our_euchre behaviour part 4

[Xingliang Lou]

I think you know who I am by now.

When the seed is 630, the following happens:

Player 2 deals
The top card on the kitty is: QH
Computer (CMA) Player 3 (AC,KC,9D,JH,9S) > Player 3 passes
Computer (CMA) Player 4 (QS,JS,10S,JC,KS) > Player 4 passes
Computer (CMA) Player 1 (KH,QD,9H,10C,QC) > Player 1 passes
Computer (CMA) Player 2 (KD,AS,JD,9C,10H) > Player 2 passes
Everybody passed, so bid for a suit.
Computer (CMA) Player 3 (AC,KC,9D,JH,9S) > Player 3 passes
Computer (CMA) Player 4 (QS,JS,10S,JC,KS) > Player 4 passes

Here, computer player 4 has FIVE trumps, including the bower, if he
chooses to bid for spades. But he PASSED!

We've confirmed that although computer player 4 is the partner of the
dealer, he should still bid for a suit. The computer did this in many
other seeds (such as 0).

This is our EIGHTH posting already. Can we have bonus marks for this?

[Joanne Atlee]

Hi Xingliang,
There is a new our_euchre executable. It does the right thing in this case.

I do greatly appreciate your postings. I don't imagine that you'll be
needing any bonus points.

Jo

Post by Xingliang Lou
I think you know who I am by now.
Player 2 deals
The top card on the kitty is: QH
Computer (CMA) Player 3 (AC,KC,9D,JH,9S) > Player 3 passes
Computer (CMA) Player 4 (QS,JS,10S,JC,KS) > Player 4 passes
Computer (CMA) Player 1 (KH,QD,9H,10C,QC) > Player 1 passes
Computer (CMA) Player 2 (KD,AS,JD,9C,10H) > Player 2 passes
Everybody passed, so bid for a suit.
Computer (CMA) Player 3 (AC,KC,9D,JH,9S) > Player 3 passes
Computer (CMA) Player 4 (QS,JS,10S,JC,KS) > Player 4 passes
Here, computer player 4 has FIVE trumps, including the bower, if he
chooses to bid for spades. But he PASSED!
We've confirmed that although computer player 4 is the partner of the
dealer, he should still bid for a suit. The computer did this in many
other seeds (such as 0).
This is our EIGHTH posting already. Can we have bonus marks for this?

[Brian Attwell]

Professor Atlee,

Actually, I think seed 630 still exemplifies a mistake (although a nice
one). In an earlier thread with Xingliang, you stated the double-suited
condition is "satisfied if the hand has exactly two suits", not one.
However, I believe the 630 executable shows that this is not the way
our_euchre works. Note in the following that player 4's condition to go
alone is not satisfied, unless, you consider his suit of all Spades
(remembering that JC is a spade since JS is left bower) to be
double-suited even though it only has one suit.

Seed 630:
"...
Everybody passed, so bid for a suit.
Computer (CMA) Player 3 (AC,KC,9D,JH,9S) > Player 3 passes
Computer (CMA) Player 4 (QS,JS,10S,JC,KS) > Player 4 called S trump and
is going alone.
..."

As you mentioned earlier, this is a more intuitive rule than the one in
the specification. Should we use the logic that our_euchre shows for
this rule, or follow the spec?

-Brian Attwell

Post by Joanne Atlee
Hi Xingliang,
There is a new our_euchre executable. It does the right thing in this case.
I do greatly appreciate your postings. I don't imagine that you'll be
needing any bonus points.
Jo

Post by Xingliang Lou
I think you know who I am by now.
Player 2 deals
The top card on the kitty is: QH
Computer (CMA) Player 3 (AC,KC,9D,JH,9S) > Player 3 passes
Computer (CMA) Player 4 (QS,JS,10S,JC,KS) > Player 4 passes
Computer (CMA) Player 1 (KH,QD,9H,10C,QC) > Player 1 passes
Computer (CMA) Player 2 (KD,AS,JD,9C,10H) > Player 2 passes
Everybody passed, so bid for a suit.
Computer (CMA) Player 3 (AC,KC,9D,JH,9S) > Player 3 passes
Computer (CMA) Player 4 (QS,JS,10S,JC,KS) > Player 4 passes
Here, computer player 4 has FIVE trumps, including the bower, if he
chooses to bid for spades. But he PASSED!
We've confirmed that although computer player 4 is the partner of the
dealer, he should still bid for a suit. The computer did this in many
other seeds (such as 0).
This is our EIGHTH posting already. Can we have bonus marks for this?

[Adrian Rodrigo]

Hey Brian,

In 'Re: Last condition for going alone' Prof. Atlee mentioned that
double-suited should be read "two or fewer suits", so the our_euchre
behaviour is correct. Unfortunately the specification doesn't seem to
include this clarification...

Post by Brian Attwell
Professor Atlee,
Actually, I think seed 630 still exemplifies a mistake (although a nice
one). In an earlier thread with Xingliang, you stated the double-suited
condition is "satisfied if the hand has exactly two suits", not one.
However, I believe the 630 executable shows that this is not the way
our_euchre works. Note in the following that player 4's condition to go
alone is not satisfied, unless, you consider his suit of all Spades
(remembering that JC is a spade since JS is left bower) to be
double-suited even though it only has one suit.
"...
Everybody passed, so bid for a suit.
Computer (CMA) Player 3 (AC,KC,9D,JH,9S) > Player 3 passes
Computer (CMA) Player 4 (QS,JS,10S,JC,KS) > Player 4 called S trump and
is going alone.
..."
As you mentioned earlier, this is a more intuitive rule than the one in
the specification. Should we use the logic that our_euchre shows for
this rule, or follow the spec?
-Brian Attwell

Post by Joanne Atlee
Hi Xingliang,
There is a new our_euchre executable. It does the right thing in this case.
I do greatly appreciate your postings. I don't imagine that you'll be
needing any bonus points.
Jo

Post by Xingliang Lou
I think you know who I am by now.
Player 2 deals
The top card on the kitty is: QH
Computer (CMA) Player 3 (AC,KC,9D,JH,9S) > Player 3 passes
Computer (CMA) Player 4 (QS,JS,10S,JC,KS) > Player 4 passes
Computer (CMA) Player 1 (KH,QD,9H,10C,QC) > Player 1 passes
Computer (CMA) Player 2 (KD,AS,JD,9C,10H) > Player 2 passes
Everybody passed, so bid for a suit.
Computer (CMA) Player 3 (AC,KC,9D,JH,9S) > Player 3 passes
Computer (CMA) Player 4 (QS,JS,10S,JC,KS) > Player 4 passes
Here, computer player 4 has FIVE trumps, including the bower, if he
chooses to bid for spades. But he PASSED!
We've confirmed that although computer player 4 is the partner of the
dealer, he should still bid for a suit. The computer did this in many
other seeds (such as 0).
This is our EIGHTH posting already. Can we have bonus marks for this?

[Joanne Atlee]

Post by Adrian Rodrigo
Hey Brian,
In 'Re: Last condition for going alone' Prof. Atlee mentioned that
double-suited should be read "two or fewer suits", so the our_euchre
behaviour is correct. Unfortunately the specification doesn't seem to
include this clarification...

Good point! The errata page and project specification have been updated.


Jo