Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Ping Hu
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It has some limited benefits. The better solution is to make the table like those game tables in Casino that has the mark where board should be placed and where card should be placed. So no player could use these positions and orientation to pass a message. The bidding tray also could have marks for where the bid should be placed so BZ's spacing could not work.
Nov. 12, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Why was 2000 boards chosen? We're there any studies to validate this number was better than others?
Nov. 5, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Polish 1 is considered as a artificial bid, not natural. The response 1 could be anything but other responses should be natural unless it shows GF value.

Because 1 is conventional, it is not allowed to psychic Polish 1 bid. I encountered such a case in Chicago NABC and filed a player's memo (I did not realized opponent psychic it until I looked at the hand record after the game).
Oct. 29, 2015
Ping Hu edited this comment Oct. 29, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It looks like location matters most. In 1998 Spring NABC in Reno had more table counts than Summer (Chicago) and Fall (Orlando). The similar pattern repeated in 2004 (except New York replaced Chicago) and 2011 (summer in New Orleans).
Oct. 26, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I filed a player memo during NABC but has not heard anything about it. I think the filer should be notified about status change or investigation result at least.
Oct. 14, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Certain information may still be useful. For example, IF the percentage for 0, 1, 2 and 4 matches hold for any distribution, their relative ratio (7%, 23%, 40%, 30%) will be same, assuming you don't have any information from bidding.

For example, in above cases you quoted, once you see your dummy's card, it has ruled out 4 match case. It still have 0, 1, 2 left and their relative ratio should be same.

However I doubt the general probability Barry gained from his simulation applies to a specific hand(s) like 3532 and 4333. I believe it would vary a lot for specific hand(s).
Oct. 14, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We are constrained by each hand must have 13 cards (see my comment of Sudoku analogy). If your hand is 3532 and dummy is 4333, then Spade could not be 5332 since you get 4 cards. The other 3 suits could still be 5332. However the possibility only exist for 2, 1 and 0 suit having 5332.

You could apply the same logic from dummy point of view and conclude H and C could not be 4333.

However I think Barry is just simulating with random distribution, not a hand started with a particular distribution. It is the probability with specific distribution more useful.
Oct. 14, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Jean-Pierre,

I don't think his simulation is doing what you said. Look at my post right above this section about the analogy to Sudoku. I think he just ran a general simulation for random distributed hands. Then he count for a given set of row values (like 5-3-3-2) how many columns matches the same values. This is more academic.

I was trying to ask him what the result would be if it starts with a specific distribution like 4333, 4432 or 5530. These would be more practical. I doubt they are same as the general answer (7%, 23%, 40%, 30%).
Oct. 14, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Jean-Pierre,

Even your statement is true. It is not related to original question. The original question is about the probability of any suit having the distribution as a hand, not the inclusive probability of a particular suit to have same distribution.

You could calculate this inclusive probability your way. Once you fix the spade distribution, it would alter the odd of how H, D and C are distributed in other three hand. The question is how likely other three suits could have the same distribution as the hand.
Oct. 14, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think your statement about it independent of other suits are incorrect. For example, if other 3 suits have 5431 distribution, Spade has to be 5431, otherwise you could not make everyone has 13 cards!
Oct. 14, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What are the distributions when you have a specific hand like 4432, 4333 or 5332?
Oct. 14, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There is another interesting question. If you see two hands that are same distribution, and they layout is also making each suit having same distribution possible. What are the chances that all 4 suits follow the same distribution? This is probably more practical for declarer play.
Oct. 13, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This is like a Sudoku puzzle that you have a 4x4 matrix and each column and each row added up to 13.

Let's say each hand is a row, each suit is a column. You know the values from one row and you want to find our the rest.

Under certain conditions there are constraints. For example if you have four different number 5-4-3-1, and you assume 3 of the suits are distributed in the same way and no have has same number of cards in different suits, then the 4th suit must also be 5-4-3-1. In fact all four hands and four suits would be 5-4-3-1 in this case! This seems confirmed by your simulation where you don't have 3 matches. Because if 3 suits matches, the fourth one must also match.
Oct. 13, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
IMO ACBL should withheld its payments to WBF until it makes some meaningful reform. We should support international bridge but not necessarily WBF. WBF has shown it cares more about how cheating was exposed than how to keep the game clean. If it is necessary we should start a new clean WBF and let the current one be history.
Oct. 12, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Part of problem with low attendance in 10K events is their schedule. They overlap with other events.

For example Fall NABC has 10K IMP pair ends on the same day mini-Blue Ribbon starts, 10K fast pair starts on the last day of mini-Blue Ribbon. So if I play in mini-Blue Ribbon, I could not play these two 10K events. The 10K Swiss starts on 2nd day of LM pair. Again if I start with LM on Friday, I would not be able to play in 10K Swiss.

In Spring NABC, 10K KO starts on the 2nd day of NAP flight B. If I play in NAP final, I would not be able to play 10K KO.

Summer's 10K pair overlaps with LM pair. If it is in 2nd week, more players might attend.
Oct. 8, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What happened in the last month has proved that existing bridge organization is not equipped to handle these cheating. Each NBO, EBL/ACBL and WBF only claimed it has jurisdiction for tournaments it organized. I'm sure there must be complaints in the past and they might have been investigated. Nothing were found and it developed into the scale we observed.

What we also learnt is that we need top players' involvement to catch these cheating. They are most skilled and more like to uncover it than NBO. From NBO and WBF statement it sounds like they are more like to play a role of “judge” than “investigator”. We need “investigators”.

In term of future solutions, maybe it is time to consider organizing a worldwide “Professional Bridge Player Association”. It would self-police player's ethical conducts. After-all it is in their best interest to have a clean game and maintain a good reputation for bridge.
Sept. 21, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would go one step further to allow player to load their CC into the system (maybe by flash drive) so opponent could see it (similar to BBO feature in old version). This could eliminate Alert and related director calls.

In addition it should record the time of each bid so there is concrete evidence about BIT, although this may not be made known to player at real time.
Sept. 4, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There are something in chess call accelerated pairing used in 1st round that is like 1v2, 3v4. However it is not on individual basis. The actual process is to divide the entire field into two halves. For each half, the same chess pairing is used. So the first quarter players play against second quarter, the third quarter against 4th quarter. This is used when the number of players is very large so the normal pairing is more likely to result in more than one players with all wins.

In swiss format the first round pairing is only a starting point. In subsequent round, winner will be paired against winners and loser will be paired against losers.
Aug. 11, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
IMO it depends on type of match. In KO, bridge is better. In Swiss team, “chess way” is better.
Aug. 11, 2015
.

Bottom Home Top