Report on the World Computer-Bridge Championship…by Al Levy

 

The 16th World Computer-Bridge Championship sponsored by the American Contract Bridge League and World Bridge Federation, was held alongside the human world championship in Lille, France, from August 17-22.  The results, including the detailed play of the semifinals and final matches, along with the history of previous championships and much more, can be found at www.computerbridge.com

Eight software developers entered their robots into this year’s competition, including: defending champion Shark Bridge (developed by John Vermehren Norris, Denmark); Jack (Hans Kuijf, The Netherlands); WBridge5 (Yves Costel, France); Q-Plus Bridge (Hans Leber, Germany); Mirco Bridge (Tomio Uchida, Japan); Bridge Baron (Stephen Smith, USA); RoboBridge (Job Scheffers, The Netherlands); and Moose Bridge (Pete Boton, USA).

The format is team play, with each team consisting of four identical robots.  The event starts with a 32-board round robin, with the top four robot teams advancing to the 64-board semifinal KO stage.  The round robin ended with Jack (145 VPs), Micro Bridge (135), WBridge5 (125) and Q-Plus Bridge (111) qualifying for the KO stage.  In the semifinals WBridge5 squeaked out a victory, 162-161, against Micro Bridge while Jack won comfortably, 189-116 against Q-Plus Bridge. The final was also close, with Jack regaining the title, 153-147.

Opening leads often make all the difference.  In the last round-robin round this board contributed to Micro Bridge’s 137-33 big win against Wbridge5.

 

Board 3
South Deals
E-W Vul

♠ A 2
♥ 8 6 4
♦ A Q 9 7 5 2
♣ 5 4

 

♠ Q J 3
♥ A J 10
♦ K
♣ A K Q 10 9 3

N 

W

E

S 

♠ K 9 5 4
♥ K Q 9 2
♦ 8 6 3
♣ J 2

♠ 10 8 7 6
♥ 7 5 3
♦ J 10 4
♣ 8 7 6

 

Table 1

 

West

North

East

South

Micro Bridge

WBridge5

Micro Bridge

WBridge5

Pass

3 NT

Pass

Pass

Pass

 

3 NT by West

 

Opening lead ♦7

 

Made 5, EW +660

 

Only the ♦A defeats 3NT.

 

Table 2

West

North

East

South

WBridge5

Micro Bridge

WBridge5

Micro Bridge

Pass

2 ♣

3 ♦

Dbl1

Pass

4 ♣

Pass

6 ♣

All Pass

1 negative double

Opening lead ♦A

At the other table Wbridge5 overbid to 6 ♣.  North, holding two aces, had no trouble cashing them for down one.

 

Another opening lead that made a big difference occurred in the final match and was the difference between winning and losing the match.

Board 26
Dealer: East
Vul: Both

♠ Q 9 6
♥ K 5
♦ Q 9 5 4
♣ A J 9 3

 

♠ K 10 5
♥ J 10 8 7
♦ 7 6 3 2
♣ 8 2

N

W

E

S

♠ A J 8 3
♥ A 9 6 2
♦ J 8
♣ 6 5 4

♠ 7 4 2
♥ Q 4 3
♦ A K 10
♣ K Q 10 7

 

West

North

East

South

WBridge5

Jack

Jack

WBridge5

WBridge5

Jack

Jack

Wbridge5

Pass

1 ♣

Pass

2 NT

Pass

3 NT

All Pass

 

3 NT by North

At one table WBridge5 led ♥2, -600; at the other table Jack led the ♠ 3, +100, and 12 IMPs for Jack.

If there was an award for best declared deal, it would go to WBridge5, making 5♣x on board 39 of the final match.

Board 39
Dealer: South
Vul: Both

♠ 4 3 2
♥ A
♦ J 8 6 3 2
♣ 10 9 4 2

♠ —
♥ 10 4 3
♦ A 10 9 5 4
♣ A 8 7 5 3

N 

W

E

S 

♠ K J 10 7 6 5
♥ Q 7
♦ K Q
♣ K Q J

♠ A Q 9 8
♥ K J 9 8 6 5 2
♦ 7
♣ 6

Table 1: WBridge5 NS, Jack EW

West

North

East

South

Jack

WBridge5

Jack

WBridge5

1 ♥

Pass

1 NT

2 ♠

3 ♥

All Pass

 

 

3♥ by South, down 1, NS -100

Table 2. Jack NS, WBridge5 EW

West

North

East

South

WBridge5

Jack

WBridge5

Jack

1 ♥

2 NT

Pass

5 ♣

Pass

Pass

Dbl

All Pass

 

5 ♣ x by East, made 5 EW +750

 

At one table WBridge5, sitting NS, played in 3♥ and went down one, losing two minor suit aces and three spades.  At the other table, with WBridge5 sitting EW, West was overly aggressive, overcalling 2NT (vulnerable) to show the minors.  East, rich in minor suit honors, jumped to 5♣ and North doubled. Checking with Deep Finesse, 5♣ is cold on any lead if plays perfectly, and WBridge5 played perfectly, finding one of a number of sequences of plays to make.  The bidding and opening lead suggested that North had a high heart and South held both spade honors, and to have a reasonable play for the contract, WBridge5 needed South to hold both spade honors.  After a diamond lead to the king, East led the ♠J, covered by the queen and ruffed. Back with a trump to the queen, East led ♠10, covered by the ace and ruffed.  Back with a trump to the king, East cashed the ♦Q, ♠K, ruffed a spade with the ace, dummies last trump.  North discarded a diamond (it doesn’t help the defense if North discards the ♥A) and led a heart.  North, in with the ♥A could do no better than return a trump to East’s jack, ruff East’s good spade, and lead into West’s ♦A 10.  A well deserved 12 IMPs for WBridge5.

After the event was over, it was noticed that there was a scoring error in the round robin.  Micro Bridge should have had 137 VPs, not 135 as originally posted. That meant Micro Bridge was entitled to 2 more IMPs in the carryover of its semifinal match against WBridge5.  With that carryover, MicroBridge wins by 1 IMP.  A most unfortunate situation! Micro Bridge developer Tomio Uchida was a good sport about the mix-up, reporting that he was encouraged with his program's performance and looked forward to next year's competition. The other competitors expressed their regrets to Uchida and wished him much success in the future. The sportsmanship of all the contestants, along with their dedication to improving robot play, is to be commended.

Next year’s championship will take place September 23-28, in Bali, Indonesia, as part of the WBF’s World Bridge Team Championships.