The online NABC. Practice and then the tourney

[kenberg]

In case you missed the announcements,  acbl/bbo has this online robot game with practice tourneys.

See  http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/news_fetch.php?id=4521

The practice tourney today (Feb 17) was free, I think they all are.  12 boards, playing with the bots. There is an online lecture today by jdonn at 1 est. The actual tourney in March costs $40.  You do have to belong to the acbl, that appears to be for the practice as well as the full tourney. Ah, they have an update, the practice tourney today is open to all.

The bots come in for a lot of criticism but  these are the strong bots, I guess the same as the ones you pay a dollar a day for if you rent them. At any rate, I just played the Saturday 12 board practice tourney and  as near as I can see the mistakes were mine, not the bots. They did nothing bizarre, I like to think I didn't either, some good results, some not so good, just as it is when playing with humans.

It could be interesting to discuss some of the hands that come up.

[kenberg]

"It could be interesting to discuss some of the hands that come up."

For example:
Red against white you have the following auction
  P      1        P     1
2      X      3      P
  P      3

What do we make of 3 ?  The double of 2 showed three spades,  the 1 could be on four cards to the 8 for all anyone knows,  still opener is bidding 3 .  What's up?  I was the crazy 3 bidder if that fact helps any.

Here is the full hand.

http://tinyurl.com/y97tu2ll

Note: The link shows me as responder, but during the bidding I was opener. The software switches us for the play if the human would be the dummy.

The hand is maybe a bit tough to bid, and maybe it's a bit lucky. Both 4 and 6 are there for the taking. We got an above average score for +200 when Gib, a bit surprisingly,  slipped on defense.  Few found the game, let alone the diamond slam.


I'm not at all sure who should have done what in the bidding.  I do think that my 3 bid should show that I can play  4 , or perhaps 4 , if indeed responder has xxxx in spades. I am claiming this is more a matter of logic than of convention. I am known to have only three spades, responder has not yet shown either good values or a fifth spade. Still I trot out a 3 call. I must have a fall back option.  Or maybe AKx in spades, I suppose.  But with AKx I would still need a source of tricks in a side suit.

Anyone is welcome to weigh in here with their thoughts.

jdonn, in his lecture yesterday, talked a bit about adjustments to bidding and play when pard and opps are bots. Yes, I make some, but not many.  I treat my bots as if they were human. They might or might not see that as a compliment.

[ggriffin0]

Looking at the auction and understanding Ken is opener and the bot is responder. I think the real issue here is that the bot needs to take some action. Why? My partner has an opener, I have an opener. Let’s deconstruct what we know about the hands fitting together now we know about the relative strength. We know responder has 4x in spades otherwise we would see 3!s or 4!s being plunked down. Opener can not see anything yet.

So let’s switch back over to what we know if we were sitting in responder’s seat. Back to this idea of relative strength. As responder we know that partner has xxx in spades and must have their opening suit. And potentially the other minor as well. Looking at the bidding we know opponents do NOT have game values, BUT have likely found their suit (hearts) and are distributional. Ok...that sounds benign at the outset but should we consider that something significantly nefarious is going on? If we take that route then the 2H seems normal and the 3H is not. So what are the opponents trying to obfuscate? They certainly are not bidding game and likely know your partnership is on the moysian in spades.

Hmmm. I think we are onto something here. Is this a gambit to cause you to make a decision? Sell out to 4 spades (again they are distributional, you and your partner are likely to be too in hearts). So shoot for 4 spades (I am personally not a fan, distributionally thinking probability suggests the split is not the 40% 3-3) or search for the minor fit. I leave that decision up to u as well as how to get there.

All this said, I 100% agree with augmenting one’s bidding to mesh better with the bots.

[kenberg]

I agree that the feature of interest is that responder, for the auction so far, could have a 6 count and in fact  he has a 12 count. A good 12 count, no wasted values in hearts, top cards in clubs, fitting cards in diamonds. Given the auction so far, responder is looking at a very good hand.

4 makes even with the 4-2 split, and in fact I was planning on playing safely for 10 tricks if E had ducked the second spade. I am thinking though that responder, if he decides to bid a game, might choose 5 . It might require less good fortune than 4 . As the cards lie there are 12 tricks in diamonds, giving us a little room for misfortune if we are playing game 5 .  Bidding 5   depends on him reasoning that surely I must have good diamonds for that 3 call.   That might be asking too much of either a human or a bot. 5 making 6 would have been 620, just like 4 making 4.

Anyway, +200 was above average. It's not often that 3 making 5 is a good result, but it's a hard hand to bid, I think.


Bottom line is that I agree with Grant that responder is the one sitting with more values than he has yet shown so it is up to him to get us there if we are to be in game. Which doesn't quite mean that I would have bid game if I were responder. I would be tempted I think.

[ggriffin0]

So a few things left unsaid from my earlier post on the topic. Do we really think the bot is trying to push part score up a level knowing game isn’t there at those vulnerabilities (think possible sacrifice).

A caution: changing the vulnerability to disadvantage or both red changes the logic.

A second caution: if real opps the rationale provided is worth less than one gummy bear. Opponents can use this (I would) to push the bidding to 4!s just to X thereby creating an opportunity.