[mike777]

edited ..dup

[Wayne_LV]

   

[1eyedjack]

Wayne_LV, on Dec 24 2006, 08:55 AM, said:

inquiry, on Dec 23 2006, 11:53 PM, said:

SusieQ -- a very nice canadian and recent gold star, 1324  hands, average imps, 1.49. A lehmans of 51.37. (BTW, dank, susie's regular partner averaged 1.36).

luchi2004 -- an Argentine gold star who won the South American Open Championships, has played 4444 hands, averaging 1.15 imps, a lehmans in the mid 60's

winkle -- a forum poster here and nice guy from the Boston area I believe (and non-gold star), he has 2112 imp hands, averaging 1.01 imps.

I unconcede.

This is typical of the half cocked responses that seem to be prevelant in the discussion of this topic.

All 3 of the players you mention COMBINED have played 122 boards on BBO since 11-27.

May I please have the name of some players that have currently on file in BBO MyHand records of over 1000 boards with an average exceeding 1 IMP per board?

Surely if there are 1000's of them, some would be more than proud to share that record with us and give us some insight on how they achieve such enviable win rates.

I am not saying they don't exist, but I have yet to see them.

Have you any particular reason for thinking that they would be cheating on BBO but not on OKB, or vice versa? Why would hands played on another site not be admissible evidence?

Why do you believe that only hands played since 27 November 2006 should be considered as admissible evidence? I am sure that Inquiry did not limit his research to that period.

[Wayne_LV]

   

[1eyedjack]

Incidentally, I second the motion that the table host or tourney host should have the OPTION of setting all tables within his domain to disallow dummy seeing opponents' hands during the course of play. You could even add an option to disallow his seeing declarer's hand during the course of play (there is, after all, a specific section in the international laws that prohibit dummy from leaving his seat to kibitz declarer - Law 43A2(b.) - Those laws were written before it became a practical possibility to kibitz declarer without leaving seat)

One of the great things about BBO is its democratic potential. The software already permits the banning of kibitzers at the discretion of the table host or tourney host, and some hosts (ie ACBL) have made a policy decision consistently to ban kibitzers. That leaves the members with a choice - to attend or not to attend events with such flags set. And that is how it should be. No need for God on high to decree that all tables be so set. If the measure is effective, and if players are willing to forego the benefits of kibitzing to honest players as a price worth paying, then such players will naturally gravitate to those events, while others can still gravitate to other tables, hopefully without a slur on their character.

The principle regarding the option of dummy to view other hands can be treated the same way. Empower the host to set it as he wishes. Empower the players to play there or elsewhere according to THEIR wishes.

[1eyedjack]

Wayne_LV, on Dec 24 2006, 09:28 AM, said:

I just would like to see current hand records I can review for any player averaging over 1 IMP per board for over 1000 hands. A thorough review of the winning techniques of such a player would have to be a bridge education extraordinaire.

122 boards played by 3 players is not enough to draw very many conclusions or from which to learn a great deal.

Ok, you could do this as well as Inquiry or anyone else, but you would have to go out and buy BridgeBrowser to do it. MyHands does not go back that far. It is a separate gripe that I have with MyHands, but not I hasten to add for witchhunting purposes - just that I like my own records available a bit longer.

[mike777]

uggg.. just my late night guess...very late night...but....
1) mbc...most could care less
2) teamgames....either they play with most if not all friends.....semi friends?....or....they play with random 8..hard to cheat except with given pair..and even then...in short tg?
3) tourneys....no comment.

[Walddk]

Wayne_LV, on Dec 24 2006, 10:28 AM, said:

And I see it coming now..."Wayne, you are not SMART enough to learn what they know ...... "  I guess the fact that I am still engaged in this juvinile discussion is proof that my IQ is not very high.

It will be higher the day you learn how to spell "juvenile".

Gaudeamus igitur
Juvenes dum sumus
Post jucundum juventutem
Post molestam senectutem
Nos habebit humus

Pereat tristitia
Pereant osores
Pereat diabolus
Quivis antiburschius
Atque irrisores

You will likely be able to google your way to a translation. Merry Christmas!

Roland

[1eyedjack]

1eyedjack, on Dec 24 2006, 09:31 AM, said:

Incidentally, I second the motion that the table host or tourney host should have the OPTION of setting all tables within his domain to disallow dummy seeing opponents' hands during the course of play. You could even add an option to disallow his seeing declarer's hand during the course of play (there is, after all, a specific section in the international laws that prohibit dummy from leaving his seat to kibitz declarer - Law 43A2(b.) - Those laws were written before it became a practical possibility to kibitz declarer without leaving seat)

My bad. Dummy cannot see oppo cards even now. Issue only relates to seeing declarer's hand.

Each player can personally set this on or off, but not at host override level.

[hrothgar]

Wayne_LV, on Dec 24 2006, 05:27 AM, said:

After all the exchanges of smart remarks I am still left with the one main suggestion I started with:

DO NOT allow the dummy to see ops hands during the play.

I see no real downside to this change and the potential benefits seem to be pretty obvious.

The Romans had a famous saying: "De gustibus non est disputandum"

I don't understand why my mother persists in buying vanilla ice cream when chocolate is available. I've learned not to try to convince her of the error of her ways. It just doesn't lead to a fruitful discussion.

[hrothgar]

Wayne_LV, on Dec 24 2006, 10:55 AM, said:

I unconcede.

This is typical of the half cocked responses that seem to be prevelant in the discussion of this topic.

All 3 of the players you mention COMBINED have played 122 boards on BBO since 11-27.

May I please have the name of some players that have currently on file in BBO MyHand records of over 1000 boards with an average exceeding 1 IMP per board?

Surely if there are 1000's of them, some would be more than proud to share that record with us and give us some insight on how they achieve such enviable win rates.

I am not saying they don't exist, but I have yet to see them.

Comment 1: If you are genuinely interest in looking at hand records to improve your game, you don't want to watch players who are averaging +1 IMP per board. As Justin notes, achieving this type of score almost as much about the calibre of one's opponents as it does about your own level of skill.

You'd probably learn a lot more about the game if you watch top experts playing other experts. You probably aren't going to see +1 IMPs a board if Cayne's team is playing against (insert world class opponents). Then again, the calibre of the bridge is a lot better.

Comment 2: The fact that you don't have access to data does not negate its existence. If you want to make a serious study of these sorts of things, invest in some real tools. BridgeBrowser is a great application with an extensive database of hand records.

Comment 3: I can't help noticing you making some clumsy comments about complex bidding methods. It almost looks as if you're trying to start a flame war...

[EricK]

hrothgar, on Dec 24 2006, 12:58 PM, said:

I don't understand why my mother persists in buying vanilla ice cream when chocolate is available. I've learned not to try to convince her of the error of her ways. It just doesn't lead to a fruitful discussion.

For that you would need tutti frutti.

[Al_U_Card]

matmat, on Dec 23 2006, 03:46 PM, said:

then start your own club, as was suggested above. Trying to "clean" up the MBC is pointless, firstly because you'll never catch all the cheats, secondly b/c the ones you do catch will figure out a way to come back and thirdly b/c it isn't the cheats that are spoiling the game.

Now theres an idea! We start an "honest" bridge club. Where all results are monitored and anyone who goes "beyond" certain parameters will be labelled a cheater? How about a "cheaters" club where cheating is encouraged?

Or how about all 4 hands are exposed and the players can just argue about how the hand should best be played?

[inquiry]

Wayne_LV, on Dec 24 2006, 02:55 AM, said:

inquiry, on Dec 23 2006, 11:53 PM, said:

SusieQ -- a very nice canadian and recent gold star, 1324  hands, average imps, 1.49. A lehmans of 51.37. (BTW, dank, susie's regular partner averaged 1.36).

luchi2004 -- an Argentine gold star who won the South American Open Championships, has played 4444 hands, averaging 1.15 imps, a lehmans in the mid 60's

winkle -- a forum poster here and nice guy from the Boston area I believe (and non-gold star), he has 2112 imp hands, averaging 1.01 imps.

I unconcede.

This is typical of the half cocked responses that seem to be prevelant in the discussion of this topic.

All 3 of the players you mention COMBINED have played 122 boards on BBO since 11-27.

May I please have the name of some players that have currently on file in BBO MyHand records of over 1000 boards with an average exceeding 1 IMP per board?

Surely if there are 1000's of them, some would be more than proud to share that record with us and give us some insight on how they achieve such enviable win rates.

I am not saying they don't exist, but I have yet to see them.

No. I am not going to give you anymore names. There is two reasons for this, the first being, I don't know who has played 1000 hands in the current myhands database. I almost never use myhands as it is very crude by database standards. It serves one useful function.. to find all the recent hands played by a specific player. That is it... no search by partnerships, no search by contracts, no search by good results (or bad result), no search by contract, or auction, or opening lead, or vulnerability, or opponents, or well, anything but a single player name. And i am certainly not going to search a list of players with a +1 imp avergage and then type their names into myhands to see if they have 1000 hands listed there currently.

Second, I am not going to do it because, to be honest, I can see from the following quote that you still don't get it....

Quote

I just would like to see current hand records I can review for any player averaging over 1 IMP per board for over 1000 hands. A thorough review of the winning techniques of such a player would have to be a bridge education extraordinaire.

IF you wanted a bridge education extraordinaire, I would suggest you kibitz people with an average closer to zero than one. People like those who play in the nearly daily Cayne versus who ever matches. Or our forum friend jlall and the team games he plays in. Or look for any teamgame with five or more gold star players playing in it.

Or try this, if you are 1/3 as good a player as you believe you are, change your skill level to beginner and join the BIL. You should easily be able to average +1 imp/board before they figure out you are not a beginner and throw you out of that club. But that is the very point you seem to overlook, average imps won is a reflection of not only the skill of the player you want to kibitz but also the opponents they routinely face.

[bid_em_up]

Damn, and all this time, I thought it was "kat"

inquiry, on Dec 24 2006, 10:51 AM, said:

IF you wanted a bridge education extraordinaire, I would suggest you kibitz people with an average closer to zero than one. People like those who play in the nearly daily Cayne versus who ever matches. Or our forum friend jlall and the team games he plays in. Or look for any teamgame with five or more gold star players playing in it.

Ben,

Wayne and I have had this conversation before (see here). Mr. Statistician Extraordinaire
(remember he claims to have written the original World Series of Poker) cant seem to comprehend this one simple fact.

[Wayne_LV]

   

[bid_em_up]

Wayne_LV, on Dec 24 2006, 11:29 AM, said:

I prolly need bridge lessons, but you need to learn to read.

He ain't the only one.

Quote

Let's deal with some facts:

1. A lady made a post stating there is cheating in online birdge
2. Perhaps she overstated the case
3. You immediately jumped on her case, obviously insulting her (reread her reply)

Melvis is male. She is a he. Lets try to keep our facts straight without jumping to conclusions. That seems to be a frequent problem of yours.

Quote

4. I (fool that I am) read the thread with interest since I also feel cheating is  a real problem for all on line bride sites
5. You and others then immediately jumped on my case for every idea I proposed.
6. I (again fool that I am) attempted to explain why I made some of the statements I made.
7. You, in so many words, tell me I have no idea about what I speak and offer "proof to the contrary"
8. I refute your "proof" using the only database I have access to .. BBO MyHands

#5 Nobody has really jumped your case. They have again attempted to explain to you why what you suggest isnt necessarily an accurate way of analyzing this problem. You apparently have the misbelief that anyone who disagrees with you is attacking you.

I do understand what you intended your original point to be, however, which is why I have refrained from posting until now. I wont say that I agree with it, but I understand what you meant.

Quote

10.  I have never said I WANT to win by 1 IMP per board, but I do want to know how others do it over 1000 boards or more.

Of course you do. Admit it. Everyone would like to win and win big.

Quote

11. Now you tell me you will not give me any more names of players with such lofty win rates.

I'm sure Ben could provide this. However, BBO forum posting rules generally prohibit naming names especially where doing so could open a discussion about that particular person. The three Ben provided are fairly well known players and would be easy enough to find by yourself. As a BBO yellow, Ben is bound by certain rules which should prevent him from disclosing any further names. He really shouldnt have disclosed the first three, imo, but I understand his doing so since it was an attempt to help you understand how it might be possible for someone to maintain this sort of average and they are players that noone could possibly challenge about their ethics.

Quote

12.  I think you will not because you cannot.

He will not because he cannot. You're absolutely right on this. He is prohibited from doing so by BBO rules. But not because he cant find any.

Quote

I have only one more question and then I shall refrain from adding anymore posts to this ridiculous thread:

Gee, this sounds familiar.

Quote

Is this forum for the exchange of ideas or is it a place where the frequent posters get their jollys trying to make other people look foolish?

This particular forum (The Water Cooler) isnt quite as strict regarding BBO policies about attacking others ideas. Noone has actually attacked you, only your idea. Try learning the difference.

(Side note to Ben or Moderator, why does this thread continue to update itself in the General Bridge Discussion forum after it was supposedly moved?)

[Wayne_LV]

   

[hrothgar]

Wayne_LV, on Dec 24 2006, 08:39 PM, said:

Again I think BBO is the best thing since sliced bread.

Sliced bread sucks!

The ONLY proper way to eat bread is to rip crusty rolls into medium sized chunks, then dips these into home made soup. How can anyone who doesn't know the BASICS about bread deign to post on a complex topic like cheating?

In all seriousness, try to make it to the forum tournament next weekend. You might get to see people in a better light.

In any case, in the spirit of the season, I'll forgive the bread comments.

[jillybean]

yum

YAWN (to Wayne)