Scores 7V23  Main Challenge

February 2001 Scores

Analyses  by Richard Pavlicek

The “Counselor for the Defense” play contest had 204 participants, and everyone scoring above average is listed here. Ties in the rankings are broken by the date and time of submission (earliest wins). At the end of this page is a “Bot’s Eye View,” which shows how various computer programs fared.

Top 50

51

Location Ranking

Bot’s Eye View

Participation Stats

Number of participants	204
Number of locations	68
Highest score	58
Median score	38
Lowest score	16
Average score	37.19

Top 50 Places

Rank	Score	LC	Name	1	2	3	4	5	6
1	58	UKen	John Reardon	10	10	2	7	2	5
2	57	PT	Manuel Paulo	10	4	2	7	2	5
3	55	FR	Francois Dellacherie	7	10	2	K	Q	5
4	53	UKen	Gareth Birdsall	J	4	2	K	2	5
5	53	RO	Radu Mihai	10	4	2	K	Q	5
6	52	HR	Tonci Tomic	7	4	5	7	Q	5
7	52	AU	Bill Powell	J	10	5	7	2	5
8	52	USma	Jonathan Weinstein	10	10	5	7	Q	5
9	51	IN	Sivakumar Salem	J	4	2	K	Q	5
10	51	UK	Lydia Stern	10	4	5	K	2	5
11	50	CH	John Weisweiler	10	4	6	7	2	5
12	49	IN	Neelotpal Sahai	10	4	2	7	3	5
13	49	US	Ed Michaels	10	4	2	7	6	10
14	48	USwa	Josh Sinnett	J	10	5	7	6	5
15	48	USpa	Steve White	J	10	5	7	6	5
16	47	SE	Per-Ola Cullin	10	4	2	K	3	6
17	47	HK	Hongyan Chen	J	4	5	K	Q	5
18	47	HU	Gyula Argay	10	4	9	7	2	5
19	47	TW	Suyu Chiu	J	4	5	7	6	5
20	46	IN	Subbu Viswanathan	10	J	5	7	2	5
21	46	US	Jane Eason	10	10	5	K	3	6
22	46	IN	Arvind Ranasaria	J	10	5	7	Q	10
23	45	USny	Barry Rigal	J	4	2	K	Q	9
24	45	IL	Avi Berger	9	J	5	7	2	6
25	45	USmn	Brian Weikle	10	10	5	7	6	5
26	45	EE	Meelis Tiitson	10	10	5	K	6	6
27	45	AU	Bill Jacobs	10	4	2	K	3	J
28	45	IN	Arvind Nimbalker	10	4	5	2	6	5
29	45	USca	Rich Pavlicek	10	4	6	7	2	6
30	45	CAab	Daniel Bertrand	J	10	5	7	6	6
31	45	TW	Gin-Yu Yang	J	4	5	K	6	5
32	45	USca	John R. Mayne	J	4	5	K	Q	5
33	44	IN	Venkatesh Ramaratnam	10	10	5	7	Q	6
34	44	SE	Tommy Jansson	10	10	5	K	Q	9
35	44	USil	Charles Blair	10	5	2	7	Q	5
36	44	AR	Raul Martino	10	4	5	7	3	9
37	44	CH	Olivier La Spada	10	4	5	7	6	6
38	44	NL	Onno Eskes	10	10	6	7	Q	5
39	43	US	Bogdan Filc	J	10	5	7	6	5
40	43	CAon	Dale Freeman	9	4	6	K	Q	6
41	43	USfl	Alan Kravetz	9	4	A	2	Q	5
42	43	IN	Govindarajan Srinivasan	9	4	5	7	6	6
43	43	NL	Dick Hermans	10	4	9	7	6	J
44	42	FI	Matti Ronka	9	J	2	2	3	6
45	42	US	Jim Ma	9	4	6	7	6	9
46	42	USak	Rick Kelly	J	4	2	K	3	9
47	42	SE	Johnny Johansson	J	10	5	2	3	6
48	42	IN	Gowniyan Vaideeshwar	J	4	6	2	Q	5
49	42	CAon	Vinay Sarin	J	4	5	K	6	6
50	42	PL	Marcin Przywitowski	J	4	9	7	2	6

Scores 7V23 Main Challenge

Analyses Top February 2001 Scores

All Others Above Average

Rank	Score	LC	Name	1	2	3	4	5	6
51	42	AU	Dinu Raducanu	J	4	6	7	3	6
52	42	NL	Frans Buijsen	7	4	A	7	2	6
53	42	CAns	Del Knox	10	4	5	7	6	5
54	42	TW	Wen-Lung Huang	J	4	6	K	6	5
55	42	TR	Ufuk Cotuk	10	10	A	7	2	6
56	42	RU	Leonid Ulanovsky	10	5	5	7	Q	6
57	42	USnm	Mark Jones	J	10	5	7	Q	6
58	41	CAon	Craig Barkhouse	J	10	5	K	3	9
59	41	UKen	Neil Morgenstern	J	10	5	7	2	9
60	41	NL	Rosalind Hengeveld	10	5	5	7	3	6
61	41	TR	Hasan Gedik	J	10	6	7	6	10
62	41	USne	Ashish Agarwal	10	4	5	7	6	6
63	41	CAon	Daniel Korbel	J	5	2	K	2	9
64	41	SE	Lars-G Larsson	J	4	5	7	6	10
65	41	TW	Lemon Chiou	J	5	5	7	6	5
66	41	CI	Bernard Pascal	10	4	5	K	Q	9
67	40	USca	Sandy Barnes	J	4	5	7	10	J
68	40	SE	Robert Larsson	J	Q	5	K	2	J
69	40	USny	Alvin Bluthman	J	4	A	7	3	6
70	40	AU	Margaret Lindgren	7	5	6	7	2	J
71	40	NL	Bas Lodder	J	4	5	7	2	10
72	40	TW	Hang Chang	J	4	5	2	6	6
73	40	SE	Michael Lindhagen	J	10	5	2	6	10
74	40	NZ	Michael Johnstone	J	5	5	K	3	5
75	40	UKen	James Mates	J	4	6	7	6	10
76	40	IE	Ciaran Coyne	10	4	5	7	3	J
77	40	USca	Ruthanne Williams	7	5	9	2	2	6
78	40	USil	James Hudson	J	4	5	7	10	6
79	39	USny	Franco Baseggio	10	5	5	7	3	5
80	39	NO	Magnus Skaar	J	4	5	7	6	6
81	39	SE	Lennart Fredriksson	J	4	A	7	6	6
82	39	RO	Horia Garbea	10	4	9	7	3	6
83	39	USca	Grant Peacock	10	5	6	7	2	5
84	39	AU	Sartaj Hans	10	5	5	7	2	6
85	39	UK	Steven Whitaker	J	Q	2	7	10	9
86	39	USwa	Harry Steiner	J	10	5	7	3	J
87	39	USnj	Leonard Helfgott	10	4	5	K	6	9
88	39	ES	Santiago Masia	10	4	5	2	6	10
89	39	US	Steve Whitman	10	10	A	7	2	9
90	39	USal	Bob Simkins	J	5	5	7	3	6
91	39	CAbc	David Hooey	9	5	2	J	6	6
92	39	USmi	John Harris	J	5	5	7	3	6
93	39	TW	I-Don Jien	J	5	5	K	6	5
94	38	BE	Sebastien Louveaux	J	5	9	7	3	6
95	38	DE	Julius Linde	J	10	6	7	3	6
96	38	UKen	Gordon Rainsford	9	5	5	2	6	6
97	38	AU	Niclas Jonsson	J	4	6	7	3	J
98	38	USmo	John Nevin	J	4	5	K	3	9
99	38	UKen	Michael Clark	10	J	A	7	2	6
100	38	USny	Joan Anderton	7	5	9	7	2	10
101	38	USfl	Hy Glantz	9	4	6	2	5	5
102	38	RS	Goran Erakovic	10	4	5	7	5	5
103	38	NZ	Peter Oakley	J	Q	5	7	6	5
104	38	TW	Ye-Fon Tsai	J	5	6	7	6	5
105	38	USmd	Richard Mucci	10	J	5	7	2	6
106	38	PL	Konrad Ciborowski	J	4	9	K	6	9

Names with accented or non-English letters have been converted to an English representation with a 26-letter alphabet. Many people use erratic capitalization, so I determine proper case by algorithm; if this does not correctly display your name, please advise and I will add it to the exception list. If you wish to contact someone whose name you see listed (such as a lost friend) give me permission to send your address to that person, then he or she can contact you. I will not give out e-mail addresses (these are private and go nowhere from me).

Scores 7V23 Main Challenge

Analyses Top February 2001 Scores

Location Ranking

This table lists all the participating locations, ranked by the average score of their entries. The “Best” column shows the best finish (by rank) of any player in that location. Locations with less than five entries are ineligible for the top ranking and grouped separately.

Rank	Average	Best	LC	Location	Entries
1	41.67	1	UKen	England	9
2	41.15	9	IN	India	13
3	41.00	19	TW	Taiwan	8
4	40.00	38	NL	Netherlands	7
5	38.56	7	AU	Australia	9
6	38.43	40	CAon	Ontario	7
7	38.33	29	USca	California	9
8	38.13	13	US	United States	8
9	35.00	16	SE	Sweden	19
10	31.38	41	USfl	Florida	8

Rank	Average	Best	LC	Location	Entries
11	57.00	2	PT	Portugal	1
12	52.00	6	HR	Croatia	1
13	48.00	15	USpa	Pennsylvania	1
14	47.00	18	HU	Hungary	1
15	45.00	24	IL	Israel	1
16	45.00	26	EE	Estonia	1
17	44.00	36	AR	Argentina	1
18	42.00	17	HK	Hong Kong	2
19	42.00	44	FI	Finland	1
20	42.00	46	USak	Alaska	1
21	42.00	53	CAns	Nova Scotia	1
22	42.00	56	RU	Russia	1
23	42.00	57	USnm	New Mexico	1
24	41.67	5	RO	Romania	3
25	41.00	10	UK	United Kingdom	3
26	41.00	66	CI	Cote d’Ivoire	1
27	40.50	23	USny	New York	4
28	40.00	50	PL	Poland	2
29	40.00	76	IE	Ireland	1
30	39.00	88	ES	Spain	1
31	39.00	91	CAbc	British Columbia	1
32	39.00	92	USmi	Michigan	1
33	38.33	3	FR	France	3
34	38.33	14	USwa	Washington	3
35	38.00	30	CAab	Alberta	2
36	38.00	35	USil	Illinois	4
37	37.67	11	CH	Switzerland	3
38	37.00	25	USmn	Minnesota	2
39	36.67	74	NZ	New Zealand	3
40	36.33	8	USma	Massachusetts	3
41	36.00	90	USal	Alabama	3
42	36.00	113	UStx	Texas	1
43	36.00	119	USok	Oklahoma	1
44	35.75	55	TR	Turkey	4
45	35.50	80	NO	Norway	2
46	35.00	105	USmd	Maryland	3
47	35.00	134	USco	Colorado	1
48	35.00	137	BG	Bulgaria	1
49	34.50	62	USne	Nebraska	2
50	34.00	94	BE	Belgium	2
51	34.00	138	MK	Macedonia	1
52	34.00	143	ID	Indonesia	1
53	33.00	151	USia	Iowa	1
54	32.00	102	RS	Serbia	2
55	32.00	128	UKsc	Scotland	3
56	31.25	98	USmo	Missouri	4
57	31.00	95	DE	Germany	4
58	31.00	157	SI	Slovenia	1
59	30.25	142	USin	Indiana	4
60	30.00	168	USga	Georgia	1
61	29.00	173	CApq	Quebec	1
62	28.50	140	USsc	South Carolina	2
63	28.00	180	DK	Denmark	1
64	27.50	87	USnj	New Jersey	2
65	27.50	182	CA	Canada	2
66	27.00	186	IT	Italy	1
67	27.00	187	USnc	North Carolina	1
68	26.00	193	UY	Uruguay	1

Scores 7V23 Main Challenge

Analyses Top February 2001 Scores

Bot’s Eye View

I thought it would be interesting to see how these problems were answered by various bridge programs, so I asked some of the top software makers (based on evaluations published by Jim Loy) to send me their latest software. All graciously obliged, and the results are shown in the table that follows. (These results are not included in the “number of participants” nor in the calculation of the median or average score.)

Most of the programs had different skill settings (thinking time), and this was set to the highest level. In actual time, GIB took the longest to make its decisions — a factor which taints the comparisons. Nevertheless, there was no practical way to impose an equal time limit, so I let each program do its thing.

Based on only six problems, the rankings below are hardly conclusive and may be somewhat random. For instance, on Problem 1 most programs just continued spades (the suit originally led) which may have been a default action rather than a profound analysis, yet it scored 9 out of 10. Bridge Baron, however, may have determined that a spade continuation was futile as far as being productive and opted to shift; alas, it found a poor shift and scored only 2. I’m only hypothesizing, of course, since I have no idea what went through the little bot minds.

GIB’s performance was impressive, though it was a bit fortunate. On Problem 3 it actually chose the 10 (burning its high trump) but this would fare as well as the 2, so I allowed full credit. Similarly, on Problem 5 it curiously chose the 8, which was essentially the same as the 2. I guess GIB doesn’t like deuces.

On Problem 6, none of the programs found the holdup of the A (Bridge Buff came close, holding up one round) so I had to force this condition to reach the problem. Hence, the killing club return found only by Finesse Bridge would not have occurred in real life, or should a say, in bot life.

HAL had been in the shop for years and recently had its circuits overhauled; all of its old transistors were replaced with state-of-the-art microchips. Amazingly, it now found the best lead on every problem — unfortunately, this was for declarer.

February 2001 Rankings

Rank	Score	LC	Program version	1	2	3	4	5	6
1	48	US	GIB 4.1.2	7	J	2	7	2	6
2	42	CA	Bridge Buff 8.0	J	4	9	7	3	6
3	39	DE	Q-plus Bridge 6.1	7	J	9	7	6	6
4	36	JP	Micro Bridge 9.01	7	J	9	2	3	6
5	32	UK	Blue Chip Bridge 3.4.0	7	J	5	A	3	6
6	31	US	Finesse Bridge 2.5	7	J	A	J	6	5
7	27	US	Bridge Baron 11.0	7	J	9	A	2	6
8	9	US	HAL 9000	A	J	A	A	5	7

Bots Tested (alphabetical)

Program	Author/Creator
Blue Chip Bridge	Ian Trackman and Mike Whittaker
Bridge Baron	Tom Throop and Stephen Smith
Bridge Buff	Doug Bennion
Finesse Bridge	Mark and Aaron Marin
GIB	Matthew Ginsberg
HAL	Someone with a warped mind
Micro Bridge	Tomio and Yumiko Uchida
Q-plus Bridge	Hans Leber

Scores 7V23 Main Challenge

Analyses Top February 2001 Scores

© 2001 Richard Pavlicek