[gwnn]

Thanks a lot PK!

[PhantomSac]

If people would like imp averages, then put in the work and do it!

I don't think simming these things is a great idea. It depends on what people bid 4M with (I bid a lot, and that is better against opps who are more likely to have 5 trumps and weaker hands for 4M...). Even if you sim it there is a lot of judgement in what happens after that. The tighter they bid 4M, the more they can bid, the more accurately LHO can bid over that, and then a lot of it is what partner does, which depends on what you do, etc.

Sometimes there is just a fun excersize. Trying to simulate this stuff is still worse than experience right now imo. And partnership and understanding the opps range (the more they bid 4M the less you should bid, etc) is very important. Of course its a small sample size but it's a fun excersize. FWIW I am guessing I was one of the worst in this (-4kish), that doesn't make me think that I am really bad at competitive bidding, this was a fun excersize, and it was also instructive (Some of the close decisons I was "out there" relative to the field, so I should rethink what I did there, etc).

[antonylee]

The tough part about simming is not so much the opening, lack-of-overcall, and raise to 4, which can probably all be reasonably well approximated, but the fact that you need to figure out later action (are they competing to the 5-level?) on each hand separately...

[PhilKing]

benlessard, on 2015-March-09, 23:04, said:

Its surprising to find partner with Jx H here since we hold Qxx of hearts. Was 1H limited maybe ? Also I think ill score +11 often enough for the -4/-5.

This was a Roy Welland situation, so the raise was wide ranging despite the 1♥ not being limited.

You should rethink your answer on this one. Not because I say so - look at who from the forum passes on this hand. For instance, karlson only passed four hands but this was one of them, and he passed board 10 as well.

[paulg]

Will we see the (4♥) - ? mega-quiz next month?

[rhm]

Zelandakh, on 2015-March-09, 06:58, said:

3. ♠AQJ943♥4♦973♣T94, amber.
15.♠KQ9874♥8♦J6♣AK75, amber. L.

I also do not understand passing 3 but bidding on 15

Really?
Which hand would you rather like to have opposite an average dummy declaring 4♠ doubled or not?
What is your problem?

Rainer Herrmann

[MrAce]

Well done Rainer and Karlson. Good job.

@Phil King: We really appreciate the work you have done for us which was very educational and fun. Thanks bro! Please don't let this be last. I loved it despite my bad score. Keep them coming when you have time please.

[helene_t]

PhantomSac, on 2015-March-10, 02:06, said:

If people would like imp averages, then put in the work and do it!

ximp poster
1229 karlson
966 Mbodell
903 foobar
834 Gordontd
707 Rhm
582 mikeh
567 Poky
454 NickRW
441 cherdano
438 Jinksy
406 BenLessard
392 Zelandakh
338 manudude03
331 PhantomSac
260 Nige1
157 cyberyeti
-19 WesleyC
-35 gnasher
-68 PaulG
-81 wanoff
-121 y66
-144 eagles123
-153 eilidh
-179 AyunuS
-235 JoeFortune
-341 gwnn
-566 helene_t
-649 Remnard
-882 KurtGodel
-1002 Hanoi5
-1390 MrAce
-1554 gszes
-1586 wbartley


I have ignored the 4S bid by Gnasher which PhilKing assumed was a typo.

I have ignored those bids that were posted after PK revealed the "solutions".

This post has been edited by helene_t: 2015-March-10, 08:32

[gwnn]

What about aggregate scores?

[Zelandakh]

rhm, on 2015-March-10, 04:30, said:

Really?
Which hand would you rather like to have opposite an average dummy declaring 4♠ doubled or not?
What is your problem?

I meant 12 rather than 15.

[Zelandakh]

Thanks helene. I am actually surprised - I thought I would be right at the bottom after going for 1100 twice.

[helene_t]

gwnn, on 2015-March-10, 06:12, said:

What about aggregate scores?

totalpoints poster
-2460 karlson
-2870 Mbodell
-2910 foobar
-3170 Gordontd
-3190 Rhm
-3460 mikeh
-3620 gnasher
-3670 NickRW
-3690 cherdano
-3740 Zelandakh
-3780 Poky
-3810 Jinksy
-3840 PhantomSac
-3850 BenLessard
-3860 Nige1
-3950 manudude03
-4110 WesleyC
-4120 cyberyeti
-4130 PaulG
-4250 wanoff
-4440 eagles123
-4460 eilidh
-4530 AyunuS
-4670 JoeFortune
-4710 y66
-5010 gwnn
-5080 helene_t
-5300 Remnard
-5630 Hanoi5
-5680 KurtGodel
-6450 MrAce
-6530 wbartley
-6600 gszes


Justin already noticed that he and Arend would be compatible partner's. Here you can see how we cluster based on number of agreements.

This post has been edited by helene_t: 2015-March-10, 08:34

[gwnn]

Zelandakh, on 2015-March-10, 06:23, said:

Thanks helene. I am actually surprised - I thought I would be right at the bottom after going for 1100 twice.

No matter how stupid your decisions, you'll always have some company

[gwnn]

Could you perhaps add something for crazy things like "always 4S with 5+, double with 3-4 spades" or "always pass"? Or completely random decisions from the reasonable options? I wonder how much better my competitive decisions are compared to those of trained monkeys.

[mikeh]

I got mine in before PK posted the results and think I did pretty well, aggregate of just under -3000. It's too much work for me to try cross-imping

[Zelandakh]

gwnn, on 2015-March-10, 07:41, said:

Could you perhaps add something for crazy things like "always 4S with 5+, double with 3-4 spades" or "always pass"? Or completely random decisions from the reasonable options? I wonder how much better my competitive decisions are compared to those of trained monkeys.

This might be an embarassing comparison for us Csaba! One easy comparison would be to program the hand into GIB or jack and collate those results.

Nice to see that we are close though. I feel that I generally agree with you so some statistics to back that up feels right. In truth I think that whole central block was quite close and I am only 3-4 decisions away from a lot of posters. As Mike says, that can change just from day to day in a compressed auction of this type. It is quite interesting that no 2 posters appear to have exactly agreed though.

As for the results, it seems that we might be a tick too aggressive in this spot. Of course the sample size is small but it is something to take away and think about. PK, how much work was this exercise from your side? Do you think it would be possible to do a quiz of this type once a month? I think that is something a lot of BBFers would be interested in.

[PhilKing]

Zelandakh, on 2015-March-10, 08:02, said:

This might be an embarassing comparison for us Csaba! One easy comparison would be to program the hand into GIB or jack and collate those results.

Nice to see that we are close though. I feel that I generally agree with you so some statistics to back that up feels right. In truth I think that whole central block was quite close and I am only 3-4 decisions away from a lot of posters. As Mike says, that can change just from day to day in a compressed auction of this type. It is quite interesting that no 2 posters appear to have exactly agreed though.

As for the results, it seems that we might be a tick too aggressive in this spot. Of course the sample size is small but it is something to take away and think about. PK, how much work was this exercise from your side? Do you think it would be possible to do a quiz of this type once a month? I think that is something a lot of BBFers would be interested in.

It took about 10 hours or so, I guess. But I will use the material here and there, so it's not wasted effort. Anyway, I learnt a lot doing it and it was fun as well.

I intend to repeat it at some stage, but I haven't found the perfect topic. It will no doubt be a competitive theme on which there are often three plausible actions and no real consensus amongst the expert community.

[helene_t]

sorry Mikeh, I have added your answers now and updated the XIMPs and dendrogram.

[helene_t]

Zelandakh, on 2015-March-10, 08:02, said:

It is quite interesting that no 2 posters appear to have exactly agreed though.

Good that you mentioned it since y66 and wbartley appeared to agree throughout but that was a copy-paste error. I have updated it now.

Thanks to everyone for posting in such easy-to-parse formats, by the way.

[helene_t]

gwnn, on 2015-March-10, 07:41, said:

Could you perhaps add something for crazy things like "always 4S with 5+, double with 3-4 spades" or "always pass"? Or completely random decisions from the reasonable options? I wonder how much better my competitive decisions are compared to those of trained monkeys.

It is a bit difficult because the trained monkey will make lots of bits that aren't scored by PK. But if you pick a random bid among those scored, you get -5080.8 on average, which is just 0.8 point worse than mine lol.

Wisdom of the crowd gets -3510.