NEWS, INFORMATION, TOURNAMENTS AND REPORTS
June
22-27, 2003
Al Levy[1]
Introduction
The
American Contract Bridge League’s 7th annual World Computer-Bridge
Championship pitted nine of the best bridge-playing programs from around the
world against each other for the title of 2003 World Computer-Bridge Champion.
The venue was Menton, France, at the site of the European Bridge League’s first
Open European Championships. The climate was “cool” as the computer-bridge
championship was played at the Bridge Club du Menton, the only air-conditioned
bridge-playing facility in Menton.
This
championship has been held every year since 1996 at an important human
international bridge event. The preceding six championships were held three
times at ACBL North American Bridge Championships and three times at World
Bridge Federation World Championships.
The
five-day format started with a 20-board round robin, scored on a 25 VP scale,
with the top-four programs advancing to the 64-board KO segment, with
carryover. To have a carryover in the KO segment, a program must have won its
head-to-head round-robin match against its KO opponent and also ended higher in
the overall round-robin standings. The
carryover is then the lesser of these two VP differences.
Technical Issues
A bridge
“table” consists of a central server, or Table Manager (TM), that contains and
distributes the deals to four connected computers, each of which contain a
software program, or “player.” We used P4 1.8MHz/256 MB computers running under
Windows XP. The speed of play is two minutes a deal for each pair,
approximately half that of human play. Before a match begins the opponent
operators “exchange” convention cards and methods and enter the pertinent
information into their player’s database. Play then proceeds automatically with
the TM receiving and passing information to the “players” and recording the
play of each deal.
The
contestants
This year
nine teams from six countries participated. Details are shown in Table 1.
Program |
Programmers |
Country |
Total VPs. |
Wbridge5 |
Yves
Costel |
France |
165 |
Jack |
Hans
Kuijf |
The
Netherlands |
162 |
Micro Bridge |
Tomio
and Yumiko Uchida |
Japan |
161 |
Bridge Baron |
Stephen
Smith and George Yanakiev |
USA |
141 |
Q-Plus |
Hans
Leber |
Germany |
128 |
Oxford Bridge |
Andrew
and Rachel Bracher |
UK |
121 |
Blue Chip Bridge |
Ian
Trackman and Mike Whittaker |
UK |
88 |
Meadowlark Bridge |
Rodney
Ludwig and David Walker |
USA |
29 |
Sabrina |
Pierre
Cormault and Gérard Joyez |
France |
9 |
Table
1: Participants of the Round Robin 20-board matches.
After nine
round-robin segments, with each program sitting out one round, Wbridge5 topped all competitors with
165 VPs. Closely behind were two-time defending champion, Jack, with 162 VPs, and Micro Bridge with 161 VPs. Bridge Baron was fourth, with Q-Plus Bridge and Oxford Bridge close behind.
In the semifinal KOs,
Wbridge5 was matched against
fourth place Bridge Baron, while
second place Jack played third
place Micro Bridge, and according
to regulations, there were no carryovers. Jack
defeated Micro Bridge
167-81. In one of the strongest comebacks in computer-bridge history Bridge Baron came back from a 47 IMP
deficit, with 16 boards to play, to defeat Wbridge5
143-139.
Semifinals
|
Carry-over
|
1-16 |
17-32 |
33-48 |
49-64 |
Total IMPs. |
Wbridge5, France |
0 |
20 |
60 |
40 |
19 |
139 |
Bridge Baron, USA |
0 |
36 |
19 |
18 |
70 |
143 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jack, The Netherlands |
0 |
36 |
33 |
59 |
39 |
167 |
Micro Bridge, Japan |
0 |
9 |
26 |
12 |
34 |
81 |
One board
that gave Wbridge5 some of its
big lead was Board 48.
West |
North |
East |
South |
Bridge Baron |
Wbridge5 |
Bridge Baron |
Wbridge5 |
1¨ |
pass |
1© |
Dbl |
2§ |
pass |
2¨ |
3ª |
pass |
4ª |
Dbl |
all pass |
West led
the ¨A and shifted to a trump. Wbridge5 played best for 10 tricks,
playing ©K, a heart to
the Ace and the §3, avoiding
having East getting on lead to return a second trump. The play of the ©K and a second heart gave West a
chance to err. If West has a second trump declarer is going down in 4ª unless West, with §KQJ, mistakenly ruffs the second
heart. At the other table, Bridge Baron
stopped in 3ª and also made
10 tricks. 6 IMPs to Wbridge5.
In the
finals Jack defeated Bridge Baron 188-117 to retain the
title of World Computer-Bridge Champion. This is Jack’s third year in a row as title holder. Jack won the 2001 championship at the
ACBL’s summer NABC in Toronto, defeating Micro
Bridge in the final, and won the 2002 championships at the WBF’s World
Championships in Montreal, defeating Wbridge5
in the final.
Final
|
Carryover |
1-16 |
17-32 |
33-48 |
49-64 |
Total IMPs.
|
Bridge Baron, USA |
|
26 |
29 |
6 |
56 |
117 |
Jack, The Netherlands |
2 |
79 |
34 |
56 |
17 |
188 |
To show
the level of play that can be expected from the better bridge-playing programs,
a few boards from the final match follow.
Jack got off to an early
big lead with Boards 2 and 3.
An example of an evaluation decision by Jack is shown on Board 2.
West |
North |
East |
South |
Jack |
Bridge Baron |
Jack |
Bridge Baron |
|
|
1§ |
pass |
2§ |
pass |
2NT |
pass |
3NT |
all pass |
|
|
2NT was not forcing opposite an inverted minor raise. Jack made a reasonable and winning
decision not to pursue slam with a maximum 31 high-card points and two balanced
hands, and made 12 tricks on a spade lead. Bridge
Baron understandably bid to a relatively hopeless 6§ contract and went down on a diamond
lead. 11 IMPs to Jack.
Board 3 was a “lucky” board for Jack
6© or 6NT are at least 50% contracts. As the cards lie,
6NT by West is down on a spade lead or a diamond lead covered by the King, and
makes on a club or heart lead if declarer takes the diamond finesse rather than
the spade finesse, while 6© or 6NT by East makes on any lead if declarer takes the
diamond finesse rather than the spade finesse, except if opening leader finds
the double dummy Merrimac Coup lead of the ¨K.
At the table Jack rested
in 4© and made two overtricks on a spade lead. At the other
table Bridge Baron West went down
in 6NT on a spade lead. 13 “lucky” IMPs
to Jack.
[Comment by Hans Kuijf: “Ending up in 6NT in a teams game appears to be
losing in the end. In general 6©
will
have a better chance. I agree that on the deal at hand 6NT is better. Humans
would bid 6©.”]
The best played board in the finals was Board 11.
West |
North |
East |
South |
Bridge Baron |
Jack |
Bridge Baron |
Jack |
|
|
|
1© |
pass |
pass |
dbl |
pass |
2ª |
pass |
3NT |
all pass |
Table 1
West |
North |
East |
South |
Jack |
Bridge Baron |
Jack |
Bridge Baron |
|
|
|
1© |
1ª |
pass |
4©! |
pass |
4ª |
all pass |
|
|
Table 2
In 4ª Jack had an easy time when, with a heart
lead, South played the Queen at trick one. Jack
made an overtrick when, based on South’s opening bid, he played for the §K doubleton offside. In 3NT at Table
1, Bridge Baron played perfectly.
Not wanting to make an early discard Bridge
Baron won the second diamond, crossed to the ªA, finessed a
heart with the 10, a club to the Ace noting the drop of the 10, a heart to the
King, the §9 (unblocking) ducked to South’s
King. Now the ªK was an entry to take the club finesse against
North’s Jack. Well played by Jack in 4ª and brilliantly played by Bridge Baron in 3NT. 2 IMPs to Jack.
In contrast to the good play on Board 11, the contestants had a difficult
time reaching game on Board 12 with 6¨ a lay-down slam.
West |
North |
East |
South |
Bridge Baron |
Jack |
Bridge Baron |
Jack |
2¨ |
pass |
3§! |
3ª |
pass |
pass |
4¨ |
all pass |
Table 1
West |
North |
East |
South |
Jack |
Bridge Baron |
Jack |
Bridge Baron |
pass |
3© |
all pass |
|
Table 2
Bridge Baron had a good fourth quarter, in
part due to Board 53. Bridge Baron
reached 4ª after South opened 1NT and North, using Smolen,
forced to game. West led the ¨J, ducked to South’s Queen.
It looks as if there are two
certain trump losers and two more in diamonds after this lead. Bridge Baron executed perfectly,
playing the §A followed by a
club ruff, a spade to the Ace for
a second club ruff, a spade to the King
followed by the ©Q to the King and
Ace, and then the ©J and a heart ruff
with the ª3, followed by the §7 ruffed with the ª7.
Declarer already had nine tricks
so East had to over-ruff. East could cash the ªQ but
had to lead a diamond to North’s King for declarer’s tenth trick. 10 IMPs to Bridge Baron as Jack had stopped in 3ª at the other table.
Bridge Baron finished strongly, winning back 39 Imps in the fourth quarter to go out
in style, but it was not nearly enough as Jack
won its unprecedented third championship in a row.
The play
in the semifinals and finals demonstrated that the level of play and
consistency of good play of the best computer programs has increased greatly
over the past few years, with a few programs approaching expert level.
Great Software Giveaway Promotion
In recognition that bridge is a wonderful game for youngsters, helping
to develop their logical and analytical skills, the ACBL Educational Foundation
funded a software giveaway in conjunction with the World Computer-Bridge
Championship. This grant, along with the cooperation of the software
developers, allowed 150 juniors who are members of a recognized National Bridge
Organization to receive a software program for free. The software programs
given away included, Jack, Bridge Baron,
Micro Bridge, Q-Plus Bridge, Oxford Bridge, Blue Chip Bridge, and Fred
Gitelman’s Bridge Master 2000.
Thanks go to the North American Youth Bridge Foundation, and chairman
Jade Barrett, for being a sponsor. Thanks also go to the European Bridge League
for helping to coordinate this year’s event. Special thanks are due to Felix
Giani, President of the Bridge Club du Menton, for his total cooperation. Most
of all, thanks are due to all the contestants who participated with great
sportsmanship and cooperation. Their goal is clearly to push the
state-of-the-art as far as they can. Maybe one day we will see Jack and company defeat a team of Zia
and company.
For more information on the World Computer-Bridge Championship, including its history, past championship results, articles and pictures, go to computerbridge.com or ny-bridge.com/allevy/Menton