Help
Yes Roger is right. I shouldn't try to do this sort of thing late at night (for me).
erf(x) is a weird function.
Thanks for running actual numbers.
Six-player teams Why does anyone think it's a good thing?
#41
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 612
- Joined: 2007-December-31
- Location:Bethesda, Maryland, USA
Posted 2010-March-08, 20:02
"It is not enough to be a good player. You must also play well." -- Tarrasch
#42
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 231
- Joined: 2009-November-17
Posted 2010-March-12, 15:06
On the subject of 4 vs 5 or 6 player teams...
Most of the time, I prefer to play on 4 member teams, because I like to play, not sit on the sidelines. However, in a recent regional I was part of a 5 member KO team. My partner (whom I had played with regularly) was a 20-something year old who had been playing bridge for about a year. Our other teammates were retired women, 2 of whom had medical issues that made playing in certain sessions difficult. (One had a problem playing in the evening; another had a problem playing in the evening.) My partner became the "iron men" (I was the only male on the team) for the 4 sessions. (Yes, we made it to the finals.) I am now somewhat more enthusiastic about 5 or 6 member teams.
As an aside, the MP total for the team was about 1000. 3 of our team members had less than 100, and I was the only member with more than one gold point going in. Finishing second in a close match (down 2 IMPs at the half) against a much more experienced team was a thrill for us all.
Most of the time, I prefer to play on 4 member teams, because I like to play, not sit on the sidelines. However, in a recent regional I was part of a 5 member KO team. My partner (whom I had played with regularly) was a 20-something year old who had been playing bridge for about a year. Our other teammates were retired women, 2 of whom had medical issues that made playing in certain sessions difficult. (One had a problem playing in the evening; another had a problem playing in the evening.) My partner became the "iron men" (I was the only male on the team) for the 4 sessions. (Yes, we made it to the finals.) I am now somewhat more enthusiastic about 5 or 6 member teams.
As an aside, the MP total for the team was about 1000. 3 of our team members had less than 100, and I was the only member with more than one gold point going in. Finishing second in a close match (down 2 IMPs at the half) against a much more experienced team was a thrill for us all.
#43
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 3,525
- Joined: 2009-March-30
- Gender:Male
Posted 2010-March-12, 16:48
jh51, on Mar 12 2010, 04:06 PM, said:
On the subject of 4 vs 5 or 6 player teams...
Most of the time, I prefer to play on 4 member teams, because I like to play, not sit on the sidelines. However, in a recent regional I was part of a 5 member KO team. My partner (whom I had played with regularly) was a 20-something year old who had been playing bridge for about a year. Our other teammates were retired women, 2 of whom had medical issues that made playing in certain sessions difficult. (One had a problem playing in the evening; another had a problem playing in the evening.) My partner became the "iron men" (I was the only male on the team) for the 4 sessions. (Yes, we made it to the finals.) I am now somewhat more enthusiastic about 5 or 6 member teams.
As an aside, the MP total for the team was about 1000. 3 of our team members had less than 100, and I was the only member with more than one gold point going in. Finishing second in a close match (down 2 IMPs at the half) against a much more experienced team was a thrill for us all.
Most of the time, I prefer to play on 4 member teams, because I like to play, not sit on the sidelines. However, in a recent regional I was part of a 5 member KO team. My partner (whom I had played with regularly) was a 20-something year old who had been playing bridge for about a year. Our other teammates were retired women, 2 of whom had medical issues that made playing in certain sessions difficult. (One had a problem playing in the evening; another had a problem playing in the evening.) My partner became the "iron men" (I was the only male on the team) for the 4 sessions. (Yes, we made it to the finals.) I am now somewhat more enthusiastic about 5 or 6 member teams.
As an aside, the MP total for the team was about 1000. 3 of our team members had less than 100, and I was the only member with more than one gold point going in. Finishing second in a close match (down 2 IMPs at the half) against a much more experienced team was a thrill for us all.
congrats. keep up the good work.
I personally like 6 man teams for the obv reasons.
OK
bed
bed
#44
- Limit bidder
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 8,482
- Joined: 2004-November-02
- Gender:Female
- Location:England
- Interests:Bridge, classical music, skiing... but I spend more time earning a living than doing any of those
Posted 2010-March-13, 04:42
JanM, on Mar 7 2010, 11:25 PM, said:
FrancesHinden, on Mar 7 2010, 12:51 PM, said:
There's no need for a 48-board day to be a 12-hour day.
ACBL Knockouts are 64 boards, not 48. One of the advantages of playing only 48 boards a day, as the WBF does, is that the day doesn't have to be so long. But the disadvantage is that either the event isn't as formful because not so many boards are played, or there have to be a lot more days.
Sorry I saw a reference to 48-boards in the post and missed that was for WBF events and the subject changed.
Anyway, I still don't think 64-board days should be finishing at 1 in the morning. The EBU Premier League is 60-board days, played with screens, which run from something like 10.45 am to about 8pm in three sets of twenty.
It's a conscious decision (which I think the players mainly agree with) to have not particularly long breaks during the day, and finish in time to have dinner afterwards, rather than to start later, have longer breaks, and finish in the middle of the night. But if you get vicious complaints when you compress the breaks in the middle, it's obviously a problem.
#45
- Limit bidder
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 8,482
- Joined: 2004-November-02
- Gender:Female
- Location:England
- Interests:Bridge, classical music, skiing... but I spend more time earning a living than doing any of those
Posted 2010-March-13, 05:06
xcurt, on Mar 8 2010, 07:14 PM, said:
mycroft, on Mar 8 2010, 12:08 PM, said:
...
If you're thinking that maybe the fatigue factor is less important than the reduction in luck from more boards...
I'm saying the reduction in luck isn't that great, independent of fatigue.
It sounds like Fred is saying the fatigue difference from 48->64 boards is significant enough that you get a big edge by only having to play 48 any given day.
Ignoring the maths for a bit, there are two other factors involved.
1. The fatigue difference is cumulative. Playing lots of boards a day for two days may not be so bad. Doing it for much longer gets harder, hence the observation that the final of the BB is often relatively low standard; rather than that the last few boards of each day during the BB are lower standard.
2. In an individual match, the board results are not necessarily independent. An inexperienced team tends to have much less stamina. When you get a stronger team against a team that isn't technically much worse, but has much less experience of playing long matches, the stronger team tends to win a lot of imps towards the end of the much, as the inexperienced team gets tired.
#46
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 1,448
- Joined: 2003-October-27
- Gender:Male
- Location:Moama, NSW
Posted 2010-March-15, 01:58
JanM, on Mar 7 2010, 12:48 PM, said:
Also, although part of the reason the Vanderbilt & Spingold end at 1 or 2 am is that there are sometimes people who play too slowly, part of the reason is just that it takes longer with screens. Instead of the normal 7.5 minutes per board without screens, these events are usually scheduled at 9 minutes per board.
I don't think it's fair to blame slow play on screens. If the players are reasonably experienced with screens, it really shouldn't make much difference at all as the bids can essentially be made in the same tempo; save that written explanations of bids might take a few seconds more than verbal explanations.
I believe the real reason for the extra 90 seconds per board is the super-seriousness of the event. In late stages of major events, excessive time consumption generally occurs during the card play when the screen is open and long tanks in the auctions would've occured with or without screens.
If you allocate extra time to a session the players will use it.
Disclaimer: The above post may be a half-baked sarcastic rant intended to stimulate discussion and it does not necessarily coincide with my own views on this topic.
I ♦ bidding the suit below the suit I'm actually showing not to be described as a "transfer" for the benefit of people unfamiliar with the concept of a transfer
I ♦ bidding the suit below the suit I'm actually showing not to be described as a "transfer" for the benefit of people unfamiliar with the concept of a transfer
#47
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 1,796
- Joined: 2008-September-12
- Gender:Male
Posted 2010-March-15, 16:40
Cascade, on Mar 5 2010, 06:02 PM, said:
nigel_k, on Feb 27 2010, 09:32 AM, said:
Cricket is the only team game I can think of at the moment where you can't use substitutes.
Cricket has substitute fielders. It is only batters and bowlers that cannot be substituted in.
And there is provision for a runner if the batter sustains an injury so that he cannot run.
True, but Law 2 only permits fielding substitutes when a player has become injured or ill during the course of the game. Unlike bridge teams of 6 events, cricket substitutes are not allowed for tactical reasons, or just because a player is feeling tired.