Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Ping Hu
1 2 3 4 ... 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 ... 30 31 32 33
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The 100% way to make sure opponents “see” alert in BBO is to add an Alert acknowledge response box (like the pop-up box for claim) so bidding could only go on once both opponent acknowledge the alert. However it would slow down the game considerably.
Feb. 20, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Eugene,

You forum has featured article that could stay on top for a long time. Could you implement something like that for partnership desk and allow some requests for long team partnership to remain their longer while other requests (for specific tournament) would expire in a couple weeks (for example)?
Jan. 25, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This rule only applies to NABC, not regional and sectional tournament. The original version is in Denver meeting note that you could find from the following link.
http://www.acbl.org/acbl-content/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Denver.pdf
Jan. 23, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“We are also looking for ways to automatically record all bidding and play into a database.” The solution will have to be an electronic bidding system. Such a solution may bring additional benefit to game, like eliminate directors from insufficient bid and bid out of turn. It could also record the exact time spent on each bid so there would be no dispute about BIP.

One possibility is to add a feature in BridgeMate to allow each player enter their bid. Each player may have one BridgeMate. I asked BridgeMate representative about if they could keep additional game data a couple years ago in a NABC. They said they could but they were waiting for ACBL to define the new game file format. This was when ACBLScore+ was still in place. Perhaps ACBL technology committee should take a lead to define a standard for bridge game file format.
Jan. 20, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Kevin, you don't need to know A and B exactly. You only need to have a good estimate for A-B (based on distribution and other information you have). That is enough to get a count of total tricks.
Jan. 16, 2016
Ping Hu edited this comment Jan. 16, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I use an alternative way to estimate Total Tricks. It is based on the difference of offensive and defensive tricks. Let's say your side could take A tricks in offense but only B tricks in defense. The opponent could take 13-B tricks if they declare. So the total tricks are
A + (13-B) = (A-B) + 13.

If you could estimate A-B, you could get total tricks by adding 13. For this hand, West knows partner has 5 hearts. So his side could get 3 more tricks from hearts in offense (assuming opponent 2-2). He could also get a ruff from Diamond. In this layout opponents could get a club ruff if they play the hand. So E-W could also get one more trick from club. So A-B = 5 and total tricks is 18.

It is not easy to calculate this precisely during bidding. Heart could be 3-1. In that case it could easily be 18 total tricks because B is reduced by one. Holding West hand, I would estimate the total trick to be at least 17, most probably 18.
Jan. 13, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Robin, if Q could win a trick, it could win in both offense or defense. It only depends on position of the K. Yes, you might come up with some cases where opponents could take tricks from and and Q does not help. So you should consider that probability in theory. In practice, I think Q is like to be loser/winner both in offense and defense. If you have extra length in , Q might be an winner in defense but not offense.
Jan. 3, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The calculation would be done offline and you don't have to calculate every time you decide if you are going to bid 5 over 4.

The general question is how many total tricks you need to bid 5 over 4. Based on your calculation (it could be done offline) it is 19 (at this vulnerability).

The next question how to determine the number of total tricks this hand has. LOTT is one method that said you need to count number of total trumps from both side. This works sometimes but is known to have issues with distributional hands.

I estimate number of total tricks by estimating the difference of tricks between offense and defense. The logic is like this. Assume you could win X tricks from offense (you bid) and Y tricks from defense (let them play). So opponent would be able to make 13-Y tricks if they play. Then the total trick for this hand is

X + (13 - Y) = 13 + (X-Y)

So if I could estimate X-Y (dif. between offense and defense), adding 13 would give me total tricks for this hand.

If you look at your holding. A is going to be one trick in both offense and defense. Assuming partner has 7 diamonds, your side probably could get 6 more tricks from playing offense than defense (if you assume opponent is 3-1). It is not likely you could get any tricks in or . There might be a remote chance you could ruff a . Overall the best estimate for X-Y is 6. That would give 19 total tricks. So the answer is to BID.

On the other hand if you think partner bid 3 with only 6 cards. There could only be 18 total tricks at most, more likely 17(trump 3-2). Then it is a clear PASS.
Jan. 3, 2016
Ping Hu edited this comment Jan. 4, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Peg, I agree with you player's character and behavior are all important for a good partnership. I would also like to add player's style and philosophy also matter a lot. For example I like to twist bidding system to make improvement, some of my partners don't like that. Some players might be too aggressive in bidding. I once had a partner who is a good player. However he sometimes like to make a risky bid. If this only happens in early round of Swiss team or a KO where we falls behind I would not mind. He did a few times at the point when we had a good round in team game, including last round of Swiss team and last board of a session in a Championship match. When I pointed out this is not the correct strategy and he disagreed, we could not keep our partnership.

However I agree with you completely there are a lot of intangible that makes a partnership working.
Dec. 30, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Peg,

You are absolutely correct that how good a fit of a partnership is most important. That is also my point #1.

If you started playing at a young age and has a lot of time to go to tournament, it is not a problem since you get to know a lot of players. For players like Richard and me, we don't have a lot of time to play many tournament. So we do have a lot of choices. In addition if we try to develop a partnership, we want to have a good chance to succeed. We don't have time to try with 10 different partners and find most of them would not work.

Let me give you an example. I looked for a partner for Providence NABC last year. So I contacted a player I met in summer Las Vegas NABC, we spent almost two months on BBO to practice our system and tried some online tournament. Eventually I realized we just could not play at the level I expected and had to call it off.

With a rating system it would be different. Even though I only had limited data now, this player (in my system) has played with 18 different partners and most of them rated between 1300 and 1600. I would not pick him as a candidate if I'm looking to get 1800+. While I spent time to practice with him, I missed the chance to try out a couple other partnership that might work out better.

Ping
Dec. 30, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Richard,

Chris's Power Rating is the best bridge rating data available in public currently. It could give you a good guidance in selecting partners. In fact I used it when I need to find a temporary partner at NABC.

The rating system I described in my thread is slightly different. The rating is based on pair not individual players. In addition my system is based on per board results so it gets much more granularity than other rating system. On the other hand, Chris has run his system many years and has larger data set so I think his data is good as a general guidance.

I absolutely agree with you that ACBL should implement a rating system. I'm planning to make a proposal next year to have a rating system on a volunteering basis. It is going to take a while to make it reality. ACBL needs to collect game level data even I could give them my program. However if a lot of players want it, it could happen.

Ping
Dec. 30, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Richard,

I share your experience and frustration. ACBL and most of its tournament has a partnership desk. However it mostly serves the purpose of getting a temporary partner. Although occasionally you get someone who could be a long term partner (I had one from my first NABC) but that is not norm.

What you look for is a long term partner and you want to have some success at national level. This would be much harder because you need a player who
1) share the same goal as you (success at national level) and willing to put in the work to develop the partnership;
2) has adequate playing skill to perform at the level you aim at.

Item 1 needs commitment not every player is willing to make. Item 2 is even harder to get. ACBL masterpoints is not an accurate measure of player's playing skill. Then you have to depend on others recommendation or your personal experience to find out the right candidates. This is not an easy task. The best way is to have an rating system I discussed in another thread. Based on my study, a pair winning a limited national championship (like Mini-Blue Ribbon) needs to have a rating of 1900-2100. Winning an open championship would need a rating of 2200+ with a performance of 2500+.

Ping
Dec. 30, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Auction part is best to go with an electronic solution like BBO, or an enhanced BridgeMate/BridgePad.
Dec. 15, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In another word playing of a trick does NOT end when everyone turn their cards over.
Dec. 13, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The definition of Established Revoke is important here. There could be situations under current rule offending site could gain advantage without being punished.
For example on a play, defender may “forget” his card that could win a trick and played another card. When declarer plays next card, he could find his and correct his revoke. Then his other card becomes a major penalty card and he has to play it. The net result is defending side get to see what declarer wants to play without suffering any penalties.
Dec. 13, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What would happen if Established Revoke is defined as either side plays next trick or makes a claim?
Dec. 13, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In Denver I saw a demo from one of manufacturers that used Smart Phone camera as card reader and gave direction where it should be dealt. They said it is a concept they are developing for home play or small club. It does not actually dealt the card but human need to deal the card without seeing what the card is.

It sounds like a very interesting idea and could make it very cheap because it is just an app for cell phone.
Dec. 10, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Chris, the director's ruling was 4 by East making 4 as I described in initial statement.

The score I listed here were from other tables (edited my statement to make it clear).
Dec. 7, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
FYI, the scores on this board from other tables were the following:
NS 4 making - NS 81%, EW 19%;
EW 4 making - NS 10%, EW 90%.

The director did not consider 3 by South in her ruling.
Dec. 7, 2015
Ping Hu edited this comment Dec. 7, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yuan, I agree with you there was MI, but I don't completely agree with you there was damage.

If North remembered their agreement, he would bid 4 instead of pass. East would face 4 and not 3 passed to her. She probably would pass 4. With North forget their agreement, EW had a change to get a top score they would not have otherwise on this board but they did not capitalize it. So I'm not sure there was clearly a damage.
Dec. 7, 2015
1 2 3 4 ... 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 ... 30 31 32 33
.

Bottom Home Top