[Andy_L]

{comments}

---

Thing 1: I'm trying to "post" hand to the "GIB Robot Discussion". Is above correct way to do so?

Thing 2: At trick #11 GIB takes a 25% play vs. a 50% play. Even if statistical adjustments could be made to apriori percentages based on bidding (none in this) case and discards during play of the hand... In this case I can't imagine apriori percentages adjusted to anything more than 30% play vs. a 45% play.

I can only imagine the difficulties etc of "programming" a robot to play bridge. I guess by this point I just expect BBO's GIB to be better; especially where basic percentage plays are involved.

I do enjoy the GIB play: as a learning tool for me and as a competitive venue (the Robot Tournament play).

Thing 3: Seems to me GIB has freedom of choice (where close "decisions" in play or bidding are required), just like a human player would. For me this GOB trait is overdone/overweighted. I for one would like to see GIB's decisions in these cases to be more restrictive. In the competitive arena of Robot Tournaments GIB's would then act more the same... increasing the humans role in the outcome and reducing GIB's role in the outcome.

[georgi]

---

[georgi]

Andy_L, on 2012-February-26, 06:27, said:

Thing 2: At trick #11 GIB takes a 25% play vs. a 50% play. Even if statistical adjustments could be made to apriori percentages based on bidding (none in this) case and discards during play of the hand... In this case I can't imagine apriori percentages adjusted to anything more than 30% play vs. a 45% play.

Why playing J from KJ you play for 25%?

Isn't same to play for Queen in West same percentage like playing for Ace?

Not that easy to guess in such tenaces combinations.

J wins for Q/AQ in west, K wins only when A in west. No matter which card loses with AQ in East.

[Bbradley62]

Andy_L, on 2012-February-26, 06:27, said:

Thing 3: Seems to me GIB has freedom of choice (where close "decisions" in play or bidding are required), just like a human player would. For me this GOB trait is overdone/overweighted. I for one would like to see GIB's decisions in these cases to be more restrictive. In the competitive arena of Robot Tournaments GIB's would then act more the same... increasing the humans role in the outcome and reducing GIB's role in the outcome.

I have also made the comment that GIB too frequently ad libs based on simulations rather than making the "book bid". But, I wanted to be sure you knew that tournaments are set up such that all GIBs faced with identical situations will make identical decisions.

[cloa513]

georgi, on 2012-February-26, 13:53, said:

Why playing J from KJ you play for 25%?

Isn't same to play for Queen in West same percentage like playing for Ace?

Not that easy to guess in such tenaces combinations.

J wins for Q/AQ in west, K wins only when A in west. No matter which card loses with AQ in East.

The play is bad because it drops the J♥ and doesn't realise West is semi-squeezed so that he is keeping two spades including an honour.

[johnu]

cloa513, on 2012-February-26, 16:51, said:

The play is bad because it drops the J♥ and doesn't realise West is semi-squeezed so that he is keeping two spades including an honour.

Of course, there is no squeeze because dummy has no entry at that time except by guessing spades and west has to play the same way whether holding ace or queen of spades. As Georgi correctly says, it's a 50-50 guess on this deal.

[cloa513]

johnu, on 2012-February-27, 11:52, said:

Of course, there is no squeeze because dummy has no entry at that time except by guessing spades and west has to play the same way whether holding ace or queen of spades. As Georgi correctly says, it's a 50-50 guess on this deal.

As I said semi-squeeze, West is keeping spades and has bared his Q♥.