Statto Posted April 10, 2012 Report Share Posted April 10, 2012 It may be of academic interest ...It's not just of academic interest. Any bridge player who wants to improve should be looking at hands after the event to see where they could have bid or played better, but to avoid bias should also look those where they bid and played really well, and give themselves a pat on the back :D Looking at other methods of hand evaluation in various contexts is not of purely academic interest. You can see whether Zar or Banzai points would have helped you find the game that quite a few others did, or was found against your team-mates. Not really for a reason to use them, but to see what value they have, and whether there is something there which can help improve your judgement :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Statto Posted April 10, 2012 Report Share Posted April 10, 2012 How does the popular 4.5/3/1.5/1 with 5/3/1 method fare?What about if a queen counts 1.5 when unsupported but 2 with a higher honour?Are you making any adjustments for honours in short suits, especially singletons? Are the correlations better if you subtract somewhere between a half point and a whole point for such singleton honours?I will try and do this if I have time. But it may be better if I spend the time to tidy up the Java code and put it online somewhere so you can play around yourselves. Send me a PM to nag me if you're interested B-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weejonnie Posted April 14, 2012 Report Share Posted April 14, 2012 I will try and do this if I have time. But it may be better if I spend the time to tidy up the Java code and put it online somewhere so you can play around yourselves. Send me a PM to nag me if you're interested B-) I wish people would remember the golden rule of bridge. "Bridge is NOT about points. Bridge is about TRICKS" Apply that adage with a bit of common sense and you'll do far better than just implementing an algorithm. The only problem is that you have to think a bit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Statto Posted April 16, 2012 Report Share Posted April 16, 2012 Apply that adage with a bit of common sense and you'll do far better than just implementing an algorithm. The only problem is that you have to think a bit.Don't worry, I do. But it is also useful to study how algorithms work (or don't) in order to improve one's own judgement, if you are that way inclined. And the GIB programmers have to stick to algorithms, or devise a NN learning system. I mean, you surely already use an algorithm to decide whether to make an opening bid. Something about Milton points, I gather, but I never got the hang of it. I just look at my hand and decide if it feels like it's worth an opening bid B-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.