Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Michal Czerwonko
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ian has a point, 3-4 assures a fit while 3-PASS may bring KJxxxx, KJx, xx, xx or worse in dummy
Oct. 15, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
While I'm not so sure that certain views above don't border on stereotyping, PBU and many other public organizations in Poland are relics from communist times, effectively run by people who were already there before 1989
Oct. 15, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
John, It was FDR who signed Jalta (Yalta?) accord, which effectively settled Polish borders. You may also take a look at the infiltration of FDR administration by communist spies, which certainly had influence on the US politics during WWII
Oct. 15, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Unless you're a relative beginner, the use of stop card provides enough time to consider your action. That's the reason for stop cards. Slow pass is awful: I would like to bid 4, but I'm afraid they wouldn't bid after 3, so I will put some sand in their wheels so that they are even less likely to bid
Oct. 15, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Boye, As much as Eddington didn't invent any breakthrough theory, he's work was critical to show that the relativity theory is valid. As much as Einstein was a genius, many of his other theories proved false. Be careful with the feeling of an infallible code cracker.
Oct. 15, 2015
Michal Czerwonko edited this comment Oct. 15, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Boye, I understood your advocacy in BZ case as calling for immediate strong punitive action in case of “any allegations of cheating.”
Oct. 14, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Boye, In my opinion, regrettably expressed through a murky metaphor, I stated that you advocate for an extremely quick trigger regarding allegations of cheating. While I agree that certain facts like 86% rate you quoted should lead to immediate action by bridge authorities like say, a temporary suspension and a due process, I generally don't agree with a stance that any allegations of cheating should lead to an immediate suspension. As far as I'm concerned, in Western civilization people accused of anything still have certain rights and I don't understand why bridge should be different. To be honest, I'd rather live in the world where some wrongdoings go unpunished that in the world run by another Robespierre.
Oct. 14, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
…and women in Poland had full voting rights since 1919 or 1922 and homosexuality was decriminalized as of 1932
Oct. 14, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Boye, Are you actually advocating that The Sheriff should have the right to shoot whenever he obtains a high degree of personal conviction in a given pair cheating? If not, what are you arguing for?
Oct. 14, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Chris, Maciej made an argument based on his knowledge of formal procedures of establishing cheaters in bridge. Your answer corresponded to his ethnic origin. Have your argument brought anything useful to the ongoing discussion on BW?
Oct. 14, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm afraid in legal proceedings there would be some job to be made just because we have innocent until proven guilty principle. That leads me to a question: What is the current authority of self-governance bodies over players? I prefer it to be sufficiently strong so as to prevent say, FS from getting a hypothetical court injunction forcing them back to the bridge stage.
Oct. 14, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ken,
1. You convinced all rationally and irrationally thinking humans that 3 bid against BZ was the best bid in bridge ever
2. You convinced the humans above that Z hesitation before 4 bid was the most (or the second most, see 3. below) deplorable act committed at the bridge table ever
3. You convinced the humans above that passing 4 by B was the most (or the second most, see 2. above) deplorable act committed at the bridge table ever
4. Can't you just state that given 1.-3. above you are also the ultimate authority about inference and set your points straight instead of using scorching sarcasm on poor inferior creatures? Not everyone is within your mental capacity, and your sarcasm may prove painful
Oct. 13, 2015
Michal Czerwonko edited this comment Oct. 14, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Han, Isn't it that only critical thought may find cheaters in the first place? Why it should become less critical when examining the evidence against alleged cheaters?
Oct. 13, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Arno, I think I wasted all the time I spent on Bertrand Russell, Karl Popper and others since it suffices to read your comment to get rid of any uncertainty regarding inference
Oct. 13, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Arno, I don't know to which post you respond, Ben's or mine. I think I described well both the bias and how it may apply to Kit`s findings. For your coincidence argument, in any long purely random sequence you may find a subsequence with arbitrarily low ex post probability. So if you find something unusual, it is very fine to form a hypothesis but to provide evidence for this hypothesis (we never talk about proof in empirical science, which apparently is different from proving anything in legal terms), you must go out of original sample.
Oct. 13, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Exactly, in my discipline (finance) it's called data snooping bias; if your first hypothesis happen to show not much, you try for another, and so on until you arrive at a juicy result. Then your publication shows low p-value for rejection of the opposite null while in fact your p-value should be a way higher by including all hypotheses you tested. I don't want to say that BZ are cheaters or not but that the convincing proof would determine a set of patterns on one set of hands and show it to exist on a different set of hands (out of sample test). Similarly, you may find ex post a sequence of events with as low a probability as you wish, which doesn't prove much; only replicating such or similar sequence out of sample has a validity of a proof. As opposed to FN and FS cases, there appears to be a difficulty with finding a pattern for BZ in the first place.
Oct. 13, 2015
Michal Czerwonko edited this comment Oct. 13, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
1m-1M
Subtle Tank followed with 2M to perfectly describe 3-card support
Will this problem ever be solved? I stopped calling club directors on that years ago
Oct. 12, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Other argument:
1N-2
2-3
3,3 shows 4
4 bypasses 3N, therefore shows fit
Oct. 12, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
John, I guess you represent the view that voting establishes the truth
Oct. 12, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sorry for misinterpretation; however, the other statement made me think the particular sense had been also meant
Oct. 11, 2015
.

Bottom Home Top