Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Richard Willey
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Are you referring to the response structure over the 1 opening?

If so, most any of the structures that I've seen, dating all the way back to Matula are GCC legal.

Dan Neill has a decent enough summary of this at http://www.bridgewithdan.com/systems/Matula_text.txt


Oct. 29, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Brad,

I am very interested in your comment about creating a new world championship event that is not affiliated with the WBF. (FWIW, I think that this is a great idea)

I strongly encourage you to create a separate thread to discuss this effort when you have the opportunity. I am guessing that open discussion during the early planning stages might yield some innovative ideas.
Oct. 29, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> Another sure way to lose new players at a club game is to
> psych against them. Whatever you gain from psyching isn't
> worth the hostility it creates. They'll think they've been
> cheated no matter what anyone says to them.

And that same group of novice players will get horribly aggrieved if you dare point out that their own bidding bears no relationship to the cards that they hold in their hand.

Sadly, “working the refs” seems to be the first skill that the novices pick up.


Oct. 29, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> I can only speak for myself – my urging the team from
> Poland to withdraw, was not the use of “words intended to
> insult” them, or to injure their reputation. I believe that
> others thought – as did I –that the withdrawal would have
> been the right thing to do, and would have enhanced their
> reputation.

All that you are doing here is building a straw man.

Over the course of the last couple months I saw plenty of disparging comments regarding the disclosure proprieties of Polish players.

This is gratuitous because the magnitude of the two types of improprieties seems incredibly different (doing a poor job filling out convention cards / submitting convention cards / answering questions is far from desirably conduct, however, it seems categorically different than having a wire).

It seems obvious that this is a slur.
Oct. 27, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The degree of transparency and respect for process is a breathe of fresh air.
Oct. 27, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> “Democracy can't work. Mathematicians, peasants, and
> animals, that's all there is — so democracy, a theory based
> on the assumption that mathematicians and peasants are
> equal, can never work. Wisdom is not additive; its maximum
> is that of the wisest man in a given group.”

Definitely a prototypical Heinlein quote

1. A specific grandiose claim
2. Rooted in simple obvious logic
3. WRONG

Oct. 26, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Gene,

From what I can tell, you want cheaters expelled for all time, with no hope of redemption. You've figured out that you can't get your way on this point, so now you want to play the spoiler and hound individuals who cheated in the past out of tournaments. Color me unimpressed.

I believe that we are best served with a fairly black and white approach towards cheaters.

It's fine to ban a player from an event. However, once you make a decision to let a player participate in an event you treat the player the same as any other. If you are unwilling to do so, you shouldn't have un-banned them to begin with.

Oct. 26, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The question seems nonsensical.

If I were running a tournament, the last thing that I would do is offer players the option of screwing up movements and requiring board adjustments, all so I could have the privilege of watching players express how sanctimonious they are.

If you want folks out forever, throw them out forever. If you are letting them play, then let them play. But don't make life complicated for the folks running the tournament just so a few idiots can engage in political theater.
Oct. 25, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Anyone else feel sick to their stomach whenever the WBF launches into yet another quixotic invocation of the Olympic charter?

I understand that WBF officials are salivating at the thought that they might get to start selling Olympic Gold Medals to well heeled sponsors. However, its been 20 years. You haven't gotten anywhere, and there are a lot more important things that the WBF needs to focus on.

Drop the obsession with the Olympics and get your damn house in order.
Oct. 25, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Michael wrote

>> If you know which pairs are “dirty” and you don't identify them
>> to the task force, then you could reasonably be judged as being
>> part of the problem.

And Gabrielle replied

> I fully intend to share everything I know regarding ethical
> improprieties with the committee. I can still remain skeptical
> of the committee's ability to overcome political inertia.

I believe that the presence (or absence) of a large library of videos in North America will be a much more important factor than inertia. I don't think that it is coincidence that so much evidence of cheating has been suggested so quickly after the introduction of videos in Europe.
Oct. 23, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
10 years ago or so, I was partnering Tim Goodwin in a KO in Newton. The opponents were playing “Montreal Relay”, so I felt obliged to have a bit of fun and overcalled 1H on

S xxxx
H Qxx
D Axxxx
C x

or some such. Tim made an aggressive raise to 2H on something like the following:

S xxxx
H Kxx
D x
C Axxxx

and I found myself playing 2HX. The opponents lead a minor, and I ended up scoring two aces and six trump tricks on a cross ruff.

The opponents REALLY weren't amused about that one…
Oct. 23, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'd be happy to participate in such a committee, however, I am not going to hold my breathe waiting for the invite.

I'm guessing that most folks don't have a clue who I am, so here's the high points from my resume.

My academic background is as a mathematical economist, focusing on game theory and mechanism design. I have a Masters in Economics from Indiana University and dual Masters in Management and Engineering from MIT.

For the last 20 years I have pretty much lived at the intersection of TCP/IP networking and mathematical modeling. I spent my first 10 years out of school working for various networking companies. For the last 10 years I have split my time between the MathWorks where I was the manager for MATLAB's statistics system and Akamai Technologies. I currently work with the Adversarial Resilience team at Akamai, focusing on event detection, capacity planning, and Transport Layer Security.

I don't have many real achievements in the world of bridge, though I am fairly well know on BBO (and earlier on OKB). Bridgewise, I am probably most proud of my MOSCITO notes (which I really need to finish one of these days)




Oct. 23, 2015
Richard Willey edited this comment Oct. 23, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I believe that many people have made gratuitous slurs about the Polish team.
Oct. 20, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> And why do we “owe” them anything at all?

We don't “owe” “them” anything.

Codifying a reduction of punishment is intended to provide an incentive for pairs to confess. I would argue that this provides as many benefits to the organization as it does to the accused pair.

1. A confession provides certainty and closure.
2. A confession avoids the need for a costly trial and even more costly lawsuit.

I'd like to point at the experiences of the Truth and Reconciliation Committee in South Africa to illustrate some of the advantages in trying to reach an accord.



Oct. 19, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Don,

Couple quick comments

1. I think that it is a good idea to have different punishments depending on whether or not an individual confesses. I understand the desire to apply a death penalty for cheating. However, I think that there are too many benefits from providing an incentive for individuals to confess.

2. I very much believe that Zonal Organizations need to establish clear and uniform guidelines. While I very much appreciate the good work that Boye and Steve have done, I consider it problematic that private individuals are cutting side deals with pairs over cheating charges. (Balanced against this, it appears as if Boye insisted that P+S describe the methods that they were using to cheat). FWIW, I consider the actions that the Cavendish committee took with respect to F+S far worse. As far as I am aware, they did nothing to disclose that they had decided not to re-invite F+S based on ethical concerns. I consider keeping this type of information quiet highly problematic.

Oct. 19, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> As I said, the only people who will really object are
> either cheats, or those who want to play with cheats.
> Everyone else will try to deal with the remote chance of
> playing with a cheater.

I'd said that you have a Manichean worldview, but that gives you far too much credit. Let's just go with simpleminded.

Personally, I think that the the most significant objections to any such proposal will come from the regulators who will rightfully fear the lawsuits that will come about from any attempts to impose a system based on collective punishment.

I suspect that any pair that doesn't have perfect information about the proprieties of their team mates to follow as a close second, and I don't think any of us approach perfect information.
Oct. 19, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> Is it so bad, to make there be a downside from agreeing to
> play with a cheating pair, and not to give those who CHOSE
> to play with them, a free pass?

I was raised with the view that systems of collective punishment are simple minded and barbaric.
Oct. 19, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> So, in 2016, someone who plays with a cheating pair, takes
> a year off. Loses everything they “won” with the cheats, as
> well. And the cheats go out for a long, long time.

Any proposal that the team mates of players who cheat should be banned for a year is a complete non starter. Any organization that attempted to enforce this type of rule would (deservedly) be sued into the dirt.

Proposals of this sort are so divorced from reality that they discredit more legitimate efforts to address the very real issue of cheating.

Oct. 19, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> BZ possibly being cheaters, meaning Poland qualified for
> the BB by cheating and therefor having no legitimate claim
> to the BB title, triggered a crowd-source investigation of
> publicly available information here on BW. The BW community
> managed to establish proof of cheating by BZ. Further proof
> was established on the basis of information that was part of
> the (undisclosed) Boye file that was sent to WBF.

There are some remarkable logical fallacies and leaps of faith in this paragraph.




Oct. 18, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> What part of data you use to develop a hypothesis and what
> you test it on doesn't change the data nor the reality.
> It's a voodoo thinking. This kind of thinking means that if
> you by accident looked at the whole dataset you are no
> longer able to use that as evidence which is of course
> nonsense.

Piotr, you appear to have strong opinions on this subject. Sadly, what you are posting is nonsense.

Dividing datasets into test sets, training sets, and validation sets is fundamental to statistics and machine learning. There isn't a decent statistics package out there that doesn't contain libraries and functions to do exactly this. (This very morning, I was using R's cvTool's package)

Moreover, other than you, I don't recall anyone claiming that you need to throw away a data set if you accidentally look at the whole thing. What has been said by multiple individuals is that if you do use the same data set to develop your hypothesis and test your hypothesis you need to be very careful in presenting your results because a lot of traditional analysis techniques are subject to bias.

Oct. 15, 2015
.

Bottom Home Top