Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Barry Dehlin
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Bidding polls automatically let people “vote”, with all of the legal calls available as voting options.
Oct. 1, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Dig a little deeper on the site; there are partnership ratings as well.
Sept. 30, 2017
Barry Dehlin edited this comment Sept. 30, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think a pretty good effort at objectively measuring sustained excellence, at least within the ACBL, already exists… http://www.coloradospringsbridge.com/pr.htm

Three caveats:

1. It's not ACBL supported (to my knowledge). But we should recognize that one of the ACBL's 10 “big ideas” is to build a performance metric…not sure why that didn't garner mention in the OP.

2. My understanding is that this is a one-man creation. So while I immensely respect this effort, I suspect it can be made more accurate with further expert help.

3. I am certain this system could be made better with more comprehensive data. The author of this measurement system has tried to get the ACBL to provide comprehensive club data, but (again, to the best of my knowledge) I don't think that has happened.
Sept. 30, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Point taken. This is actually the nature of the debate we have had…what is standard for spade length here. (And also prompted the related bidding problem that Richard correctly identified is the facing hand.) But could/should have clarified that it was “undiscussed.”
Sept. 27, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Do you mean support doubles through (their) 3? If you're willing to play at the 3-level, why exempt their 3 which still allows you to land in 3?
Aug. 30, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Only read the intro so far, but conceptually the new proposed break between…(a) 2 charts targeted for masterpoint-limited events which generally prohibit approaches unless expressly permitted, and (b) 2 charts targeted for open events which generally permit unless expressly prohibited…is a vast improvement over what we have now.
Aug. 28, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
1 is 4+…added the clarification to the OP
Aug. 23, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Congratulations on a great win. I enjoyed the story, and appreciate the discretion in not naming your opponents with their bullying and intimidating tactics.
Aug. 15, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks for doing these articles…very interesting and enjoyable. Some comments on your closing comments:

1. My first reaction when you mentioned that your final scores were lower than your provisional scores was that stronger players played early (maybe others in Toronto like you). But that doesn't square with the observations that you almost always had just two comparisons immediately post-play. I think the implication is NOT necessarily that GIB would finish lower than average, but rather that GIB would expect to finish lower than YOU, and there's plenty of room above average there.

2. I too enjoyed the event, thought it was a good value, and would play again. Agree that it would be worth at least trying it without the best hand element, but I want to reserve judgment on whether that would be better. Simply put, I enjoy declaring and do like that emphasis in this format.

3. I agree that they should try cuts, but also don't want to leave anybody out who wants to play a full complement of sessions. Here's a solution that actually includes an element of pseudo-stratification, and it's based on some of the experiments BBO has tried on some weekends w/ their robot tournaments. Play two sessions, then cut the field in half to A and B groups and finish with what is effectively two strata (technically, two different flights) but only A participants eligible for the title. I think they should start experimenting with something like this and then there's lots of room to fine-tune (how many sessions between each cut?, multiple cuts?, what's at stake for winning a lower strata?, etc.)

4. Love the idea about basing a new grassroots event on robot bridge, with a possible face-to-face final. I'd also like to see at least one big robot event associated w/ each NABC. (I don't care if they have “NABC title” associated with them.)
Aug. 9, 2017
Barry Dehlin edited this comment Aug. 9, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So the challenges are basically two-player/two-table BAM events?
Aug. 5, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“This is a book for experts about high-level play.”

Nobody would consider me an expert, and I think the 80% of the book I've read is excellent. So merely “advanced” players should not fear or shy away; this is very accessible and appropriate for a broader audience than suggested.
Aug. 5, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Question for the “not real bridge” crew…
Is the game that human novices play also “not bridge” because they make errors and mistakes even more egregious than the lapses of the robots? Is it even more “not bridge” because they make more types of errors than the robots, and make all types of errors more frequently?
July 26, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I see it now. Thanks for the correction.
July 9, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
When I click your link, I see only 5(!) results for that board, including Munday's.
July 9, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not sure why, but he only has 6-7 comparisons per board here.

Excellent player + few comparisons per board + only 8 boards = extreme scores.

Not sure this says anything about likely scores in the “real” tournament, which will have more comparisons, and will be 96 boards.
July 9, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thought experiment: What would people think of a goulash event at the nationals? Not OK under any circumstances? OK only if the winners aren't awarded an NABC title? Something else?
July 5, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't accept that the approved laws of bridge determine what I or others can call “bridge”.

Goulash also violates 6b and I think can reasonably be called a variant of “bridge.” My impression is that kitchen or social bridge often violates (many?) aspects of the laws, but that can also reasonably be called “bridge”.
July 5, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Gary
I apologize if I miscontrued your comments as demeaning. I think it was easy to do the way they were phrased, but appreciate you clarifying and withdraw the (hopefully mild) implicit criticism.

The suggestion that a “live and let live” attitude would impede criticism or pursuit of cheaters is pretty much a non-sequitur; it's generally understood that motto merely leaves out “…unless someone is harming others” for brevity's sake.

Finally, I would disagree on whether robot bridge deserves to be called “bridge”, but this is really an artibrary judgment with no objective standard to use in argument…so there's not really anywhere to take that. One curious comparison is whether robot vs. FTF bridge is more or less different than: (1) matchpoints vs. IMPs, or (2) club vs. (high level) tournament bridge. I'd probably agree that robot bridge is “more different” than these but I'm not sure that's 100% clearcut.
July 5, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
To me…
…face-to-face bridge is enjoyable and challenging.
…robot bridge is enjoyable and challenging (and more accessible), in different ways.
…some video games are enjoyable and challenging, in different ways.

I'm baffled by demeaning comments about other pursuits that many clearly find worthwhile. People are different, they can and should enjoy different things…let's let them do so without scorn.

I've yet to see any convincing arguments that robot bridge harms face-to-face bridge (including suggestions that it will hurt club or tournament attendance). Live and let live!
July 4, 2017
.

Bottom Home Top