BBO Discussion Forums: Master points, the laws, the ACBL, that sort of thing... - BBO Discussion Forums

bridgehand, on 2012-March-19, 01:28, said:

I find it very difficult to see the connection between bidding style and arguments against rotating hands...

With this said and done, in an earlier post in this thread I noted that there are certain bidding styles that work better with / against the bots.

One of those involves frequent NT openings. (Essentially) the NT openings are used to describe plying strength and does not necessarily promise a balanced hand.

This style wins in a couple ways:

1. The Bots have fairly well developed NT systems so you avoid potentially ambiguous sequences following suit openings
2. Sometimes the Bots misdefend because they expect a balanced hand

With this said and done, I don't see anything wrong with this behavior.

More specifically, if you think that this constitutes "curious bidding skills not found at the table" I'd suggest that you've never played against a pro "carrying" a second rate client.

The real difference here has nothing to do with "bidding style", but rather that you have the ability to look at the hand records.

bridgehand, on 2012-March-19, 01:28, said:

This is really the crux of it to my mind. It is clear that these "Best Hand" tournaments are a game of skill, with a skill-set overlapping that for real bridge significantly. The question is simply whether that game is actually bridge. The question has still not been answered. Clearly rotating the deal to give South the best hand is a violation of one of the Laws of bridge. Would anyone take the BB seriously if they did this? That would still be a test of skill - same at both tables. And if you think it is right to give out MPs for bridge-like games then why not other alternatives like Minibridge or problem-solving contests? Or we can have a game where BITs are allowed for the purposes of deceiving opponents. How about allowing trash-talk at the table like in poker? Or allowing any system to be played without restriction. It's all just bridge, right?

Zelandakh, on 2012-March-19, 03:52, said:

FWIW:

1. The Laws of Bridge say nothing about system regulations
2. I don't think that the Laws say anything about declarer using a break in tempo to deceive the opponents. The Conduct and Etiquette section of "Proprieties" certainly talks about this, however, it talks about a lot of stuff that gets routinely ignored.
3. I know that I've won masterpoints in Midnight Swiss events where trash talking and tequila were the rule (not the exception)

As to your comment about rotating the hands: The Laws of Online Bridge also state that the following, which suggests that we're going to run into some real problems if we want to be stickler's to the rules...


LAW 6 - THE SHUFFLE AND DEAL
A. The Shuffle
Before play starts, each pack is thoroughly shuffled. There is a cut if either
opponent so requests.
B. The Deal

The cards must be dealt face down, one card at time, into four hands of
thirteen cards each; each hand is then placed face down in one of the four
pockets of the board. The recommended procedure is that the cards be dealt
in rotation, clockwise.

C. Representation of Both Pairs
A member of each side should be present during the shuffle and deal unless

the Director instructs otherwise.

D. New Shuffle and Re-deal
1. Cards Incorrectly Dealt or Exposed
There must be a new shuffle and a re-deal if it is ascertained before the
auction begins for both sides (see Law 17A) that the cards have been
incorrectly dealt or that a player could have seen the face of a card
belonging to another hand.

2. No Shuffle or No Deal
No result may stand if the cards are dealt without shuffle from a sorted
deck or if the deal had previously been played in a different session.

3. At Director’s Instruction
Subject to Law 22A, there must be a new shuffle and a redeal when
required by the Director for any reason compatible with the Laws (but
see Law 86C).

E. Director’s Option on Shuffling and Dealing
1. By Players
The Director may instruct that the shuffle and deal be performed at each
table immediately before play starts.
2. By Director
The Director may perform the shuffle and deal in advance, himself.
3. By Agents or Assistants
The Director may have his assistants or other appointed agents perform
the shuffle and deal in advance.
Preparation and Progression
4. Different Method of Dealing or Pre-dealing
The Director may require a different method of dealing or pre-dealing.
F. Duplication of Board
If required by the conditions of play, one or more exact copies

If someone is trying to kill robodoops because they aren't a good test of bridge 'skill', then I would suggest they look at another format.

In a real life game, I'm pulling dummy's cards around 1/4 of the time. Any skills I have are sitting on the bench. Of course for many players, this is a good thing! In a best hand, I am playing a substantial amount of hands. I try not to be dummy, but sometimes it happens.

Is there information available to me because I know that none of the players have a better hand than mine? Well, duh, and this is something additional I have to keep track of, and that requires skill. As a result, cardplay is based much more on logic and counting, than general principles.

Sure, GIBs defend funny against NT. They will frequently lead uber-passive. However, you would be amazed at how often this works. For instance, if I have Kxx opp xx and I get another lead, I get a morose feeling that RHO will get in at some point and they will run 5, sometimes 6 tricks.

Let's say there is a small local club you play at every day. The players have some tendencies, like 'they never double a part score', or 'they pull high level doubles too often'. Clearly these tendencies can be exploited, for instance, you can more safely compete for part scores, and you can preempt with dreck. Do you think that exploiting these tendencies is considered a 'bridge skill'? Or do you think that because these players have a flaw in their game that when you score 68% that this wasn't a good test?

Winning bridge frequently means changing your game. I know a lot of good pairs that play the same game they do no matter where the venue, and I don't think they win often enough. In a club game, things tend to be a lot more random, and you frequently have a terrible pair that scores 65% because they simply received an amazing number of gifts. This helps their score obviously, but when your opponents do something bad against you, its one less opportunity for you to screw up. Therefore in a short event, you need to create certain situations to get boards.

Does this develop bad habits? Yes, perhaps it does. I do see players that can consistently beat up their local club and get killed at an NABC. However, I would argue that in many of these cases its because their game has become soft, and they can win a club game and make six clear errors a session but that kind of performance gets you the A/X pairs on Saturday.

hrothgar, on 2012-March-19, 08:46, said:

Law 73D2 reads

Law 73D2 said:

This is just as much as part of the Laws as Law 1. It may routinely be ignored in the games that you play in, but if so I think you should find yourself a different game.

Law 6E4, quoted by Hrothgar said:

The above is a quote from "The WBF Code of Laws for Electronic Bridge 2001". This is described in its preface as "an interim 'Key' to the laws ... published as a working document for all interested in the subject" and as "The proposed Laws of Online Bridge". It was based upon the 1997 Laws, and not brought up to date in 2007.

The 2007 version reads:

Law 6E4, Laws of Duplicate Bridge 2007 said:

The "best hand" robot games breach this Law.

gnasher, on 2012-March-19, 11:08, said:

I stand corrected...

when I first met Fred, in 1991 at Reno Regional I was the district recorder.
I quit tournament bridge in 1993. Now unless things have changed the ACBL has always
been very protective of the average(below average) player. Leaving flight A and KO
as usually unrestricted events.

Going back to recording, sometimes even just bringing up an issue to a pair get hackels up
even in the simplest of complaints. Looking at some of the results from bidding
in the ACBL robot games as a recorder would make me wonder what the ACBL would say about that
particular type of bidding. If it were a pair I couldnt see fielding 5 complaints a session
about a particular pair that consistently open 1NT on 13 hcp or any distribution. Someone, the recorder,
would have to bring it up to that pair that their bidding is highly suspicious or irregular. If it continued
on then it would be up to the district or higher ups if the complaints continued.

Now if Fred(BBO) and the ACBL had to keep fielding complaints on how certain people take advantage of the bots
it thats what you want to call it, probably something would get done about it....so it mostly would follow on wether
or not its considered capricious bidding or distorting the results for the rest of the field.....most people just want
to play bridge and gauge themselves on how they do against their peers.

I myself dont see anything wrong that Leo does with the way he plays or bids but some people might actually be offended
by it cause to them its not real bridge.....I am just making an observation as having been a recorder!

pigpenz, on 2012-March-19, 12:39, said:

GIB-W is very tolerant of this behavior, although GIB-E told me the other day that he hates playing against Leo Lasota. He thinks Leo needs to be more forthcoming with his disclosure and explanations about opening 1N and 2N with a wide range, and with shortness.

He also thinks that GIB-N takes advantage and doesn't follow the source code.

Good one, Phil.

I am writing as someone who frequently plays ACBL robot duplicates,and greatly enjoys them (even if they are a bit too addictive). One of the major attractions is that they are tolerant of the occasional interruptions that are an inevitable part of life with a young"ish" family, which also heavily limits how often I can play ftf. I think that they are in general a good test of bridge skill. And I don't really feel all that guilty that my masterpoint total is now much closer than it was to those who I think are my ftf peers, but who can play "proper bridge" more frequently.


But the gains resulting from frequent deviations from the announced system, such as some of the offshape or out-of-range NT bids referred to above, do trouble me. As others have noted, these may gain because of better GIB systems over NT, because the robots generally don't defend well against the NT contracts that result, or because "you" declare more often after such an opening and are a better declarer than GIB. But they also gain because your robot opponents are operating with a description of your system which isn't really the system you are playing and think you can't have the type of hand you do have. Obviously the Laws clearly permit deviations from system. Equally obviously there can be no thought of your non-sentient partner robot "fielding" your deviations or psyches. But in a real-life ftf game, you wouldn't be able to repeat such bids without creating an implicit partnership understanding, which would have to be disclosed to your robot opponents. And in any event real life opponents would likely over time learn of any such tendencies. I guess the bottom-line here is that while you might be legally able to do those things, you wouldn't be able to repeat them thousands of times without your opponents being aware of them and taking them into consideration.

keeper2, on 2012-March-19, 13:48, said:

Phil and Keeper
like I said I am coming from the point of view of having had to deal with this as a recorder....if what we are trying to do is get as close as possible to bridge, then being able to manipulate the bots really shouldnt be part of the game.

I hate to use Leo as an example but:
last game he played on 3/18

1NT openings:
3541 12 hcp
4414 14hcp
3433 14 hcp
4135 16 hcp
4324 13 hcp
4045 13 hcp
5431 15 hcp

2NT openings:
2434 18 hcp
1246 18 hcp

so 9 of 18 boards the opening bids arent text book.( 18 board ACBL robot tourney)

he did have 1NT overcall which was actually square 15 hcp

So if the ACBL decides to axe robot tournies this could be the type of things that could bring it about.
I myself dont care, but the statistics are out there....where is Stephen Pickett and bridge browser when you need them.

pigpenz, on 2012-March-19, 15:30, said:

I am going to reply to anyone that has been making complaints about some bids that I have made in robot tournaments. While there are certainly examples of hands where I may bid "non standard nt's" and there are a handful of other bids that I make that would not be considered "normal", I can say that I have seen first hand many other players make similar bids and many players make bids that are an even greater distortion from what may be considered "normal". The truth is that I have won just about 50% of the 18 board ACBL robot tournaments that I have played in. While it is true that some great results of mine occur on boards that I make "non-standard bids", I have also had a fair number of terrible results on hands where I choose to make a "non-standard bid". The main reason that I have the track record that I have in the robot games (averaging over 60%) is that I frequently score very highly on what may be considered the "normal hands", such as the 16 count balanced 1nt openers where everyone has the same auction of 1nt-p-p-p for example.

I think your results are interesting.....but like I posted before these are just my observations
from reading the thread here and looking at things as a former district recorder. In the 70's
I played EHAA, I am sure you know how well that went over with the ACBL.

I am sure your results would be right up there even if the ACBL put a gun to your head and actually made you
make the bids that the GIB system plays.

I was just thinking about the commercial version of GIB....when you make a lead or bid that is not on the
convention card it flashes the convention card on the screen to let you know.....I hope you can see the humor in that.

I looked at Leo's bidding system a year or two ago. It is unique but fairly basic it seems.


Yes He opens nt alot on offshape hands and opens 4 of a major often.

I would say he wants to either:
1) open and then pass
2) get into a nt type auction
3) get to 4 of a major fast.


It was important to play and bid hand very very fast to be able to get in more games.
Of course at MP this leads to alot of swingy hands with a few disasters at MP.

mike777, on 2012-March-19, 17:15, said:

Mike
I am sure that comes about in the what are they the total point races reading Leo's and several other starts
on the robot races. I have never played one, but I guess the idea is to bid games and pass out non games hands
if possible.

When I lived in midwest...David King, Alan Stout, Harry Ross, and Dave McGee used to play a game called 4NT.
you pass 3 cards left then 2 cards left then 1....opening bid has to be 4NT or higher. dummy gets to pick weather
he goes with delcarer or defenders.....maybe we could do that with the bots too
of course this probably came about from drinking too much beer!

mike777, on 2012-March-19, 17:15, said:

There is no need for me to "play fast" in order to get more games in. As it is, I usually finish 18 board tourneys in 14 minutes. They are only offered every 30 minutes, and ACBL imposed a rule a year ago allowing max of 2 games in an hour anyway.

Zelandakh, on 2012-March-19, 03:52, said:

But the BB has players in all the seats, and this would unfairly preference different players -- teams could make sure to seat a specific player in the South chair to take advantage of it. Robot duplicates don't do that, because there are no players in the other seats, just robots. They're not competing for masterpoints.

Is Space Invaders unfair because there are dozens of alien ships and the player only has one defending cannon to shoot at them?

barmar, on 2012-March-21, 01:00, said:

No, and you will carefully note that I have never suggested that Best Hand tournaments are unfair or not a test of skill. To use your Space Invaders example, it would be unfair to allow players to earn ranking points for a Pacman league by playing Space Invaders, notwithstanding that there is some overlap in the skills required for both games.

So basically, we're talking about cladistics: how many attributes do things have to have in common to be considered part of the same category?

There's no simple answer to this question in general. Within duplicate bridge, we already have many variations: Matchpoint pairs, IMP pairs, Board-a-Match teams, Knockout Teams, Swiss Teams, Swiss Pairs. We consider these all just minor variations on the same game. Whereas Whist, Hearts, and Spades are completely different games, although related in that they involve taking tricks and possibly having trump suits.

So where does "best hand robot duplicate" fit in this categorization? IMHO, it's just another minor variation on the bridge theme. If you know how to play bridge, and you're told how the "best hand" feature works, you know how to play this variation -- the strategic changes are simple, logical deductions from this feature. But the essentials of the game are identical to "normal" bridge.

With that said, there's another variation on the game that we generally frown on playing for any type of reward: ghoulash. As with best-hand bridge, it's perfectly fair, since everyone knows that the hands will have extreme distributions, and can adjust their style and strategy accordingly. But no one, to my knowledge, has ever tried to get a sanction to award masterpoints for ghoulash games (except I think I may have heard about doing this for special holiday games).

How about the rule in many Mixed Pair tournaments that require all the women to sit South and East? Could this be considered somewhat analogous to best-hand, in that there's less randomness in which player will get which cards?

barmar, on 2012-March-21, 01:00, said:

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