THE 6TH ANNUAL WORLD COMPUTER-BRIDGE CHAMPIONSHIP

Montreal, Canada

August 23-27, 2002

Alvin Levy

Introduction

The American Contract Bridge League’s (ACBL) 6th annual World Computer-Bridge Championship was held in Montreal, PQ, August 23-27, 2002, as part of the World Bridge Federation’s (WBF) World Bridge Championships. Starting in 1997 the ACBL has held an annual World Computer-Bridge Championship in conjunction with a major bridge activity. This is the third time it has been held at a WBF championship, the other years being at an ACBL championship.

 

These annual championships, as well as other informal competitions, have themselves been a major factor in the rate of improvement in computer-bridge programs. This event has also led to an informal interactive group of software developers, with their numbers increasing. As the level of play improves, bridge journalists and the public are becoming increasingly interested in the quest for computers to play at the “expert” level. Will computer-bridge duplicate the achievement of computer-chess, with the 1997 triumph of IBM’s “Deep Blue” over Garry Kasparov? Only time will tell.

 

The Contestants

Seven contestants, representing six countries, entered their bridge-playing computer programs to compete for the title of World Computer-Bridge Champion. Eleven computer-bridge programs have entered in one or more years of this championship and there are five more program developers who have expressed an interest in competing in the near future.

 

Play Format

Computers (1.8 MHz with Windows XP) were supplied. Automatic play was used with a “table” consisting of four computers (North-East-South-West) connected to a central server, or Table Manager. A “team” of four identical programs played as NS at one table and as EW at another table. At the start of a match the opponents input each other’s Convention Card. After each deal the central server distributed the next hand and play continued. Humans only interacted with the play when an explainable bid was made, which was very infrequent. When an explainable bid was made the opponent manually input the meaning using a preset protocol. The TM kept a record of all play and scored the matches.

 

The speed of play was set at four minutes a deal, approximately one-half that of human play.  Systems and conventions were limited to the equivalent to the ACBL’s General Chart.

 

The Competition

After five days of computer-bridge competition, including a complete 20-board round robin, a 48-board semifinal and a 64-board final, the defending champion Jack nipped WBridge5 by 1 IMP. The two finalists had played a total of 232 boards sitting both East/West and North/South...464 hands of bridge in all. It came down to the last board. With one board to go Jack led WBridge5 by 5 IMPs. Hans Kuijf, developer of Jack, and Yves Costel, developer of WBridge5, along with their supporters, spectators and organizers watched intently as the play unfolded.

 

 

West	North	East	South
Jack	WBridge5	Jack	WBridge5
Pass	1♣	Pass	1♦
Pass	1♥	Pass	1♠
Pass	2♠	All Pass

 

Opening lead: ♣7

WBridge5 North did well to bid only 2♠. At the “other” table Jack went down one in 4♠ when North took a more aggressive view. In the unlikely event that WBridge5 made 10 tricks it would become the new champion, if it made nine tricks, a playoff would be necessary, and if it made eight tricks, or less, Jack would retain the title.

 

West led the ♣7. There are four obvious losers, 2 clubs, one heart and one diamond. If declarer could time the play correctly 9 tricks were possible without a trump return. However, when Jack returned the ♠10 at trick two declarer could not make more than eight tricks without risking the contract. In the actual play, WBridge5 played on hearts first and diamonds second. Each defender, after winning their Ace, returned a trump and declarer was held to 8 tricks...and Jack was crowned the 2002 World Computer-Bridge Champion.

 

Jack versus WBridge5 in the 64-board final:

Final	1-16	17-32	33-48	49-64	Total
Jack	21	9	42	25	97
WBridge5	46	10	23	17	96

 

Round Robin

Leading up to the semifinals and finals, the 20-board round robin ended with Jack, WBridge5, MicroBridge and Q-Plus Bridge taking the top four spots. GIB would have qualified for the semifinals but chose to withdraw from the tournament during the last round robin match because of technical difficulties.

 

Jack won the round robin convincingly by 13 VPs. Its only loss was to WBridge5 by 15 IMPs. WBridge5’s performance was impressive as it went through the round robin without a loss. GIB (before the technical problem) and MicroBridge had also scored well in the round robin.

 

20-Board Round Robin, 25-VP Scale (IMPs/VPs)

Team	Jack	WB5	Micro B	Q-Plus	BCB	MB	GIB	Total
Jack The Netherlands	Bye 15	28-43 12	69-42 21	81-17 25	58-33 20	78-41 25	45-41 16	134	1
Wbridge5 v. 2.3 France	43-28 18	Bye 15	75-60 18	61-58 16	51-32 19	64-40 20	46-45 15	121	2
Micro Bridge Japan	42-69 9	60-75 12	Bye 15	40-31 17	46-18 21	96-13 25	46-41 16	115	3
Q-Plus Bridge Germany	17-81 3	58-61 14	31-40 13	Bye 15	77-14 25	115-30 25	21-75 4	99	4
Blue Chip Bridge UK	33-58 10	32-51 11	18-46 9	14-77 3	Bye 15	75-19 25	22-83 3	76	5
Meadowlark Bridge USA	16-78 3	40-64 10	13-96 0	30-115 0	19-75 4	Bye 15	avg+ 17	49	6
GIB USA	41-45 14	45-46 15	41-46 14	75-21 25	83-22 25	W/D 0	Bye 15	108	W/D

 

An interesting hand from the round robin saw Micro Bridge make a nice play against Blue Chip Bridge.

 

 

 

West	North	East	South
1♥	2♣	3♣	Pass
3♥	Pass	4♥	All Pass

 

Opening lead: ♣K

 

At both tables E-W reached 4♥ with the same bidding sequence and received the ♣K lead. When Micro Bridge declared the hand declarer pulled two rounds of trump, ruffed a club, cashed the ♠A, and led a spade. North had not unblocked the ♠K and had to give declarer a ruff and sluff. 4♥ making 4 +620. At the other table Blue Chip Bridge did not find the winning play and 4♥ went down one, -100, and 12 IMPs to Micro Bridge.

 

 

 

Jack and WBridge5 won their 48-board semifinal matches convincingly to set up the exciting final.

 

Semifinal Results

	Carryover	1-16	17-32	33-48	Total
Jack vs. Q-Plus Bridge
Jack Q-Plus Bridge	+22	68 25	52 3	34 58	176 96
WBridge5 vs. Micro Bridge
WBridge5 Micro Bridge	+6	94 8	39 30	76 8	215 46

 

 

 

 

 

Good judgment and some luck led to a big pickup for WBridge5 against Micro Bridge in their semifinal match.

 

West	North	East	South
Micro Bridge	WBridge5	Micro Bridge	WBridge5
		3♣	4♥
5♣	5♥	Pass	Pass
6♣	Dbl	Pass	6♥
Pass	Pass	Dbl	All Pass

 

Opening lead: ♠K

 

West’s 6♣ bid was an excellent save but South made a good risk/reward decision in bidding 6♥. West made the best lead, the ♠K, but it turns out that with East having a singleton spade and the ♦A, 6♥ was cold, + 1430 NS. A big pickup for WBridge5 as Micro Bridge was down in 5♠ at the other table.

 

 

 

 

Two well-played hands from the Finals between Jack and WBridge5 follow:

 

 

 

West	North	East	South
Jack	WBridge5	Jack	WBridge5
	Pass	Pass	Pass
1♠	Pass	1NT	Pass
2♣	Pass	2♥	Pass
4♥	All Pass

 

Opening lead: ♥Q

 

WBridge5 (South) found the only lead to possibly defeat 4♥ a trump. With any other lead East had 10 tricks, 2 diamond ruffs, 4 hearts, 3 clubs and a spade. Jack timed the play just right. A diamond to the ♦J and ♦A; a heart return by South to East’s ♥K; ♣K; ♠A; spade ruff; ♣A; ♣Q pitching a diamond; spade ruff; and diamond ruff. Now 12 of South’s cards are known. With 3 cards to play, South is known to have 2 spades and either a club, a diamond or a heart. While a spade ruff looks straight forward as East is guaranteed to make a trump trick, computers don’t “think” in the same way that humans do. Jack equally considers a club continuation straightforward since it also guarantees ten tricks. If South’s 13th card is a club or diamond then the club ruff succeeds; if it is a heart then after the over-ruff, South must concede a spade to West, 4♥ making 4, +620.

 

 

 

West	North	East	South
WBridge5	Jack	WBridge5	Jack
Pass	1♣	1♠	Dbl
Pass	4♥	All Pass

 

Opening lead: ♦3

 

4♥ was a well-judged bid by North, getting to a probable 4-3 fit and avoiding a spade lead through the ♠K. The contract was a sound one and easily made an overtrick, 4♥ making 5, +450.

 

At the other table North bid 3♣ after the negative double by partner and South bid 3NT hoping for a likely spade honor with North.

 

West	North	East	South
Jack	WBridge5	Jack	WBridge5
Pass	1♣	1♠	Dbl
Pass	3♣	Pass	3NT
All Pass

 

Opening lead: ♠9

 

Due to a lucky lie of the spade cards, 3NT is makable with the routine lead of the ♠7. The nearly “impossible-to-find” ♠Q lead easily beats 3NT but would lose with other lies of the cards. The actual lead of the ♠9, a remarkably imaginative lead, also defeats the contract. However, East could not read the situation. As the cards lie, East must duck when dummy played low, preparing to run the suit by cashing the ace with West unblocking the queen. However, East played South as likely to hold the ♠Q J x (x) and tried a reasonable alternate defense, winning the ♠A and leading back a diamond, hoping to defeat the contract if West started with ♦K 10 x x. With the actual lie of the cards South made 11 tricks for +460 and no swing.

 

Computer-bridge programs have made significant advances over the past six years but have not yet reached the “expert” level. The play by the two finalists, Jack and WBridge5, demonstrated many more very well played hands than observed in previous competitions. One observation is that the programs are not yet consistent enough to win at a high-level tournament. While many hands are played expertly, there are many mistakes made in relatively simple situations. The deals shown here represent the more impressive performances.

 

For more well played deals and details on all aspects of this event, including its history, see the website at http://www.ny-bridge.com/allevy/Montreal

 

Acknowledgement

Thanks to the WBF for supporting this year’s activity. The WBF supplied the playing space, expert staff help and covered the activity in their Daily Bulletin