Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Steve Zolotow
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This was purely a guess. I don't have stats or even know how you would determine the average IMP advantage per board, whether you have a normal distribution around the mean winning result, and what the standard deviation would be. I think actually trying to gather all the statistics and interpret them would be quite a chore.
May 15, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I mean that a team's ability is fixed throughout a match on the assumption that the same players play the same percentage of boards. If a weak pair plays with 2 strong pairs, the weak pair will play half the boards, no matter how many boards there are.
May 15, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hope we get to see them in action on Vu-Graph BBO. Exciting to watch the future of bridge in action now.
May 8, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I also wonder which of the teams won't get out of the round robin. Approximately 10 teams got 1% of the votes or less. Is there any chance that one of the top 10 teams won't make it? Which team is most likely to have an accident?
May 5, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It seems clear that the top players who have posted (Geoff, Steve, Adam etc.) want them gone forever. If there is a reasonable chance that they will find new ways to cheat with new partners then it makes a lot of sense to bar them for life. Hopefully, over the next few years technology will advance to the point that important events will have partners in separate rooms & there will be no chance of cheating. It will be interesting to watch what the various organizations rule and how long it takes them to do it. It will also be interesting to see if they move toward more technology, and lose some of the social aspects of the game, or just assume they have eliminated the cheats and they can go on with business, more or less as usual.
April 9, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Adam et al., Obviously ethics and integrity are important. Since bridge organizations are self-governed, a permanent barring or long suspension should be possible if that is what the organization's members want, but it doesn't seem particularly punitive. They give up bridge, and do whatever else they want with their life. They can still tell their friends and supporters that they were innocent, and that if they were allowed to play, they'd keep winning. To me, knowing the inflated egos of most players, even those who cheated, I think playing and getting mediocre results would be a much worse punishment than not playing at all. I would also feel more of a sense of revenge from beating them than from barring them. But that is just my personal feeling. Since the majority of the posts seem to favor total banishment, I assume that is what most players want, and that a concerted effort by the organizations involved should go to bringing that result about.
April 9, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Karen - I'd love to be able to throw in a needle after thrashing them, along the lines of - “It's a lot tougher when you have to play honestly.” (Although the ACBL doesn't approve of needling your opponents, perhaps this could be the exception.)
April 8, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
To Steve W (and others who clearly had victories stolen from them.) Wouldn't it be at least mildly satisfying to play against them and crush them? If they are gone forever, you'll never be able to get revenge at the table.
April 8, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Perhaps one of the conditions for reinstatement should be making reparations. Fees received must be returned, donated to charity or to further bridge & should be required for players wishing to play again.
April 7, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
To Richard Franklin, there are some studies of moral responsibility when the same behavior has different outcomes. One was "There are some cases, however, in which accidental outcomes can make a surprising difference in our moral judgments. Consider, for example, two drunk drivers who were involved in 20
accidents. One falls asleep, veers off the road, and strikes a tree, but the other falls asleep, veers off the road, and kills a pedestrian. The driver who kills the pedestrian faces a much stiffer punishment than the one who strikes the tree, a phenomenon is known as “moral luck” in philosophy and law (Hall, 1947; Hart & Honore, 1959; McLaughlin, 1925). In addition, many studies show moral luck effects in peoples’ intuitive judgments (Berg-Cross, 1975; Cushman, 2008; Cushman, Dreber, Wang, & Costa, 2009). According to one account of the phenomenon, intent-based moral judgment and outcome-based moral judgment operate in competition (Cushman, 2008). A competitive interaction between these two types of judgments may explain why people may feel caught in a dilemma in cases of moral luck. On the one hand, it seems wrong to treat the two drunk drivers differently given their identical behavior. On the other hand, it seems even more wrong to send one to prison for a DUI, or to let the other off with a ticket for killing a girl. In other words, intent to harm and causal responsibility for harm may not be fused into a single process of blame assignment, but rather exert independent influences on different categories of moral judgment (see also Buckholz et al., 2008).
April 6, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'd have less problem with life time suspension, if it was specified in advance - “Pairs convicted of consistent cheating will be barred for life.” I have alway thought professional bridge was a very good thing. It gave players who loved the game, an opportunity to make money while getting good (or in Steve W's case) great at a game they loved. However, it does create an economic incentive to cheat as a partnership, which never existed in the days when tournaments where for glory and cash games were for money. Which is not to say there haven't been players who were happy to cheat when no money was involved.
April 6, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I like the idea of rehabilitation including some sort of (bridge) community service. Perhaps their pennance should include being required to recruit 100 non bridge players, teach them how to play, and play with them. Performing menial unpaid services at tournaments, etc.
April 6, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Does it really matter if the serial killer gets more than one death penalty or more than one life sentence?
April 6, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Aren't people ever allowed to admit their guilt, repent and be allowed to return to whatever activity they were barred from? Imagine someone caught speeding while under the influence (DUI,) who has had his lincense revoked or suspended. After 3 years or whatever period of time, they are allowed to return to driving. Admittedly cheating at bridge is more serious than drunk driving, which only endangers lives, not masterpoints, but still 3 years doesn't seem that far out of line.
April 6, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Deal 2 might make an interesting lead poll question. At matchpoints I think a spade rates to be wrong. I think I might try the Ac, with the intention of switching to a heart or spade if I get a discouraging signal. My other choice would be a low club. Looking at the hands, I can see the merits of a heart, but like a spade lead, it rates to cost an overtrick too often for it to be a real possibility.
April 4, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I certainly agree that no typical judge and/or jury will understand the subtleties of bridge, but that is also true of many other areas in which juries lacking a specialist's expertise are swayed more by the lawyers than the evidence. (Think insider trading, medical malpractice, corporate liability, gambling, breach of contract, etc.) Imagine all the credence juries give to eye wittnesses, even though they have been shown to be consistently inaccurate and easily swayed by police.
March 30, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
How many teams have entered so far? Is fewer than 15 a real possibility?
March 28, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What would 1S 3S (by you) have meant?
March 24, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
One deserves to play in 3N, when they lead the As to look at dummy, where they see a few little spades & a bunch of diamonds to the QJ or JT. Suddenly you have 9 tricks while all the 1C bidders who slowly arrive in 3N find their opponents defended perfectly.
March 24, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have never understood why ‘gambling’ 3N locks opener into a bad gamble with no stoppers. It makes more sense (esp. opposite a passed hand) to play it shows outside stuff & see if they can find the best lead or a good bid
March 24, 2016
.

Bottom Home Top