Help
Comparing your two declarer play list, it looks like Wladow-Elinescu gain a HUDGE edge on the opponents' opening leads?
Btw, it would be great if you could give error estimates for your numbers. Doesn't have to be precise, e.g. just the variance for, say, declarer play for the minimal number of hands would be fine.
Who is the best declarer in the world ? :)
#21
- 5555
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 9,519
- Joined: 2003-September-04
- Gender:Male
Posted 2011-February-24, 07:51
The easiest way to count losers is to line up the people who talk about loser count, and count them. -Kieran Dyke
#22
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 2,555
- Joined: 2007-January-22
Posted 2011-February-24, 08:49
Standard dev is about 3.5imp/hand so for 250 hands sample it's 55imps (for play after 1st lead is made)
For 1000 hands sample it's 110imps.
For bidding (including 1st lead) it's 6imps/hand.
As you can see variance is huge on those and hand samples from vugraph not that significant. It's still fun to see famous names winning on this one though
For 1000 hands sample it's 110imps.
For bidding (including 1st lead) it's 6imps/hand.
As you can see variance is huge on those and hand samples from vugraph not that significant. It's still fun to see famous names winning on this one though
#23
- World International Master without a clue
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 17,404
- Joined: 2003-November-13
- Gender:Male
- Location:madrid
Posted 2011-February-24, 09:13
cherdano, on 2011-February-24, 07:51, said:
Comparing your two declarer play list, it looks like Wladow-Elinescu gain a HUDGE edge on the opponents' opening leads?
Btw, it would be great if you could give error estimates for your numbers. Doesn't have to be precise, e.g. just the variance for, say, declarer play for the minimal number of hands would be fine.
Btw, it would be great if you could give error estimates for your numbers. Doesn't have to be precise, e.g. just the variance for, say, declarer play for the minimal number of hands would be fine.
I though the same, probably because they give away less info in the bidding?
The fact that they win IMPs vs the average number of tricks taken doesn't mean that the contract they are playing is the best. they could win a lot of IMPs for saving vulnerable undertricks on a 4-1 fit althou I doubt this is the case.
#24
- Modern Day Trebuchet Enthusiast
-
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 738
- Joined: 2007-October-17
- Gender:Male
- Location:Western Mass.
Posted 2011-February-24, 11:17
Can you clarify my understanding on this: On your list which shows how declarers do compared to double dummy after the opening lead, everyone is at least slightly in the negative in imps/hand. I find that to be pretty interesting since I would expect the defenders to still have an impact on the outcome of the hand. Which of these conclusions can I draw from this study?
1) After the opening lead, it's easier for the defenders to find a good defense than for declarer to find a good line.
2) Declarer is in significantly more control than the defenders after the opening lead and the negative imps reflects his/her inability to see all 52 cards and the necessity to guess sometimes.
3) The relative scoring for contracts adjusts those imps lost significantly. For example, a declarer not following the double dummy line or taking a safe line will frequently just miss an overtrick (missing a gain of 1 imp), while an error costing someone a contract or a vulnerable (doubled) undertrick usually costs more than an imp.
Edit: though with #3, couldn't a defender just as easily err and allow a contract to make or chuck that undertrick? Based on that chart and the initial totals, can we draw any conclusions about the relative strength of the players' competition?
1) After the opening lead, it's easier for the defenders to find a good defense than for declarer to find a good line.
2) Declarer is in significantly more control than the defenders after the opening lead and the negative imps reflects his/her inability to see all 52 cards and the necessity to guess sometimes.
3) The relative scoring for contracts adjusts those imps lost significantly. For example, a declarer not following the double dummy line or taking a safe line will frequently just miss an overtrick (missing a gain of 1 imp), while an error costing someone a contract or a vulnerable (doubled) undertrick usually costs more than an imp.
Edit: though with #3, couldn't a defender just as easily err and allow a contract to make or chuck that undertrick? Based on that chart and the initial totals, can we draw any conclusions about the relative strength of the players' competition?
I once yelled at my partner for discarding the 'wrong' card when he was subjected to a squeeze that I allowed by giving the wrong count with too high a card. Now he's allowed to pitch aces when the opponents have the king in the dummy. At trick 2. When he could have followed suit. And blame me.
East4Evil ♥ sohcahtoa 4ever!!!!!1
East4Evil ♥ sohcahtoa 4ever!!!!!1
#25
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 2,555
- Joined: 2007-January-22
Posted 2011-February-24, 12:01
Quote
1) After the opening lead, it's easier for the defenders to find a good defense than for declarer to find a good line.
This in my opinion is true.
Quote
2) Declarer is in significantly more control than the defenders after the opening lead and the negative imps reflects his/her inability to see all 52 cards and the necessity to guess sometimes.
I don't know how "control" is defined so I can't answer but basically defenders advantage comes from the fact that declarer needs to find all the missing honors and naturally often fails while very often next decision for defenders comes significantly later after opening lead and it's easier for them to get that right.
Often defenders just wait and see with his Qxx of trumps but declarer will miss half the time...
Quote
Comparing your two declarer play list, it looks like Wladow-Elinescu gain a HUDGE edge on the opponents' opening leads?
My guess is that they just got lucky on small sample of vugraph hands. I don't know anything about their style but it looks like the most likely explanation to me.
#26
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 796
- Joined: 2010-October-21
- Gender:Male
- Location:Copenhagen, Denmark
Posted 2011-February-24, 16:47
bluecalm, on 2011-February-24, 04:36, said:
On some of the later lists it seems like Mahmood is doing a lot better than Zia.
Quote
Zia : -188 , 523 , avg: -0.36
Mahmood : -177 , 478 , avg: -0.37
Mahmood : -177 , 478 , avg: -0.37
BillHiggin, on 2011-February-24, 03:47, said:
He does about as well under either name
On some of the later lists it seems like Mahmood is doing a lot better than Zia.
Michael Askgaard
#27
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 3,240
- Joined: 2012-June-25
Posted 2012-September-10, 09:24
cherdano, on 2011-February-24, 07:51, said:
Comparing your two declarer play list, it looks like Wladow-Elinescu gain a HUDGE edge on the opponents' opening leads?
Btw, it would be great if you could give error estimates for your numbers. Doesn't have to be precise, e.g. just the variance for, say, declarer play for the minimal number of hands would be fine.
Btw, it would be great if you could give error estimates for your numbers. Doesn't have to be precise, e.g. just the variance for, say, declarer play for the minimal number of hands would be fine.
Maybe their hands rarely conform to the opponent's expectation. Just a thought.