You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.

I may not have been clear. The way the show was run, the host did not open a door randomly, he randomly chose whether to open a door that did not conceal the prize or to open no door. Under those conditions, switching when he does choose to open a door is 2:1.

You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.

> My recollection is reading that Monty Hall himself said that he either chose to reveal a door or not according to his feeling (perhaps he endeavored to get the better of the contestant thought that is not clear), and that in fact sometimes he did not offer the switch chance to the contestant.

As long as MH decides to open a door or not randomly (or on the basis of irrelevant criteria such as his “feeling”, as opposed to knowledge of whether the contestant has already chosen the winning door) this doesn’t change the problem: when offered a chance to switch after a door is opened, doing so is a 2:1 favorite. All that’s going on is he’s sometimes arbitrarily denying us the opportunity to place the bet that we’d like to.

You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.

50% and 33% are right for the first two (assuming that the information was obtained as described by Eric Kerr above)

However, 33% is not right for the third and fourth problems. The seemingly irrelevant information actually makes a big difference. You can prove this using Bayes Theorem, but there’s an easier informal argument: A BB family is twice as likely to have at least one boy born on Tuesday or named Dylan so these are overrepresented in the sample set.

You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.

Once in a non-serious game when I passed in this situation (no, I did not have three-card support) my partner alerted. Perplexed, we turned to her, and with tongue firmly in cheek she said “denies three-card support”. With tongue just as firmly in cheek, my LHO responded “No, no, that pass is only alertable if he could have three pieces”.

You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.

Only a walrus would think “only two points”, but there's something to be said for thinking “nine losers…. count them again… yes, that's NINE”.

Bidding game is basically rolling the dice on the amount of diamond wastage. Vulnerable at IMPs we don't need 50% and I'd rather be dead in a ditch than bring back +170; not vul at IMPs I may be thinking about the state of the match and whether the opponents are good defenders; at matchpoints I hope I'm not playing with a resulter.

You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.

I'd choose double (let's not lose the hearts) or 2S (in the passout seat a spade suit and values like this) over 1S, so that's my “friends want help with the deal” answer.

I think the interesting question is not how to get to game but how to get to hearts.

And John, it would be interesting to know what the results at the other tables were…

You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.

Marty, I think you’ve identified a flaw in the wording of the laws rather than a convincing basis for resolving the question (but in any case reminded me of the limitations of textualism as a method of statutory interpretation). If the drafters really intended to exclude knowledge of tendencies from disclosure, surely they would not have hidden this exclusion so cleverly that it takes several careful rereadings to find it? Nor included the words “… or partnership experience” in 40.B.5(a) without further qualification?

It seems to me much more likely that we’re looking at an unintended interaction between the placement of the requirement that partnership agreements be symmetrical and the disclosure requirement than an intended exclusion of individual tendencies from disclosure.

Of course, and as the other discussion in this thread shows, there are issues about how and when this information is disclosed.

You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.

> The poor pair who's only crime was sitting in the wrong place at the wrong time lost a punitive 11 imps.

That seems somewhat inherent in the pairs format, does it not? The problem is that there are “right places” and “wrong places” and these are assigned by chance. Not only do I not see how tweaking the scoring can eliminate this random seating effect, but I will offer a conjecture: Any pairs scoring method that does not weight all boards equally will have larger variance due to seating effects than straight matchpoints. (The proof is straightforward but unfortunately does not fit in the margin of this post).

You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.

>Have you ever sat down… BTDT, often >Fewer than 10% want to improve their game. Right around 90% want advice on how to win the most pigmented Masterpoints in the shortest amount of time

And they are remarkably reluctant to consider the proposition that improving their game is an effective way of winning pigmented master points :( The exceptions make it worth the effort, but they are exceptions.

You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.

> 1 huge KO and a bunch of consolation events for those that don't cut it… How about one huge multi-day stratified Swiss event? Multi-day would allow 24 or 36 boards per round which greatly reduces the randomness, and the Swiss format keeps everyone engaged throughout.

You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.

I find that one of the more effective indicators is how quickly and confidently a player claims/concedes once the outcome is clear. Weak players will often play out a hand even after there is no doubt about the outcome.

Eric Hamilton

But I am curious - what thought process swayed you to the diamond ace?

Eric Hamilton

Eric Hamilton

As long as MH decides to open a door or not randomly (or on the basis of irrelevant criteria such as his “feeling”, as opposed to knowledge of whether the contestant has already chosen the winning door) this doesn’t change the problem: when offered a chance to switch after a door is opened, doing so is a 2:1 favorite. All that’s going on is he’s sometimes arbitrarily denying us the opportunity to place the bet that we’d like to.

Eric Hamilton

Eric Hamilton

However, 33% is not right for the third and fourth problems. The seemingly irrelevant information actually makes a big difference. You can prove this using Bayes Theorem, but there’s an easier informal argument: A BB family is twice as likely to have at least one boy born on Tuesday or named Dylan so these are overrepresented in the sample set.

Eric Hamilton

Eric Hamilton

Eric Hamilton

Eric Hamilton

Eric Hamilton

Bidding game is basically rolling the dice on the amount of diamond wastage. Vulnerable at IMPs we don't need 50% and I'd rather be dead in a ditch than bring back +170; not vul at IMPs I may be thinking about the state of the match and whether the opponents are good defenders; at matchpoints I hope I'm not playing with a resulter.

Eric Hamilton

I think the interesting question is not how to get to game but how to get to hearts.

And John, it would be interesting to know what the results at the other tables were…

Eric Hamilton

It seems to me much more likely that we’re looking at an unintended interaction between the placement of the requirement that partnership agreements be symmetrical and the disclosure requirement than an intended exclusion of individual tendencies from disclosure.

Of course, and as the other discussion in this thread shows, there are issues about how and when this information is disclosed.

Eric Hamilton

Eric Hamilton

And what will you do over 4H?

Eric Hamilton

The most effective counter that I've found is to politely ask “Do we all agree that there was a break in tempo here?” at the time of the hesitation.

Eric Hamilton

That seems somewhat inherent in the pairs format, does it not? The problem is that there are “right places” and “wrong places” and these are assigned by chance. Not only do I not see how tweaking the scoring can eliminate this random seating effect, but I will offer a conjecture:

Any pairs scoring method that does not weight all boards equally will have larger variance due to seating effects than straight matchpoints. (The proof is straightforward but unfortunately does not fit in the margin of this post).

Eric Hamilton

BTDT, often

>Fewer than 10% want to improve their game. Right around 90% want advice on how to win the most pigmented Masterpoints in the shortest amount of time

And they are remarkably reluctant to consider the proposition that improving their game is an effective way of winning pigmented master points :(

The exceptions make it worth the effort, but they are exceptions.

Eric Hamilton

How about one huge multi-day stratified Swiss event? Multi-day would allow 24 or 36 boards per round which greatly reduces the randomness, and the Swiss format keeps everyone engaged throughout.

Eric Hamilton

Eric Hamilton