Round 2 Final Scores

[TylerE]

My mistake. TBH I really should have looked through all the old stuff before making the post. Been insanely busy at work lately (I've worked something like 170 hours in the last 3 weeks) so I haven't quite been with it in general. My post wasn't intended as any sort of personal attack against you or the way the contest is being run. I think you are doing an excellent job of it. Way better than I could for sure!

[hanp]

Does this mean round 3 started?

[gwnn]

yay inquiry you should post more of these posts

[helene_t]

yay inquiry you should post more of these posts

yeah just 1640 to catch up with Josh, gogogo!

[inquiry]

Does this mean round 3 started?

i got some stuff to do today, and didn't quite get through vetting the hands sent to me. Since we go down to 1 pair in the upper round, i want to make sure the hands are fairer, and cleaner, than they appeared when I relooked at them. I am guessing we will start round 3 on Friday.

[hanp]

Great, very much looking forward to redeem myself!

 

It may be a bit late, but I was going to suggest that it could be a good idea to use some hands from very old bridge worlds, or magazines with similar bidding contests. The advantages are that the hands already went through some selection process, and that they already have been scored. It might reduce the workload.

 

I also think that the method you used for computing the scores for at least one of the hands is very good: instead of trying to estimate what the "field" would do, use the competing pairs as the field. Of course this only works when the field is reasonably large, but perhaps those that are out of the contest but still would like to bid the hands can be used as well. Of course, there is still the problem of how to determine how many tricks a contract will make, this is still a grey area. Using jack for this might work, it doesn't defend as well as gnasher but neither does our field.

[Wackojack]

Astonished to find we are in the upper group. Reasons: The system my partner has devised isn't fully worked out. Notwithstanding, only the basic structure I can remember well My partner has vitually no experience in competitive bridge. And imo we didn't bid well.

 

My partner, moved house this weekend with his family from Samos to Athens and is not likely to get a land line for a month. He says that he will try to do Round 3 from an internet cafe.

[Hanoi5]

...I was going to suggest that it could be a good idea to use some hands from very old bridge worlds, or magazines with similar bidding contests. The advantages are that the hands already went through some selection process, and that they already have been scored. It might reduce the workload...

I suggested it. I even suggested getting them as I have a big collection at my job. Not good for Inquiry for memory and copyrights issues.

[gnasher]

It may be a bit late, but I was going to suggest that it could be a good idea to use some hands from very old bridge worlds, or magazines with similar bidding contests. The advantages are that the hands already went through some selection process, and that they already have been scored. It might reduce the workload.

 

I prefer the sort of hands that Ben has been giving us, where you get rewarded for doing something sensible rather than esoteric.

 

I also think that the method you used for computing the scores for at least one of the hands is very good: instead of trying to estimate what the "field" would do, use the competing pairs as the field.

Me too.

 

Of course this only works when the field is reasonably large, but perhaps those that are out of the contest but still would like to bid the hands can be used as well. Of course, there is still the problem of how to determine how many tricks a contract will make, this is still a grey area. Using jack for this might work, it doesn't defend as well as gnasher but neither does our field.

 

The way I'd do it is like this

 

That is, we agree what will happen to each contract in a particular scenario (layout, lead, etc); then we weight each scenario according to how often we think it will happen; then we matchpoint each scenario and apply the weight to the matchpoints.

 

It's possible that I've messed up the formulae in my example, but I expect you get the idea.

[TimG]

The way I'd do it is like this

You'd also want to factor it to a 12 top, I think. Your averages were for a 13 top.