BBO Masterpoints (the pot calling the kettle black)
Hank Youngerman
On BBO, they have 12-board 55-minute tournaments that pay 80% of an
ACBL club game, with weak fields to boot. So I don't have to tell you
how easy it is to win points in these.
One of BBO's top point-winners whined to me today. BBO's newest
invention is the "Robot Duplicate" tournaments. Each player plays 12
boards with robot player GIB as their partner and GIB as both
opponents. Timing is again 55 minutes for 12 boards. However, you
don't have to take the full 55 minutes. You don't really change each
round, you just play one 12-board round. My "reliable source" was
complaining that the ratio of masterpoints (per hour???) was about 4:1
for the robot duplicates vs. the speedball duplicates. He said one
person scratched in 35 such tournaments in one day.
Of course I told him that with all the monsterpoints he had won in the
speedballs, this was the pot calling the kettle black. But it does
make one wonder.
Online points do not count for any masterpoint races. I wonder what
they mean anyway. They just push players into higher flights and
brackets. So what do points mean anyway?
But it IS absurd to be able to win masterpoints for playing for 15
minutes.
thg
> But it IS absurd to be able to win masterpoints for playing for 15
> minutes.
It doesn't strike me as absurd to be able to win masterpoints for
playing for 15 minutes. It's not the time, but rather the number of
boards that seems relevant to me. Most of us occasionally win a few
masterpoints for less than an hour of face-to-face bridge --
masterpoints are still awarded to the winners of a single Swiss team
match, and they are often only seven boards.
ddub47
>
> Online points do not count for any masterpoint races. I wonder what
> they mean anyway. They just push players into higher flights and
> brackets. So what do points mean anyway?
>
> But it IS absurd to be able to win masterpoints for playing for 15
> minutes.
According to the ACBL website there is an online masterpoint race.
Some woman from Ontario is currently leading with just over 835
points. This to me is a mind boggling total, further confirming your
point on the value of masterpoints.
To be able to win points for playing with robots is hilarious.
Apparently you can click on your robot partner's bid and it explains
what it means. Not sure this can still be considered bridge.
Derek Ward
Barry Margolin
<e2bb9175-161b-48c9...@c1g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
ddub47 <ddu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
It's not uncommon to allow players to refer to the convention cards when
playing Individual tournaments, since at least one of the players in
each partnership is usually not playing a system of their own choosing.
In this case, the human players are forced to play the system that the
bots play, and how else are you supposed to know what system you're
playing if you can't review what the bids mean?
--
Barry Margolin, bar...@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***
ochinko
...
> To be able to win points for playing with robots is hilarious.
Your results are compared only with those of another humans so at
least that part makes perfect sense. What does it matter that your
partner and opps are bots? It only levels the field.
Dave Flower
> In article
> <e2bb9175-161b-48c9-9e30-01d3bcb8e...@c1g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
>
> - Show quoted text -
Reminds me of an interesting situation in an individual. Assume
standard system is specified for everyone; now, it is illegal to
inspect one's own convention card, but perfectly legal to inspect the
opponents (identical) card!
Dave Flower
Spurned
>
> - Show quoted text -
That's like when you play mid-chart conventions and have to provide
the opponents with suggested defenses. Legally those are part of
"your" convention card and you cannot refer to them. However, you may
ask the opponents the meaning of their bids.
Spurned
I disagree with the poster who said you can win points for playing a 7-
board match. In practice, you have to play at least 4 matches to win
any points. Moreover, the whole masterpoint system is based somewhat
on the idea that you can only compete in a limited number of games.
I would also note that in the BBO robot tournaments, the human player
is guaranteed the best hand (in terms of HCP). I wonder if this
conforms with the laws. Obviously though, it would be of limited
value to have hands where the bot opponents have a contract where the
human player had no scope for affecting the result. In a "real" game,
you will get variations in bidding by the opponents at least. Still,
is this kind of game in conformity with the laws?
There are some peculiarities. On one hand I played, I opened 1c, bot
LHO overcalled 1D, and bot partner jumped to 2H. I raised to 3, and
partner bid 4. The opponents led a spade, holding my side to 12
tricks. Other players jumped to 4H with my hand, drawing a club lead
(notice in neither case did the bot lead his partner's suit) allowing
13 tricks. I'm not sure why the different auctions drew a different
lead.
I applaud BBO's innovation. Still, ordinarily the ACBL would permit a
player entered in two events simultaneously to win points only from
the one that awards more. Perhaps they need to implement that rule
for BBO, that if you start another tournament while one you were
entered in is still in progress, the "one you win the most" rule is in
effect.
Barry Margolin
<22da2bc2-8036-4b8d...@s15g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>,
Dave Flower <DavJF...@AOL.COM> wrote:
> On Aug 17, 6:22?am, Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> > In article
> > <e2bb9175-161b-48c9-9e30-01d3bcb8e...@c1g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ?ddub47 <ddu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > Online points do not count for any masterpoint races. ?I wonder what
> > > > they mean anyway. ?They just push players into higher flights and
> > > > brackets. ?So what do points mean anyway?
> >
> > > > But it IS absurd to be able to win masterpoints for playing for 15
> > > > minutes.
> >
> > > According to the ACBL website there is an online masterpoint race.
> > > Some woman from Ontario is currently leading with just over 835
> > > points. This to me is a mind boggling total, further confirming your
> > > point on the value of masterpoints.
> >
> > > To be able to win points for playing with robots is hilarious.
> > > Apparently you can click on your robot partner's bid and it explains
> > > what it means. Not sure this can still be considered bridge.
> >
> > > Derek Ward
> >
> > It's not uncommon to allow players to refer to the convention cards when
> > playing Individual tournaments, since at least one of the players in
> > each partnership is usually not playing a system of their own choosing. ?
> > In this case, the human players are forced to play the system that the
> > bots play, and how else are you supposed to know what system you're
> > playing if you can't review what the bids mean?
> >
> > --
> > Barry Margolin, bar...@alum.mit.edu
> > Arlington, MA
> > *** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***- Hide
> > quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Reminds me of an interesting situation in an individual. Assume
> standard system is specified for everyone; now, it is illegal to
> inspect one's own convention card, but perfectly legal to inspect the
> opponents (identical) card!
I've often wondered how legal that loophole is. For instance, suppose
you agree to play standard leads with someone, but can't remember what
the standard lead is with a particular holding. You can't look at your
own card to see which cards are marked in black, but you can look at
your opponent's (or even a blank card).
I think if you're looking at your opponent's card for any reason other
than to learn the meaning of their bid or play, you're probably
violating the "no memory aids" law.
Carl
One would think if everyone is playing the same system (say SAYC as an
example) then there should not be the need for convention cards, and
nobody should be allowed to look at them.
You'd still have the need to ask about some bids though, since the
SAYC standard and convention card covers only the most common
situations. So, where to draw the line?
Carl
Barry Margolin
<b2ba628b-e574-4ecd...@32g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
Carl <Ca...@CarlRitner.com> wrote:
> One would think if everyone is playing the same system (say SAYC as an
> example) then there should not be the need for convention cards, and
> nobody should be allowed to look at them.
That would only be true if you assume everyone knows the system by heart.
Players are expected to know THEIR system. That same expectation is not
so reasonable when they're forced to use an unfamiliar system. Is it a
"memory aid" if you were never expected to have the system in memory in
the first place?
Spurned
Well the regulations say that you can look at an opponent's card at
your turn to bid or play. (I assume it's the "regulations" rather
than the "laws" because I think the Laws delegate to the sponsoring
organization the right to regulate how partnership agreements are
disclosed.) They don't say what the limitations are. However, they
also allow you ask at your turn, and there was a debate some years ago
about whether you could ask for partner's benefit. I do know that in
the pre-screen days, Edgar Kaplan once asked a question, I think of
Garozzo, about the meaning of one of the bids in their Blue Team Club
system, and then asked a followup. He already knew; I think he had
written a book on the Blue Team Club. He was asking for his partner's
(Norman Kay) benefit. Kaplan unapolgetically defended his inquiry.
I don't know whether a sponsoring organization can permit players to
look at their own cards. At one time it was legal so long as you did
it "discreetly" - i.e. such that your partner didn't know you were
lost or confused. That changed maybe 20 years ago. I think the laws
prohibit aids to memory or calculation, so that would supercede.
David Babcock
> I don't know whether a sponsoring organization can permit players to
> look at their own cards.
The choice is made at a higher level: the "Regulating Authority" can
allow this (Law 40C3a). ACBL has not exercised that option.
David
Carl
>
> I don't know whether a sponsoring organization can permit players to
> look at their own cards. At one time it was legal so long as you did
> it "discreetly" - i.e. such that your partner didn't know you were
> lost or confused. That changed maybe 20 years ago. I think the laws
> prohibit aids to memory or calculation, so that would supercede.
You are supposed to remember the auction too, but you are allowed a
complete recap at each turn to play. I have no idea why this is.
With the subject being online masterpoints, I suppose you are not
going to keep a copy of your convention card or partnership agreements
handy while playing. If I were playing in a serious tournament (i.e.
for points) I could not in good faith refer to documentation, but if I
am playing solely for fun, and tinkering with my system, it's
tempting.
Carl
Spurned
I will sometimes refer to system notes when I'm playing at a "funsies"
table but not in a tournament (sanctioned or otherwise).
It is curious of course that you can ask for an explanation of a call,
but not for the whole auction.
As an update on the masterpoint thread, I had some communication with
my ACBL District Director about it. I don't want to relate the full
details because the correspondence was a bit vague, but he made the
ACBL CEO aware of it and apparently there will be some reconsideration
of whether the practices described in the initial post are appropriate
(i.e. monsterpoints for the robot duplicates). One thing he said is
that the ACBL has taken the position that computers are not allowed in
masterpoint games. However, I think the initial reason for that was
to prevent bots from actually competing for and winning masterpoints.
(The inventor of GIB told me in 1998 that GIB would win the Spingold
by 2004.)
Derek Broughton
> As an update on the masterpoint thread, I had some communication with
> my ACBL District Director about it. I don't want to relate the full
> details because the correspondence was a bit vague, but he made the
> ACBL CEO aware of it and apparently there will be some reconsideration
> of whether the practices described in the initial post are appropriate
> (i.e. monsterpoints for the robot duplicates). One thing he said is
> that the ACBL has taken the position that computers are not allowed in
> masterpoint games.
I think he was wrong there. aiui, the ACBL has taken a position that a
computer program cannot be an ACBL _member_, and therefore cannot win
masterpoints. iirc, somebody actually took out a membership for one of the
better programs.
> However, I think the initial reason for that was
> to prevent bots from actually competing for and winning masterpoints.
> (The inventor of GIB told me in 1998 that GIB would win the Spingold
> by 2004.)
It _might_ have been possible if Ginsberg hadn't apparently lost interest in
the program before 2004. Of course, that might have been because he knew it
wasn't going to happen...
--
derek
Spurned
What the board member said to me is that bots cannot play in
masterpoint games. Whether he was accurately reciting ACBL policy,
and whether that was the reason behind ACBL policy, I can't say. I am
not sure if he was on the board when they revoked GIB's ACBL card. I
will probably see him at our local club game tonight, but can't say
whether the subject will come up.
He said some other things, I may ask him if I can publish his
letters. I wouldn't want to tar someone by quoting something he may
have written in an offhand way.
Carl
Matt admitted that the early steep gains were partly due to picking
the low hanging fruit, and that further advancements were going to
need considerable gains in CPU power. I think he was also hoping for a
step change in bidding technology, which never really came about.