Join Bridge Winners
All comments by John Larkin
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Blackwood prevalent Scotland. Not RKC.
Multi a few practitioners.
Oct. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Your winnings, Sir…
Oct. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
But is there a risk of making it too Bayesian/ hypothetical/predictive such that players will not trust it?
Oct. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
One would assume tgat your grading will tend to go down when you play with unfamiliar partner (or does playing straight down the line to avoid mix-ups have its own virtues).
Oct. 10
John Larkin edited this comment Oct. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
RW: Agree. Also. Rating pairs figures to be more accurate, and arguably what counts most.
Oct. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
SM: You are almost certainly correct that IMPs favours the strong. But, as PK points out, probably not as much as MPs do.
Some people find IMPs more like “bridge” (and you can get a rest) and some find it more fun than MPs. Others will prefer the precision of MPs.
So, mediocre players who find IMPs more fun will prefer it.
Top players who like the consitent precision of MPs will prefer it.
Mediocre players who like the precision of MPs, and top players who like the fun/variance of IMPs, will have to balance this with their wish to give themselves the highest chances of winning.
Leaving ample space for both disciplines.
Oct. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Have asked before, but it may not be known. Does this system assume that the ability/performance difference between averaging 60% and 50% is the same as the difference between averaging 70% and 60%?
Oct. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I suppose it depends on whether you want a rating system that makes people play a card game that you are (very) fond of, or a rating system that tells you how good people/pairs are at that card game.
Oct. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Just how well would you have been doing if it were Match Points?
Oct. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
PH: I like this, but there are still the nuances of declaring vs defending when changing vulnerability and game bonuses swing the thinking.
Oct. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In the more conventional direction, N had 28 HCP against us last night (around 1:50,000?).
stopped in 3N opposite 5HCP. kicked himself, making twelve.
Most other tables in slam made eleven, as predicted in the “double dummy print-out”.
We got a moderate minus.
Oct. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Reminds me of a guy who 15 years ago wrote to the Guardian complaining he had never won the “ERNIE” premium bond monthly draws in the UK despite buying 20,000 tickets (or similar….can't remember figure) some ten-twenty years earlier (you keep the same ticket number for ever and get repeated draws) The paper had replied it was just the luck of the draw, and that's how probability works.
The newspaper was immediately inundated with our letters pointing out that the chances of NEVER winning ANY prize was something like 1:1,00000000000…..
Sure enough, on checking, the guy's 20,000 tickets had never been registered properly.

PS Numbers are not precise.
Oct. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Maybe not. In the back of your mind is probably the anomaly, again as referred to above, that Ace is a “one” when there is one card, but the 2 is the “lowest” in A2, the 3 is the lowest in AQ3 etc.
Like others I have seen the problem too simplistically (whether that be a word or no).
Oct. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yep. That was my thinking…
Oct. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Answered above. By DG. Ace is the lowest card in a suit with singleton Ace, same as King is lowest card in singleton suit.
Oct. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I believe it IS unrelated to the infraction… though I believe it is close.
The failure to double 4S is not because of the opponent's slow pass, or indeed the other opponent's use of that UI.
The player failing to double has not been misinformed in any way.
It is simplistic to say that the 4spade bid would not be there without the infraction. Otherwise, anything that happens after the infraction would be related to it. Even the often quoted revoke as a dead-cert example of a serious error. “The player would not have revoked because he would not be defending 4 spades, he would be declaring….therefore it is related to the infraction” is the logical conclusion to your argument. And I don't think that is right.
Oct. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Similar to the “How?”, “Why?”, “Do you want chips with that?”
Oct. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think the mistake itself must be due to the infraction, not just the poor result from the scoring. Otherwise there would be no point in having the clause “unrelated to the infraction” there.
So if you were to bid 7NT after the intruding 4 spades (just in case it makes, and anyway we can fall back on the MI), then you will get that bad score*.Even though you were only in the position to bid again because the 4 spades bid was made.
If, for some reason, the four spade bid makes you believe that 7NT must now be on, that would be different.

Though the offending opps will not.
Oct. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
DB: Genuine “begging the question” (subthread alert). You were asked why you thought this should be unauthorised, and essentially said it was because “it shouldn't be allowed”.
Oct. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not really. Could have called you a physicist.
Oct. 4
.

Bottom Home Top