Help
Page 1 of 1
Awfully quiet, pard
#1
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 6,542
- Joined: 2010-February-01
- Gender:Male
- Location:Brooklyn, NY, USA
Posted 2011-November-12, 08:01
Can North really not compete in this IMPs auction?
#2
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 7,786
- Joined: 2004-September-05
- Gender:Male
- Location:Galloway NJ USA
-
Interests:Bridge, Poker, participatory and spectator sports.
Occupation - Tax Attorney in Atlantic City, NJ.
Posted 2011-November-12, 10:23
It is hands like this that can get you in trouble playing with robots. When you see this, you are tempted to overcompete on other hands.
Very frustrating.
Very frustrating.
#3
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 137
- Joined: 2010-July-08
Posted 2011-November-12, 14:32
Perhaps 3 time the current number of situations will give a decent base bridge robot that is worth improving and will actually bid hearts on this hand.
There are so many bidding sequences possible in an auction, a bridge software program needs to be based on either:
sound bridge principles within each of the near unlimited combination of auctions and hand holdings must be assessed, The altrnative need to brute force - put so much computing power behind simulations and/or lookup procedures that bidding priciples are not required.
At the moment we seem to be caught between two approaches with the results we all see.
calm01
There are so many bidding sequences possible in an auction, a bridge software program needs to be based on either:
sound bridge principles within each of the near unlimited combination of auctions and hand holdings must be assessed, The altrnative need to brute force - put so much computing power behind simulations and/or lookup procedures that bidding priciples are not required.
At the moment we seem to be caught between two approaches with the results we all see.
calm01
#4
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 137
- Joined: 2010-July-08
Posted 2011-November-12, 14:47
Before fixing GIB so it will bid hearts on this hand...
There are so many bidding sequences possible in a bridge auction, let alone the huge combination of bridge hands held with any one auction, a bridge software program needs to be based on either:
- sound bridge principles within which each of the near unlimited combination of auctions and hand holdings must be assessed,
or
- resort to brute force - put so much computing power behind simulations and/or look-up procedures so that bidding principles are not
required.
At the moment we seem to be caught between these two approaches with the results we all see in mostly wasted BBO effort and a poor GIB.
It is clear from opening leads that few effective principles are employed (as opposed to exist) and lead look-up tables are rarely used (as opposed to exist).
Please go for one of the two approaches not a poorly implemented fudge of both as we appear to have now.
Yes. you may have only one horse to flog, but try dramatically increasing the simulation numbers - it may solve several classes of GIBs problems some of which you are wasting programming effort to partially fix and causing other issues in the process.
But BBO will have to admit you have been wrong all these years. Most substantial moves forward require getting past denial that change is both desirable and indeed possible.
calm01
There are so many bidding sequences possible in a bridge auction, let alone the huge combination of bridge hands held with any one auction, a bridge software program needs to be based on either:
- sound bridge principles within which each of the near unlimited combination of auctions and hand holdings must be assessed,
or
- resort to brute force - put so much computing power behind simulations and/or look-up procedures so that bidding principles are not
required.
At the moment we seem to be caught between these two approaches with the results we all see in mostly wasted BBO effort and a poor GIB.
It is clear from opening leads that few effective principles are employed (as opposed to exist) and lead look-up tables are rarely used (as opposed to exist).
Please go for one of the two approaches not a poorly implemented fudge of both as we appear to have now.
Yes. you may have only one horse to flog, but try dramatically increasing the simulation numbers - it may solve several classes of GIBs problems some of which you are wasting programming effort to partially fix and causing other issues in the process.
But BBO will have to admit you have been wrong all these years. Most substantial moves forward require getting past denial that change is both desirable and indeed possible.
calm01
#5
- Group: Admin
- Posts: 21,677
- Joined: 2004-August-21
- Gender:Male
Posted 2011-November-13, 16:30
The book bid is 2♥, but on 6 out of 11 of my simulation runs it determined pass was better. Change the hand to ♠J73 ♥QT6543 ♦AQ ♣74 and it bids 2♥ on 6 of 11. And change it to ♠J73 ♥QT6543 ♦Ax ♣74 and it bids 2♥ 10 of 11.
Notice what's happening there: it passes when it has defensive values. It thinks it can do better by defending, since it can set up its ♥ and get back in with the side Ace. But as the rest of its hand gets worse, it decides it's better to compete.
It also estimates that if it has a game, partner will reopen. So the pass is basically just comparing a part score against defending.
Notice what's happening there: it passes when it has defensive values. It thinks it can do better by defending, since it can set up its ♥ and get back in with the side Ace. But as the rest of its hand gets worse, it decides it's better to compete.
It also estimates that if it has a game, partner will reopen. So the pass is basically just comparing a part score against defending.
Page 1 of 1