Why do Chess Engines Play so Much Better than Bridge Playing Computers?

Apologies, I guess I just got carried away.

As to the topic, my guess it that it's simply from lack of interest. Bridge just doesn't seem to command the same degree of interest (from programmers, at least) as chess, poker, or even checkers.

Not sure why that is, but it appears to be the case.

Hoping you get a bad opponent isn't the same as randomness, I hope that's clear.

I wonder if part of the issue is that Bridge is simply a more social game than chess. 

You appear to have proved my point for me. 

My point was that Bridge is more social (not more polite), so is something you're less likely to want to play yourself on a computer. 

Your first point is important. The theory of two player zero sum games is far better behaved than all other types. This is independent of whether the game is deterministic or stochastic (eg heads up no limit holdem and backgammon have been successfully attacked. Both were highly non-trivial!),

However, a recent development was success by a poker playing program against some of the world's top players in a normal multiplayer format. Poker has considerable complexity making it difficult to find Nash equilibria by brute force, but probably not as much as bridge.

I believe the difficulty in bridge is the depth of the reasoning that is possible. Eg you might think how is a player going to play based on his reasoning about your play and his partners play in light of what they know and how they have acted! And such reasoning can get deeper, in principle much deeper. There is a lot of variety in bridge bidding and it is important that a player extracts as much information as possible from the bidding to use later (this is a tricky aspect of the game - I recall it used to be a rule that an opponent can ask the partner of a player to honestly say what their partner's bid meant! This is a difficult thing for computers.

As a disclaimer, I am a lousy bridge player (and vaguely recall playing a computer once).

There is an interesting article about that topic here btw: https://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2016/02/competitive-bridge-cheating-scandal

One solution is to play in a lot of Individuals. When i played a couple of years ago--had an 83.49% game!? [this does not sound high to a non bridge player]

Another solution is to play with a bot vs someone else with a bot. And even better to play money bridge. [bridge with a bot vs someone who also has a bot for a partner] I have been able to play against world class players this way...

People are not so willing into, say, go to a 3 day tournament in Chicago when they can stay at home and play maybe 10 or more times as much.

Every day I play in 4 to 10 tournaments with more than 10,000 opponents--so there is much interest in duplicate bridge.

When I play in these tournaments there are usually 2300 to 8000 already playing as you use robots for partner   The robots can bid and play defense very poorly.

Out of the 2300 to 8,000 opponents in a tournament I have come in  first place 5 times and 2nd place 4 times and 3rd place 7 times with many other super results a couple of time I played when very sleepy and came  in 10,063th place and 7285th place.

There is no reason these robots have to be programmed so badly except maybe the programmers knew little about bridge?

You must have an excellent memory for the past play (and bidding) to do that well. Does that come naturally or do you use specific mnemonic techniques?

I believe bridge is a harder game for computers to learn than poker (which is itself hard, but where some popular versions have now been conquered).

Elroch these computers make fundamental mistakes. The programmers were apparently very poor bridge players. 

One problem is sometimes the computers do not even follow their own rules.  Especially in bidding--they will make a bid which is supposed to describe a certain type of hand and they do nmot jhave that type of hand.

There are some better bridge playing computers however. 

Each hand is quite different--I do have a store of situatiions juist as I do with chess.

I am not mnemonic but can usually remember all the cards played. 

I also know some tricks which can fool the computers I am playing against.  It is set that I always play North but will play all hands where we buy the conmtract.

They stopped the Money Bridge where at the highest levels I couild play world class players. I remember once bidding to a grand slam of 7 clubs and after I got ther the damn computer partner broke system rules and bid 7 No Trump that had no chance while 7 Clubs makes.

Surprised the OP is asking the question.

Bridge computers "Play" as well as chess computers.

However, the game of bridge consist of two distinct, separate phases. It begins with the "Bidding" phase. Here Bridge engines remain far behind. Once the bidding is complete, there are only so many "best" cards available in the 2nd phase of"Play", which is easily programmable. Surely the OP is aware of all the intricacies and subtleties involved in the Bidding phase, and how difficult the concepts are to program, especially with two players involved. There is every reason to believe the programming for the initial phase is daunting, has not achieved the levels of human partners.

@ponz111 - did the comp break the rules by making a bid outside it's declared system, was over-ridden by a human?

We already have bots that outplay the best humans in poker, it's only a matter of time before bridge falls.

This claim is generally wrong. Bots have out-played humans in heads up play only. Bots have not participated in live tournament play or ring games. They have been tested in a heads up match and beaten some of the best players. But the generalization does not apply otherwise.

PF will undoubtedly argue the point. But he is wrong for one simple reason.

Poker engines are NOT allowed to enter live tournaments on the tour nor allowed in live ring games. No data is available to make any conclusion.

It becomes apparent that a program will do well vs a single human in heads up play. But in bridge and poker, these are multi-player games, making the games quite more abstract and difficult for programmers. 

A poker engine can do very well in a heads up match. It has only 1 set of variables to examine from opponent. Put a comp at a table with 9 other live players , all with their own idiosyncrasies, and there is no reason to believe a comp is any better ... I'd wager worse in fact, as seen in bridge with 3 other players.

Texas Hold'em heads up is still Texas Hold'em...

The same was said about chess, go, dota 2, strarcraft, texas hold'em, checkers, etc. Unless there is certain proof (yours is only an opinion) that such bots cannot be developed, I remain confident it will happen.

That will not prevent special matches to be organized for such purposes.

When it comes to Poker you are clueless PF.  Any such match has NOT been organized and if one is, it is but a single match. Dozens of matches would provide little data. Professionals are not going to put up their own money and play in such. If played with house money ,the betting would be altered. Poker depends on the cards dealt. It's not like chess in which the same position is dealt every time at the start. I played pro for years and it's not just any opinion. You say TH is just TH. Again you are entirely wrong. Ring games, tournaments. heads up play all present different challenges that require totally different strategies. A program that is effective in heads up play would be quite useless at a table of 10 human players in a tournament format. 

"We already know bots beat the best players in poker" was your statement. That was the entirety of your claim. I lent clarification, pointing out only in a heads up format has a poker program beaten a very few  professional poker players in a ONE time match. In heads up play, a player can "play the cards". Reading your opponent, recognizing tells, certainly is very important, but strategies revolve around the cards dealt as there are only two hands in play. In a tournament, at the start, 10 players sit at the table. Players "play the player(s). The cards dealt are far less important than in heads up. Who's going to trust a program to read 9 other players? Nobody. To start, the program can not get any "tells", as obviously it can't observe the other players expressions and reactions. So all of Texas Holdem is not just TM where strategies are the same.