Join Bridge Winners
All comments by John Larkin
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
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
RG. One could argue that the logical alternative is 4NT, and it doesn't have to be bid by a majority of your peers.
Feb. 4, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Should you alert and call the director if they ask for further? Then he/she can decide whether partner should leave table abd you tell opponents what you think it means, or (my untutored preference) send you away from the table and let partner tell them what it means - if it is sytematic. If he has made it up, I suppose he doesn't have to tell them. Either way, leaving you in the dark.
Feb. 4, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Without further ado” I like it.

South thinking…..
"So, partner thinks I have zero, but is happy to play in 3NT depite that and despite a double. And I have two four-card suits headed by queens which are very likely to bring extra tricks, so I should at very least speak again and see if he is interested in a slam. No, wait a minute, he took a long time to decide. Maybe he's a bit short of insisting on game but stretched. Maybe I should use that UI and pass…….

PS …..no, I shouldn't do that, I had better bid - keep myself right.
Feb. 3, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Partner has the sort of hand that would make him interested (or wish to show interest) in whether I had a feature.”
Feb. 2, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ok……
“an extra point…usually translates into an extra .3 tricks”. It doesn't really. Sometimes it will produce an extra trick. Sometimes it will make no difference ( plus other….). Presumably 30% of the time it will produce an extra trick. 70% not. It will never produce .3 of a trick.
Alternatively, one realises this is “ on average” which takes into account all of the instances… and one way of looking at that is to say that it ALWAYS produces .3 of a trick over all hands ever in history. But still not “usually”. So, either way, “usually” is not correct.
I just thought that was a bit of fun, but only worth a cryptic comment, meant as a joke.
I considered an emoticon, but don't/can't use them.
:)
Jan. 31, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Surely it absolutely always translates into an extra .3 tricks?
Jan. 31, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
At my very basic level, I think you play the queen as per normal to inform partner of possibility. I think the question is more interesting if you have KQ doubleton.
Jan. 29, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It would seem reasonable to think that some opponents always play J from QJ, some always play Q from QJ, and some will play some percentage which may or may not revolve around 50%. Unless you have some reason to think that players tend to play one particular one more than the other, or that this particular player tends to play one PARTICULAR more than the other, then the assumption that they play randomly does appear to be intuitively (and mathematically?) reasonable.
Though…. it may be possible that someone has indeed analysed what people tend to play from QJ…. and are keeping the info to themselves.
Jan. 29, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Is polling a law, a regulation, or an option?
Jan. 28, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think NK is spot on. The reasonable scenario when they get to make 6S is when South does not overcall a five card suit at the two level with seven points and silent partner. The ratios….you just have to guess.
Jan. 27, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Quite interesting at various levels. You can see when John totally lost its popularity….

….rats….found one.
Jan. 25, 2017
John Larkin edited this comment Jan. 25, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think I have a 1985 leoville barton…………
Jan. 25, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
JP I am not sure we can assume that only one person on the thread is coming from a scientific background. Nor can we assume that a scientific background per se will obliterate any bias towards a particular viewpoint. “God preserve us from enthusiasts” as a senior colleague used to shout at meetings.
One problem we have here is that any suggestions of “differences” between the sexes can be seen as suggesting “one is better than the other”. So people come to defend their position more…. pointedly than normal.
The science thrown up on both sides is probably perfectly good, but doesn't come to a firm conclusion. Science doesn't always do so. Maybe eventually. In the meantime we should not disparage the holder of the opposite view from our own, whether they are a scientist, or we are.

Good luck with the statins.
Jan. 24, 2017
John Larkin edited this comment Jan. 24, 2017
.

Bottom Home Top