Help
Bab9
Yes, though it takes a bit of searching. Here are the current results. Note that these don’t relate to the previous run; the program comes up with a new ‘system’ each time:
Pass – 1♣: 5+ spades
Pass – 1♦: catchall, I couldn’t find a pattern
Pass – 1♥: 4+ hearts
Others seemed to not occur
1♣-1♦: catchall, I couldn’t find a pattern
1♣-1♥: 6+ spades
1♣-1♠: 5+ hearts
1♣-1NT: normally, both majors
1♣-2♣: seems not to occur
1♣-2♦: normally 3=6=2=2
1♦-1♥: normally balanced
1♦-1♠: 3 spades and a long red suit
1♦-1NT: seems not to occur
1♦-2♣: balanced (only one example)
Others seemed not to occur
1♥-1♠: balanced or long spades or long clubs
1♥-1NT: long spades or both minors
1♥-2♣: seems not to occur
1♥-2♦: long diamonds
Bidding system designed by computer Artifically created bidding system
#161
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 130
- Joined: 2009-December-26
Posted 2010-August-02, 14:34
codo said:
It is a fact that most people here write as if their opinion is a dogmatic fact.
eugene hung said:
My opinion is that this ought to win the award for best self-referential quote of the new year.
#162
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 64
- Joined: 2010-January-19
Posted 2010-August-04, 21:06
Dirk Kuijt, on Aug 2 2010, 03:34 PM, said:
Bab9
Yes, though it takes a bit of searching. Here are the current results. Note that these don’t relate to the previous run; the program comes up with a new ‘system’ each time:
Pass – 1♣: 5+ spades
Pass – 1♦: catchall, I couldn’t find a pattern
Pass – 1♥: 4+ hearts
Others seemed to not occur
1♣-1♦: catchall, I couldn’t find a pattern
1♣-1♥: 6+ spades
1♣-1♠: 5+ hearts
1♣-1NT: normally, both majors
1♣-2♣: seems not to occur
1♣-2♦: normally 3=6=2=2
1♦-1♥: normally balanced
1♦-1♠: 3 spades and a long red suit
1♦-1NT: seems not to occur
1♦-2♣: balanced (only one example)
Others seemed not to occur
1♥-1♠: balanced or long spades or long clubs
1♥-1NT: long spades or both minors
1♥-2♣: seems not to occur
1♥-2♦: long diamonds
Yes, though it takes a bit of searching. Here are the current results. Note that these don’t relate to the previous run; the program comes up with a new ‘system’ each time:
Pass – 1♣: 5+ spades
Pass – 1♦: catchall, I couldn’t find a pattern
Pass – 1♥: 4+ hearts
Others seemed to not occur
1♣-1♦: catchall, I couldn’t find a pattern
1♣-1♥: 6+ spades
1♣-1♠: 5+ hearts
1♣-1NT: normally, both majors
1♣-2♣: seems not to occur
1♣-2♦: normally 3=6=2=2
1♦-1♥: normally balanced
1♦-1♠: 3 spades and a long red suit
1♦-1NT: seems not to occur
1♦-2♣: balanced (only one example)
Others seemed not to occur
1♥-1♠: balanced or long spades or long clubs
1♥-1NT: long spades or both minors
1♥-2♣: seems not to occur
1♥-2♦: long diamonds
Dirk,
As the results do not relate to the first table of results, the meaning of the opening bid is unclear, and hence how the bids combine is unclear. However, it is very interesting that certain sequences do not occur, eg 1♣-2♣. This could open up to having additional conventions added to the system that do not result in the loss of a 'natural' bid.
I noticed there were no 1NT or 2 level openings in this run. Was the system generated with the same hands as the previous system you posted?
In the bidding sequences, how often did the 3rd bid choose the correct suit/NT contact? Did the simulation choose the longest combined suit, or did it somehow give preference to the majors?
It is interesting that the simulation was able to find a transfer method in the majors over a 1♣ opening.
Given that the system changes each time it is run, I would be interested in seeing the results of each run that you have time to extract the information.
Barry.
#163
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 130
- Joined: 2009-December-26
Posted 2010-August-10, 21:02
Further progress, or at least understanding of what is going on: (I'm still just trying to get to the right suit; getting to the right level is another large step.)
1. The program "never" (at least in several runs) uses all the opening calls available to it, and rarely more than 5. Finding a way to rebalance the weights such that it does use all the calls when doing training is my main concern at the moment.
2. The opening pass is invariably the most common call, and invariably converges on a generally balanced hand. Balanced here is not as restrictive as you would normally think, it may have a singleton. However, both short suits (0-1) and long suits (7+) are clearly weighted against, having negative weights when I allow them. Having dealer's pass be the most common seems right.
3. Higher bids are more specific than lower bids (which seems right). Often, opening bids from 1S on up have very specific meanings, like only 4=1=1=7.
4. Intermediate opening bids (1C to 1H) tend to fall into two categories: either two suiters, or bids showing an exact holding (typically 4 cards) in a specific major suit. The two suiters are sometimes two specific suits, sometimes an anchor suit and some other, though the other suit is normally one of two, not one of three. E.g. Hearts plus a minor, but not hearts and another. Devoting a bid to a one suiter seems to be rare. When it does "violate" its system, it often fails to get to a good spot; well, at least responder isn't cheating :-)
5. Allowing or not allowing negative weights doesn't seem to make a difference.
1. The program "never" (at least in several runs) uses all the opening calls available to it, and rarely more than 5. Finding a way to rebalance the weights such that it does use all the calls when doing training is my main concern at the moment.
2. The opening pass is invariably the most common call, and invariably converges on a generally balanced hand. Balanced here is not as restrictive as you would normally think, it may have a singleton. However, both short suits (0-1) and long suits (7+) are clearly weighted against, having negative weights when I allow them. Having dealer's pass be the most common seems right.
3. Higher bids are more specific than lower bids (which seems right). Often, opening bids from 1S on up have very specific meanings, like only 4=1=1=7.
4. Intermediate opening bids (1C to 1H) tend to fall into two categories: either two suiters, or bids showing an exact holding (typically 4 cards) in a specific major suit. The two suiters are sometimes two specific suits, sometimes an anchor suit and some other, though the other suit is normally one of two, not one of three. E.g. Hearts plus a minor, but not hearts and another. Devoting a bid to a one suiter seems to be rare. When it does "violate" its system, it often fails to get to a good spot; well, at least responder isn't cheating :-)
5. Allowing or not allowing negative weights doesn't seem to make a difference.
codo said:
It is a fact that most people here write as if their opinion is a dogmatic fact.
eugene hung said:
My opinion is that this ought to win the award for best self-referential quote of the new year.
#164
- Axxx Axx Axx Axx
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 2,976
- Joined: 2003-August-31
- Gender:Male
Posted 2010-August-11, 06:55
If you only look at the opening bid and not on the bidding as one object, the neural net will not be able to find some implications.
Example 1:
Historical Acol has strong 2 bids, to avoid the problem that partner and opps pass my opening bid.
Just looking at the opening bid, there is no reason to open strong hands at the 2 level.
Example 2:
Preempts are not good for your side, but they can be really bad for your opponents.
If opps where forced to be silent, you could design your system completely different.
Example 1:
Historical Acol has strong 2 bids, to avoid the problem that partner and opps pass my opening bid.
Just looking at the opening bid, there is no reason to open strong hands at the 2 level.
Example 2:
Preempts are not good for your side, but they can be really bad for your opponents.
If opps where forced to be silent, you could design your system completely different.
#165
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 64
- Joined: 2010-January-19
Posted 2010-August-11, 20:40
Dirk Kuijt, on Aug 10 2010, 10:02 PM, said:
Further progress, or at least understanding of what is going on: (I'm still just trying to get to the right suit; getting to the right level is another large step.)
1. The program "never" (at least in several runs) uses all the opening calls available to it, and rarely more than 5. Finding a way to rebalance the weights such that it does use all the calls when doing training is my main concern at the moment.
2. The opening pass is invariably the most common call, and invariably converges on a generally balanced hand. Balanced here is not as restrictive as you would normally think, it may have a singleton. However, both short suits (0-1) and long suits (7+) are clearly weighted against, having negative weights when I allow them. Having dealer's pass be the most common seems right.
3. Higher bids are more specific than lower bids (which seems right). Often, opening bids from 1S on up have very specific meanings, like only 4=1=1=7.
4. Intermediate opening bids (1C to 1H) tend to fall into two categories: either two suiters, or bids showing an exact holding (typically 4 cards) in a specific major suit. The two suiters are sometimes two specific suits, sometimes an anchor suit and some other, though the other suit is normally one of two, not one of three. E.g. Hearts plus a minor, but not hearts and another. Devoting a bid to a one suiter seems to be rare. When it does "violate" its system, it often fails to get to a good spot; well, at least responder isn't cheating :-)
5. Allowing or not allowing negative weights doesn't seem to make a difference.
1. The program "never" (at least in several runs) uses all the opening calls available to it, and rarely more than 5. Finding a way to rebalance the weights such that it does use all the calls when doing training is my main concern at the moment.
2. The opening pass is invariably the most common call, and invariably converges on a generally balanced hand. Balanced here is not as restrictive as you would normally think, it may have a singleton. However, both short suits (0-1) and long suits (7+) are clearly weighted against, having negative weights when I allow them. Having dealer's pass be the most common seems right.
3. Higher bids are more specific than lower bids (which seems right). Often, opening bids from 1S on up have very specific meanings, like only 4=1=1=7.
4. Intermediate opening bids (1C to 1H) tend to fall into two categories: either two suiters, or bids showing an exact holding (typically 4 cards) in a specific major suit. The two suiters are sometimes two specific suits, sometimes an anchor suit and some other, though the other suit is normally one of two, not one of three. E.g. Hearts plus a minor, but not hearts and another. Devoting a bid to a one suiter seems to be rare. When it does "violate" its system, it often fails to get to a good spot; well, at least responder isn't cheating :-)
5. Allowing or not allowing negative weights doesn't seem to make a difference.
Dirk,
You mentioned that it rarely uses more than 5 opening bids. Are these opening bids simulation dependant?
If you have two 7 card fits, is the simulation likely to find the higher suit for the contract or NT?
Given HotShot's examples, it is likely that the range of opening bids may change when HCP are taken into account. As a result, you may not need to rebalance the weights at this stage.
Looking again at the previous results we seem to have to bidding sequences that give the same result. 1♦ - 1♥ and 1♦ - 2♣ (realise there is only 1 example) both show responder is balanced. It might be worth looking at the weights on the responses to ensure no two sequences give the same information. Alternatively, there may be something subtle going on here that may be interesting to look at.
#166
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 130
- Joined: 2009-December-26
Posted 2010-August-11, 21:35
hotShot
There is no question that both taking into account the level of the contract will make a difference, and taking into account those pesky opponents will also make a difference. I admit that, at the moment, I’m doing neither. My justification for this is that I’m working on a problem that I hope to solve. I tried to take into account level (that is, HCP) earlier, and got nowhere. If I can get it to solve the simpler problem, then I’m definitely going to try the next one as well.
Bab9
The bids it uses are simulation dependent, to some extent. It always uses dealer’s opening pass, 1C, and 1D. After that, usage drops off quickly, so that an opening 2NT (the highest I allow for dealer) is the rarest, occurring maybe one run in 10. However, it is not linear, and there are often gaps, such as no 1S bids, but 1NT, or no 1NT, but 2C. In any case, bids at 1S and above are rare and tend to show very specific hands, such as exact distribution.
As to which fit it finds, my impression is that there is no difference between 7 card fits, though I don’t have any statistics to prove that. The weight adjustment does distinguish between two 8 card or longer fits (one major and one minor), so the program does favor the major suit fit in that case.
As for the weights, clearly two sequences should not show the same hand. In fact, there must be some difference between them, though that difference may not jump out looking at a few hands, or at least jump out to me. If the weights were really exactly the same for two bids, then one or the other would always be chosen (either first or last, depending on the details of the program). Of course, not only should the bids mean something different, they should mean something substantially different. However, how to quantify “substantially” is not obvious to me, nor is it obvious how to adjust the weights to make things better if the weights didn’t differ “substantially”.
There is no question that both taking into account the level of the contract will make a difference, and taking into account those pesky opponents will also make a difference. I admit that, at the moment, I’m doing neither. My justification for this is that I’m working on a problem that I hope to solve. I tried to take into account level (that is, HCP) earlier, and got nowhere. If I can get it to solve the simpler problem, then I’m definitely going to try the next one as well.
Bab9
The bids it uses are simulation dependent, to some extent. It always uses dealer’s opening pass, 1C, and 1D. After that, usage drops off quickly, so that an opening 2NT (the highest I allow for dealer) is the rarest, occurring maybe one run in 10. However, it is not linear, and there are often gaps, such as no 1S bids, but 1NT, or no 1NT, but 2C. In any case, bids at 1S and above are rare and tend to show very specific hands, such as exact distribution.
As to which fit it finds, my impression is that there is no difference between 7 card fits, though I don’t have any statistics to prove that. The weight adjustment does distinguish between two 8 card or longer fits (one major and one minor), so the program does favor the major suit fit in that case.
As for the weights, clearly two sequences should not show the same hand. In fact, there must be some difference between them, though that difference may not jump out looking at a few hands, or at least jump out to me. If the weights were really exactly the same for two bids, then one or the other would always be chosen (either first or last, depending on the details of the program). Of course, not only should the bids mean something different, they should mean something substantially different. However, how to quantify “substantially” is not obvious to me, nor is it obvious how to adjust the weights to make things better if the weights didn’t differ “substantially”.
codo said:
It is a fact that most people here write as if their opinion is a dogmatic fact.
eugene hung said:
My opinion is that this ought to win the award for best self-referential quote of the new year.
#167
- mmm Duvel
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 10,728
- Joined: 2003-July-30
- Gender:Male
- Location:Belgium
- Interests:Duvel, Whisky
Posted 2010-August-12, 02:13
I haven't read every post in this thread, but I think it's an interesting idea. Sorry if some of this is already suggested or answered...
Dirk, do you have a limit how high your program can bid? I mean, if it can bid up to 7NT, then obviously your system will look random every time you run a simulation. This is because there's no real difference between opening 1♠ or 1♣ with a 6 card ♥ suit, partner can bid 2/1 or jump to get his suits in.
Another question: why do you look for 7 card fits, and not 8 card fits like we do in the real world? You always have a 7 card fit, so at this point NT calls will be used to show suits.
I think it would be interesting to see what happens when your system can only bid up to 2NT and opener & responder each get 2 calls to find an 8 card fit (or NT in case no 8 card fit exists). Since the possibilities are quite limited and there's not always a fit, this might be less random.
Or even make it more specific and look for 9 card fits, it should be easier to develop a decent system for this.
Dirk, do you have a limit how high your program can bid? I mean, if it can bid up to 7NT, then obviously your system will look random every time you run a simulation. This is because there's no real difference between opening 1♠ or 1♣ with a 6 card ♥ suit, partner can bid 2/1 or jump to get his suits in.
Another question: why do you look for 7 card fits, and not 8 card fits like we do in the real world? You always have a 7 card fit, so at this point NT calls will be used to show suits.
I think it would be interesting to see what happens when your system can only bid up to 2NT and opener & responder each get 2 calls to find an 8 card fit (or NT in case no 8 card fit exists). Since the possibilities are quite limited and there's not always a fit, this might be less random.
Or even make it more specific and look for 9 card fits, it should be easier to develop a decent system for this.
"It may be rude to leave to go to the bathroom, but it's downright stupid to sit there and piss yourself" - blackshoe
#168
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 130
- Joined: 2009-December-26
Posted 2010-August-14, 17:50
Free
I limit opening bids to 2NT, the first response to 3NT, and subsequent bids to 5D. I do this to reduce the size of the tables; the memory used is enormous as it is, and constructive bidding doesn’t normally start above 2NT anyway.
I’m not sure what I said that implied that I’m looking for 7 card fits; I’m not. The scoring system for the program has the highest weight for a major suit fit of 8 cards or more. I have special, extreme penalties for finishing in a 6 card or shorter “fit”, but that doesn’t mean that I’m looking for 7 card fits.
Limiting all calls to a maximum of 2NT is an interesting idea, and I may try that. I’ve got to check how easy that will be in the program. (Yes, it should be simple, but these things don’t always turn out that way.)
I limit opening bids to 2NT, the first response to 3NT, and subsequent bids to 5D. I do this to reduce the size of the tables; the memory used is enormous as it is, and constructive bidding doesn’t normally start above 2NT anyway.
I’m not sure what I said that implied that I’m looking for 7 card fits; I’m not. The scoring system for the program has the highest weight for a major suit fit of 8 cards or more. I have special, extreme penalties for finishing in a 6 card or shorter “fit”, but that doesn’t mean that I’m looking for 7 card fits.
Limiting all calls to a maximum of 2NT is an interesting idea, and I may try that. I’ve got to check how easy that will be in the program. (Yes, it should be simple, but these things don’t always turn out that way.)
codo said:
It is a fact that most people here write as if their opinion is a dogmatic fact.
eugene hung said:
My opinion is that this ought to win the award for best self-referential quote of the new year.
#169
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 64
- Joined: 2010-January-19
Posted 2010-August-15, 21:19
Free, on Aug 12 2010, 03:13 AM, said:
I haven't read every post in this thread, but I think it's an interesting idea. Sorry if some of this is already suggested or answered...
Dirk, do you have a limit how high your program can bid? I mean, if it can bid up to 7NT, then obviously your system will look random every time you run a simulation. This is because there's no real difference between opening 1♠ or 1♣ with a 6 card ♥ suit, partner can bid 2/1 or jump to get his suits in.
Another question: why do you look for 7 card fits, and not 8 card fits like we do in the real world? You always have a 7 card fit, so at this point NT calls will be used to show suits.
I think it would be interesting to see what happens when your system can only bid up to 2NT and opener & responder each get 2 calls to find an 8 card fit (or NT in case no 8 card fit exists). Since the possibilities are quite limited and there's not always a fit, this might be less random.
Or even make it more specific and look for 9 card fits, it should be easier to develop a decent system for this.
Dirk, do you have a limit how high your program can bid? I mean, if it can bid up to 7NT, then obviously your system will look random every time you run a simulation. This is because there's no real difference between opening 1♠ or 1♣ with a 6 card ♥ suit, partner can bid 2/1 or jump to get his suits in.
Another question: why do you look for 7 card fits, and not 8 card fits like we do in the real world? You always have a 7 card fit, so at this point NT calls will be used to show suits.
I think it would be interesting to see what happens when your system can only bid up to 2NT and opener & responder each get 2 calls to find an 8 card fit (or NT in case no 8 card fit exists). Since the possibilities are quite limited and there's not always a fit, this might be less random.
Or even make it more specific and look for 9 card fits, it should be easier to develop a decent system for this.
Free,
Quick recap, Dirk indicated that he was looking at the bidding when only 3 bids were used to find the right suit contract, ignoring HCP for the time being. There were two other systems briefly discussed, one being a binary decision tree and the other referred to as the silent spade system (is there any update on this?).
I was asking about the 7 card fits (did not mean to imply that Dirk was specifically looking at this situation) to see how the program handled those decisions where there is a choice between 2 suits and NT (a followup to some of my previous inquiries).
Dirk,
I was not aware that the program was weighted for 8+ card fits (weighting for major is fair enough). Two things:
1. If you were to look at hands with just 8 card fits, do you see the simulation preferring 4/4, 5/3, 6/2 fits?
2. Do you have a weighting for NT? If so, how is it implemented?
#170
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 130
- Joined: 2009-December-26
Posted 2010-August-22, 16:56
Bab9
I'm back, after a detour through the ICU via the ER; don't try this at home.
I don't attempt to distinguish between kinds of fits in terms of length. 4-4 is the same as 5-3 is the same as 6-2, and they are all worse than 5-4, or anything with 9 cards, which are worse than anything with 10 cards, which etc. I do favor major suit fits over minor suit fits.
In terms of NT, I deduct for having too much shortness in any suit. 3-2 is considered the shortest "normal" holding. A deduction is made for 3-1, and a bigger deduction for 2-2. 3-0 is still worse, and 2-1 worse yet. OTOH, I do add for length in suits in NT, though not as much as if one played in the suit itself. Thus 2=3=4=4 opposite 2=4=3=4 gets a deduction for the 2-2 spade holding, and no bonus, while 2=2=2=7 opposite 2=3=4=4 gets a deduction for the 2-2 spade holding but a bonus for the 7=4 club holding.
This adjustment for deciding whether NT is right or not "feels" right. Of course, the exact adjustments are highly debateable. In real life, the race between the stoppers in the short suits and declarer's long suits would be critical; that level of analysis is far beyond anything I'm trying at the moment.
I'm working on including values, but right now, not so good. (So far, the program has bid every hand the same
) More to come.
I'm back, after a detour through the ICU via the ER; don't try this at home.
I don't attempt to distinguish between kinds of fits in terms of length. 4-4 is the same as 5-3 is the same as 6-2, and they are all worse than 5-4, or anything with 9 cards, which are worse than anything with 10 cards, which etc. I do favor major suit fits over minor suit fits.
In terms of NT, I deduct for having too much shortness in any suit. 3-2 is considered the shortest "normal" holding. A deduction is made for 3-1, and a bigger deduction for 2-2. 3-0 is still worse, and 2-1 worse yet. OTOH, I do add for length in suits in NT, though not as much as if one played in the suit itself. Thus 2=3=4=4 opposite 2=4=3=4 gets a deduction for the 2-2 spade holding, and no bonus, while 2=2=2=7 opposite 2=3=4=4 gets a deduction for the 2-2 spade holding but a bonus for the 7=4 club holding.
This adjustment for deciding whether NT is right or not "feels" right. Of course, the exact adjustments are highly debateable. In real life, the race between the stoppers in the short suits and declarer's long suits would be critical; that level of analysis is far beyond anything I'm trying at the moment.
I'm working on including values, but right now, not so good. (So far, the program has bid every hand the same
) More to come.
codo said:
It is a fact that most people here write as if their opinion is a dogmatic fact.
eugene hung said:
My opinion is that this ought to win the award for best self-referential quote of the new year.
#171
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 406
- Joined: 2004-March-25
Posted 2010-August-30, 11:36
The Silent Spade is still mostly silent.
I haven't put too much time into it, but I'm trying some tweaks to try and make it use some of the higher opening bids. My current iteration now bids up through 2♣, but I'm slowing getting it to bid higher.
One thing that I am seeing is that even though I always start off with random initial conditions, it almost always gravitates towards pass = spades, 1♣ = balanced.
The current iteration is approximately:
Pass - 0-37, all hands 4+ spades unless qualifies for 1♣, 1♦, or 2♣. Also pass with any 14+ balanced.
1♣ - 0-13 balanced with exactly 2 or 4 spades
1♦ - 0-37, all unbalanced hands with 5+ diamonds unless spades are equal/longer. Prefer 1NT over this if qualified.
1♥ - 0-13 balanced with exactly 3 spades.
1♠ - A strange one. Again about 0-13, 1-2 spades, 2-4 of both red suits, 5-6 clubs.
1NT - 0-37, 7+ clubs or 11 cards in the minors.
2♣ - 0-37, 6+ hearts. If has exactly 4 spades, bid 2♣ with 0-10HCP.
Tysen
I haven't put too much time into it, but I'm trying some tweaks to try and make it use some of the higher opening bids. My current iteration now bids up through 2♣, but I'm slowing getting it to bid higher.
One thing that I am seeing is that even though I always start off with random initial conditions, it almost always gravitates towards pass = spades, 1♣ = balanced.
The current iteration is approximately:
Pass - 0-37, all hands 4+ spades unless qualifies for 1♣, 1♦, or 2♣. Also pass with any 14+ balanced.
1♣ - 0-13 balanced with exactly 2 or 4 spades
1♦ - 0-37, all unbalanced hands with 5+ diamonds unless spades are equal/longer. Prefer 1NT over this if qualified.
1♥ - 0-13 balanced with exactly 3 spades.
1♠ - A strange one. Again about 0-13, 1-2 spades, 2-4 of both red suits, 5-6 clubs.
1NT - 0-37, 7+ clubs or 11 cards in the minors.
2♣ - 0-37, 6+ hearts. If has exactly 4 spades, bid 2♣ with 0-10HCP.
Tysen
A bit of blatant self-pimping - I've got a new poker book that's getting good reviews.
#172
- The Abbess
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 17,087
- Joined: 2004-April-22
- Gender:Female
- Location:UK
Posted 2010-September-02, 02:43
I have been thinking about whether genetic algorithms are adequate for this exercise.
In neural networks there are complex interaction effects which I think justifies some kind of Monte Carlo approach. But I see a problem with mating. Gene transfer only make sense if a gene can play the same role in the offspring as it does in the parent. This is why we don't mate with animals of distant species. Now if (say) the first layer of a two-layer NN was fixed within a subpopulation then the roles of the synapse weights in the second layer would be the same for each organism so one could mate within that subpopulation.
As for the approach I have in mind in which the parameters are weights assigned to competing heuristics that guide the construction of decision trees, I think the interactions are sufficiently simple that a deterministic approach might work. I thought of modeling the expected matchpoints achieved by a system as a linear function of the parameters plus interaction terms in which an L1 penalty could be put on the interactions. Then one could arrange a second tourney where each participant was the estimated optimum in the first tourney for a particular value of the L1 penalty. Basically an elastic net.
In neural networks there are complex interaction effects which I think justifies some kind of Monte Carlo approach. But I see a problem with mating. Gene transfer only make sense if a gene can play the same role in the offspring as it does in the parent. This is why we don't mate with animals of distant species. Now if (say) the first layer of a two-layer NN was fixed within a subpopulation then the roles of the synapse weights in the second layer would be the same for each organism so one could mate within that subpopulation.
As for the approach I have in mind in which the parameters are weights assigned to competing heuristics that guide the construction of decision trees, I think the interactions are sufficiently simple that a deterministic approach might work. I thought of modeling the expected matchpoints achieved by a system as a linear function of the parameters plus interaction terms in which an L1 penalty could be put on the interactions. Then one could arrange a second tourney where each participant was the estimated optimum in the first tourney for a particular value of the L1 penalty. Basically an elastic net.
The world would be such a happy place, if only everyone played Acol :) --- TramTicket
#173
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 10,667
- Joined: 2006-May-18
- Gender:Not Telling
Posted 2010-September-02, 02:43
Rather than allowing the program a certain number of bids before it must choose a final contract I think it would be preferable to pick a level. A logical initial point would be 2C as this is often the boundary between weak and constructive openings in many systems. To simplify matters it's also not a bad idea to only feed dealer good (opening or better) hands and to ban a initial pass. Without writing it out to check I believe these conditions would allow 63 possible bidding sequences up to the point of decision. Is that too still many to handle?
The point of this is both to get a starting off point that is based purely around constructive bidding (can add preempts later), that is vaguely legal (no forcing pass systems), and that is more efficient when it attaches more meanings to a 1C opening than a 2C opening (since it has more bidding space). When the models are up and running then some of these restrictions can be relaxed but when a human designs a bidding system they usually start with the constructive, so why not make the same assumption for the program? Finding a way to add in the useful space principle has to be a core of any workable bidding system, and this way is more natural than simply forcing the system to assign x number of meaning to each bid. And finally, removing an initial pass option almost halves the potential auctions. If the complexity is still too high then add further restrictions until the system is simple enough to be workable but complex enough to produce workable results. I don't believe the results shown so far for 2-bid systems allowing a strong pass are really useful at all for mutating from.
The point of this is both to get a starting off point that is based purely around constructive bidding (can add preempts later), that is vaguely legal (no forcing pass systems), and that is more efficient when it attaches more meanings to a 1C opening than a 2C opening (since it has more bidding space). When the models are up and running then some of these restrictions can be relaxed but when a human designs a bidding system they usually start with the constructive, so why not make the same assumption for the program? Finding a way to add in the useful space principle has to be a core of any workable bidding system, and this way is more natural than simply forcing the system to assign x number of meaning to each bid. And finally, removing an initial pass option almost halves the potential auctions. If the complexity is still too high then add further restrictions until the system is simple enough to be workable but complex enough to produce workable results. I don't believe the results shown so far for 2-bid systems allowing a strong pass are really useful at all for mutating from.
(-: Zel :-)
#174
- The Abbess
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 17,087
- Joined: 2004-April-22
- Gender:Female
- Location:UK
Posted 2010-September-06, 02:09
Just got another idea:
We can measure the "similarity" of two "hands" X and Y by how often our PAR is the same if opener has X as if opener has Y, assuming responder will have the same "hand" Z in both cases (where Z runs through the set of possible responder hands). Here a "hand" could be something like distribution+HCPs rather than a specific hand, and the Z's would be weighted by conditional probability.
Then openers "hands" are put into a tree by means of hierarchical clustering. Opening bids are mapped to nodes in the tree by principles similar to those I used for the induction trees.
As a first shot (to make things easy), we could assume uncontested auctions and let responder bid the first step as a relay, asking opener to branch further through the tree, and a relay break would just be to play.
A funny variant could be to let the similarity (partly) reflect similar safety level rather than same PAR. This might allow the procedure to invent multi-bids. For example, a weak 2♥ and a weak 2♠ are similar in that often the safety levels will be 2♥/2♠ or 4♥/4♠ so the procedure might invent the multi 2♦.
We can measure the "similarity" of two "hands" X and Y by how often our PAR is the same if opener has X as if opener has Y, assuming responder will have the same "hand" Z in both cases (where Z runs through the set of possible responder hands). Here a "hand" could be something like distribution+HCPs rather than a specific hand, and the Z's would be weighted by conditional probability.
Then openers "hands" are put into a tree by means of hierarchical clustering. Opening bids are mapped to nodes in the tree by principles similar to those I used for the induction trees.
As a first shot (to make things easy), we could assume uncontested auctions and let responder bid the first step as a relay, asking opener to branch further through the tree, and a relay break would just be to play.
A funny variant could be to let the similarity (partly) reflect similar safety level rather than same PAR. This might allow the procedure to invent multi-bids. For example, a weak 2♥ and a weak 2♠ are similar in that often the safety levels will be 2♥/2♠ or 4♥/4♠ so the procedure might invent the multi 2♦.
The world would be such a happy place, if only everyone played Acol :) --- TramTicket
#175
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 406
- Joined: 2004-March-25
Posted 2010-October-01, 13:02
helene_t, on Sep 6 2010, 01:09 AM, said:
Just got another idea:
We can measure the "similarity" of two "hands" X and Y by how often our PAR is the same if opener has X as if opener has Y, assuming responder will have the same "hand" Z in both cases (where Z runs through the set of possible responder hands). Here a "hand" could be something like distribution+HCPs rather than a specific hand, and the Z's would be weighted by conditional probability.
We can measure the "similarity" of two "hands" X and Y by how often our PAR is the same if opener has X as if opener has Y, assuming responder will have the same "hand" Z in both cases (where Z runs through the set of possible responder hands). Here a "hand" could be something like distribution+HCPs rather than a specific hand, and the Z's would be weighted by conditional probability.
That's an interesting idea. It seems like a lot of work and would be a good similarity measure, but it still doesn't tell you if one set of opening bids is "better" than another. Any ideas on that front?
I'm still working on Silent Spade and it's making some good progress. Once I got it over the hump of never opening up with higher bids, it's now taking off on its own. It's slowly refining itself each day and hasn't peaked yet. Here is the current iteration (the spades aren't so silent anymore):
Pass –0-9 HCP, 3-5 spades, 1-5 in other suits OR 10+HCP, 4-5 spades, 1-4 clubs, 1-5 in reds but no 4441 shapes.
1♣ – 0-12 balanced with 2 spades or 10+ balanced with 3 spades
1♦ –any 5-4 or 5-5 hand that isn't passed, or 10+ HCP any 4441
1♥ – any hand with 5+ hearts that can’t open 1♦/2♣
1♠ – any hand with 6+ clubs that can't open 2N/3♣
1N – any with 6+ spades, 0-4 clubs
2♣ – any with 6+ hearts, 4-5 clubs
Higher bids are all distributional 1- or 2- suiters with no HCP dependence
The computer doesn't like the 1♣ definition that much, so it seems that the room for improvement will come from there.
Tysen
A bit of blatant self-pimping - I've got a new poker book that's getting good reviews.
#176
- Group: Members
- Posts: 4
- Joined: 2017-April-29
Posted 2017-April-29, 19:45
I channeled a Fortran 4 PC program and came up with a bidding system that is non-variable in available bids, based on a dealt 4-3-3-3 probability distribution. Basically if you have xxxx-Kxx-Kxx-Kxx, you would open 1 of the lowest biddable available suit. This hand has 4 QTs.
You ignore all opponent bids. You just bid if you have the QTs at an available level.
You MUST bid at the 1 level if you have 4 or more QTs and you're opening the auction. But if you have 4 QTs and opponent bids 1 NT, your only available bid is double, and only if you have a QT in each of 4 suits. The double bid is not optional.
Once biddable suits: singleton ace, Ax, Axx, Kx, Kxx, Qxx, Jxxx, xxxx
Twice biddable suits: Axxx, Kxxx, Qxxx, Jxxxx, xxxxx
Biddable levels in case opponent bids 1 NT and you don't have at least 1 QT in each suit but you have more than 4 QTs: 5 QTs level 2, 6 QTs level 3, etc.
At the end of bidding, you and partner should pretty much know your suit distributions and lengths (and so should opponents if they know the system).
Since I'm a pretty novice player, Does this make partial sense? There are about 4 or 5 more rules for bidding, and that's it. All bids are mandatory for suit and level.
You ignore all opponent bids. You just bid if you have the QTs at an available level.
You MUST bid at the 1 level if you have 4 or more QTs and you're opening the auction. But if you have 4 QTs and opponent bids 1 NT, your only available bid is double, and only if you have a QT in each of 4 suits. The double bid is not optional.
Once biddable suits: singleton ace, Ax, Axx, Kx, Kxx, Qxx, Jxxx, xxxx
Twice biddable suits: Axxx, Kxxx, Qxxx, Jxxxx, xxxxx
Biddable levels in case opponent bids 1 NT and you don't have at least 1 QT in each suit but you have more than 4 QTs: 5 QTs level 2, 6 QTs level 3, etc.
At the end of bidding, you and partner should pretty much know your suit distributions and lengths (and so should opponents if they know the system).
Since I'm a pretty novice player, Does this make partial sense? There are about 4 or 5 more rules for bidding, and that's it. All bids are mandatory for suit and level.
#177
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 10,611
- Joined: 2009-September-15
- Gender:Female
- Location:London
Posted 2017-April-29, 20:11
tysen2k, on 2010-October-01, 13:02, said:
That's an interesting idea. It seems like a lot of work and would be a good similarity measure, but it still doesn't tell you if one set of opening bids is "better" than another. Any ideas on that front?
I'm still working on Silent Spade and it's making some good progress. Once I got it over the hump of never opening up with higher bids, it's now taking off on its own. It's slowly refining itself each day and hasn't peaked yet. Here is the current iteration (the spades aren't so silent anymore):
Pass –0-9 HCP, 3-5 spades, 1-5 in other suits OR 10+HCP, 4-5 spades, 1-4 clubs, 1-5 in reds but no 4441 shapes.
1♣ – 0-12 balanced with 2 spades or 10+ balanced with 3 spades
1♦ –any 5-4 or 5-5 hand that isn't passed, or 10+ HCP any 4441
1♥ – any hand with 5+ hearts that can’t open 1♦/2♣
1♠ – any hand with 6+ clubs that can't open 2N/3♣
1N – any with 6+ spades, 0-4 clubs
2♣ – any with 6+ hearts, 4-5 clubs
Higher bids are all distributional 1- or 2- suiters with no HCP dependence
The computer doesn't like the 1♣ definition that much, so it seems that the room for improvement will come from there.
Tysen
I'm still working on Silent Spade and it's making some good progress. Once I got it over the hump of never opening up with higher bids, it's now taking off on its own. It's slowly refining itself each day and hasn't peaked yet. Here is the current iteration (the spades aren't so silent anymore):
Pass –0-9 HCP, 3-5 spades, 1-5 in other suits OR 10+HCP, 4-5 spades, 1-4 clubs, 1-5 in reds but no 4441 shapes.
1♣ – 0-12 balanced with 2 spades or 10+ balanced with 3 spades
1♦ –any 5-4 or 5-5 hand that isn't passed, or 10+ HCP any 4441
1♥ – any hand with 5+ hearts that can’t open 1♦/2♣
1♠ – any hand with 6+ clubs that can't open 2N/3♣
1N – any with 6+ spades, 0-4 clubs
2♣ – any with 6+ hearts, 4-5 clubs
Higher bids are all distributional 1- or 2- suiters with no HCP dependence
The computer doesn't like the 1♣ definition that much, so it seems that the room for improvement will come from there.
Tysen
The trouble with this is that the pass will be illegal,in all jurisdictions except (possibly) the local club.
lolocowboy, on 2017-April-29, 19:45, said:
I channeled a Fortran 4 PC program and came up with a bidding system that is non-variable in available bids, based on a dealt 4-3-3-3 probability distribution. Basically if you have xxxx-Kxx-Kxx-Kxx, you would open 1 of the lowest biddable available suit. This hand has 4 QTs.
This hand has 1.5 QTs if you want to be generous and count the kings as 1/2 QT each. How did you manage to come up with 4?
Also I am not sure what you mean by "biddable suits" since your most of your once biddable suits would not be bid at all.
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones -- Albert Einstein
#178
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 177
- Joined: 2011-April-28
- Gender:Male
- Location:New Zealand
Posted 2017-April-30, 19:13
Since this thread has been necroed:
Deep Learning found transfer openings: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1607.03290.pdf
Pass 0-10 HCP
1♣ 11+ HCP
1♦ 10+ HCP, 5+♥
1♥ 12+ HCP, 5+♠
1♠ 16+HCP
1NT 12+ HCP, 6+♦
2♣ Not used
2♦ Not used
2♥ 18+ HCP, 5-6♠
2♠ Not used
2NT 15-17 HCP, 6+♠
Deep Learning found transfer openings: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1607.03290.pdf
Pass 0-10 HCP
1♣ 11+ HCP
1♦ 10+ HCP, 5+♥
1♥ 12+ HCP, 5+♠
1♠ 16+HCP
1NT 12+ HCP, 6+♦
2♣ Not used
2♦ Not used
2♥ 18+ HCP, 5-6♠
2♠ Not used
2NT 15-17 HCP, 6+♠
#179
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 10,611
- Joined: 2009-September-15
- Gender:Female
- Location:London
Posted 2017-April-30, 22:51
Trick13, on 2017-April-30, 19:13, said:
Since this thread has been necroed:
Deep Learning found transfer openings: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1607.03290.pdf
Pass 0-10 HCP
1♣ 11+ HCP
1♦ 10+ HCP, 5+♥
1♥ 12+ HCP, 5+♠
1♠ 16+HCP
1NT 12+ HCP, 6+♦
2♣ Not used
2♦ Not used
2♥ 18+ HCP, 5-6♠
2♠ Not used
2NT 15-17 HCP, 6+♠
Deep Learning found transfer openings: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1607.03290.pdf
Pass 0-10 HCP
1♣ 11+ HCP
1♦ 10+ HCP, 5+♥
1♥ 12+ HCP, 5+♠
1♠ 16+HCP
1NT 12+ HCP, 6+♦
2♣ Not used
2♦ Not used
2♥ 18+ HCP, 5-6♠
2♠ Not used
2NT 15-17 HCP, 6+♠
Wow, super weird. I love the "not used" openings. They could at least use 2♣, 2♦ and 2♥ as transfer preempts. Or use 2♣ as natural and intermediate. Well, there are more holes in the system but this is a start.
Unfortunately transfer openings are not allowed in the EBU. A survey was taken, presumably distributed only to the people who had complained about them. I hope the L&E will reconsider. And I hope that in other jurisdictions, you don't share our fate and are allowed to use transfer openings.
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones -- Albert Einstein
#180
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 10,667
- Joined: 2006-May-18
- Gender:Not Telling
Posted 2017-May-02, 03:35
Vampyr, on 2017-April-30, 22:51, said:
Unfortunately transfer openings are not allowed in the EBU. A survey was taken, presumably distributed only to the people who had complained about them. I hope the L&E will reconsider. And I hope that in other jurisdictions, you don't share our fate and are allowed to use transfer openings.
Back when they were first considered the EBU stated that they had no problem with transfer 1♦ and 1♥ openings but were unwilling to countenance a 1♠ transfer opening (for a minor). Have they changed their opinion on this now? That would indeed seem like a backwards step. The given system would actually work under those circumstances as the 1♣ and 1♠ openings are essentially reversed over the more commonly wanted structure.
(-: Zel :-)