All comments by Adam Wildavsky
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Excellent Italian restaurant a 15-minute drive from the Marriott:

http://poesiasf.com/

Good Indian food a short walk from the hotel - entrees \$15 to \$20.

https://www.chaatcornersanfrancisco.com/
Dec. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We boomers can play with one another. I'd love to see newer players of any age encouraged and welcomed, not just out of a love for the game but also out of self-interest.
Nov. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Steve wrote “To derive single-player ratings, you need some formula for combining two individual ratings into a pair rating.”

I don't understand how this is necessary. Why not follow a similar procedure as the one used to calculate pair ratings? For each round, a player would have a matchpoint expectation based on his opponent's ratings and his partner's. As with the Elo system, if he exceeded his expectation his rating would increase, while if he scored below it his rating would decrease. If the formula were linear it could be calculated using his session score and the average of his opponents' ratings, useful if board by board data were for some reason difficult to come by and also easier to explain to the players.

This procedure illustrates one advantage of a rating system over a masterpoint system. A player could not, on average, increase his rating by playing with a stronger partner. Likewise, his rating would not be at risk when playing with a weaker one. Even better, players interested in improving their rating would be motivated to partner promising but underrated players.
Nov. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks for the votes and comments! I've posted the voting totals so far and the table results in the comments on my original poll here:

https://bridgewinners.com/article/view/bidding-problem-2-v1qaetcslc/
Nov. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks for the votes and comments!

Vote totals so far:

♠752 ♥AJT9 ♦Q4 ♣KQJ9 - Pass: 56 Double: 14
♠752 ♥AJT9 ♦K4 ♣KQJ9 - Pass: 28 Double: 24 2♣: 2

Note that the second hand is roughly two points stronger than the first:

http://www.jeff-goldsmith.org/cgi-bin/knr.cgi?hand=752+AJT9+Q4+KQJ9
K&R (752 AJT9 Q4 KQJ9) = 12.85

http://www.jeff-goldsmith.org/cgi-bin/knr.cgi?hand=752+AJT9+K4+KQJ9
K&R (752 AJT9 K4 KQJ9) = 14.80

I doubled with the first hand, as did the West at the other table. He went for -1400. I deserved the same but escaped for -140.

http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?bbo=y&myhand=M-3022074327-1573584798
http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?bbo=y&myhand=M-3022074328-1573584798
Nov. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It was a head-to-head match, so there were two results!

I attempted to post a new poll last night but it does not seem to have taken. I'll try again now…
Nov. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The consensus favors Pass, with 34 votes versus 7 for double.

I'll take Craig's suggestion and post a new poll with the Q replaced by the K.

Tomorrow I'll report on the result at the table!
Nov. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If you can't find your District's recorder you can also send the form to the ACBL recorder at recorder@acbl.org

As to whether you should record any such incident, the answer is usually yes. Once you do the recorder can decide whether action is warranted.
Nov. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Here are some other BridgeWinners discussion of rating systems. This is surely not a complete list!

2013 https://bridgewinners.com/article/view/acbl-technology-4-rating-systems/
2014 https://bridgewinners.com/article/view/power-ratings/
2015 https://bridgewinners.com/article/view/an-elo-rating-system-for-bridge/
2017 https://bridgewinners.com/article/view/big-ideas/

For what it's worth I still think any reasonable rating system would be a boon and well worth implementing, whether for players or pairs and for IMPs or Matchpoints.
Nov. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Your recollection is incorrect, Richard (and Frances). From the October, 1982 article in The Bridge World:

“Indeed, we found that the count worked as well for one-bids as for two-bids, delicately mirroring the Editors' judgments of value. For a K-S player, an opening bid of one in a major or one notrump becomes possible at 12.0 points, mandatory at 12.5…”
Nov. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Shouldn't BBO let you declare if partnering a robot?
Nov. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Per the comments in the seeding discussion, I'd love to see some way of equalizing the seeding potential between those who have been eligible for the event for years and those newly eligible. Otherwise, the latter will tend to be under-seeded, disadvantaging both them and those unlucky enough to draw them in the KO.

I don't have a scheme to propose but it ought not be too difficult. For instance we could, for each recent year of ineligibility, grant “hypothetical” Senior USBC points based on the average Senior USBC holdings of those with similar Open USBC holdings.
Oct. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'd be happy to see your argument, Chris, or Jeff's.
Oct. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Two events being equal length does not mean that they run equally true to form. BAM events can distinguish between teams more reliably with fewer boards than IMP events. So extending the RR to three days would not give it as much predictive power as the Reisinger. Granted, the Reisinger requires MP skill, not IMP skill, but the two tend to be closely related.

That's not to say that I favor one seeding method over another. I'll abstain since I won't be eligible for the event until 2025 or so.
Oct. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Here's the item in question:

“II. Institution of a World e-Bridge Championship delegating to the Management Committee the definition of a project to be submitted to the approval of the Executive Council.”

The WBF Management Committee members are listed here:

http://www.worldbridge.org/governance/management-committee/
Oct. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Here's a report of the decisions taken by the Executive Council in Wuhan:

http://www.worldbridge.org/2019/09/20/decisions-taken-by-the-executive-council/

It was posted expeditiously, on September 20, shortly after our meetings concluded.

I'm still traveling and will have more to say after I make it home next week.
Oct. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I played with Johnny for a couple months in the summer of 1978, when I'd been an ACBL member for a year. He was a great guy - Richard Lessler introduced us at the Oakland Bridge Center.

Johnny had quit bridge around 1940 and returned to the game when he retired from the insurance business. The ACBL had lost his records, so he became rookie of the year in his unit.
Oct. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Victor Hugo surely won't mind. I only wish my French were good enough to read his work in its original language. Maybe one day…
Sept. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Was not on my radar. I'll go if you recommend it! It's across the river from where we're playing.
Sept. 19
.

Bottom Home Top