Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Richard Willey
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> that he/she literally “cannot believe” that there are people
> who want to play with actual cards in their hands.

I believe that the original comment was somewhat more nuanced…

I think that Eric accepts that there are people who prefer to play the game using cards. However, he doesn't believe that significant numbers would quit the game because the game migrated to using an electronic playing environment.

(FWIW, I don't think that anyone expects that the use of physical playing cards would be completely discontinued for all classes of games so people who have a strong preference to play with cardboard should still have options available to them. How even now I suspect that we're at the point where the total number of tables in play in ACBL sanctioned online games is greater than that for F2F games)
Jan. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> There are many players – including world-class experts –
> who want to continue handling the “bits of cardboard.”

Yeap.

They also really wanted to be allowed to smoke during events.

And then, of course, there were all the people who were going to quite because we started to use bidding boxes.

And don't forget how dealing machines were going to destroy the game because they were so very very expensive and no club would ever use them.
Jan. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Personally, I am much more interested in what the contracts for the room blocks in Memphis look like
Jan. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The question isn't whether or not the strong club openers are plus IMPs after competition, rather whether their expected score increases or decreases.

Back in the weird old days, I used to track the expected value of our scores after various openings. As a rule, the strong club opening lead to some of our worst scores. We were willing to put up with this because it was relatively infrequent and the scores on our limited openings and preempts more than compensated.

Regretfully, I didn't think to break things down based on whether or not there was a competitive auction.
Jan. 6
Richard Willey edited this comment Jan. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Here's my preferred defense

X = Both majors

Typical example hands (minimum/maximum)

♠ KJT2 ♥QT98 ♦73 ♣762
♠ AJ73 ♥ KT532 ♦ 9 ♣ 763

1♦ = Lead directing (typically a canape overcall)
1♥ = Lead directing (typically a canape overcall)

1♠ = Spades

♠ AJ72 ♥ 52 ♦ QT62 ♣ 763
♠ AQJ73 ♥ 74 ♦ 843 ♣ K5
♠ AJ843 ♥ K742 ♦ 672 ♣ 4

1N = 2 suited with Spades and a minor

♠ AQ52 ♥ 673 ♦ QT632 ♣ 3
♠ AJT62 ♥ 4 ♦ 52 ♣ KJ942

2♣ = Clubs and Hearts

♠ 7632 ♥ QJ73 ♦ 4 ♣ KQ42
♠ 5 ♥ AQJ9 ♦ Q42 ♣ KQ8742

2♦ = Diamonds and Hearts

♠ Q52 ♥ KT52 ♦ QT62 ♣ 62
♠ 42 ♥ KJT82 ♦ AQ932 ♣ 3

2♥ = Hearts

♠ 73 ♥ QJT642 ♦ K72 ♣ 732
♠ K4 ♥ AQT9732 ♦ 73 ♣ 82

2♠ = Spades

2N = Clubs or (Diamonds and a major)

3C = Minors

♠ 4 ♥ 863 ♦ KJ762 ♣ KQ73
♠ 2 ♥ 63 ♦ AT572 ♣ AKT73

3♦ = Diamonds
3♥ = Majors
Jan. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“The Vienna system of contract bridge”
Jan. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Its a lot like a podcast, only it runs a lot longer. However the BIG difference is that the commercials aren't just for mattresses and meal delivery services.
Jan. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I suspect that this will all very much depend on the type of game we're looking at. For example:

1. For top level events (the Bermuda Bowl, the Spingold, etc) I think that the migration to an electronic playing environment is nigh inevitable. Playing on tablets or computers or whatever offers far too many advantages with respect to security, record keeping, and broadcast. I understand that there will be some resistance, however, I expect this to be swamped by a never ending series of issues surrounding cheating.

2. Conversely, I think the if we're looking at local clubs, especially ones with a older player base who is very resistant to change, I doubt that much will change until said clubs finally roll over and die.

3. Over time, I expect that the use of tablets will diffuse down from top level events into progressively more events. Certainly at the level of Nationals, maybe regionals as well. I expect that this will be driven by a number of different factors: Increased familiarization with electronic playing environments and the discovery that this really isn't that bad. Having progressively more players who primary exposure to bridge is online and aren't used to using cards. Players wanting to play in national level events without the bother/expense of travelling
Jan. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Here's a very high level overview:

Claude Shannon did some seminal work describing noisy channel coding. We can consider the set of legal bids as a channel to communicate information.

Start by trying to figure out how many bits of information your bidding system is able to exchange in an uncontested auction. THEN start factoring in the opponents biding and treat this as noise.
Jan. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> surely you care if this migration results
> in large losses of players.

Depends on how old they are
Jan. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Ilan

An awful lot of this will depend on the sophistication of both your audience and the person who is going to be making the presentation. There are a lot of really good examples that one might use, but if they either go over the head of the people that you are talking to or, worse yet, if they feel that you are talking down to them you might end up shooting yourself in the foot.

Here is a set of examples that one might chose from ranked from what I consider to be least sophisticated to most complicated.

1. “Expected value”: What type of odds do you need to choose to try for a game or a slam? How does this change with the vulnerability?

2. “Eight ever, nine never”. A very simple example showing how learning basic rules about the way suits are likely to split will impact your declarer play.

3. “Vacant spaces”: How the basic odds change as the information that you have about the opponent's hands ends up changing

4. Restricted choice: How the classic restricted choice example can be analyzed using a Bayesian framework

5. How Fibonacci sequences are used to analyze relay systems

6. Modelling the channel capacity of the set of legal bids
Jan. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> Believe it

I believe you. I just don't care that much…

You can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs. At the end of the day, I think that migrating to an electronic playing environment offer enough significant advantages that I'm not particularly concerned if there is some attrition.
Jan. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“There is just some sort of ethereal vibe that comes
with tabling a card, sorting your hand, and
feeling the cards.”

de gustibus non disputandum est

With this said and done, I expect that the F2F will be supplanted by the electronic (and that controlling cheating will have little to nothing to do with this). Rather, as more and more people are introduced to the game via sites like BBO, folks will develop a very different set of preferences wrt cards versus keyboards.
Jan. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> Duplicate Bridge is played with a pack of 52 cards,
> consisting of 13 cards in each of four suits

I can't find that line in the WBF's laws for electronic bridge…
Jan. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> without cards it is not bridge

To me, bridge is defined by a set of rules and a scoring table.
Jan. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm very glad that some organizations out there so involved in active experimentation.

If we're ever going to use this for top level events we're going to need to do a lot of testing to make sue that the system is up to snuff.

I'm somewhat surprised that BBO isn't doing more in the way of active experimentation around this. I would think that they'd want to be running some events at the Nationals or some such.
Jan. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> But what if they say to me that they do not want to
> have to play against this pro in the future.

Explain to them that this isn't the way bridge works.

If they don't quit over this incident, they'll quit over something else down the road. Better to cut your losses…
Jan. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> So why change times and breaks to elimanate this time
> I used to love swiss going to dinner and talking to
> out of towners now playthroughs elimanate this part
> Also think starts times of 10 and 3 do same thing

Seems like the sort of thing that you should be asking the folks who run your tournaments, not to folks who are pointing out the flaws in your logic about electronic playing formats…
Jan. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> Why go to a tournament? why not everyone just
> play from home on their tablets?

Comment the first: At least in my experience, most of the socializing and the like happens between sessions, over dinner, in the morning before the event kicks off, etc. Yes, moving to an electronic playing environment might change things somewhat during the play of the individual hands, but as I recall, people aren't supposed to be talking and disturbing other players while hands are being played.

Comment the second: It is entirely possible that some people might decide that they prefer to compete in an ACBL or a WBF event by showing up at their local bridge club and sitting in a proctored playing environment. And you know what, if some people decide that they want to avoid the expense and hassle of flying off to Hawaii for Nationals, who are we to say that they are wrong.

The fact that “Randy” thinks that people should be forced to play from “where ever” simply isn't a compelling argument if there are better options.
Jan. 1
Richard Willey edited this comment Jan. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> But I don't understand what seems to me somewhat of
> a sense of “well; what can we do about it; gotta live with it.”

And yet, that is precisely the attitude that the prevails across the ACBL and the WBF.

We have known for years how to make it significantly more difficult to to cheat in top level events. We choose not to do because players need to protect their precious “table feel” and want to “socialize”.

All that cheating, all those lawsuits… thats just something that we need to live with.

In much the same, if we look at the the club game, we see a never ending litany of hitches and haws and ethical violations which we can never call anyone's attention to because at the end of the day, because director calls might threaten the card fees.

And, once again, thats just something that we need to live with
Jan. 1
.

Bottom Home Top