BBO Discussion Forums: The specifics of daylongs - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

The specifics of daylongs The specifics of daylongs

#1 User is offline   jardaholy 

  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 18
  • Joined: 2020-November-29

Posted 2021-April-17, 11:33

A couple of days ago, I presented a specific contribution to BIC2 here. In short, my idea was that before improving the BBO by providing video chat etc., it would be better to improve the bidding, card play or at least signalling made by the robots. I got several responses and the basic idea there (in the longest one), in short, was that BBO daylongs represent specific form of competition (game), which is different from "normal" bridge and this new form should be taken as it is, including (sometimes) bad play of the robots. Okay, I understand that and take it. But some features of BBO, in my opinion, should be still improved, because they are not about different sort of game, but about not optimum quality of the product (BBO) as a whole. First, there should be detailed manual available, much much better than the current one. If the manual says that the robots normally signal the count during the play (naturally) and, in a specific board, the signal is an opposite one (high-low with three small in the suit), the player should know, why the robot did that (because there must be straight logical explanation) - at least the explanation should be that the signals made by the robots are random on some conditions (and what are such conditions). Secondly - the explanations of the bids made by me or by the robots during the bidding should be thoroughly reviewed and the clear drawbacks (bugs) should be corected.

See the following board


I was sitting South. 4 is reasonably good contract and, in fact, I have no such big problem with the bidding of the robot on the opposite side of the table. One can ask, why, the hell, I bid this 5 nonsense. The answer is a totally confusing explanation of the robot´s bids, I got: 2 = 2-4, 2-4, 2-4, 2-4, 18+ total points, at best stopper in , forsing to 3 (why to 3??), 3 = exactly 4, 4 = at maximum 4(4-)! Why should I lose several % of the topscore in (paid) Zenith daylong played relatively well not because of bad play of the robot (which I can accept) or me (which I have to accept), but due to badly programmed and verified explanations of the bids (during normal tournament in the club, I would probably call the director for such explanation - even during the game, because I would feel insulted by the opponents making me fool)? The main problem is that such bad explanations are not rare at all. Okay, it may be one in forty boards, but it is still too much.

Jaroslav
2

#2 User is offline   0 carbon 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 500
  • Joined: 2009-January-19
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2021-April-18, 00:23

They are not spending ANY time on truthful robots....
0

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users