Is this a record not playing a hand as declarer
#1
Posted 2011-March-13, 01:16
I was not allowed to play a hand-either my pard bid and all passed
or opps over bid and went down---after 2 hours 15 minuites
i gave up with a plus 75 imps no one about.
I have asked who ever is responsible to shuffle the cards
#2
Posted 2011-March-13, 01:34
you played for 3 hours, not two
you played 31 boards.
you declared 3 hands, not 0.
you finished with +52 imps, not +75 imps.
what does this have to do with shuffling? what does this have to do with general bridge discussion? do you really think that after decades of existence of this game this is even close to some sort of a record?
#3
Posted 2011-March-13, 16:49
a.k.a. Appeal Without Merit
#4
Posted 2011-March-14, 09:30
#5
Posted 2011-March-14, 10:15
Psyche (pron. sahy-kee): The human soul, spirit or mind (derived, personification thereof, beloved of Eros, Greek myth).
Masterminding (pron. mstr-mnding) 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
#6
Posted 2011-March-14, 11:10
http://www.bridgebas...istical-anomaly
A week or two after that game, I played in a club game where I declared 11 out of 24 boards. Maybe I was overcompensating.
Dianne, I'm holding in my hand a small box of chocolate bunnies... --Agent Dale Cooper
#7
Posted 2011-March-14, 11:34
#9
Posted 2011-March-14, 14:29
From the sounds of things, you played 31 boards.
You ended up declaring 3.
For simplicity, I'm going to assume that roughly 1:10 boards get passed out.
I'm going to throw these out of the mix, leaving a dataset in which
1. You played 28 boards
2. you declared 3
If I remember my math, it would seem appropriate to model this as a binomial distribution with 28 trials and a probabily of success = .25
(All other things being equal, you probably expect that you will declare one out of four hands that don't get passed out. If you're playing a particularly conservative or highly aggressive system, please let me know and I can adjust things accordingly)
I'm attaching a PDF for the described distribution. (From the looks of things, there is roughly a 4% chance that this will happen)
0.000317479271413
0.002963139866525
0.013334129399361
0.038520818264821
0.080251704718377
0.128402727549403
0.164070151868682
0.171883016243381
0.150397639212958
0.111405658676265
0.070556917161635
0.038485591179074
0.018173751390118
0.007455898006202
0.002662820716501
0.000828433111800
0.000224367301113
0.000052792306144
0.000010753988289
0.000001886664612
0.000000282999692
0.000000035936469
0.000000003811444
0.000000000331430
0.000000000023016
0.000000000001228
0.000000000000047
0.000000000000001
0.000000000000000
#10
Posted 2011-March-15, 02:57
#12
Posted 2011-March-15, 05:14
matmat, on 2011-March-15, 04:04, said:
Reducing the precision would have required a second line of code...
foo = binopdf([0:28], 28, .25)'
which translates as
Create a variable named foo, which stores the PDF for a binomial distribution with N = 28 and P = .25.
The PDF should be evaluated at integers between 0 and 28.
Transpose the result so its a column vector rather than a row vector
<<Got to love having this kind of stuff sitting on the desktop>>
#13
Posted 2011-March-15, 05:32
We had a 20 board match where I played something like 15 (and our two at the other table played about 8 each), so partner got either 0 or 1 and the only imps we dropped while piling up well over 100 was 3N-1 in both rooms.
#14
Posted 2011-March-15, 07:57
matmat, on 2011-March-15, 04:04, said:
82.65291% of all statistical surveys overstate their own accuracy.
But hey Richard, tabulating a binomial distribution can be done with a spreadsheet, you need to do something more complex for your Matlab advertisment! Hand-hogging by certain players could overdisperse the number of declared hands by a particular player. Then again, some players may think "now it is partner's turn to declare", thereby underdispersing the distribution. How would we model that? Could we construct a model that would allow us to determine how much of the overdispersion is caused by aggressiveness rather than hogging? Aggressive bidders would hog on behalf of their partners as well so it should be possible.
#15
Posted 2011-March-15, 09:20
George Carlin
#16
Posted 2011-March-15, 09:49
gwnn, on 2011-March-15, 09:20, said:
Please feel free to suggest a more appropriate number and redo the calculations...
#17
Posted 2011-March-15, 10:24
No science involved in this guess.
#18
Posted 2011-March-15, 14:24
helene_t, on 2011-March-15, 07:57, said:
93.87% of online statistics are made up on the spur of the moment.
#19
Posted 2011-March-15, 14:28
aguahombre, on 2011-March-15, 10:24, said:
No science involved in this guess.
Anyone have BridgeBrowser handy?
#20
Posted 2011-March-15, 14:35
aguahombre, on 2011-March-15, 10:24, said:
No science involved in this guess.
Only 2 of my 675 BBO hands from the past month were passed out, and I don't open all that aggressively.