Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Andrzej Matuszewski
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 79 80 81 82
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Pass has a disadvantage: it is about 50% chance that 2 passes will follow. I do not want to defend 1 in major at MPs.
Nov. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There is here an experimental bid: 2. In 80% of cases we will play 2, which might be better than their 1N. Pd may have spades and in this case our 2 can be good.
Nov. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This problem would be more difficult at IMPs.
Nov. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Double has only one disadvantage: pd can say 5 with 5 having 2-3 clubs. I estimate probability of this event to be 15-20%. It is not too much. And even within this event not all distributions of cards are against us. It is possible that 5x will cost us -500 compared with their -620 for 4.
Nov. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
dbl would be take-out?
Nov. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I definitely can not accept any artificial bid (or gadget) that was not allowed by author of the problem. The only standard bid here is 3. Yes, it has many disadvantages.
Taking this into account I propose here an alternative philosophy: the Hammann rule. “If you do not know what to say and you consider 3N, you should bid 3N”
The reason is simple: if pd has not too much HCPs in diamonds he must have them in other suits.
Nov. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Every bidding system takes into account interference, even the simplest (negative double is not the simplest example). Chess opening player's book also does not finishes where it gives unique moves. It gives some “interesting” further moves and/or playing ideas.
Of course the analogy is not easy and straightforward. Complication (or trouble) in chess is the number possible valid continuations. It is problematic even for the mightiest computers. Exponential growth “kills everything”.
In bridge (during the bidding e.g.) problematic are close bids that give similar probability of “success”. Where both: probability and “success” have problematic definitions and complicated algorithms when some simulation is necessary.
Nov. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I must “correct” the first lead in case they will win the auction.
Nov. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Eactly Ian! This is a chance for our game! We can discuss a hand very long time and we hope bots are not so inquisitive. But we can try to use them in our post mortems…
Nov. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm not saying that after programming chess play (which is at successful end) we have an important advantage for programming bridge AT ONCE.
1. Similarity between debuts of both games gives nothing to programmer. They just finish: In chess debut finishes when the actual game enters the moves that are not considered in a debut “book” of program. In a bridge deal debut finishes after 2-4 bids when the actual CC has no automatic answer.
2. Automatic chess mid-game finishes when program sees the final result. In bridge it is a moment when program is close to claim.
Nov. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
An obvious argument that chess is the game with complete information while bridge is not IS NOT VERY CRUCIAL.

Complication of chess (especially in mid-game) is so great that one (also computer player) can find an optimal move rarely (in non-obvious environment). The same in mid-game of bridge.

In end-game everything is easy. The same at the beginning (in bridge in the beginning of bidding).
Nov. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Bridge is much closer to chess in sense of AI. At first glance the second game is more complicated since chess-players have to analyze larger decision trees. Another argument is that double dummy analysis (which is very helpful in computer bridge play) has very simple algorithm.

Both bridge and chess have debiut part that is very easy to program. The same can be said about the end-game (endspiel).
The only problem lies in MIDGAME i.e. in a part of chess game and bridge deal, where it is difficult to find optimal moves.

In chess, computer can approximate optimal moves quite well. Since any chess player has no chance with computer in debiut and endspiel, very good players can try to win in midgame through the better approximation.

In bridge we are more ahead computers in “mid-game” that in chess. Yes, it can change but it is doubtful if long play of 4 bots can be very effective. The structure of bridge thinking is multi-aspect.
Nov. 5
Andrzej Matuszewski edited this comment Nov. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You know Richard that once I say 3 CAN BE insufficient or etc IT MEANS NOTHING.
Oct. 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I know that statistically clubs are safest, especially at MPs. But spades are also safe because it is normal to assume queen on the left when playing from short spades. On the other hand if pd has J he knows about it, but not a declarer.
Oct. 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
3 is insufficient or even harmful. They will easy find their fit and their level of play.
Oct. 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Chess brilliant (eternal, centurial etc.) combination belongs to endgame (endspiel). It sounds as paradox but it is true. If you can change the position in a forcing way (i.e. against any defense) to the winning (or sometimes to drawing) position, then you are in the endgame phase. It is therefore close to claiming position in bridge.

It is difficult for me to imagine a move in the claiming position that can be named “brilliant”. May be for the beginners.
Oct. 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Good analysis, Ben!
Oct. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree Kieran, that pass could be a terrible decision. Especially in case pd holds 5 spades.
It is disputable, however, what is a probability of 5 spades in his hands. In my opinion it is less than 50%.
Most horrible aspect of previous pass is actual impossibility to reach the game.
If pd has only 4 spades, however, our decision was VERY LUCKY since opponents reached the level very dangerous for them. Scores 200 or 300 for us are better than 140 or 110.
Oct. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
For this deal both: 3N and pass were bad. Good shot was 1N.
Oct. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I do not want to convince all of you that 2 - actually played in this deal with the result below 10% - is the final argument against any action. One should make a sort of simulation.
We have to take into account that once they are at level 2 they easily can be 2 down vulnerable, however.
Oct. 10
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 79 80 81 82
.

Bottom Home Top