Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Ping Hu
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 25 26 27 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree 4 is correct bid given 3 could make.
July 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
David, Planet Hollywood area has a lot of different restaurants. It is right across the street and you could walk from skybridge. Look for Miracle Mile Shops.
July 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This is quite true. Money is a good incentive for players who never played NABC to attend. I won NAP and GNT flight C in 2011 and attended NABC first time. After that I have been a regular NABC attendee even I only won GNT B once that paid part of cost. There are 42 GNT B teams but only 26 C teams this time. I would guess there could be more C teams but their district did not want to pay the 2nd C team so they did not come.
July 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think AI learning would be critical if it is going to beat human eventually. The problem now is we don't have a very good definition of what bidding means. I don't like current BBO bot because it often made a bid but don't have that hand. I could not trust what it bids.

In my early comment I suggest we needs some kind of standard language to describe bidding system. Players should be able to construct his own bidding system and feed to the program, Bot could use AI learning to train itself on a system. Eventually Bot might invent its own system.

In past few years I have been testing a bidding system that varies opening/response by position, ideally it should also vary by vulnerability. However that would be really complicated for human players. However it is not a problem for Bot. In this sense I think Bot would eventually beat human, just like it did in Chess and Go.
July 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Craig, you could look at my post for rating system below.
https://bridgewinners.com/article/view/an-elo-rating-system-for-bridge/

KO and Swiss team could also be rated with same methodology. However ACBLScore currently do not record IMP wins for KO games. So these game could not be rated for IMP rating. For Swiss teams it lacks of pair information, however with Bridgemate supports to team game now, it is possible for future team games to be rated.
July 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think the priority at present is data definition. AI, machine learning has improved a lot and they could eventually outplay human like they did in chess and go. What we don't have today is the meaning of a bid, a card played in certain defined data.

BBO used to have a way to allow player's to define his/her own bidding system, but has stopped to support it in the recent release. I would take that framework to create a new standard in describing bidding data. BOT has to be able to use these standard to figure out each player's bid means.
July 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I've contacted ACBL and this should be fixed soon.
June 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It looks like the problems is only with Bracket 1. Other brackets are fine. However with multiple brackets exist the top bracket definitely could not be only 4 teams.
June 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Use this link to see how many teams per bracket.
http://web2.acbl.org/tournaments/results/2019/06/1906014.htm
June 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Could we get an agreement on definition of win, loss and tie?

If you scored 110 on a board and the other table is 100, it is a win at matchpoint but a tie at IMP. For IMP and VP scale, it is similar, a win/loss at IMP does not mean a win/loss at VP for different VP scale.

I agree win/loss should be used at GNT but it does not exclude VP as a variable scoring method.
June 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Great sportmanship!
June 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Peg, I agree and noticed the late modification date in my comment at the other thread.
June 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Chip, D22 COC would be found from this link
http://acbldistrict22.com/D22/DIR/GNT/gnt.php
If you look at Appendix 3, it has the same scale.
June 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You could find ACBL 20 VP scale for different number of boards here.
http://web2.acbl.org/codification/AppendixK.pdf
June 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I was surprised to see their withdrawal from USBC score board, and thought it must be a mistake, maybe it meant for the other match where the difference is over 80 IMPs.
June 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Debbie, forgive me for coming to this party late. I found Michael Bodell's post about PDF version of COC vs Word version of COC. I also noticed the version of COC I downloaded was dated 5/29. It is clear to me that the COC should be given to players much earlier for a well run event.

As Michael noticed in his analysis it looked the difference in the two version is more about clarify things than any material change. So I have to give the author the benefit of doubt that the modification is not intended to cover some kind of wrong doing. Even the initial COC is not well written (and we all disagree with its format - we think KO for last day is better), it looked the organizer and TDs tried to run the event based on that COC.

One issue no one has discussed here is who is responsible for what. It is clear that organizer and TDs has responsibility to make COC clear to players. However I have to say the team captain also has a responsibility. When I register a team for GNT, I always check the COC for that year and see if there are any difference from previous year. And I let all my players know it.

I believe someone had commented that players should be more proactive in each district when they decide their COC. This is the only way to avoid this kind of surprise.
June 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I went to D22 website and downloaded the COC. One could argue it should have better written. Although I don't like the format, this COC clearly said in “3 team format” VP will be used to determine the winner, with Win/Loss as first tie-breaker if VP is tied.

This is clearly different from the usual KO format but it is this event's COC even I don't like it.
June 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The article said you could upload club game with special code (04 or 22) which would exclude it from NGS and payment.
June 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Based on this article it seems EBU charges a fee for NGS rating.
June 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That's not bad.
June 5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 25 26 27 28
.

Bottom Home Top