[sfi]

Zelandakh, on 2016-May-15, 04:18, said:

Bridge computers are simply not far enough along in their development yet. I believe that at some point they will play at the level of top human players and quite possibly significantly higher. We are currently not close to that. Think back to chess computers in the early-mid 80s, that is where we are in bridge. The outcome of such a match at the present time is not in doubt; give it a decade or two and it might well be.

I actually don't think bridge computers will get to the level of good humans. It's not that they can't - we've seen too many advances in too many areas to believe that. I just don't believe anyone will have a good reason to spend the money required to make it happen. Deep Blue was a sizeable investment from IBM and there doesn't seem to be the visibility or incentives to do the same for bridge.

One thing is certain - Jack isn't it. Even though I recommend it as a useful learning tool.

[nullve]

helene_t, on 2016-May-12, 04:16, said:

Lebensohl may seem the obvious choice but imo drury is what you probably miss most frequently and it is simpler. Just don't forget to agree that it is off after interference and that it doesn't apply after 1d.

But the following application is new to me:

---

[gwnn]

On Wikipedia there is a small paragraph on a match Helene previously mentioned:

Quote

A series of articles published in 2005 and 2006 in the Dutch bridge magazine IMP describes matches between five-time computer bridge world champion Jack and seven top Dutch pairs including a Bermuda Bowl winner and two reigning European champions. A total of 196 boards were played. Jack defeated three out of the seven pairs (including the European champions). Overall, the program lost by a small margin (359 versus 385 imps).

Does anyone know more about this challenge? Were humans instructed not to excessively psyche/adopt anti-robot behaviour? Computers got a lot faster now, although I can imagine that making computers better at bridge is much less a question of processing power than making them good at chess (although there, too, I know that evaluation criteria got much better as well as hardware).

[Zelandakh]

nullve, on 2016-May-15, 05:50, said:

But the following application is new to me:

It looks rather as if Papi misread the opening bid as 1♠.