Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Bruce Graham
1 2 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The ultimate test will simply be how many people refuse to play with or against them in the future.
Dec. 17, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm a great believer in trying things and making my own judgments. A method which is easy to use at the table is of primary importance, which is why most people won't go near any method involving fractions to make the evaluation more precise. Over time you will become accustomed to good results from certain types of hands and bad results from other types, and you'll start to appreciate the difference. Read what different authors have to say and gravitate towards methods that work for you. If you've never played with it before, the K&R hand evaluator is a good way to test any particular method you might be interested in for a quick sanity check.

http://www.jeff-goldsmith.org/cgi-bin/knr.cgi

It evaluates the hands above in Spencer's original post as 11.00 points and 7.2 points. since they both have the same HCP, the difference comes from shape factors.

BTW – Bergen's more refined methods are described in “Slam Bidding Made Easier”.
Dec. 13, 2015
Bruce Graham edited this comment Dec. 13, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
For all we know they might even do a better job at some functions of a healthy organization.
Dec. 4, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If people want to form and support an organization, who are we to opine that there is “no longer a need for a separate organization”. I didn't know they existed either until I read this post, but just knowing that they do confirms that monopoly is not the natural order of things.
Dec. 4, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The game is hard enough for both declarer and defender alike. Why should you have to put up with grandstanding antics? Maybe his partner should lead out of turn so we can require or forbid a particular suit.
Dec. 1, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Another reason is called NIH. This syndrome showed up in the middle of the last century as a rejection of anything Not Invented Here. Happens in bridge as well as technology companies. You don't see us running Russian 8080 microcomputers either.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_invented_here
Nov. 29, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
People vote with all sorts of things, including eyeballs, mouse, and feet. Sorry about your relative isolation, but the internet is a really enormous place and as far as I know nobody has reached the end of it yet.
Nov. 28, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would never give up a hand. Opponents are capable of the most amazing lapses in judgement.
Nov. 25, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Barry
This is a good thing, but how it happens any why it works can confuse the successors of the original author of the software. In a later epoch they can inadvertently defeat or undo the original intent of the algorithm, with certain negative consequences.
Nov. 23, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We all know that conspiracies are the most common of things.
Nov. 23, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
One should always trust a beginner to know what he is doing!
Nov. 22, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Didn't the old metal trays have painted red card pockets for the vulnerable pairs?

Yeah! – Here they are

http://www.ebay.com/itm/VINTAGE-J-R-OFFICIAL-ALUMINUM-DUPLICATE-BRIDGE-BOARD-SET-B-5-8-ORIGINAL-BOX-/321927059775
Nov. 22, 2015
Bruce Graham edited this comment Nov. 22, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have no real evidence for or against the proposition that the algorithm is “good” enough. I am saying that is more difficult than you can imagine to create a pseudo random number generator that is good enough, and prevent your successors, who maintain the code from making a mistake with it, and messing things up.
Nov. 22, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My case for an oddball deal is hand #7 of the recent Palm Coast Sectional on Saturday Afternoon Nov 21st. This deal features voids in 3 out of the 4 hands.

http://www.bridgewebs.com/cgi-bin/bwoi/bw.cgi?pid=display_rank&msec=1&sessid=212220327438096&event=20151121_9&wd=1&club=palmcoast

We got a top board because the opponents failed to bid the vulnerable game.
Nov. 22, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@JoAnna
There are two things you can do:
1) Examine the source code for the algorithm to determine how many numbers it generates before repeating the sequence.
2) Subjecting the results to statistical testing.

Also:
New or “modern” is no guarantee of superior performance. There are numerous examples in recent history of people thinking they had better random number generators which in fact were worse.

http://umaine.edu/scis/files/2014/10/The-Sad-History-of-Random-Bits.pdf
Nov. 22, 2015
Bruce Graham edited this comment Nov. 22, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Think of it as an element of randomness impinging on an otherwise excellent post.
Nov. 22, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In point of fact no computational algorithm can generate truly random results. Pseudo random is as good as it gets. A bias for 7-6 results would not be surprising to me. Don't believe me?

Any one who considers arithmetical methods of producing random digits is, of course, in a state of sin.

— JOHN VON NEUMANN (1951)
Nov. 22, 2015
Bruce Graham edited this comment Nov. 22, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
OK, I was prepared for that, so what is West suggesting with a 5 bid, and how is that useful to East?
Nov. 16, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No more so than the use of transfers allows the strong hand to remain hidden. A 1 opener is not suitable for notrump in all cases. Considerable judgement is required in evaluating and revaluating a hand at the table.
Nov. 16, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If 5 is Blackwood and shows 1 ace, then East should have a self sufficient club suit, a spade void, and require only one ace for a reasonable play for 6. Once again the answer to 4NT does not give him the information he needs, unless he doesn't need it. In which case it makes no difference. “Meh” is my vote.
Nov. 16, 2015
Bruce Graham edited this comment Nov. 16, 2015
1 2 3
.

Bottom Home Top