NEWS, INFORMATION, TOURNAMENTS AND REPORTS

 

 

Report on the 7^TH ACBL’s World Computer-Bridge Championship

 

Menton, France

 

June 22-27, 2003

 

Al Levy[1]

 

Introduction

The American Contract Bridge League’s 7^th 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