Please welcome new member Robert_Bot (known as Ro_Bott to his friends)

[ian84]

Hi,
  As its quite the thing these days to enter a tourney with a Robot partner, I've created the BBO-ID Robert_Bot so that the IAC Admin can allocate Monsterpoints to Robot partners going forward. I tried Ro_Bott but unfortunately BBO had it covered.  This all depends, of course, on Grant Griffin approving him as a new IAC member. NO BBO logins, no hand records...its not looking too good for the poor chap.

[kenberg]

Welcome Robert_Bot.  I knew your grandfather from the comic books of the 1940s. 
See
http://www.toonopedia.com/robotmn1.htm

[ian84]

I knew his other Grandfather, who I thought was known as Robbie the Robot from Lost in Space, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_in_Space
 

[Curls77]

With so many players having Mr Robert for p, they'd soon lead Hall of Fame for Monster Points.
So, ty - but no TY  Mr Robert has been rejected from IAC!

[ian84]

Its not often that Robbie does well in these events so, I really don't see him earning worryingly large numbers of points. Also I believe we can restrict him to the lowest Monster point division

[kenberg]

The pain of rejection.
Otoh, I do see the point. I imagine the bot will survive.

I play a fair amount in the BBO robot tournaments.  There are three bots and me at the table, the competition is against others who are doing the same at other tables. I have found this enjoyable. I wondered a bit about playing with a bot when other tables have four humans, but eventually I decided that if the tourney is set up to allow bots then why not do it?

All in all, I prefer the company of humans. The problem is that online, in both IAC and more generally on BBO, there are no agreed upon meanings for even the most basic bidding sequences and this gets a little (or more than a little) frustrating. The Gib system is at http://www.bridgebase.com/doc/gib_system_notes.php (a decent if incomplete write up) and however good it is or isn't, at least bot and I are on the same page. Well, most of the time.

[ian84]

As a one-time professional computer programmer, I've always had some sympathy for them, and always make a point of talking to them...eg, wpp and ntp. I'm convinced they respond to my chat by playing better

I'm forever being asked, when you're playing in one of my tournies 'Surely Ken wants a real partner......put me in'. I can almost feel the funny looks I get when I gently explain to them that you've been playing with a Robot partner for a while, and perhaps you like it like that.
 

[ian84]

With so many players having Mr Robert for p, they'd soon lead Hall of Fame for Monster Points.
So, ty - but no TY  Mr Robert has been rejected from IAC!

Did you not take into account that I am recommending him to the club as my friend?

[kenberg]

As a one-time professional computer programmer, I've always had some sympathy for them, and always make a point of talking to them...eg, wpp and ntp. I'm convinced they respond to my chat by playing better

I'm forever being asked, when you're playing in one of my tournies 'Surely Ken wants a real partner......put me in'. I can almost feel the funny looks I get when I gently explain to them that you've been playing with a Robot partner for a while, and perhaps you like it like that.

My fascination with playing with bots is recent and probably temporary. far and away the best thing about playing with the bots is that we are both playing the same system. This is both pleasant and educational.  When something goes wrong, instead of arguing with partner about whose bid meant what I sit down and try to see how I might have done better. Of course some bad results are due to an unlucky lie of the cards, just as some good results are due to a lucky lie of the cards. But more often than not, judgment determines the result. Or at least that's so if you and partner are on the same page about what bids mean.

I'll probably return to the human fold in the not too distant future. As Anita says in West Side Story "Stick to your own kind".

[ian84]

There's a good justification there for everyone to familiarise themselves with the GIB Card and perhaps adopting it with partners that know it too. I've also only recently come across the IAC standard card developed by Joe Garcia which also seems like a very good idea. 

[Curls77]

I am sure Mr Roboot wont be slightly disturbed by IAC rejection. And let me be frank, my BEST friend in bridge world is JACK, the bridge software. I love bots, they do own thing, bear with my mistakes and never yell back.

Yet, joke aside, as you'll hear from Pam when she is back, and in no few words ( ), we wont encourage parding bots. Just coz BBO does it, and creates dozens of bot venues as bingos, bots this and that, etc, they r all commercial, their need to survive so they can let rest of us play with humans that err, which we hate and love. 

So, for time being, as Ian says, we strongly recommend use of Joe's "IAC standard card" https://tinyurl.com/y9jgnhpm , or, very soon to come BWS which Todd (Masse24) is working on now. I'll post link when available.

Bye bye Robert_Bot.

[kenberg]

An important point about Bridge World Standard, the bot write-up, and Joe's write-up is that they are not in complete agreement. That's no surprise of course but worth noting.

The simple auction 1NT - 2 - 2 - 2 will illustrate my point.
BWS treats this as weak with both majors.
The bots treat this as as invitational strength with 5 hearts and 4 spades
Joe says invit, but notes that he thinks weak is better.

All three treat 1NT - 2 - 2 - 2 as invitational.

There are other cases where the split is more dramatic. 1m - 2M, whatsit? Many on BBO would say a weak jump shift. The bots treat it as a Soloway jump shift (strong, with specific rules about follow-up).  BWS? "A jump-shift to the two-level is limited with majors if two of a major (five-plus spades, four-plus hearts, game-invitational if two spades, weaker than game-invitational if two hearts)".

How about after a 2 opening? BWS plays 2 as waiting (that is also my preference). I could not find 2 - 2 in the Gib write-up (the write-up is definitely incomplete) but I can tell you from experience that the bots treat it as waiting. Joe treats it as showing at least a K. DaveG uses this "at least a K" approach and in one of his lessons he noted the following. 2 - 2 - 2NT should now be forcing.  Opener has a big hand, responder has at least a K, so treat 2NT as forcing.  Since I prefer a waiting 2 I had never given that any thought, but it makes sense. It has consequences.  (This is now me, don't blame Dave)  For example, the auction 2 - 2 - 2NT - 3NT - 4NT is now a possibility. Since 2NT is forcing, opener is in no danger of being passed. Responder raises 2NT to 3NT and opener, with a truly huge NT hand, invites 6 by bidding 4NT. How huge is "truly huge"? Those who play 2 as a positive response might want to discuss that.  Assuming that they agree with Dave that 2 - 2 - 2NT is unconditionally forcing.

Anyway, there are a variety of ways of playing some pretty basic sequences. This who think that whatever way they play a sequence is "standard" should re-think that view. I learned bridge by reading Goren. Everyone played Goren. The world has moved on since then. Good or bad, it has moved on.

[Curls77]

Ken did you ever see anyone that play Solomon strong jumpshifts except the bots? I have not.

The 3 systems definately differ, and big time. But if we keep pointing to both Joe's sheet, and sheet that Todd will make, it will be so easy for our members to agree on system and carding, if they happen to pard in trny, match or at simple table.

[kenberg]

I play strong jump shifts with my f2f partner, he prefers them. Since he likes strong jump shifts (I have no strong feelings one way or the other) I have tried to interest him in going all the way on this and playing Soloway (not Solomon, despite his wisdom) jump shifts but no luck so far, he likes to keep it simple.We got a decent board the other day after 1 - 2 - 3 . Not everyone found the slam. I think that I have seen Soloway jump shifts while watching vugraph, I am not positive. What I have not seen in action is the BWS way of playing 1m-2M.


Did Todd really commit to putting all of BWS on a sheet? It would be quite an effort. I have seen what he did with the auctions that begin with 1NT or 2NT, it's a very nice format. The bids are no different though (and shouldn't be, it's BWS), so there is no need to wait if people want to go that route.

The critical part is for people to decide if they want to do it. So far I have not seen much enthusiasm. I understand a lack of enthusiasm for bridge. My wife Becky once thought maybe she might want to learn. She spent a couple of hours reading the BBO "Learn to play Bridge" notes and decided against it. She enjoys hiking, she teaches and takes yoga, she is the organizer of a book club, she has a number of interests but she looked over the bridge notes and decided no. Maybe later. The maybe later was about ten years ago.  She plays other games online, just not bridge.  So I understand if someone says no.   But we can hope that some will say yes.

Getting back to Soloway jump shifts for a moment I recall Mike Lawrence saying some nice things about them. He was comparing 1 - 2 with what happens after 1 - 1 - 1 .  He pointed out that you then have to bid 2 , after which you have to convince partner that you do have hearts, you don't have diamonds, you have very good hearts not just some five card suit, you have much more than a minimal game force, and you are interested in a heart slam.  1 - 2 gets all of that, or at least most of that, said at once.  Of course Soloway and Lawrence were both part of the Dallas Aces so they may have had a common way of thinking.

[bAbsG]

Ken - is there a way to access what Todd has already done on BWS?  I would love to see it.  Thanks!