Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Grigol Gogoberidze
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
100% east. 4 is a problem bid, because giving initiative to w he will never be able to show 7th and 8th spades. After positive 4 E must take control, and after finding all KCs will have several ways to fix the 13th trick.

It seems E intended ‘European cuebid’ trying to describe absence of control, not very practical vs 18-19pc. I think a pair playing ‘American cues’ can not go wrong here. Of cause this does not mean general ad of either method.
Feb. 17, 2018
Grigol Gogoberidze edited this comment Feb. 17, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Delated
Jan. 21, 2018
Grigol Gogoberidze edited this comment Jan. 21, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If partner can have 5 card major, 6 card minor but can not have singletons, chances for fit in major are around 58-61%. If he responds 3, in about 50% he will have 4. So, Steyman finds fit about 80% of time and seems clear. I do not see a reason stretching to 4M at MP, especially in a view of possible trump lead.
Jan. 21, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Polling question which has exact answer looks a bit strange to me.
Jan. 20, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Partner having 3+, 11+pc did not double. Does not this mean that if he is not bad 11-12, either he is very long in or short in , or both? 4315 with not good suit, or 4414 seems likely. So do not see why is it right to lead , as Kit says partner should be quite strong to have chances to defeat. If so, is not it more promising to vote for 4414ish hand and lead ?
Jan. 20, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What about this kind of one dimensional reasoning: most probably there are 18 total trumps, and 18 tricks according to TNT. So, if they have only 6 tricks in or , to collect 500 or 800, then we have 12 tricks in 6.
May 15, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Mike, I am not sure I understand the question properly, but: as Eric Rodwell says in his famous interview (http://www.bridgematters.com/rodwell.htm), 2 is the weakest part of strong systems. It has almost zero preemptive value ( is the lowest suit, so after t-o double they can bid any suit, etc.) and basically you are preempting yourself. Based on this 2 in polish is identified as 11-14PC, and the hand, say, AKxx x Qxx AKxxx goes to 1-something -2, at least to fix strength. If you will play 2 opening as 11-17PC, you will have much more problems then other players.
March 9, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Distribution of players by skills has positive skewness (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skewness), i.e. this distribution is elongated in positive direction. This means that there are bunches of chess players with ELO rating below 23OO and only Magnus Carlsen above 28OO. This causes similar (positive) skewness of the results.

Suppose there is a 1NT-3NT board, which needs some advanced technique to make, say criss-cross squeeze. In the scoreboard you will see very few experts making (scoring, say, 95%) and a lot of average players going down (scoring, say, 45%).
Jan. 21, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In the circumstanses we had, I would like to state that I am happy MONACO is in the final. We will see the final of 2 brilliant teams …
Sept. 15, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There is another possibility, if remember properly, Larry Cohen wrote an article that he plays Double as ‘cards’.
April 8, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Quite a typical understanding for Polish players is the following: 1 is 4+unbalanced or 5+balanced. So you open 1 with 4441 or 4144 and 1 with 2335(). If you insist on 5+, something should be done with, say, 1444 or 4441.
March 12, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
From my experience it normally gave reasonable estimate of the skills. The only problem I found was that the adjustment formula they used to take into account difference in the opps skills was too simple and inadequate, so when adjustment score was high, it was a sign that rating can be very inaccurate. Say, somebody with +0.0 per board with adjustment +0.00 normally is intermediate+, but somebody with -0.3 imps per board with level adjustment +0.3 (so the same overall rating) can be quite reasonable player.

In general I do not understand why BBO should forbid others to run rating systems like bboskill. It does not look fair to me.
Feb. 15, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Whatever B says, things are as follows: some people from not very wealthy country were earning for leaving for decades. Some other people suspected them cheating and performed investigation, spending, say 1000 hours of volunteering. They made some conclusions. And now, Mr B wants to publish comments on 3 boards and get away with it? If anybody agrees with this proposal, I'd like to know your definition of the word ‘nonsense’. BZ were earning 6 digit numbers, for this money they should analize all the boards and present their arguments.
Nov. 6, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am 100% convinced with analysis presented, but just for fairness: in the very 1st board: in Polish club free bids on the 2nd level are not forcing (so formally 6-10PC), so B is expected to bid 2 on the 1st round with, say, xxxx xx xx KQTxx. So, for 3 I would call his hand average expected, or may be just a bit less.
Nov. 2, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Great job Kit, thanks a lot.

Just some data analysis. As a pro in this field let me use your table of results in a a bit different way to arrive to some numbers. The idea is the following: the case when only 3 experts match hypothesis is definitely less statistically important then the case when all 5 experts match. In fact what you did in the table, you averaged opinion of 5 experts and compared that number with your hypothesis on binary bases (so there are only 2 results, match, not match). This way you derived numbers 56 out of 65. This averaging in the middle of the procedure does not add anything to analysis and makes it more difficult to interpret the results in numbers (what is the probability that in random experiment designed this way you can get 56 out of 65).

Alternative ways of analysis are as follows. You choose 5 experts to avoid problems related with personal style (say, Forrester is more active bidder then BZ), so you have 5X65=325 choises of ‘randomised experts’. Suggesting BZ are placing bids in random order, what is the probability that 264 (I counted all positives and negatives in your table, so your 4-positive in last column means 4 positive and 1 negative now ) out of all 325 cases will be positive? Now this is very easy. This is described by binomial distribution and basically is equivalent to the question - what is the probability that flipping coin 325 times you will have 264 heads. Here is online calculator http://stattrek.com/online-calculator/binomial.aspx we need probability 1/2, 325 and 264. The result is that the probability that this happened by chance is less than 0.000001.

Alternatively, you can do similar analysis for every expert separately.

And finally, if we use the same way your averaged numbers 56 out of 65 (although after averaging this is not strictly true) we will yield the same less then 0.000001 probability.

PS: I did this analysis in 30 minutes so some small errors are possible.
Nov. 2, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Anybody is free to organize whatever he/she wishes, but I am a bit confused, why is it necessary to call it ‘World Championship’. Usually, in team games, under world championship (if bridge is a sport of cause) we understand some competition of national teams where there is some way how ‘team Uzbekistan’ can qualify to it. For the event proposed I think ‘Sponsors’ Championship' would be more adequate name.

Let me remind that even Kasparov and Co failed to organize self-sustained separate (from FIDE) ‘world championship’. The fact that many people are dissapointed by WBF position with respect to recent scandals does not mean that parallel structures will be successful. May be it is better to pressure WBF by means of our national NBOs to help them become more adequate.
Oct. 29, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
100% support to Dutch BF. It seems to me that some people are payed for things they are not doing while others are volunteering. :(
Oct. 23, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My black book already contains 1000+ names :)
Oct. 12, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In addition to the obvious bias of Dr Jassem to the question under discussion and his quite debatable hand evaluations, I would like to stress you attention to 1 more thing: as a professional data analyst I can state that Dr Jassem's approach is softly speaking very unsound from the point of view of statistical data analysis.

For people who are interested in details, this is quite popular and simple textbook on statistics for 1st year undergrads http://www.onlinestatbook.com/version_1.html
Chapter 1. Introduction. Section: levels of measurement. Subsection: ordinal scales.

Main (but not the only) problems with Dr Jassem's analysis is that when you adjust some numbers to different answers, this gives you still just ordering (like if you call Jassems categories not 2,1,0,-1,-2, but instead: ‘very positive’,'positive' ,'neutral','negative','very negative'), and not numbers which you can use for computations, say to compute correlation coefficient. The only thing you can do with this kind of variables (either number adjusted or not), to have ordering an state that ‘very positive’ is more positive then ‘neutral’. The key idea is that there is no way to show that distance between ‘neutral’ and ‘positive’ is the same as between ‘positive’ and ‘very positive’. For instance, I can claim that 1 very positive case is more important then 2 just ‘positive’, so we should use 3,1,0,-1,-3 scale. Now all numerical results will change.

In mentioned above textbook this is explained as follows: ‘What if the researcher had measured satisfaction by asking consumers to indicate their level of satisfaction by choosing a number from one to four? Would the difference between the responses of one and two necessarily reflect the same difference in satisfaction as the difference between the responses two and three? The answer is No. Changing the response format to numbers does not change the meaning of the scale. We still are in no position to assert that the mental step from 1 to 2 (for example) is the same as the mental step from 3 to 4 …’
Oct. 8, 2015
.

Bottom Home Top