[hanp]

Out as expected, sorry Justin, I'll be better next time.

Edit: after looking through the scores it seems that we will make the cut after all. In that case I withdraw my apology to Justin, knowing the full extend of my terribility.

[TylerE]

Remember han, double elim so you're not out...just down with the mortals.

[hrothgar]

hanp, on Aug 24 2010, 04:27 PM, said:

Out as expected, sorry Justin, I'll be better next time.

As I mentioned before, I don't find the contest aspect of this exercise particularly interesting.

I prefer a system in which as many people as possible are bidding the hands so we can get some good, informed discussion about the challenges that people are facing at different points in the auction.

Personally, I hope that folks continue to participate even if they aren't in the running for whatever the prize might be.

FWIW, it might be interesting to implement a system like the following:

1. Each month, some well know pair agrees to participate in the Online Challenge the Champs contest.

2. That same month, the forum runs CtC using the same set of hands.

3. The winner of the forum CtC contest for month "X" gets to compete "officially" versus the well known pair in month X+1.

4. The well known pair and the forum representative will both (try to) provide a write up of their auctions that explains their decision making at critical points in the auction.

(I'd actually be willing to sit down and memorize MOSCITO and compete "officially" if something like this were in the offering)

I think that this could be something very cool.
I also think that the write ups might have some very real value...

[hanp]

hrothgar, on Aug 24 2010, 09:06 AM, said:

As I mentioned before, I don't find the contest aspect of this exercise particularly interesting.

Yes, you mentioned this many times before. I don't care.

[Ant590]

I think we should at least see through the current double elimination before we change the style. This of course has nothing to do with me narrowly making the cut of the once-eliminated pairs this round.

[TimG]

Ant590, on Aug 24 2010, 10:20 AM, said:

I think we should at least see through the current double elimination before we change the style. This of course has nothing to do with me narrowly making the cut of the once-eliminated pairs this round.

There's no plan to change or prematurely end this contest. Some of us are simply looking forward to this being a regular feature of the forums.

[Elianna]

TylerE, on Aug 23 2010, 06:56 PM, said:

For kicks I decided to put together a list of the 1st + 2nd round scores, for those completing both rounds.

I believe that this is exactly what Inquiry said he wished to avoid, and why he wanted to have different hands for upper and lower brackets. (I know that didn't happen this time, but I do know that was the desire.)

I think that it's very big of him not to delete your post.

[bluecalm]

I am surprised we are doing so well in this, on the other hand my partner became world champion (university wc 2010) in the meantime so maybe he just wins at everything :-)

[TylerE]

Elianna, on Aug 24 2010, 05:01 PM, said:

TylerE, on Aug 23 2010, 06:56 PM, said:

For kicks I decided to put together a list of the 1st + 2nd round scores, for those completing both rounds.

I believe that this is exactly what Inquiry said he wished to avoid, and why he wanted to have different hands for upper and lower brackets. (I know that didn't happen this time, but I do know that was the desire.)

I think that it's very big of him not to delete your post.

I totally don't get it? I just posted simple addition. No comment on the dividing of the field was intended.

[cherdanno]

Pop quiz: which partnership has the longest experience playing together (in number of boards)?

Hint:

Spoiler

It's not even close!

[bid_em_up]

jdonn/gib?

[Mbodell]

Yeah, it has to be jdonn/gib, doesn't it?

[Ant590]

That depends rather on if robot races count as "bridge"...

[inquiry]

I am considering some scoring changes to round 2, based upon consensus comments in the threads. If you have anything to add to the scoring on the hands, now would be the time.

For Round 3, i am using mostly hands provided to me by forum members. Round 3 will not start until scoring of round 2 is finalized, since a lot of people will be eliminated (those with "0" scores are obviously eliminated as no scoring adjustment will help them--and none of the round 1 top bracket pairs scored "0" in round 2).

[hanp]

The two surprising scores that I noticed were boards 13 and 6.

Board 6 it bothers me that we opened the normal 1D that I assume almost everybody opened, we got to what seemed is the top spot and received a bad score because of something that could have noticed only after opening 1C. I do understand Ben's dilemma and I'm willing to write this off as the bad luck that can happen in bridge.

On board 13 I don't understand the scores, they just seem wrong.

[bid_em_up]

deleted.

[awm]

hanp, on Aug 25 2010, 10:13 AM, said:

The two surprising scores that I noticed were boards 13 and 6.

Board 6 it bothers me that we opened the normal 1D that I assume almost everybody opened, we got to what seemed is the top spot and received a bad score because of something that could have noticed only after opening 1C. I do understand Ben's dilemma and I'm willing to write this off as the bad luck that can happen in bridge.

On board 13 I don't understand the scores, they just seem wrong.

Agree with Han on boards 6 and 13. There was also a mild issue at my particular table on board 6 that the opponents did not seem to bid according to the script.

I also think Ben is vastly overestimating the chance of beating 4♠X by three tricks on board 11, and that the scores for 5♣ and 4♠X should be swapped.

[jdonn]

Jdonn/gib I'm sure, but tons (30%?) of our hands are passouts, almost all (99%+) I know partner has a worse hand than I do, probably 85% are tournaments where I'm intentionally rushing and am passing most hands that are 16 or less. So it's not the best practice! That said I estimate we have bid 25,000 hands together (I downgrade from the earlier 50,000 estimate I gave someone).

[hanp]

I think it's time the decider decides and we move to round 3, I can't wait to redeem myself. I'm pretty sure all that can be said about the tricky scoring hands has been said by now. Probably nobody will agree with all of the scores that Ben picks, I don't envy him for the job he has agreed to do. I promise I will only complain about it behind his back.

[gnasher]

hanp, on Aug 26 2010, 09:13 AM, said:

I think it's time the decider decides and we move to round 3

Me too.

(But I can understand people who are just below the cut thinking differently.)