Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Richard Willey
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 121 122 123 124
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would be surprised if a defense that works well against an 8-12 HCP opening in 1st / 2nd is anywhere near as effective against an opening that shows 13-14 HCP in 4th (and vice versa).

At the very least, if you're defending against a 3rd or 4th seat opening, you're sitting on a passed hand.
an hour ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As I recall, last time around the winner was playing pretty much up the middle.
It will be interesting to see what happens this time.

The impact on round length on the Expected Value / Variance trade off is quite interesting.
an hour ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Transfer openings are hardly “destructive”, and yet they are still banned.
11 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Speaking of which, does any one have a markup copy of the charts with the edits listed?
19 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hardly…

The folks taking over the Defense Database are benefitting from the fact that the only place to go is “up”.

In addition, the new Convention Charts that they created are a dramatic improvement over the existing system. Moreover, the process used to create these charts was open, fairly transparent, and allowed a lot of give and take with the ACBL membership.

I'm a cynic, however, I have high hopes for the administrative competence of the folks who seem to be taking over.

FWIW, my biggest worry right now has to do with administration.

Will the Directors abide by the definitions provided in the convention charts or will they prefer to continue making things up as they go along.
July 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Discussions about Masterpoints
July 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> Richard not everyone understand Polish club and
> the system inferences. You could extend that
> question to a lot of things like kaplan inversion
> and transfers over a club.

Agreed

And, such people should not expect to compete successfully against other pairs who invest more time and effort at basic preparation.

The fundamental problem is that we have a whole bunch of players who want to pretend that they are good at this game when they aren't. And they like the idea of claiming that they're playing a mind sport when they're intellectually lazy.

Polish club is currently legal at the level of the ACBL's LIMITED Convention Chart.

The fact that its being moved to Open is laughable
July 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'd ask “How did we get to the point that players need to be ”protected" against Polish Club.
July 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ray may have expected that the following comment

> Methinks clarifications and/or revisions will
> soon be forthcoming to the new charts.

was based on something other than idle speculation…
July 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Claims have been made that the new system will be more responsive / proactive
July 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am still interested in when we should start submitting suggested defenses to soon to be legal methods…
July 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Having third/fourth seat seat openers that are significantly lighter than one's first and second seat openers is not the same as a psyche.
July 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> Even if it did, it isn't often that a play of the cards
> would make a clear statement about suit length or
> honour strength anyway.

Agreed. That would only come up if you're signaling Count or Attitude or something silly like that.
July 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> I disagree with your 1st argument. You don't need to
> know about suitable hands that no psych was made.

Really might want to go off and think about this one some more…
July 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> And I still have yet to see any constructive suggestions
> other than my own (such as they are) related to the idea
> in the original post, nor have I seen any well reasoned
> arguments as to why the ACBL should not attempt to
> enforce the particular aspect of the laws under discussion.

Let's see…

1. The idea in the original post is fundamentally flawed because you are only recording “psyches”. In order to do any kind of unbiased analysis you need to record both psyches and hands that are suitable for psyches where a psyche was not made. Perhaps the lack of “constructive” commentary is that people are smart enough not to waste their time polishing a turd.

2. I provided a fairly detailed explanation why people interpret the law in the way that they do not an hour back. You have ignored it completely.

3. If you want a simpler explanation, I recommend that you familiarize yourself with the tensions between the written and unwritten constitution and note that you are obsessively focusing on minuscule details about the former while ignoring the existence of the later.
July 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> If that is not possible, then how about, at minimum,
> reasoned arguments as to why the Bridge Law in question
> should be left largely un-enforced, as seems to be the
> case currently.

I would argue the following

It is the responsibility of pairs playing the game to be aware that the opponents might psyche. As such, they should have a a set of priors that a given bid is a psyche. Call this set of priors “foo”

Assume that I am the partner of an individual who has just chosen to make a psyche. As such, I will need to adjust my prior from the default “foo” to some new value “bar”.

If the delta between foo and bar is sufficiently small, there is no point in getting worked up about it.

With this said and done:

I have long maintained that the basic concept of a psyche is fundamentally flawed. The basic concept dates back to a period before people had vocabulary such as Nash equilibria and mixed strategies. Because the definition of a psyche is flawed it does not actually describe what people are using.

If you want to make changes that will have a material impact you need to change this entire set of regulations. However, no one actual cares about any of this so they are doing the minimum that they can to make both sides happy even if it means that stuff looks inconsistent.
July 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Silly question:

Does the CAS recognize anything equivalent to double jeopardy?

If not, would it be worth while to beef up the presentation and relitigate the original charges?
July 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> have an automated method of tracking psych
> frequency without involving a recorder

In order to properly track the frequency of psyches you need to track both

1. The hands where partner psyched
2. Suitable hands where partner did not psyche

If you only track half of this information it severely limits your ability to provide an unbiased analysis.

If / when the game moves over to an electronic playing environment folks will have the opportunity to implement comprehensive record keeping. Thats the time to roll out something like what you are proposing.
July 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Define “better players”

You can get the convention cards used in the BB, Vanderbilt, US Team trials, and the like for the last decade+.

Back in the day, folks on the BBF forums would produce summary tables regarding what was being played in each major event.

Lot easier to start with the list of systems actually being played and then trying to classify them. Feels like you are putting the CART before the horse (really bad pun in there)
July 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
MOSCITO

By which I mean (in first / second seat)

System core
Light and limited 4 card major openings with a majors first style
Frequent use of relays throughout the system
Strong club
Unbalanced real diamond opening
6+ card opening in Clubs
Transfer openings in //
Weak NT

Preempts
Assumed fit preempts at the 2 level in //
July 17
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 121 122 123 124
.

Bottom Home Top