Join Bridge Winners
All comments by John Larkin
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As alluded to above…..are these all of your most recent tournaments? There seems a tendency of “regression towards the mean” where a good score is followed by a lower one (60% in first section is unlikely to be repeated unless you're miles better than everybody else). And your one exception starts unsurprisingly with a low score. So are there any other intervening tournaments that you have not mentioned?
March 10, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Latitude or attitude?
March 9, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“What's a ‘transfer’?”
March 8, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
DR Was the previous bidding identical?
March 1, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
From punter-viewpoint, suppose for classic Blackwood, only S needs know, and for RKC it's clubs as last suit bid?
Feb. 25, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Which teams did the fortunate protagonists play for?
(S included for naivety value?)
Feb. 25, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Deliberately two “ balances” in first? One near start…… and one at end?
Feb. 24, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
4441 hands play worse than expected. Now everyone knows that, they play better than expected.
Feb. 24, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
JH. But what if you do explain properly, then RHO pokes in a sneaky bid? Will Partner be forced to view your subsequent pass as some sort of forcing pass, making her pick bid her major….or bid 3N with a stopper….or Show a five-card….or something?
Feb. 23, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We still have to come up with best plan for north from start.
I think the most ethicalest may be:
When asked re 2h bid, does he say “in this auction, it shows good hearts.”
Yes, this wakes up S, but it is then South's job to call the TD for a private conversation that he has given misinformation, and let the TD tell him what to do next… and maybe, for the sake of entertainment, we get this scenario.
He gives proper explanation to opponents, but himself remain “unaware” of this and carries on as if the north bid is strong NT. West passes, as indeed does N, and East. South now has a partner with a strong NT overcall who has failed to complete the transfer. He may be in a position to correct his partner's clear mistake, and convert to 2spades….or maybe he will have to say 3spades, as can't be far short of game. West may overcall 2s with 3h (now underestimating south strength), over which South would be obliged to poke in another bid, perhaps 3S (but would suggest 6) or even 3NT if partner's strong 1NT would always have control. Or would partner's silence x2 now be AI that somethng is “up”? So he can leave 3H. And if he does bid 3 spades, can N think he's 6-5 (don't know Mathe)

So the guy in Mr Bridge mag in UK who loves giving weighted scores would have a:
2Sp S. 20%
3H. W 20%
3Sp S. 37.258%
3NT S 12.742%
4Sp. S. 10%

….and they wouldn't always make same number of tricks.

I'm sure you could do a poll………
Feb. 20, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Auto-correct.
Nice one.
Feb. 20, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
With my brief second point, i was trying to interpret the previous commenter's wistfulness that a full appraisal followed by “not guilty” would have been better all round. I suppose it was opinion rather than evidence.
From your reaction to that, i assume you now understand the first point.
Feb. 15, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
First point. Because it's down to statistics, not a single judgement.
If someone was trying to prove that you were deciding how much money to bet on a basketball team after you had tape-measured how tall they were and they knew how much you bet on each team and tried to correlate that with how tall they were…… they would be more likely to prove it if they measured how tall they were using a tapemeasure every time, not just guessing.
If you were indeed, “guilty” of using their height to decide your bet, and didn't want them to prove it, you might want them to try to prove it using my two-yeard-old grandson's guesses at how tall the basketball players are.

Second point is not that judges were incompetent, bu that evidence was dismissed/omitted and not assessed by them.
Feb. 15, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The babies and the storks are not independent as they are related via time.
Feb. 14, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If there was a good “grading system” for individual players - similar to chess - then one simple but interesting comparison might be to compare the female players with the same name as their partner, with those having “their own” name. Not sure what it would tell us…..
Meantime, it might be of interest to compare people's subjective views of pairings on such a basis.
Feb. 12, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
And this is in keeping with the idea that the computers were delberately (and for, to be fair, probably an arguably reasonable reason) set to preferentially pair women with women.
Feb. 12, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I kinda-know why arrow-switching is used. I used it as an example of the best-known way that one ensures some direct comparisons being done, but I believe there are some more subtle
manouevres that take place in more complex competition-movements -which I wouldn't know about.
PS ….. used the internet to make this comment. Much easier than my usual method - thanks for tip.
Feb. 12, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I was watching this tournament “live” and noticed this (a Scottish woman was also playing and seemed to play more women). My assumption was that there was a separate women's prize - for the top female player - and that therefore the computer was deliberately programmed to preferably pair two female players who were level on points (it would be a Swiss tournament) before pairing with males if necessary. This would increase the chance of players who were vying for the prize to face each other across the board, rather than be judged on their relative form against others ( where conniving could also occur).
I believe something similar happens in bridge with manouevres including arrow-switching etc.
Feb. 12, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I believe that a view expressed above - that no villainy is assumed in this situation - may be the fall-back position in the ebu. I used to think you had to act like UAI hadn't happened…but this clearly not now good enough. It is very difficult sometimes to construe which action is “more suggested” by my partner's hesitation. And therefore which action I can “ethically” take.The very fact that it is being debated here must surely suggest that it cannot always be clear-cut. So the default position should be….no villainy, unless some other reason to suspect.

For those who always know what everyone should have done and how doing anything else is appaling, andm like to have it proven by polls, here's a thought.
Well-known erudite poster puts up a little bidding “poser”. “What would you bid here?” Everyone says honestly what they would do. No-one wonders what the point of the post is?….. I don't think so. Just about everyone has the “unautherised information” that the 3NT bidder has “tanked” and it's all about what South should do. But we pretend that nobody knows this. We pretend that we will get an honest view of what everyone would bid. And so everyone's vote is actually influenced by their views, often very ….. firmly held…, on other people's ethics. The poster himself admits that almost everyone will have guessed. But later the same people who have voted in a particular direction can use the self-fulfilling prophecy to bolster their arguments.
Please note, Spookily enough, I am not suggesting villainy here. The responders to the poll will be doing their best to give an honest answer. But deep down they know the significance of what they are doing, and this might well influence their thinking.
Just a thought.
Feb. 6, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
RG My apologies if I have indeed “lost the thread”. Is this the poll where 54 people essentially might make the bid that isn't bid by anybody? We may be speaking at cross-purposes…..

…indeed it is the other poll you mean, the prequel.
Feb. 4, 2017
John Larkin edited this comment Feb. 4, 2017
.

Bottom Home Top