BBO Discussion Forums: Its not looking good for Poland - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Its not looking good for Poland open hand on the table to show exactly 5 cards.

#1 User is offline   benlessard 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,465
  • Joined: 2006-January-07
  • Location:Montreal Canada
  • Interests:All games. i really mean all of them.

Posted 2015-October-13, 04:40

http://bridgewinners...=252745#c252745

Previously there was an hypothesis that was made by Cornelia Yoder that an open hand on the table with 5 fingers show a 5 card suit.

Kit W did test this hypothesis and as I write this its 17 hands with no false positive that satisfy this condition. Even if we remove 3-4 hands that were before the hypothesis (you cannot rely on hands that were use to make your hypothesis) its really not looking good for B-Z and Poland.

Exactly a 5 card suit is a 44% occurence. So 0.44x0.44x0.44 ... is like picking head and win 13-15 times in a row. Since the hypothesis is choosen out of an ensemble of hypothesis (but only one hypothesis was tested seriously) and there is some case that were before the hypothesis was made we cannot count all the 17 cases.

But even 0.44 exp 13 is 1/43000.
From Psych "I mean, Gus and I never see eye-to-eye on work stuff.
For instance, he doesn't like being used as a human shield when we're being shot at.
I happen to think it's a very noble way to meet one's maker, especially for a guy like him.
Bottom line is we never let that difference of opinion interfere with anything."
0

#2 User is online   helene_t 

  • The Abbess
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,068
  • Joined: 2004-April-22
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:UK

Posted 2015-October-13, 05:43

But it looks as if he does this also when he is declarer. So it might be some kind of nervous tick rather than a consciously made signal.
The world would be such a happy place, if only everyone played Acol :) --- TramTicket
0

#3 User is offline   Vampyr 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 10,611
  • Joined: 2009-September-15
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:London

Posted 2015-October-13, 06:45

 helene_t, on 2015-October-13, 05:43, said:

But it looks as if he does this also when he is declarer. So it might be some kind of nervous tick rather than a consciously made signal.


Or the logical way to,camouflage?
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones -- Albert Einstein
2

#4 User is offline   aguahombre 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 12,029
  • Joined: 2009-February-21
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:St. George, UT

Posted 2015-October-13, 08:44

 helene_t, on 2015-October-13, 05:43, said:

But it looks as if he does this also when he is declarer. So it might be some kind of nervous tick rather than a consciously made signal.

That would be awesome. Does he actually touch dummy when he is declarer with hand/finger signals which match his holding in the suit he touches? We should investigate whether he prearranged this with his opponents.

Perhaps Z and the rest of the team have actually been B's victims all this time, and when he was on defense the Declarers were his partners in collusion.
"Bidding Spades to show spades can work well." (Kenberg)
2

#5 User is offline   lamford 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,417
  • Joined: 2007-October-15

Posted 2015-October-13, 09:48

For me, this is enough:
"On the 12 times the gesture occurred after the dummy came down, Balicki always had a 5-card (and no longer) suit."
I prefer to give the lawmakers credit for stating things for a reason - barmar
0

#6 User is offline   aguahombre 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 12,029
  • Joined: 2009-February-21
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:St. George, UT

Posted 2015-October-13, 09:55

 lamford, on 2015-October-13, 09:48, said:

For me, this is enough:
"On the 12 times the gesture occurred after the dummy came down, Balicki always had a 5-card (and no longer) suit."

And this has something to do with what I said?

Edit: Actually what I said was silly enough that nothing anyone says should have anything to do with it.
"Bidding Spades to show spades can work well." (Kenberg)
0

#7 User is offline   lamford 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,417
  • Joined: 2007-October-15

Posted 2015-October-13, 11:06

 aguahombre, on 2015-October-13, 09:55, said:

And this has something to do with what I said?

Edit: Actually Edit: Actually what I said was silly enough that nothing anyone says should have anything to do with it.

I inadvertently "replied to post", rather than put up a new post. It did have something to do with the heading, and your post should also have had something to do with the heading.
I prefer to give the lawmakers credit for stating things for a reason - barmar
0

#8 User is offline   aguahombre 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 12,029
  • Joined: 2009-February-21
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:St. George, UT

Posted 2015-October-13, 21:19

Well, my alternative hypothesis does have something to do with the heading.

If it is found that the signals B sends are the same when he is Declarer as when he is a defender, we then compare those signals as well with his actual holdings. If the comparison is spot on, we can then conclude:

1) He is OCD compelled to signal his holdings. OR
2) He was actually in collusion with the opponents to dump and Z is an innocent dupe.
3) Either of the above, and Z discovered it but didn't expose his discovery.

Either way, it is applicable to the heading...It's not looking good for Poland.
"Bidding Spades to show spades can work well." (Kenberg)
0

#9 User is offline   1eyedjack 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,575
  • Joined: 2004-March-12
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 2015-October-13, 21:34

I'd be inclined to distrust the methodology, if that were the resulting conclusion, rather than the conclusion.
Psych (pron. saik): A gross and deliberate misstatement of honour strength and/or suit length. Expressly permitted under Law 73E but forbidden contrary to that law by Acol club tourneys.

Psyche (pron. sahy-kee): The human soul, spirit or mind (derived, personification thereof, beloved of Eros, Greek myth).
Masterminding (pron. mPosted ImagesPosted ImagetPosted Imager-mPosted ImagendPosted Imageing) tr. v. - Any bid made by bridge player with which partner disagrees.

"Gentlemen, when the barrage lifts." 9th battalion, King's own Yorkshire light infantry,
2000 years earlier: "morituri te salutant"

"I will be with you, whatever". Blair to Bush, precursor to invasion of Iraq
0

#10 User is offline   biggerclub 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 278
  • Joined: 2013-May-23

Posted 2015-October-30, 19:37

 helene_t, on 2015-October-13, 05:43, said:

But it looks as if he does this also when he is declarer. So it might be some kind of nervous tick rather than a consciously made signal.


Intentional or non-intentional is not the issue.

Does his partner have UI and is he acting on it is.
1

#11 User is offline   Trinidad 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,531
  • Joined: 2005-October-09
  • Location:Netherlands

Posted 2015-November-01, 03:39

 biggerclub, on 2015-October-30, 19:37, said:

Intentional or non-intentional is not the issue.

Does his partner have UI and is he acting on it is.

Not really. The question is whether the signals are prearranged (law 73B2).

Using UI (Law 73C) is an infraction that will be penalized with PPs, not with expulsion or disqualification.

Rik
I want my opponents to leave my table with a smile on their face and without matchpoints on their score card - in that order.
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds the new discoveries, is not “Eureka!” (I found it!), but “That’s funny…” – Isaac Asimov
The only reason God did not put "Thou shalt mind thine own business" in the Ten Commandments was that He thought that it was too obvious to need stating. - Kenberg
2

#12 User is offline   Vampyr 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 10,611
  • Joined: 2009-September-15
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:London

Posted 2015-November-02, 04:40

 Trinidad, on 2015-November-01, 03:39, said:

Not really. The question is whether the signals are prearranged (law 73B2).

Using UI (Law 73C) is an infraction that will be penalized with PPs, not with expulsion or disqualification.


A signal that you have come to rely on quickly becomes the equivalent of a pre-arranged signal.
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones -- Albert Einstein
1

#13 User is offline   1eyedjack 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,575
  • Joined: 2004-March-12
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 2015-November-02, 04:59

 biggerclub, on 2015-October-30, 19:37, said:

Intentional or non-intentional is not the issue.

Does his partner have UI and is he acting on it is.


Whether partner has UI and is acting on it is certainly an issue.

But that does not imply that the distinction between intentional and non-intentional is not an issue. That is central to the distinction between cheating and a "mere" infraction, which distinction carries sanctions of differing severity.
Psych (pron. saik): A gross and deliberate misstatement of honour strength and/or suit length. Expressly permitted under Law 73E but forbidden contrary to that law by Acol club tourneys.

Psyche (pron. sahy-kee): The human soul, spirit or mind (derived, personification thereof, beloved of Eros, Greek myth).
Masterminding (pron. mPosted ImagesPosted ImagetPosted Imager-mPosted ImagendPosted Imageing) tr. v. - Any bid made by bridge player with which partner disagrees.

"Gentlemen, when the barrage lifts." 9th battalion, King's own Yorkshire light infantry,
2000 years earlier: "morituri te salutant"

"I will be with you, whatever". Blair to Bush, precursor to invasion of Iraq
1

#14 User is offline   nige1 

  • 5-level belongs to me
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 9,128
  • Joined: 2004-August-30
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Glasgow Scotland
  • Interests:Poems Computers

Posted 2015-November-02, 10:36

More convincing evidence about bidding card gaps from BridgeWinners

Kit and Co have done a great job but I still think it should be the WBF that instigaties and audits such investigations.
0

#15 User is offline   campboy 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,347
  • Joined: 2009-July-21

Posted 2015-November-03, 04:03

The analysis in the linked article isn't great. The article says

Quote

To put this in perspective, assume the gaps have no meaning. If the gaps have no meaning, then the expert panel should have no correlation with the gaps. The experts’ choice of spacing would be completely independent of the observed bid spacing and, in theory, would match about 50% of the time by pure chance. What is the probability of 56 out of 65 matches? Or 38 out of 40? With a 50% chance of being right for each bid, the probability of this occurring by chance is minuscule.

This is not accurate. Looking into the appendices, narrow gaps are much more likely than wide gaps; 43 of the 65 hands included have a narrow gap. The panel are also much more likely to go for narrow than wide, and perhaps that is genuinely because you are more likely to hold a narrow-gap-suitable hand. In fact, the panel were explicitly biased towards narrow gaps.

Quote

In general, if the decision looks borderline it is probably right to choose the narrow bid-spacing.

So, some proper figures. We have 65 hands. The experts pick 23 of these as "wide" hands. The video analysts pick 22 of them as "wide" hands. If the two groups make their choices completely independently, what is the chance of at least as good a match? The answer is: 1 in 16,788,770. That's a large number, but also a lot smaller than the 1 in 975,969,054 you would get with the flawed 50% analysis above.
0

#16 User is offline   PhantomSac 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,488
  • Joined: 2006-March-23
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2015-November-03, 04:13

oh it's 1 in 17 million and not 1 in a billion OMG
The artist formerly known as jlall
0

#17 User is offline   PhantomSac 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,488
  • Joined: 2006-March-23
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2015-November-03, 04:13

 nige1, on 2015-November-02, 10:36, said:

More convincing evidence about bidding card gaps from BridgeWinners

Kit and Co have done a great job but I still think it should be the WBF that instigaties and audits such investigations.


Yeah cuz that has worked totally awesome so far!
The artist formerly known as jlall
0

#18 User is offline   campboy 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,347
  • Joined: 2009-July-21

Posted 2015-November-03, 04:30

 PhantomSac, on 2015-November-03, 04:13, said:

oh it's 1 in 17 million and not 1 in a billion OMG

The point is, until you actually do the calculation you have no idea how far out the 1,000,000,000 figure is, just that it's too high. That's not useful information.

If you're going to make assumptions that aren't justified and will inevitably inflate your figure as much as possible, it's not difficult to end up with a very big number. The question is whether you can do an accurate calculation that gives them the benefit of the doubt and still get a big number. And the answer, in this case, seems to be yes.
0

#19 User is offline   PhantomSac 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,488
  • Joined: 2006-March-23
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2015-November-03, 04:31

Yep thats totally the point
The artist formerly known as jlall
0

#20 User is offline   gwnn 

  • Csaba the Hutt
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 13,027
  • Joined: 2006-June-16
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Göttingen, Germany
  • Interests:bye

Posted 2015-November-03, 07:07

It's not difficult to inflate your figure? Could you have got such a figure for a random honest pair as well? I understand that 1 in 1B hypotheses will have a p-value of 10^(-9) for example, but do you really think we have that many (reasonably simple) hypotheses?
... and I can prove it with my usual, flawless logic.
      George Carlin
0

  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users