Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Sartaj Hans
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks.
Sept. 3, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Jan,
Thanks for posting this. Is there a web link to view the list of entries to date?
Sartaj
Sept. 3, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“O. Wait. You DID misunderstand.”
How little you understand, Mike D. Wiss
July 26, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Enjoyed it !
July 13, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There is no need to vilify the player in question or question his intent.

The director should change the score and award a procedural penalty.

The culture will automatically get better.
June 21, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Since the diamond continuation is a LA, it must be required.” Agree
March 3, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A win for the legal process, a loss for the truth. A casualty of modern times.
Jan. 11, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Look forward to it !
Dec. 16, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This gets more and more juicy everyday !
Dec. 12, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I disagree with the purported complexity of the goal of bidding.

The goal of bidding is to have the best possible score.

If one can simulate a range of scenarios and accurately apply appropriate weights and evaluations to them, any bridge bidding action (in theory) should be quantifiable.

My view is that terms like preemption, bidding for the lead, constructive bidding are just useful for didactic value. They are not philosophical cornerstones of the game; they are just terms for human understanding and expression.

The language of data-driven computers is different. It does not require such terms.
Nov. 25, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think we ought to view this opening bid structure as an early iteration of the optimal design (for a computer program). Especially when they are looking at uncontested auctions only.
Nov. 23, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Fascinating. Thanks for sharing. I am not a techie in the space but the key takeaway for me is:
They have designed a program that learns bidding strategy without any programmed human knowledge.

As a parallel story, chess featured decades of improvement through coding human knowledge into computer systems. This eventually led to Deep Blue defeating Garry Kasparov, the world's best chess player in a close match. Even though the victory was commonly ascribed to Deep Blue's tremendous processing power, the human coding of the evaluation function and opening strategy played a key role in the computer's victory. Since then, the trend has changed. The top chess program now learn by themselves. Matches between top chess computers and humans are no longer close.

Also, I understand that the recent demolition of human players in Go was by a program using deep learning, i.e. no human input into strategy as well.
Nov. 23, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Love your articles !
Oct. 13, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Great to hear its all come together! Look forward to watching it in the Oz screening :)
July 23, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Bridge players overestimate the complexity of bridge.
Jan. 13, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Peter,
Cool reference !

I suspect based off this and David Burn's comment above, that % play probably is to finesse West for the DQ, once D are known to be 3-3

The rationale might be “With three low diamonds, West might have led a diamond. With Qxx diamond, a heart lead is forced.”

This assumes that West would like to lead passively on this auction, on either of his possible holdings. Which seems like a reasonable view of take.

Sartaj
Nov. 3, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Elegant!
Nov. 2, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Kit, We can call it good technique but my view is that most defenders are more worried about misleading partner than tricking declarer.
Yes, Brink's early craftiness did come to hurt him, as I would be unlikely to read too much into an early play of the 2.
Nov. 1, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yup.
Shameless plug: More thoughts on the choice of lead and thoughts about Bird-Anthias findings in the book.
Nov. 1, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi David, That is an interesting point. If we can guess whether West's choice, given various hands, is for an active lead or a safe lead, the negative inferences become quite powerful.
Nov. 1, 2016
.

Bottom Home Top