[bwctwo]

I AM AT THE POINT WHERE I MAY QUIT PARTICIPATING IN ANY OF THE INDIVIDUAL TORUNAMENTS AND STICK TO HUMAN PARTNERSHIP PLAY ONLY. I AM CONVINCED THAT THE BBO MANAGEMENT SEE THE MAJORITY OF PLAYERS AS "MARKS" WHO THROW THEIR MONEY AWAY AT THE TABLE. WHY? BECAUSE THE BIDDING BY THE ROBOTS IS AN EXERCISE IN SABOTOGE ON AN ONGOING BASIS.BBO COULD IMPROVE THE ROBOT SOFTWARE...BUT WHY DO THIS? THERE IS NO INCENTIVE TO IMPROVE THE GAME FOR THE "PLAYERS." BBO IS MAKING BANK AND CLEARLY THAT IS ALL THEY CARE ABOUT. IS TRULY UNFORTUNATE. BRIDGE ENTHUSIASTS SHOULD BE DOING EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO PROMOTE, NOT DEGRADE THE GAME. AND....$ SHOULDN'T BE AN ISSUE: CREATE AN HONEST, PLAYABLE PLATFORM WITH ACCURATE ROBOT BIDDING AND CHARGE MORE $ IF THAT IS WHAT IS NECESSARY. HOPEFULLY I WILL NOT NEED TO WAIT LONG FOR AN ALTERNATIVE TO BBO THAT GETS IT RIGHT.

[mycroft]

• As history will show, I avoid playing with (or against) robots, unless I'm killing time (on the bus, in the waiting room, whatever), where I need to be able to drop the game without warning (which is not fair to other people). I mean, if I want to be alone playing games, there are many many many others I can play - I will never finish my PS2 games from a decade ago, never mind everything else.(*) I definitely have no idea why anyone would pay to play these individual games (yet another reminder I need to do more of DianaEva's Sunday Forums games). But many like them. So, I'm on your side - in fact, I made that decision years ago.
  
• The bots are decent (if quirky) bidders, good (if not expert) players, and decent (if signal-blind) defenders (especially playing with each other). They absolutely *can not adjust* to their partner, however - that's all on the human. Good players, especially good players that know how to play their partners (see next point) can do very well with robots(***). It is a skill; not exactly one I want to develop, but a skill nonetheless.
  
• 'For instance, take that most common menace: "the man who won't accept a sign-off." However frantically you shriek your weakness at him, he goes on bidding...[P]erhaps, on a later hand, when you hold much the same hand with an extra Ace, which now gives you ample to bid Three No-Trump, you can cash in on his blind spot by bidding Three Diamonds. He is certain to ignore it and bid Three No-Trump, and the Unlucky Expert is equally certain to double "on the bidding". Now you can redouble (*4)' Frankly, that whole chapter ("Half a Loaf"). 1945, Ladies and Gentlemen.

Could the bots be better? Unequivocally, yes. Could the bots be better at adapting their game to their partner? Probably not - which also means that a lot of the improvements that could be made will be "improvements" only to those who fit the bots' new style; in fact, would be downgrades for those who play a style more like their current. Which is, frankly, an awful lot of the bridge playing population (but not us, of course, we "know how to play". Right?).

(*) Conversely, I almost pathologically avoid multiplayer *computer* games. I have a wall of games (much reduced from maybe 3 walls a decade ago) which I would be willing to play with people(**) - and, of course, the Queen of Card Games. When I sit at the computer to play, it's because I am done with *people*.
(**) Anyone up for (V)ASL? I'll have to spend a week re-reading the rules...
(***) No comment. System forgets can be catastrophic.
(*4) Rubber bridge, remember.