Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Michael Bodell
1 2 3 4 ... 138 139 140 141
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Was there a follow up poll to this?

I joined the consensus 5 voters but I was very tempted to start with pass and then later bid clubs over the opponents bids until they double me hoping that this lets them stop earlier and/or has them use science to get to their max level which I then bid over.
14 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You also have 1/3 of the 4-2 spade breaks (Tx with someone). And a stiff T of spades would give you an extra spade trick which might make diamonds easier since you only need 3 tricks.

So I think 7nt is ~95% on non-club lead and like ~55% on club lead (single dummy).
Aug. 19
Michael Bodell edited this comment Aug. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If only there were a recent competition of 240+ young people who play duplicate bridge at north American championships whom we could ask and or do the research to figure out. Perhaps there might be more evidence that teaching young players can lead to regular bridge players. And when some of the same are making final day of nabc+ events and are likely to be playing for the chance to represent their country in world competition, I think they'd count as “competitive duplicate players”.
Aug. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
On 3, you could think that it speaks well of this effort (in that it might be possible) or poorly of this effort (in that it hasn't happened), that the Asian Olympics next year will have a card game as a demonstration sport and 4 years later it is scheduled to be a full medal sport and the IOC is considering if it should also allow it for 2024 in Paris.

Of course said card game is played on computers (Hearthstone), so maybe if the WBF moved some of the bridge play into the modern world, simultaneously cutting down on a number of the cheating opportunities, it might be able to try and move into the eSports wave.
Aug. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So with 1 day (3 matches) left the top 8 teams are 17.66 or more VP over the 9th place team (and the 9th place team still needs to play the the Swedish team that is top by more than a full match). If the top 8 teams hold on then 40% of people's choices to win in this poll will not make the KO round.

Indonesia are currently in 2nd place, despite picking up 0 votes in this poll. While they also still have to play the 1st place team, but there other two matches are against Egypt (16th) and Morocco (18th) and they are currently just shy of 40 VP over the 9th place team, so I think they are fairly safe to hold on and qualify for the KO.
Aug. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I bid 3nt but I'm planning on signing off in 4 unless partner shows short . So I'm not planning on making a slam move over 4. Maybe short clubs by partner should also move, but am less sure about that.
Aug. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes. Like OP I don't love it as I prefer my declined invites to be played at the 2 level not the 3 level, but the invite showing 6 with 3M after 2 is standard.
Aug. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If you look at the field in a number of national pair events you'll find there are some partnerships of two professional players playing together. Presumably a fair number of these players are not being paid to play with one another (at least not directly, obviously they may be doing it partially with the expectation that doing well with the event may increase their brand or as Greco-Hampson said to warm up properly for their subsequent paid team event).
Aug. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There were 240 youth 19 and under playing in the Toronto national last month in the YNABC (plus a couple of more youth that were playing only in non-youth events). That means players 19 and under were about 5% of the population at the nationals.

That doesn't seem like wishful thinking to me, especially since there hasn't been a concerted ACBL wide effort on youth players, given the strategic direction from the past CEO was explicitly on early retiree players insted of youth.

Youth players also showed up at this national at ten times the rate of non-youth players. That is, of youth players who have won masterpoints in 2017, about half were in Toronto. Of non-youth players who have won masterpoints in 2017, about 5% were in Toronto. This might indicate the return on investment from recruiting youth is very high in two ways:

1. They play in bigger tournaments more often, representing more serious players and more potential source of revenue/tables.
2. They are likely to have much longer bridge careers just thanks to life expectancy.

In addition, there may be other ways to reach youth effectively beyond what has been tried so far. The highly popular experiment with the robot individual tournament, which 2500+ people played, may well prove to be the sort of event that would appeal to younger players - or hint for something that is more online similar to the many other very successful online games.

Heck, to combine with another long time world bridge aspiration, it was in the news last week that the Olympics is adding a card game as a demonstration sport in next year's Asian Games before being an official sport in the 2022 Asian Games and that it is also being considered for 2024 in Paris (the game is Hearthstone, an strategy collectible card game played online - there are 3 other eSports games added as well - see https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/early-lead/wp/2017/08/08/paris-mulling-inclusion-of-esports-in-2024-olympic-program/?utm_term=.8b6058d4afba ).

I'm not sure how many people are watching the Bermuda bowl online at one time across the various platforms. The International DOTA 2 tournament that just finished had more than 10.9 million simultaneous viewers and likely many, many more over the full 11 day tournament. And those viewers likely skew young. But even if 90% of those were Chinese, and even if 90% of the remaining were never going to be interested in bridge, and even if 90% of the remaining never were to join the ACBL you are still looking at 10 times our current youth population to try for.
Aug. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That is one of many explanations. If you look at day 4 I suspect the very first comparisons were to GIB. But even if that isn't the case, a different population of players based on time of day could explain it, regression to the mean could explain it, etc. I think there are a fair number of possible explanations, so I think cheating is extremely unlikely to be the reason. Not impossible, but unlikely (and note it would have to be very widespread to impact so many hands).
Aug. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I find it hard to imagine that those numbers are mean instead of medians. I mean 10% are under 40, including close to 1% youth and 1% juniors. Those would pull a mean much lower than the oldest 10% pull things higher.

Note in both cases a focus on membership recruiting, especially young membership recruiting, is needed. And can work as evidenced by other countries as well as pockets of the acbl where it is being done.
Aug. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't know if this is the reason, nor even if this were the reason would it be good enough, but there are some reasons where declarer telling the non-screen defender information could cause defenders to exchange information or be potentially problematic:

1. If the answers declarer gave to questions their screenmate asked were either shared directly, or even influenced what the declarer tells the other side defender then this is a channel for illicit information between unethical defenders (if I ask about a suit, that's the one I want led, or the reverse, or any other code) or accidental information transmission between ethical defenders (same thing but without the pre-conceived code).

2. If the defenders were having a mis-understanding in the bidding, and as a result the meaning of declarer's (or dummy's) bids are now different because the meaning of the defender's bids were different, the information from declarer to the other opponent could now clue them in to this situation. For instance S is declaring and opened 1 and W overcalled 1. W explained to S that 1 was a transfer showing but E explained to N that 1 was natural. Now N bid 1 which N explains to E as natural, but that S explains to W as takeout of spades. N/S end up declaring a NT contract, but now if the explanations are given to the defenders before the opening lead this is likely to let them know about their own mistakes in the auctions.

I guess some of this, particularly the 2nd, could be mitigated if the exchanging of information was through the TD or some other official that would essentially look and say “everything is good” whenever the explanations were the same *or* whenever the explanations were different because of the defenses first mistake, and would themselves carefully summarize the differences in cases where there are differences that are solely the cause of the declaring side.
Aug. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A combination of the vugraph + the video can sometimes make it clear. The video is usually decent enough resolution to make out most of the cards played.
Aug. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
From Bryan's profile: http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/bidding-problem-2-keysmye31t/ is the poll. I abstained since I saw this thread before the poll, but as of right now it is 52% double, 48% pass with 46 votes and unsurprisingly for a split vote good players on both sides of the vote.

I think directors second reason is terrible, but her first is reasonable given a good quality poll that got the result of everyone doubles. Which brings up the question, was it a good quality poll and how many people were asked (and were they independent, or were some of them asked in a group or partnership setting where the same answer is more likely)? Assuming the decision is basically 50/50 then if she polled only 5 people it is 1/32 likely that all X, and only 4 people would be 1/16. Unlikely, but certainly not at all impossible.

Of course if the poll wasn't unbiased, for instance if it suggested double, then the unanimous result in a small sample might be even more likely.

One place where I could see differences is that in the BW poll the 2 is explained as preemptive. If in the directors poll it was instead unexplained and upon people asking the director just said unalerted or some other answer in a way that suggests more that there might be a mis-understanding going on, then this might well result in more doubles than the poll. Similarly the 4 is explained in the BW poll as showing a club fit, if in the director poll it was again shrugged and left unexplained again suggesting a misunderstanding then more people might have doubled.
Aug. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
But best hand only means that no one has a hand with higher HCP than the human. Ties are allowed, and people can have better hands than the human if you take distribution in to account.
Aug. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I was hoping with most 16 counts partner would accept (best hand just means no one has a better hand - based on raw HCP - it doesn't mean no one has an equal hand). I don't know what the robots do, but I usually think 15's decline and 16-17 accept (obviously can look at more than raw HCP and make adjustments, but from that base). Do you think the robots will be declining with all or most 16 hcp hands?
Aug. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Cashing the J, if high, is also in conflict with the claim statement. It is obvious declarer is planning to win 2 top diamonds and then lose one. Stopping before doing that to notice the heart might now be good, maybe, isn't consistent with the claim statement.
Aug. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think that is a good sense. Imagine that declare held the high Q and the squeezed player discards the heart J, and the same claim statement. Does declarer get the extra trick? Why when declarer has the worse holding and has to pay even more attention would you give them the trick? Answer: you wouldn't.
Aug. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yeah, nice notice. That is a surrounding play with spots lower than I'm used to for that and the A7 doubleton, rather than a 3+ card suit, being the spot surrounded also being some what less usual in my experience. But that is certainly the sort of technical thing you'd normally expect computers to be good at, but I guess they didn't simulate our cards in their various plans.
Aug. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Assuming you only care about count and attitude and only use orderings that are either right side up or upside down then there are 4 cases you might have:

1. You'd want to signal encouragement and have an even count.
2. You'd want to signal encouragement and have an odd count.
3. You'd want to signal discouragement and have an even count.
4. You'd want to signal discouragement and have an odd count.

Clearly if your choices are right-side up or upside-down you can only distinguish between 2, not 4, of these. So standard everything players will have only 2 that work; upside down everything players will have only 2 that work; upside down attitude-standard count will have only 2 that work; standard attitude upside down count will have only 2 that work.

So neither is better or worse than the other for this situation. As others have pointed out what will resolve this is a clear understanding of is this an attitude situation or count situation (and sometimes or something else like suit preference or smith or what not).

If you know it is an attitude situation, then there are only 2 things you could want to signal, and again either upside down or right side up could work and you are fine.

If you know it is a count situation, then there are only 2 things you could want to signal, and again either upside down or right side up could work and you are fine.

These are really independent situations because you are never signalling both primary attitude and primary count, and even if you were, it would be consistent only half the time regardless of your choices.

There is another principle that you are better off if the card that you want to signal with is the technical card that you'd want to play even if there were no signalling considerations. This generally means don't signal with higher cards that might take tricks, but also do hope to unblock while signalling.

Usually this principle is why people think upside down attitude is better than standard attitude - even if it comes up rarely. It is also possible why standard present count is better than the alternative (you unblock correctly when needed) - again even if it comes up rarely.

It think the same thing is usually true when thinking of signalling from xx and xxx suits. If it is a count signal and you have spot cards then usually the highest of 2 spots (non-honors) doesn't cost, so standard attitude is ok, while the highest of 3 spots might cost (you can mitigate by signalling with the middle spot then lower spot when the high spot matters, but the middle spot may be harder to read).

So there may well be a very small technical reason to prefer upside down attitude to standard attitude generally (although there are technical exceptions like with JTx to consider on AK leads), and there are very small technical reasons I think to prefer standard count.

I also like to play that discards are standard attitude, not upside down, because I am more likely to in general discourage suits, and there throwing the lowest cards make sense to me.
Aug. 8
1 2 3 4 ... 138 139 140 141
.

Bottom Home Top