Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Peter Swensson
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well, the game is about taking tricks … why add something else?
Feb. 21, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We are all playing 4-card Multi, as an answer to NT … just with a different name
Feb. 21, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You are right, it is very depending on situation. But anyhow, “eliminating” this issue by design of your bidding method is straight forward. I havn't had any issues with even number, a few with odd … available bidding space below the safe level have to be considered; I prefer different method depending on how well partners bidding have zoomed in strength.
Jan. 27, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A mini “game” bonus for 4 minor, will change the game in a constructive way, as well as the suggested undertrick adjustments. Even different scales for undertrick from 2M and below 2M; for instance same for first undertrick but a steeper scale below 2M, will lead to less “destructive” methods.

This way of evolve the game is preferable over system regulations. Good bidding is defined just by the MP/IMP scales; other restrictions is just bad thinking IMHO
Jan. 4, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If you suspect cheating, don't hesitate to hire them…
Sounds great ;)
Dec. 7, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
1♦ 4+♥
1♥ 4+♠
1♠ bal wo 4M | 5+♦
1N 0-10, 5+♣ (wo 4M)
2♣ GF, 5+♣
2♦ 4-8, 6+♦
2♥ 4-8, 6+♥
2♠ 4-8, 6+♠
2N Nat GI (often w 5♣)
3♣ GI, 6+♣
3♦ GF, 5+♦, 4+♣
3M GF, 4+♦, 5+♣, spl M

If 1♣ is 12-14 bal or (4)5+♣
Nov. 21, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
3M+1 = intermediate with any splinter, say 12-14
3M+2/3/4 = splinter looking for the perfect fit or really good stuff, 9-11 or 15+
Oct. 24, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Have they also banned multiple choice questions in all tests and examinations?
Oct. 24, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Gazilli after 1:
If you play “transfer”, you can use 1NT to gazilli .. if bid 1M with 2-3 support and minimum balance
Oct. 23, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
1 - 1
2 - 2 (Gazilli, 8+ GF if strong)
2 - 2NT (strong with 3+, asking)
3 - 3 (3-6-22/31/13, SI+ asking)
4 - 4 (3-6-3-1, min denying 2A)
4 - 5 (3+A cue and some extras, cue)
5 - 6 (, ok I can count to 12)
Oct. 17, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Switch 2♣ and 2♦: 5+ cards, 12+ points, GF.
Then you can play 1♣-2♣- 2♦ 3+♦, 2N bal w =2♦, 3M spl 4+♦ 15+
1♣-2♦- 2M 5+M 18+ or 4+M and 3+♣ 15+, 2N bal wo =2♣, 3♣ 3+♣ w bal, 3M spl 4+♣ 15+ (18+ unbalanced w 5+♦ will be the worst situation)
Oct. 6, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Bioinformatics guys have had some issues with p-value hunting and missuse of p-values. Still have some researchers misunderstood the idea. I think that is another problem.

I suggest that we should code the player´s identity. …Everyone are able to identify the player anyway, but it will cost time. Data handling, evaluation strategy and tool choice will take some time.
Oct. 5, 2016
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.
-“I have heard that one can lie with statistics”
-“I have heard that you can't tell the true without”

However, after following the Ryder cup this weekend, I claim that US players was much better on the green. I like to know statistics on our top play; are they bidders or leaders and do they have low or high volatility. Statistics will make the game more interesting. Possibility to look for outliers and abnormalities is just another feature.
Oct. 3, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Michael: Open statistic analysis of all and every one will be good for whole bridge community, and I expect that people are polite and civil. (I have no tendency to belive in people any longer, and I'm missing my naïvity somewhat). Everyone under the loupe is the trick.
Oct. 2, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't understand the kind of worry some of you express. Richard is a skills statistician, what is the risk that wrong conclusion will be drawn. A new way of visualize open data with respect to variation between tournaments will not accuse anyone. When more information will be availible there will be big data analysis of everything. We all know the enormous variabilities in our game (one winning pair in Wroclaw had a set of 27% in Tromsö). I'm have also predicted that some pair will have worse result after the cheating scandal and some pair will change partners; very few of them have been cheaters even if there will be possible to find cheaters in that group. High variation in the game and changing of partners can never be a indicator of previous cheating … Long time data on bidding and card play will say something, one long tournament will not. The positive thing with post like this is that it became clear that several guys will contiune looking for odd things in data, and the frequence of cheat will decline (cheaters will lowering their cheating frequence and will be harder to find).
Oct. 2, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
How many of these 128,745,650,347,030,683,120,231,926,111,609,371,363,122,697,557 possible action, have any practical meaning. An enormous number of actions starts with 1 C-p-p-X :)

however, what are the boundary conditions of “full disclosure”?
Sept. 30, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We have to leave the land of red-tapist asap
Sept. 28, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Even cooler if one of the pairs claimed both medals…
Sept. 28, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well, you'll even be able to address wrong claim if you have to scan a line of play.
Sept. 28, 2016
.

Bottom Home Top