[jrayner]

Hello,

Thank you for taking the time to bring this to our attention. We appreciate suggestions from our players how to make BBO better and better.

Our software engineers always welcome suggestions to improve BBO.

You could register as a member in our forum (if you already haven't) with the same user name you have in BBO:
www.bridgebase.com/forums/
Log in –once you are a member of the forum- and look for “Bridge Base Online Discussions -> Suggestions for the Software”.Our tech team keeps a close eye on this thread (as you will notice).

There you can make your suggestion and discuss about it directly with the software team and other users.
In the meantime, keep those suggestions coming. Many of the suggestions from our players have ultimately been implemented with great results.

Please let us know if we can help with anything else.

Best regards,

Boyan
BBO Customer Support






On Mon Feb 10 11:21:28 2020, jrayner@logic.bm wrote:
> Hello,
> Does the choice they make follow pseudo random numbering or is it
> based upon some other factor such as performance in previous games,
> boards or even player rating?
> Whatever it is I still maintain by adding this computer ability to the
> board in question, before any other action by the player has taken
> place, adds an unfair advantage to some lucky player(s). I don’t worry
> about bad scores as long as the playing field is level.
> J Rayner
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Boyan Halachev via RT
> Sent: Sunday, February 09, 2020 1:31 PM
> To: jrayner@ibl.bm
> Subject: [rt.bridgebase.com #776189] Re: Recent Game
>
> Hello, Although all the robots are programmed alike, they also have
> the capability of choosing the way they bid and the line of
> play/defense they consider more appropriate. Sometimes they make the
> right decisions and others, they don't but you usually notice this
> only when you get a bad score.
> Regards
> Boyan BBO CSR
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun Feb 09 05:04:02 2020, jrayner@ibl.bm wrote:
> > Playing a 15 board Instant Game at IMPs on 2/08/2020 at 16.21 I
> > received 0.37 MPs for a score of 12.86 IMPs. On board 4 the dealer W
> > passes and my robot partner opened 1S with 5/5 in the majors and 10
> > pts. On reviewing
> the
> > results
> > I noticed at other tables in some cases it passed rather than
> opened.
> > In those
> > cases the players generally got a good result.
> > This kind of random robot behavior does not provide a level playing
> > field.
> > Kindly explain.
> > John Rayner
> > jrayner from Bermuda

[barmar]

I just reviewed the hand. The robot did not open the bidding. You opened 1♣ in 4th seat, and the robot responded 1♠. When the opponents competed in diamonds, the robot bid 3♥. There were several other tables with similar auctions. About half ended in superior spade contracts when the human made a support double on the 2nd round, although some got too high because the human bid 2♠, which promises 4-card support when a support double is available.

The hand

[barmar]

BTW, I deleted the duplicate post that you put in BBO Support Forum. You only have to post one time.

[jrayner]

barmar, on 2020-February-11, 09:20, said:

I just reviewed the hand. The robot did not open the bidding. You opened 1♣ in 4th seat, and the robot responded 1♠. When the opponents competed in diamonds, the robot bid 3♥. There were several other tables with similar auctions. About half ended in superior spade contracts when the human made a support double on the 2nd round, although some got too high because the human bid 2♠, which promises 4-card support when a support double is available.

I'm pretty sure you are looking at the wrong result. I'm jrayner and on my play of Board 4 THE ROBOT DID OPEN 1 SPADE, as it did with several other boards. On some it passed. That was the point of my post that the GIB should not have "random" choice to act BEFORE the human has the chance to act in first.

The hand

[jrayner]

I'm sorry you are correct. I withdraw everything I've said. The slide bar doesn't work well on my iPad so I could not read the first line of bidding. Now on my desktop I can read it properly. My apologies again.

[barmar]

jrayner, on 2020-February-11, 14:59, said:

I'm sorry you are correct. I withdraw everything I've said. The slide bar doesn't work well on my iPad so I could not read the first line of bidding. Now on my desktop I can read it properly. My apologies again.

No problem. This is a common problem on mobile devices, they don't waste space with scroll bars when you're not actually dragging, so it's often not obvious that you're not seeing the whole thing.

I complained to our programmer a while ago that bidding diagrams should start at the top, not the bottom. But there's lots of other things to fix, and this hasn't made it to the top yet.

[mythdoc]

I believe it was explained to us that in these days of advanced robots, the exact same progression should lead to the exact same play, correct? But, for instance, if leading from xxxx across to KQ10x, rising with the Q vs the K (even though functionally equivalent, but not precisely the same card) might solicit different responses from the defense for the rest of the hand? Do I have this correct?

[hrothgar]

mythdoc, on 2020-February-12, 16:16, said:

I believe it was explained to us that in these days of advanced robots, the exact same progression should lead to the exact same play, correct? But, for instance, if leading from xxxx across to KQ10x, rising with the Q vs the K (even though functionally equivalent, but not precisely the same card) might solicit different responses from the defense for the rest of the hand? Do I have this correct?

yes