[Bbradley62]

The timing of the "SOandSO will be replaced in XX seconds" messages seems to be somewhat random. The second warning "SOandSO is about to be replaced" comes with only a few seconds left. How about something like this: any time the second warning is needed, the player loses 10 seconds off his per-play time limit for the rest of the session?

[jillybean]

uday, on 2010-October-14, 10:49, said:

That's what i was thinking too, when we made them both IMPs.

I'm working on a filter now that will allow us to restrict these events to people who don't bail out of the middle of too many Ts. Once we get that in, we can try longer Ts ( say an hour long ) and use IMPs.

To be honest, I think shorter is better. These tournaments are good for a quick bridge fix, why not run a game continously and let people join and leave as they wish?
The thought of playing for an hour opposite random, self rated experts who I can't talk to does not thrill me in the slighest.

[Bbradley62]

uday, on 2010-October-18, 07:13, said:

When a board is left incomplete, it is adjusted (single dummy) using 4 bots, provided that 8 or more tricks have been played out.

#6035 Express - Free Automated Fun
Hand 6: one table ran out of time on Trick 12 with a very clear final two tricks; score stayed as Average. Maybe adjustments aren't made in the last round?

[cloa513]

jillybean, on 2010-October-23, 23:22, said:

To be honest, I think shorter is better. These tournaments are good for a quick bridge fix, why not run a game continously and let people join and leave as they wish?
The thought of playing for an hour opposite random, self rated experts who I can't talk to does not thrill me in the slighest.

Generally in the that Express tournament with about half really bad player including one that took me down in four spades with where simple direct of spades would have guaranteed the contract.

[Bbradley62]

Playing in this event, RHO opens 1♠ and I overcall 2♥. My bid is explained as:
"Preempt. 6+H; 5+♥ | 11+ points"
No, I haven't made a typo.

[Bbradley62]

1♦-(P)-3♦ is explained as:
Forcing. 5+D. INV (11-12) 5+♦. No 4card major.
I know almost no one declines invitiations, but it's still not right to call a bid both forcing and invitational.

[Bbradley62]

Bbradley62, on 2010-October-23, 23:26, said:

#6035 Express - Free Automated Fun
Hand 6: one table ran out of time on Trick 12 with a very clear final two tricks; score stayed as Average. Maybe adjustments aren't made in the last round?

Okay, I see what's happening... adjustments are being made, but they're not being posted in the active "My Results" window on the right side of the screen. But, the final standings reflect the adjustments and results in "Recent Tournaments" include the adjustments.

[barmar]

Bbradley62, on 2010-November-05, 19:55, said:

1♦-(P)-3♦ is explained as:
Forcing. 5+D. INV (11-12) 5+♦. No 4card major.
I know almost no one declines invitiations, but it's still not right to call a bid both forcing and invitational.

Sounds to me like they copied the description from the 2/1 CC, which uses inverted minors. An inverted minor single raise is invitational or better and forcing for one round. They changed it to just invitational, but forgot to remove forcing.

[Bbradley62]

My partner for this hand is a Robot.
P -(P )-1♣-(2♦)
Db-(3♦)-3♥*
*explained as 5+C; 5+H; 21- HCP; 3-card C; 13-22 total points.
I don't think I've shown either 5♣ or 5♥.

[Bbradley62]

In most tournaments, if a player is substituted during the play of the hand, that sub is at a disadvantage because he doesn't know what cards were played before he got there. Does GIB have that problem when he subs in these events, or does he "know" what cards have been played?

[uday]

GIB knows what cards have been played.

[cloa513]

GIB does not what cards have been played. It does not use a card play plan. It simulates at every step. It can only not play a card not in its hand.

[Bbradley62]

cloa513, on 2010-November-09, 03:17, said:

GIB does not what cards have been played. It does not use a card play plan. It simulates at every step. It can only not play a card not in its hand.

Your first sentence is clearly not true, assuming you meant to say "GIB does not know what cards have been played." GIB knows, for example, that his Q is good when the A and K have already been played. If RHO has shown out of a suit, GIB knows he can safely finesse LHO for the missing cards. He takes all known information into account when running his simulations.

[Bbradley62]

uday, on 2010-October-18, 07:13, said:

Yes, there is a short term exposure to people who can manage to stall out the game. That will be resolved down the road with a tournament filter that will prevent people with "too many" incomplete boards from joining the express Ts.

I'm looking forward to this being implemented. There are people who get up to 4 Averages on 6 boards because either they're too slow for this format and they know they can avoid a bottom by stalling.

[barmar]

Bbradley62, on 2010-November-10, 14:11, said:

He takes all known information into account when running his simulations.

The key word is "known". It doesn't take inferential information into account. So if a finesse works the first time, it doesn't assume it can repeat the finesse.

[Bbradley62]

barmar, on 2010-November-10, 20:08, said:

The key word is "known". It doesn't take inferential information into account. So if a finesse works the first time, it doesn't assume it can repeat the finesse.

So, he gives opponents credit for sometimes being smart enough to hold up?

[barmar]

Bbradley62, on 2010-November-10, 21:26, said:

So, he gives opponents credit for sometimes being smart enough to hold up?

No, I'm talking about leading towards the KJT, finessing the J, and the opponent winning with the A. Later it leads toward the KT and plays the K.

Yes, I know there are some hands where it turns out to be necessary to falsecard like this, but they're quite rare (and end up being the stuff of bridge legends when great players find the play at the table).

[Bbradley62]

barmar, on 2010-November-12, 21:23, said:

No, I'm talking about leading towards the KJT, finessing the J, and the opponent winning with the A. Later it leads toward the KT and plays the K.

Ok. I've never seen him do anything like that.

[barmar]

I've seen it a number of times, most recently yesterday or today. My GIB partner went down in a cold contract due to that misplay. And this was in a tourney (probably Robot Reward), so it was the advanced GIB.

Similarly, GIB knows not to underlead an ace on opening lead against suits. But it doesn't know that the opponents know this. So when the opening lead is through a KJ in dummy, it almost invariably plays the K, while every decent player knows that the J is the right play (on the rare ocasions when LHO has found the clever underlead, you congratulate him and pay out).

[Bbradley62]

barmar, on 2010-November-12, 22:02, said:

Similarly, GIB knows not to underlead an ace on opening lead against suits. But it doesn't know that the opponents know this. So when the opening lead is through a KJ in dummy, it almost invariably plays the K, while every decent player knows that the J is the right play (on the rare ocasions when LHO has found the clever underlead, you congratulate him and pay out).

I was told many years ago that men underlead aces and women underlead queens.