Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Richard Willey
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am more interested in the behavior of the director than the opposing pair…

Threatening a procedural penalty seems odd…
May 3, 2016
Richard Willey edited this comment May 3, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Overfitting is equally valid for logistic regression as traditional regression
May 1, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
>> The danger of going out at night. etc.

> Huh?

The following might help provide some context

http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/old-glory-insurance/n10766
May 1, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
How many rounds into the auction are pairs required to know their agreements?
April 30, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> If your partner has made a psyche in a situation before
> (or if you have discussed psyching there) the opponents
> should be informed.

Am I safe in assuming that you alert every time Zia opens 1NT or cue bids?
April 30, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
von Neuman said it best:

“With four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk.”
April 30, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Which genius gave the advice to scuttle ACBLScore+ over an inane copyright dispute?
April 30, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> Is duplicate bridge helping ACBL members live longer?

This is completely immaterial.

1. The ACBL had a massive demographic bulge working its way though the membership base.
2. Life expectancy in the US is (generally) trending upwards. While we have seen declines in certain demographic groups, I expect that those aren't significantly represented in the ACBL membership base
April 29, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
President Mozingo writes:

“Yikes 2! In the six years I’ve monitored membership age we have declined by about 200 juniors (ages 1-25), while senior membership (ages 56-80) has increased by about 6000. ”

I wonder how long it will take President Mozingo to figure out that a lot of the growth in membership of age 56+ reflects a static membership base that is growing older each year.
April 29, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“new AS/400”. That's quite the oxymoron
April 29, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It is possible to draw inference without having a validation set, however, it ends up affecting the odds. When people don't take this into account, it impacts the results of the analysis and they often end up making inaccurate claims about the likelihood of the event.
April 29, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ben, thanks very much for providing this summary.

Whist reading it, I noticed one point that seems significant to me that you didn't explicitly note. You might want to include this in future summaries because it does have a significant impact on the results.

The timeline that you have laid out indicates that Kit developed his theory using video from ten matches and that he was not aware that the Monaco - Israel and Monaco - Germany matches exist.

This means that the data set has (essentially) been partitioned into a test set and a validation set. The test set was used to derive the theory. The validation set can be used to test its accuracy. This will make the statisticians in the room very happy.

Once again, thanks for the summary…
April 28, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Convention disruption” is the attempt to institutionalize the argument that directors should be permitted to abuse their authority by systematically discriminating against pairs that they don't like.

We wouldn't put up with this sort of bullshit if the discrimination were based on race / religion / gender / what have you. We shouldn't allow it because we don't like the fact that the pair in question is choosing to use legal methods that the director doesn't happen to approve of.

For those who think that I am making a facetious argument I will simply point out the following: Those who advocate in favor of convention disruption claim that the regulatory structure should be applied in a completely different fashion depending on whether a pair is playing “natural” methods (aka “what I play”) as opposed to some horrible “convention”.

If this problem is, indeed, important that it it should be addressed by changing the regulatory structure or changing the laws. Looking aside while individual directors launch their own little crusades based on aesthetic principles that have nothing to do with the laws is a sick joke.
April 27, 2016
Richard Willey edited this comment April 27, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> IMHO most who are completely innocent would have done
> everything possible to intervene at that time.

IMHO, any competent lawyer would require that their clients shut the fuck up and not engage in idle discussion on a public web forum in advance of their trial. This decision has nothing to do with innocence or guilt, but rather basic strategy during court proceedings.

(FWIW, I think that F+N are guilty, but your claim is ridiculous and prejudicial)
April 26, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think that it would be interesting to see whether the lawyer is willing to place a wager on the outcome of the appeal… (yeah, I know. This probably violated some kind of professional ethics)
April 26, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Let's assume that after all these years, Papa the Greek finally looses it, pulls out a pistol, and shoots the Rueful Rabbit dead after the Rabbit blunders into a double squeeze.

This would sound like a violation of Law 74B, item 2

“A player should carefully avoid any remark or action that might cause annoyance or embarrassment to another player or might interfere with the enjoyment of the game.”

> Don't you think that by adhering to the Olympic Standards the
> WBF and all bridge federations are trying to have regulations
> that will improve the conditions of bridge? DOn't you think it's
> more convenient for Bridge Organizations to adapt the rules
> of Sport Entities than to try to be ‘on their own’?

I think that the attempt to introduce bridge as an Olympic sport has been a colossal waste of time, money, and resources. I think that the primary motivation was greed on the part of pros who wanted to sell Olympic gold medals to well heeled clients and administrators wanting to cashing in on the hideously corrupt IOC processes surrounding site selection.

At best, the whole Olympic effort coms across as a bad joke…
April 22, 2016
Richard Willey edited this comment April 22, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Kirsten,

You have raised an incredibly complicated issue. I'm doubt that you'll be able to get consensus amongst the members of the forum. Indeed, I expect that many people (myself included) are personally torn about these issues.

At the most basic level, I don't think that you can get agreement regarding what expressions like “High Ethical Standards” mean or whether morality should be viewed as objective or relative.

Let me provide a few practical example why these sorts of things are dicey.

1. The International Olympic Committee bans players from using various types of recreational drugs that are not considered performance enhancing. There was a massive fight over revoking an Olympic medal after the athlete tested positive for pot.

Many people, myself included, think that these sorts of rules are ridiculous…

2. The “We Didn't Vote for Bush” controversy in Shanghai generated an enormous amount of controversy.

I don't think this issue was ever really resolved, rather it was swept under the rug.

3. The ACBL recently threatened the the state government of Mississippi over a new law that MS passed that had NOTHING to do with bridge. I think that there was a great deal of disagreement, both over whether the ACBL should have ever issued any kind of statement and, if a statement were to be issued, what side should the ACB have weighed in on.

Speaking strictly for myself, here's how I tend to view such things:

1. When it comes to the relationship between a bridge organization and its membership, the only moral / ethical standard that should apply are those that are directly related to the game of bridge. If you violate the standards of the game by, for example, cheating, the organization has a right to bar you from playing. If you violate some external standard (for example, you like to snort coke AND cocaine is not on the list of prohibited substances, the organization should not be allowed to use this to bar you from participating)

2. If any organization wants, it can decide to create rules and regulations that based on standards that are external to the game of bridge. For example, the WBF can decide that it wants to bar people who use pot from participating in events. The ACBL can decide that its teams can not make political statements during awards ceremonies. However, until these external standards are codified into the relations and made internal, people should feel free to do whatever they damn well please.
April 22, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Kirsten,

Thanks for clarifying. In (American) english vernacular, people often differentiate between “top down” initiatives and “bottoms up” effort.

Assume that you are in some kind of hierarchical organization. A “top down” initiative is one that is launch by the leadership of the organization and then pushed down onto the membership. A “bottoms up” effort is one that the membership (or some sub section there of) decide up and then try to push upwards into the rest of the organization.
April 22, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sorry if this is a silly question, however, has one of the national or zonal bridge bodies asked you to this work or is this something that you are attempting as a “bottoms up” type effort?
April 22, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Death in Hamlet is fairly transitory
April 19, 2016
.

Bottom Home Top