Interesting Hands from the

13^th annual ACBL/WBF World Computer-Bridge Championship

July 26-31, 2009

by Alvin Levy

Here are many interesting hands from the recent World Computer-Bridge Championship held as part of the ACBL’s summer NABC in Washington, D.C.  These hands, and others that will be added (especially from the final KO) will be used by me to write articles to be published in The Bridge Bulletin and in The International Computer Games Association Journal.  To bridge journalists and authors...please feel free to use these hands for publication or posting.  In addition, the complete 64-board finals KO between Jack and Wbridge5 can be found at www.computerbridge.com along the results and articles describing the 13 years of play.

Introduction:

Ten robots were entered in the six-day event.  The format of the World Computer-Bridge Championship is team-of-four, with four identical robots playing as a team.

The event started with a 28-board round robin scored on the International 30-VPs scale (0-3 IMPs is 15-15; 4-10 IMPs is 16-14; up through 95+ IMPs is 25-0).  The top four teams in the round robin advance, with carryover, to the 64-board semifinal KO stage.  The top eight robots from the round robin play in a side event, a 112-board Individual.

Wbridge5 (France) topped the round robin with 198 VPs.  Jack (The Netherlands) was close behind with 195 VPs, followed by Micro Bridge (Japan) with 166 VPs and Shark Bridge (Denmark) with 162 VPs.  Q-Plus Bridge (Germany) with 155 VPs was the only other robot in contention to advance to the semifinal KO stage.  Bridge Baron (USA) with 128 VPs, RoboBridge (The Netherlands) with 111 VPs and Bridge Captain (USA) with 111 VPs rounded out the top eight to play in the Individual event.  For first time entrants Ray’s Bridge Game (USA) and Sy Borg (USA) it was a learning experience, as they didn’t take a single VP against the top eight robots.

After three days of intense round robin play, the contestants relaxed with a fun filled Individual.  After 112-boards Shark Bridge emerged as the clear winner, for the second year in a row.

Hands:

In the round robin Shark Bridge’s good decision at the five level gained 13 IMPs against Micro Bridge.

 

 

Good decisions were made in the bidding.  West did well to preempt the auction, North did well to take an action, South did well to not pass the Dbl, and East did well to save at 5♠.  5♠x went down one for -200.  At the other table the auction was 1♠-Pass-4♠-All Pass, and +620 to Shark Bridge.  At the other eight tables in the round robin the final contract was 4♠.

 

Some interesting hands from the Semifinals follow.

 

 

⁽¹⁾one round force; ⁽²⁾extras; ⁽³⁾1 or 3 key cards

 

Micro Bridge led the ♦A, followed by a heart to declarer’s ♥A.  Jack crossed to the ♦K, discarded a spade on the ♥K, ruffed a heart, led to the ♠A, and finessed the club for down one.  The finesse gains against North holding x and loses against Q x or Q.  A priori odds favor the drop approximately 3-2, but if you assume South started with 2 diamonds, the odds change to even money.  Micro Bridge picked up 12 IMPs when it played 5♣ for +600, at the other table. 

 

In the other match, Wbridge5 and Shark Bridge both bid and made 6♣ when North failed to find the spade lead.

 

 

 

Micro Bridge’s 4♣ showed values in clubs and heart support.  East led a club for down one.  At the other three tables North opened 2♠ and South drove to 6♠, making on a ♥A lead.  Micro Bridge’s 4♣ bid won 14 IMPs.

 

 

⁽¹⁾ transfer; ⁽²⁾ strong 4-card heart raise; ⁽³⁾ shortness; ⁽⁴⁾ stronger than Pass

 

⁽¹⁾ transfer; ⁽²⁾ 4-card heart raise; ⁽³⁾ game versus 4♦ is a good bet

 

Jack and Wbridge5 gained 10 IMPs against Micro Bridge and Shark Bridge, respectively, when they pushed to reached a cold game while Micro Bridge and Shark Bridge played in 3♥.  11 tricks were made at every table.

How do you play a 5-3 suit missing the Q and 10?  According to Edgar Kaplan’s 1973 Bridge World article, “The Deep Nine” finessing the nine is as good as finessing the Jack.

 

 

 

♥10 lead.  The play was the same at both tables for the first 5 tricks.  Declarer won the heart lead, cashed a high diamond, led a heart to dummy, finessed in diamonds to the ♦10 and received a club to South’s ♣K.  Against Shark Bridge, Wbridge5 returned a spade and the defense had to prevail with two spades, two clubs and a diamond.  Against Wbridge5, Shark Bridge didn’t find the spade return and Wbridge5 set up a club trick for +600.

 

 

Against Jack, Micro Bridge led the ♥4.  Jack won in hand and led a club to the ♣10, looking for either four or five diamonds, three hearts, a spade and a club.  Micro Bridge did well to duck the trick.  Jack cashed a high diamond, crossed to dummy and finessed the ♦9.  North won and found the club return to defeat 3NT.  In human play, South would have to duck smoothly or run the risk of losing an appeal if North returns a club.

Against Micro Bridge, Jack led the ♣A and a small club.  Micro Bridge finessed the ♦J, crossed to the ♥A and led a diamond intending to guarantee the contract by finesse the nine.  +630 when Jack played the ♦Q.

 

⁽¹⁾ strong hand; ⁽²⁾ 0-5 hcp; ⁽³⁾ singleton; ⁽⁴⁾ 0 keycards

 

⁽¹⁾ strong hand; ⁽²⁾ 0-5 hcp; ⁽³⁾ relay to have 3♥ forcing; ⁽⁴⁾ 6-8 support point, at least 2 trumps; ⁽⁵⁾ a simulation showed 6♥ was not a good bet

 

The only defense to beat the slam is ♥A and a heart continuation.  Jack led a spade and Micro Bridge ruffed two spades and discarded a diamond on the ♣K before leading trump, +1430 and 13 IMPs to Micro Bridge.

⁽¹⁾ strong hand; ⁽²⁾ 0-5 hcp

⁽¹⁾ waiting; ⁽²⁾ values; ⁽³⁾ 0 or 3 key cards

Against Shark Bridge, Wbridge5 found the winning defense of the ♥A and a heart continuation.  Shark Bridge took the only play to make 6♥, finessing in spades, for -100.  Against Wbridge5, Shark Bridge also led the ♥A, but failed to continue a trump, +1430 and 17 IMPs to Wbridge5.

 

With two boards to play, Micro Bridge was up by 18 IMPs and poised to upset Jack.

 

⁽¹⁾ strong hand; ⁽²⁾ 0-5 hcp

⁽¹⁾ waiting

Jack did well to reach 3NT and was rewarded when hearts broke 4-3, while Micro Bridge was down one in 4♣.  12 IMPs to Jack reduced Micro Bridge's lead to 6 IMPs with one board to play..

In the other semifinal match, Shark Bridge won 10 IMPs when it reached 3NT (2♣-2♦; 3♣-3♠; 3NT-Pass) while Wbridge5 rested too comfortably, in 3♣ (2♣ (22-23 total points)-2♦; 3♣-Pass).

 

 

 

In the other match, the auctions were identical to the above second table.  The light but sound 1♦ opening led to reaching the good, but unmakable, 4♠ contact.

4♥ was down two for -100 and 5♥x was down three, for -500, +400 for Jack.  The 9 IMP pickup put Jack ahead by 3 IMPs at the wire.

Final:

See the FINAL KO hand records and play in Movie format (open with NetBridgeVu) at 2009 Final KOs

Jack and Wbridge5 had a low scoring final, with Jack regaining the title it lost three year’s ago, 108-94.

If Wbridge5 made a game on the penultimate board, the it would be 1 IMP down with one board to play.

 

 

 

Everyone knows that 3NT ends the auction.  Every human, that is.  Robots override their partner if their conclusions are different, and there are no hard feelings.  3NT is a lucky make, but 5♦ went down two.  With an easy 3NT on the last board, bid and made at both tables, Jack regained the title 108-94.

 

Congratulations to Hans Kuijf, the developer of Jack, who had some nervous moments watching his creation survive two close well-played matches.

 

Some photos Robots at Play