Join Bridge Winners
All comments by David Jackson
1 2 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A governing body in Bridge should not be making rules that depend on a 4321 point count being used to evaluate hands. Thats like saying everyone must be familiar with the value of the Yen before you can make a purchase. There are other currencies than the near 100 year old 4321Work count to value your hand
March 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree that the real question is the reliance on the near 100 year old WORK count. Why should that be the only reference currency. Announce Weak NT or strong NT and add that is usually in WORK points 12-14 or 15-17 but as we don't use that evaluation method it easily could be a point (or two) either way. I use 54321 so Three Aces and a King in a flat hand would certainly be a weak NT
March 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Since opening 1NT if one can reasonably do so is considered effective it makes sense to upgrade INTO a 1NT opening. However, for exactly the same reason it makes sense to downgrade (say a 4333 18 count) INTO a strong NT opening bid. Upgrading and downgrading are two sides of the same coin. Never to downgrade is not logical. Trying to open 1NT if one can is logical. whether one is a little short or a little heavy.
March 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Haven't read all 270 comments up to now so maybe already mentioned but seems the WBF can act even faster than anyone imagined as they state in their official ruling ‘On 29th September 2019, Geir Helgemo provided a sample that was sent for laboratory testing;’ With such foresight re doping they should be able to catch the real cheats and disqualify them and redistribute any medals/masterpoints before they commit the crime.
March 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Look at a pairs results in the year or years when they have been convicted of cheating - Butlers, tournament results whatever takes your fancy. Then when it turns out their results record is even better - Butlers, tournament results or whatever, in the previous years when there was no conviction for cheating, what conclusion can you draw?
Nov. 24, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Or as my chiropodist said. “There is profit in de feet”
Oct. 3, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Like numerous others I am looking forward to reading the book but I wouldn’t be using the 20/1 quote unless there was evidence that someone had actually bet money at those odds i.e. wager $1000 to win $50.
If a bookmaker is dubious about the contest or doesn’t wish to get involved he might say if you want to back the BT with me then the best I will offer is 20/1. That is quite different from knowing that someone was actually willing to take such poor odds. Did they? From reading this thread it seems that the examples themselves provide the overwhelming evidence that something bad was going on (one is forbidden to say the c- word). The odds quote is inconsequential unless it was real money that was talking.
Sept. 21, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi David and Jeff. There was an earlier UK Betting Exchange before Betfair called Flutter.com which was eventually taken over by Betfair. Trying to make the case against the Exchanges that what defines and differentiates a punter from a bookmaker is that the former has a bet and the latter lays a bet was unsuccessful in several court cases and appeals in the UK. Perhaps a better approach might have been between those who ‘take bets’ and those who ‘offer bets’ but in addition to the many distinguishing ‘banners of trade’ mentioned earlier that identify a bookmaker, one could add that (a) he holds a licence and (b) keeps the stakes until the bet is decided.
Re the 20/1 odds I find it hard to believe that any bet was ever struck at those odds but rather that the figure appears in some journalist’s article re his estimate of how likely the BT was to win.
Sept. 21, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Robert is an expert in both the Bridge world and the Gambling world, but even he is little confused re a ‘ Back bet’ and a ‘Lay bet’. Betting on something to occur such as horse to win a race is a ‘Back bet’. Betting on something not to occur is referred to as a ‘Lay bet’. Both are just simply bets. So, in general, a punter is usually a ‘backer’ and the bookmaker is ‘a layer’. But not always as bookmakers often offer odds that ‘something will not occur’. Backing and Laying is not what differentiates Punters from Bookmakers but a completely different set of attributes such as being a business, employing people, advertising, having premises etc. Indeed when Bookmakers themselves tried to argue that Betting Exchanges should be banned because clients of the Exchanges were ‘laying bets’, and hence must be unlicensed Bookmakers, the Bookmakers suffered a humiliating defeat in the courts.
Sept. 20, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Addendum: Myrtle Bennett continued to play Bridge in local clubs and, of course, the murder was never mentioned in her presence. Many years later a young partner of hers who was unaware of the history overbid the dummy and as he put down his hand he announced. ‘Partner, when you see what I have bid game on you are going to shoot me’. Myrtle had the good sense to faint.
Sept. 11, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Bernard is an excellent ‘after-dinner’ speaker and a highlight of those Senior Camrose (Teltscher Trophys) that Bernard has played in or attended is his speech at the meal which concludes the 3-day event. He usually then introduced ‘His Serene Highness’ who himself was no slouch when he got the microphone in his hand.
Aug. 21, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Its Jan KAMRAS
June 9, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
For some examples, to say that the errors relative to reality from a DD analysis of thousands of hands either in favour of or against the declarer roughly cancel each other MAY be approximately true. So in those cases, fortuitously, the results may be similar to reality. For example, how does a random flat 15 count do together with a random flat 10 count. I can possibly believe that a DD analysis may give a similar answer to what we think is the reality.

However ask the question how does a particular type of flat 15 count (say top heavy in Aces and/or Kings) do against a similar flat 10 count and I don't expect the DD analysis to be close to the reality. Similarly for two flat hands that are top heavy with the lower honour cards, DD and reality will be even further out.

So the real question is what are the assumptions needed to even think that a DD analysis of tens of thousands hands in any situation will come close to approximating the reality? Can somebody list them? I certainly don't know what they are.
June 4, 2018
David Jackson edited this comment June 5, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Averages are tricky to work with. To say as others in this thread have said that a DD simulation sometimes favours declarer and sometimes favours the defenders BUT on average the errors balance each other out and the results reflect the reality is an untrue and childlike statement to make in many cases.

Take two 4333 hands with all the aces and 3 of the kings in any combination but no other honours including Tens. A 25 count in old money. 3nt will be beaten DD nearly always but in reality even against good defenders will make 30-40% of the time and over 50% against me. At the other extreme the Michael Rosenberg example that needs 3-two way finesses to make is 100% DD no matter how the other 26 cards are distributed but nearer 13% in reality.

The only value of the DD result which is never wrong that we see on our hand records is that it occasionally provides an interesting exercise to figure out how such a fantastic result could be achieved
June 3, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I met Eric at the 1980 Olympiad in Valkenburg and we had a couple of meals together. We walked to a nearby stadium where Ice Hockey was played and although there was no game scheduled we went inside and looked it over. He told me had played Ice Hockey in his youth and loved that game too.
May 25, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Such a rule or judgement call by the SC that a temporary sub would not be likely to improve the team seems common sense to me but that is not a commodity which International Selection committees seem to posses in large quantities. I assume that there have been examples in the past when a sub was required in International Trials. What were the histories like from those past cases.?
March 29, 2018
David Jackson edited this comment March 29, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A temporary substitute should not be of a standard better than the player being replaced. This judgement is made by those authorised to allow the temporary substitution and they have every right to err on the side of caution. However, having made that judgement, it should not be reassessed given the results obtained. For the organisers to suggest after the event that the substitution improved, rather than lessened, a team's chances is an admission that the organisers themselves were incompetent
March 29, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Averages can be misleading quantities to work with. Assuming that because both Declarer and Defenders play DD that these two unrealistic assumptions will always roughly cancel each other out in the long run is wrong.

Consider two 4/3/3/3 hands with no 4/4 fit which contain all the honour cards including Tens BUT without any Ace. So just 24 points. A poor 3NT contract and no doubt one we would like to avoid. But just how bad a 3NT is it? Clearly there are enough solid tricks to be set up if declarer only had enough time. But DD the defence will never give declarer time and simulating a 1000 such hands, the DD analysis will tell us that very few of the 1000 hands will be making 3NT. However, in reality, if the defenders first lead is in one of declarers 4/3 fits then a tempo has been lost and 3NT is much more likely to make. The difference between the simulation (maybe less than 10%) and the reality (around 30% perhaps) for these 1000 hands is huge. The simulation just doesn’t approximate to the reality in this case because it is DD defence that is the key, not DD declarer play. They don’t cancel each other out in this example.
Dec. 31, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Rainer Hermann says ‘However, over many random deals the average double dummy result will come very close to the average actual table result for most contracts.’
And where did Rainer find that piece of information? With generalisations like that ‘Fake news’ seems almost trustworthy.
DD results mean exactly what they say and until we have a reliable automated method of estimating the real world likelihood that an individual contract will succeed we just cannot assume DD result over a large number of hands will average itself out in any particular situation to anywhere near the reality.
Dec. 30, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
xx
Dec. 30, 2017
David Jackson edited this comment Dec. 30, 2017
1 2 3
.

Bottom Home Top