Master points, the laws, the ACBL, that sort of thing...
#101
Posted 2012-March-23, 10:22
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
#102
Posted 2012-March-23, 10:54
aguahombre, on 2012-March-23, 10:22, said:
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?
#103
Posted 2012-March-23, 10:56
barmar, on 2012-March-23, 10:54, said:
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.
#104
Posted 2012-March-23, 17:36
aguahombre, on 2012-March-23, 10:56, said:
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.
#105
Posted 2012-March-25, 00:37
mgoetze, on 2012-March-21, 04:58, said:
ACBL awards (red) masterpoints for the bermuda bowl
#106
Posted 2012-March-25, 00:51
JLOGIC, on 2012-March-25, 00:37, said:
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?
-- Bertrand Russell
#107
Posted 2012-March-25, 09:19
#108
Posted 2012-March-25, 09:31
pigpenz, on 2012-March-25, 09:19, said:
FYP
#109
Posted 2012-March-25, 09:43
#110
Posted 2012-March-25, 23:08
#111
Posted 2012-March-26, 14:49
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.
#112
Posted 2012-March-26, 22:58
dwar0123, on 2012-March-26, 14:49, said:
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
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?
#113
Posted 2012-March-27, 00:14
barmar, on 2012-March-26, 22:58, said:
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
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.
#114
Posted 2012-March-27, 08:47
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.)
#115
Posted 2012-March-27, 09:00
JLOGIC, on 2012-March-25, 00:37, said:
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...
Winner - BBO Challenge bracket #6 - February, 2017.
#116
Posted 2012-March-27, 09:08
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.
#117
Posted 2012-March-27, 11:53
aguahombre, on 2012-March-27, 09:08, said:
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.
#119
Posted 2012-March-27, 12:17
Phil, on 2012-March-27, 09:00, said:
web2.acbl.org/codification/CHAPTER%207-%20Section%20c.pdf
"...we live off being battle-scarred veterans who manage to hate our opponents slightly more than we hate each other. -- Hamman, re: Wolff
#120
Posted 2012-March-27, 16:07
dwar0123, on 2012-March-27, 00:14, said:
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.