Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Richard Willey
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In my simplistic view of the world, I would define a “transfer” as a bid that shows an agreed upon length in a known suit with a minimum of 4 cards in that suit. I think that there is some inference that the bid being shown is either one or two steps above the suit being bid.

I would contrast a “transfer” with a “puppet” which requires partner to bid the next higher suit, but does not necessarily promise length in that suit.
Sept. 25, 2016
Richard Willey edited this comment Sept. 26, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Really like this last suggestion
Sept. 25, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Of course, an easier method is simply migrating to an electronic playing environment
Sept. 25, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I was more thinking of a system that would look at a table of scores and try to infer whether there was a scoring error
Sept. 25, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
From my perspective, an algorithm to look for scoring anomalies is the sort of this that is amenable to a neural network or some kind of pattern recognition system…
Sept. 25, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> You will a) be met with a lot of hostility,
> and b) laughed off the club and/or tournament.

No offense Mike, but I think that Tim and Adam are playing in different games than you…
Sept. 25, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> The problem here is that the opponents' methods and
> personalities/styles are not independent.

If anything, this would make things easier, not harder.

At the end of the day, I can cite chapter and verse explaining why my position is consistent with the regulations. If you don't like this, take it up with the folks writing said laws…
Sept. 25, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I hope that the following is definitive:

The ACBL GCC specifically states that the regulations in the ACBL Alert Pamphlet are considered binding.

Here is the precise quote, taken from http://web2.acbl.org/documentLibrary/play/Convention-Chart.pdf

“Conventional agreements permitted by the ACBL Convention Charts are subject to the regulations documented in the ACBL Alert Pamphlet. For a complete list of definitions see Alert Pamphlet-Definitions.”

In turn, the ACBL's Alert Proceedures specifically state the following http://web2.acbl.org/documentLibrary/play/AlertProcedures.pdf

“Note: It is not legal to vary your system during a session for subjective reasons, such as the skill level of the opponents which you happen to be playing at the time or which member of the partnership is making the call. You may, of course, alter your defenses in response to the opponents’ methods.”
Sept. 25, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My understanding is that you can not change your agreements within a round.

You are stuck with one set of methods for a session of MPs or a round of Swiss.

However, you are allowed to apply judgement (and you can certainly change your defense based on on what seat folks are opening, the vulnerability, that sort of thing)
Sept. 25, 2016
Richard Willey edited this comment Sept. 25, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Knowing the ACBL, you may still have a chance…
Sept. 24, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Given that we're spending so much time talking about appropriate standards for disclosure, I decided to take a quick look at some of the convention cards submitted by the Spanish team.

For example: http://www.ecatsbridge.com/documents/files/2016WroclawSystems/OpenTeams/Spain/Goded-Goded.pdf

I can't help but note that this provides almost no useful information about the strength required for an opening bid or to respond to their 1C opening, or honestly anything that you'd want to know… Three of the four Spanish pairs are in (pretty much) the same boat.
Sept. 24, 2016
Richard Willey edited this comment Sept. 24, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
These days parallelizing stuff is pretty much just a configuration option…

I know that in MATLAB you can parallelize the whole affair with a couple lines of code. Amazon Web Services is a bit more tricky…
Sept. 23, 2016
Richard Willey edited this comment Sept. 23, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ray, couple data points

1. While I didn't implement this attack, I did discuss with with a bunch of folks at work. Most categorized this an interesting problem. The kind that you'd give out as an end of term project for a junior or a senior. The reason that none of us went after this was that it wasn't considered to be challenging enough… (As soon as it was apparent that an LCG was being used, it was game over)

2. Its quite clear that the problem is pretty trivial to parallelize. This means that if you're willing to spend a modicum of $$$ you can crack this nearly instantaneously…
Sept. 23, 2016
Richard Willey edited this comment Sept. 23, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This is sake, not wine, and its not particularly expensive sake, (and oh yeah, I'm not Brian), however, I consider this a real find especially if bought by the case

http://www.liquorama.net/huchu-homare-watari-bune-junmai-ginjo-55-sake-720ml.html
Sept. 23, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well done!
Sept. 23, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> @Richard you don't need 10,000s of thousands of hands,
> if Meckwell psyched twice in a certain position yesterday,
> and did for a third time today on the same position I would
> believe they have developed a partnership tendency, and
> they are more aware of this possibility than opponents,
> even when they never psyched on that certain position on
> the hundreds of thousands hands they have played together.

Two swallows do not a summer make…

You are describing a theory about psyches that, popular as it may be, has not bearing in juris prudence. Case in point: How many times has Zia psyched the exact same weak NT opening in third seat with 7-8 balanced? I've seen him do it “live” on three separate occasions and I know of a bunch of other cases. And in spite of this, Zia and Rosenberg were not held to have a CPU.

In my opinion, the fact that you are able to find two hands matching your hypothesis in a relatively short amount of time is not sufficient to bring charges of this nature. Moreover, the fact that your team chose to bring these charges forward casts a lot of doubt on your judgement.
Sept. 23, 2016
Richard Willey edited this comment Sept. 23, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Regretfully, the ACBL's convention regulations don't include appropriate vocabulary for folks to describe methods that include deliberate randomization.

As such, the legality of your methods (pretty much) depends on the frequency with which this is occurring. Given that you use the word routinely to describe what's what, I'd say that the method sounds illegal to me.

If the method is frequent enough that you think it needs to be alerted, then it is definitely illegal…
Sept. 22, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> When you instead said that you were confident
> the data would show how wrong our claims were
> I knew you truly meant it, and that meant the
> sample hands we found gotta be wrong somehow.
> I still don't know how though.

Your sample size is grossly insufficient. Bringing forward charges with this sort of evidence is at best negligent.
Sept. 22, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Justin,

Minor pedantic point: I don't think that “over fitting” is the right expression to be using.

Over fitting describes a case where you are using a model that is too complicated. As a result, you end up capturing not only the signal component of your data set but also the noise. You end up with an extremely accurate fit this this particular set of data, but your model is useless for extrapolation.

As a practical example, consider a case where the “true” relationship between X and Y is a linear relationship. I decide to “fit” the data using a 7th order polynomial or a 5th order Fourier series or some such. The complicated model will give me a great fit, but I really don't want to be using it for anything serious.

Back in the data, I would say that the expression that you are looking for is “data mining”. When I went through school this expression was used in a derogatory manner to describe researchers who searched through a data set looking for some hypothesis and then validated this using the same data set. (This was contrasted with a more “pure” ideal of folks who developed their model, formulated their hypothesis, and then gather some fresh uncontaminated data set to test the hypothesis). From what I can tell, however, the expression might not be as slanderous as it once was…
Sept. 22, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What are the odds that this type of screw up only affected the winners of a couple events?

I suspect that there is a more pervasive problem. Folks only flagged these two examples because they impacted first place…

If I were the WBF and seeking to re-establish credibility, I'd go through a rigorous analysis of all the scores and see just how often this got screwed up. Conversely, if I were a third party with an ax to grind, I'd do just the same in an attempt to embarrass them…
Sept. 22, 2016
.

Bottom Home Top