[rbforster]

antonylee, on 2013-January-28, 13:01, said:

I can do the simulations (DD with random E/W hands) but I think this would miss an important point, which is information leaked in the auction. What would be more convincing would be DD with random E/W hands and single dummy leads (I remember reading somewhere that the opening lead was statistically the single play with the largest deviation from DD-optimality, which sounds reasonable), but this would require writing down all the information given in each auction -- a bit too much work for me right now.

Antony - I think people would be interested to see your simulation results, even with the caveats you mention (DD with random E/W). Whatever you find easiest to sim up would still be appreciated and valuable. Those who want to make slight adjustments based on the hand in question (if it has two way finesses or whatever) can do that for themselves.

[straube]

rbforster, on 2013-January-28, 14:11, said:

Antony - I think people would be interested to see your simulation results, even with the caveats you mention (DD with random E/W). Whatever you find easiest to sim up would still be appreciated and valuable. Those who want to make slight adjustments based on the hand in question (if it has two way finesses or whatever) can do that for themselves.

I'm somewhat interested in simulated results, too, but I'd like to see us get through a hundred or so deals and then have a conversation what to do with them. It's hard enough to avoid resulting after looking at both hands without extra pressure of trying to reach the par contract. I think everyone has the right idea here of trying to follow their system agreements and let chips fall where they may. Simulated results can help our personal assessment but I'd like this to stay more like a study.

[antonylee]

OK, I won't post anything for now then.

[rbforster]

straube, on 2013-January-28, 14:52, said:

I'm somewhat interested in simulated results, too, but I'd like to see us get through a hundred or so deals and then have a conversation what to do with them. It's hard enough to avoid resulting after looking at both hands without extra pressure of trying to reach the par contract. I think everyone has the right idea here of trying to follow their system agreements and let chips fall where they may. Simulated results can help our personal assessment but I'd like this to stay more like a study.

It's your study/contest so I'm happy to go along with your preference, but most of the time people can see both hands and tell what the best contract would be (i.e. is slam on, NT vs 5-2 major game, which part score, etc). I think in a format like these forums where you can't hide the information perfectly, you just have to trust people to try to bid their system accurately.

That said, there are some deals where the layout is complex and its not clear what the best contract might be (like #20). I think adding some sim results after everyone has had a chance to bid them would be a nice followup to the discussion.

[akhare]

rbforster, on 2013-January-28, 16:34, said:

It's your study/contest so I'm happy to go along with your preference, but most of the time people can see both hands and tell what the best contract would be (i.e. is slam on, NT vs 5-2 major game, which part score, etc). I think in a format like these forums where you can't hide the information perfectly, you just have to trust people to try to bid their system accurately.

That said, there are some deals where the layout is complex and its not clear what the best contract might be (like #20). I think adding some sim results after everyone has had a chance to bid them would be a nice followup to the discussion.

+1 -- the DD data would be nice as a reference point and can be used as supplementary information. On the related note, see this regarding deal 20.

[straube]

I'm happy to go along with the group consensus. If Antony or whoever is running sims wants to send me the results for different hands, I can periodically add them to the first post on each deal. That's just one idea anyway. I think I would build some sort of delay into it. I'd just like to not make this a contest...especially one that may influence future results.

[Zelandakh]

rbforster, on 2013-January-28, 16:34, said:

It's your study/contest

I hope contributors do not see this as a contest. In my opinion, anyone viewing these hands that way is missing an opportunity.

[straube]

At unfavorable do you stick your neck out with AJ543 K 9864 T93 after a strong club 1C P 1D auction?

[akhare]

straube, on 2013-January-29, 20:07, said:

At unfavorable do you stick your neck out with AJ543 K 9864 T93 after a strong club 1C P 1D auction?

At that vul., I wouldn't want to come in with that hand after a standard 1♣ - 1♦, let alone after a strong ♣, but that's me.

[straube]

akhare, on 2013-January-29, 20:12, said:

At that vul., I wouldn't want to come in with that hand after a standard 1♣ - 1♦, let alone after a strong ♣, but that's me.

Thanks. Me neither.

[straube]

I've received a suggestion that we pause after 25 deals for a few days to give folks a break. Happy to do so if wanted. How does everyone feel about this?

[relknes]

straube, on 2013-January-30, 18:29, said:

I've received a suggestion that we pause after 25 deals for a few days to give folks a break. Happy to do so if wanted. How does everyone feel about this?

That's fine. I have some system tweaking to do anyways. This has been a very helpful exercise!

[rbforster]

I would also suggest that, to the extent there is competitive information where you provide spoilers for different responding bids, that you leave those up for people who might want to contribute later. You can add a second post and/or an additional spoiler that shows the whole hand and result summary afterwards.

[straube]

Zelandakh did some analysis of the 25 deals thus far. He compared imp results of each system to a natural system and came up with some raw figures. I don't precisely understand what those figures represent (imps I guess) but he remarked that they are pretty subjective, depending on the actual hand layouts for the defenders and such.

I've always wanted to make sure this didn't turn into a contest or it would increase the likelihood of resulting action, but I think most folks want to see some sort of score assigned to their system. So do we want me (or Zelandakh) to post the results?

My feeling about them is that 1) Zelandakh was very likely being fair and 2) they are not very meaningful. Personally, as we went through the deals I'd have reactions like "This system really knows while this other system is guessing" or "This system shuts out the competition or this system preempts itself" and I think that we each had that sort of thought process and that's more meaningful than a raw number. Still...

But would we like to see it? Or would folks like me to send individual scores to each person? Or post results in spoilers? Let me know.

[Free]

I don't care about the scores. All I'm interested in is to see how other strong C systems work (for example with semipositives and double negatives) and have some friendly discussions about difficult auctions. I'm already happy with the contracts I reached so far, and I hope that our vanilla system van keep this up (otherwise we'll have to invest some time to improve this part).

[Kungsgeten]

I'm interested in reading the results. On my part, however, I think it is more interesting to see the differences in other types of hands in the systems (not a strong opener). The most interesting auctions so far has (according to me) been those where some systems opens strong while some do not. In a big club context, the main differences between the systems seems to be the other modules in the system, not the 1C one. However I guess this is harder to compare since the differences probably would be pretty large. I'm thinking nebulous diamonds vs natural diamonds, 4-card vs 5-card majors, transfer openings, (feather) light vs sound, canapé, multi-way openings etc.

[hrothgar]

I am somewhat surprised at the low number of contested auctions over the strong clubs

I agree with Kungsgeten that the major differences will involve preemptive strucutres and constructive openings.

[rbforster]

I think scores with spoilers would be good, interesting despite the obvious caveats.

hrothgar, on 2013-February-07, 11:26, said:

I am somewhat surprised at the low number of contested auctions over the strong clubs

I believe straube's deal selection algo removes any with 2nd hand interference, which is more common than the 4th hand actions we saw.

[straube]

rbforster, on 2013-February-07, 22:44, said:

I think scores with spoilers would be good, interesting despite the obvious caveats.


I believe straube's deal selection algo removes any with 2nd hand interference, which is more common than the 4th hand actions we saw.

Yes. That's what I did and there was some discussion of this. My main objective was to see how the arrangement of initial responses (e.g. the meaning of 1D) affected outcomes. I've thought occasionally to run a separate study of coping mechanisms for 1S and other interference...but this would be an entirely different task.

[Zelandakh]

To be honest, I had not intended this "results list" to be made public. I did it as an exercise for myself and thought straube might be (privately) interested in it too. If we had publicised results then I feel that the desire to reach the "top spot" will be even higher than it currently is. Most systems can reach a particular end-contract if you work hard enough at it; even more so for systems with reverse relays when you know from the off which hand should be doing the asking.

What I am quite certain of is that the results we have reflect much more closely the pesonalities of the posters than the relative merits of the systems. In this respect I have been disappointed. To my mind the exercise has not produced the results that straube set out, at least not in terms of the final contracts. On the other hand, you can read between the lines to get a reasonable idea of which systems are bidding confidently in some cases. But not all - I am quite sure that some of our most confident posters have options and bracnhes along the way that are not mentioned, some of which would not result in the top spot being reached. Whereas some other posters are very concerned with saying where there is doubt, sometimes even to the point of not producing a final auction (which means I could not give them a score for the hand).

As I wrote before, I think these threads are an interesting window on the personalities of the contributors. I have not seen much value from a system theory point of view. Now that straube has switched from SCREAM to IMPrecision, it would be rather interesting to see him post auctions for that in his style (in 6 months perhaps) to see if he is bidding these hands with more confidence in the new system. My guess is that the difference would be minimal because it is straube's style to be honest about his doubts and bid each hand as it comes rather than with an end-contract in mind.

One final example which I think I can make without upsetting anyone. Justin's Meckwell Lite is currently sitting in 9th place, and this is very likely to go down as other posters complete the rest of the 25 hands. Hands up who thinks this system, or perhaps Justin himself, is the 9th best taking part. It is not that Justin has bid "badly" - he has gained more than IMP a hand by my reckoning - but rather that everyone else has managed to find the top spots more regularly, in some cases every time, to give results in excess of +2 IMPs per board. Seriously, you guys need to get in a JEC match - you will slaughter them! Then move on to a World Championship...