of the high card points.

2. The game is massively skewed towards your declarer play at expense of your defensive play. Bridge is 33% declarer play and 67% defensive play. I have no idea what the actual ratio is in these bridge tournies(though I imagine it can be found by some here), but combined with the general practice of attempting to prevent your robot partner from playing, I wouldn't be surprised if the player declared over 67%.

This might be a fun game, but it isn't bridge and the problem has nothing to do with robots.

[barmar]

 dwar0123, on 2012-March-26, 14:49, said:

Playing where you are assured of the best hand skews the game in at least two unacceptable ways.
1. You have very significant UI about the distribution of the high card points.

But everyone has the same UI, so it's not skewed towards any particular contestant (the robots aren't contestants, only the humans are).

Quote

2. The game is massively skewed towards your declarer play at expense of your defensive play. Bridge is 33% declarer play and 67% defensive play. I have no idea what the actual ratio is in these bridge tournies(though I imagine it can be found by some here), but combined with the general practice of attempting to prevent your robot partner from playing, I wouldn't be surprised if the player declared over 67%.

This is probably true. Although the robots often become declarer because they get all the weak preemptive hands -- the human rarely has a weak 2. Leo Lasota has mentioned that playing with robots improves his declarer play, presumably because of this skew.

How do you feel about Pro-Am tournaments, where all the pros are sitting in the same seats? Does this skew the game?

[dwar0123]

 barmar, on 2012-March-26, 22:58, said:

But everyone has the same UI, so it's not skewed towards any particular contestant (the robots aren't contestants, only the humans are).

I am not suggesting it is unfair, I am suggesting it is not bridge. You could table all 4 hands and it would still be fair but it would hardly be sanction-able bridge.

Quote

This is probably true. Although the robots often become declarer because they get all the weak preemptive hands -- the human rarely has a weak 2. Leo Lasota has mentioned that playing with robots improves his declarer play, presumably because of this skew.

How do you feel about Pro-Am tournaments, where all the pros are sitting in the same seats? Does this skew the game?

I am not sure I understand what you are trying to get at. Bridge is 33% declarer play and 67% defensive play averaged across all contestants. The skewed hand robo tournies are not, pro-am tournaments are.

I have no problem with and in fact strongly support pro-am.

[Siegmund]

Pro-ams, and all other formats that restrict what kind of pairs may enter the event (mixed pairs, etc), are hit with at least a 20% reduction in masterpoint awards because of those restrictions.

I am actually a little surprised that the ACBL didn't apply a similar reduction to the robot tourneys vs. the all-human tourneys. (Presumably that means they buy the argument about putting everyone on an even playing field, combined with the fact that, as in an individual, there is no restriction on who may enter.)

[Phil]

 JLOGIC, on 2012-March-25, 00:37, said:

ACBL awards (red) masterpoints for the bermuda bowl

Seriously? How many reds did it pay?

The choice of pigment is extremely funny to me. Reds are normally paid for placing in a section of a regional pairs or swiss matches, single-session games or to B and C flight overalls (usually blended with gold).

If any event justified platinums, its a world. Yes I realize this isn't an ACBL-sponsored event, but as long as you are awarding monkey-points...

[aguahombre]

Siegmund: are you sure a mixed pairs event is hit with a reduction because of that restriction? That would seem to be about as silly as a reduction for the Blue Ribbon, the Life Master, or the Platinum.

But, OTOH, I have seen sillier things. So maybe it is true. An event being run concurrent with an open event, but restricted by gender or other criteria, would be a different matter.

[pigpenz]

 aguahombre, on 2012-March-27, 09:08, said:

Siegmund: are you sure a mixed pairs event is hit with a reduction because of that restriction? That would seem to be about as silly as a reduction for the Blue Ribbon, the Life Master, or the Platinum.

But, OTOH, I have seen sillier things. So maybe it is true. An event being run concurrent with an open event, but restricted by gender or other criteria, would be a different matter.

yeah in old days you got hardly anything for winning mens or womens pairs at a regional, though the mens pairs was generally the most fun event to play in.

[pigpenz]

 barmar, on 2012-March-26, 22:58, said:

How do you feel about Pro-Am tournaments, where all the pros are sitting in the same seats? Does this skew the game?

ah, but if there was no best hand situation for south and you had the option of picking your seat would you go with or against the field?

[wyman]

 Phil, on 2012-March-27, 09:00, said:

Seriously? How many reds did it pay?

web2.acbl.org/codification/CHAPTER%207-%20Section%20c.pdf

[barmar]

 dwar0123, on 2012-March-27, 00:14, said:

\I am not sure I understand what you are trying to get at. Bridge is 33% declarer play and 67% defensive play averaged across all contestants. The skewed hand robo tournies are not, pro-am tournaments are.

You're correct, they're skewed. I checked a few days of my robot tourneys, and it was 67% declarer play, 33% defense (not including the 21% where I was dummy). I'm not sure that this makes it "not bridge", though -- it still exercises all the same skills, just in different proportions. There's nothing in the definition of the game that depends on these percentages, and any given session is going to be skewed away from the long term averages.

It does mean that players who are better declarers than defenders have a slightly bigger advangage in robot games than regular bridge. Is that really enough to make this "not bridge"?

The reason I brought up pro-am is because I can imagine the pros being more aggressive and the ams more timid, so declarer play will be skewed towards the pros. Ams might avoid opening 1NT, to avoid the pro transfering and forcing them to play the hand.