[pigpenz]

I have noticed that to me it seems like there is game in everyhand sometimes. I was looking at some ACBL hand records that had Deep Finesse anlaysis on them and for 2 sessions there were 30 games out of 72 hands. Roughly 42% of the time. I was wondering if anyone else had ever thought about the frequency of games in the hands dealt from BBO?

[MickyB]

Can't think why it wouldn't be similar on BBO once you get rid of all the misdefences.

[EricK]

BBO will be the same as "real life".

I think the correct figure are something like: Slam 15%, Game 45%, Part score 40%. Of course these are double dummy.

Eric

[Gerben42]

The problem is that in most clubs people don't shuffle well enough. This means less distributional hands and therefore less games. It's as simple as that.

[whereagles]

15% chance for a slam? That's one every 6-7 boards, or about 4-5 per session.

Kinda looks a bit on the optimistic side to me, but...

[joker_gib]

Gerben42, on Jun 7 2005, 04:13 AM, said:

The problem is that in most clubs people don't shuffle well enough. This means less distributional hands and therefore less games. It's as simple as that.

Totally agree !

A lot of people think that computer dealt hands are wild because they are used to play human dealt hands that are too flat !!

Computer dealt hands are more in conformity with probabilities, of course.

Alain

[Gerben42]

Corollary: If you play a long team match with hand shuffled boards then it is a good strategy to:

* Shuffle well and make sure your opps do if you are the favorite.
* Not shuffle well if you are the underdog.

If the hands are boring enough the favorites won't score too much and maybe the underdog gets lucky.

[scoob]

didn't goren say something about shuffling like "once or twice; twice is probably too many"?

[FrancesHinden]

Gerben42, on Jun 7 2005, 06:06 AM, said:

Corollary: If you play a long team match with hand shuffled boards then it is a good strategy to:

* Shuffle well and make sure your opps do if you are the favorite.
* Not shuffle well if you are the underdog.

If the hands are boring enough the favorites won't score too much and maybe the underdog gets lucky.

Funnily enough I could say the opposite is true.

Wild hands (generally) have a greater potential for random swings - one way a poor team can win is to generate a lot and hope to come out on top.

But against that the good team have more of a chance to show off their superior judgement and ability to cope with bad breaks.

So all in all I like to shuffle well whoever I'm playing!

[hotShot]

whereagles, on Jun 7 2005, 09:26 AM, said:

15% chance for a slam? That's one every 6-7 boards, or about 4-5 per session.

Kinda looks a bit on the optimistic side to me, but...

The figures are about right!
This does not mean that these contracts can be bid. Based on double dummy analysis and figures posted from bridge browser in another thread indicate that indeed more than 50% of the boards can make game or slam even against perfect double dummy defence. In real life a poor defence can bring that rate higher.

[pigpenz]

Jlall, on Jun 7 2005, 09:10 AM, said:

42%? At my tables its like 80 %

JLall your right thats what I seem to notice too. I remember in old Barometer scored regionals the dog fights were all about partscore battles at the three level. I havent had a chance to look at very many acbl printouts from tourneys using deep finesse, but it just sort of peaked my curiosity from noticing the number of game in every hand boards.

[Rain]

Another factor to consider could also be that people on bbo may be bidding more aggressively than normal? I think a more accurate measure is the amount of raw scores /board generated?

[EricK]

whereagles, on Jun 7 2005, 09:26 AM, said:

15% chance for a slam? That's one every 6-7 boards, or about 4-5 per session.

Kinda looks a bit on the optimistic side to me, but...

It's amazing how many extra tricks you can make double dummy!

Eric

[hrothgar]

pigpenz, on Jun 7 2005, 02:05 AM, said:

I have noticed that to me it seems like there is game in everyhand sometimes. I was looking at some ACBL hand records that had Deep Finesse anlaysis on them and for 2 sessions there were 30 games out of 72 hands. Roughly 42% of the time. I was wondering if anyone else had ever thought about the frequency of games in the hands dealt from BBO?

This topic has been discussed several times on the BBO forums.

The rough consensus is that BBO's dealer is not biased in any meaningful way. As I recall, Fred stated at one point that he's done some statistical testing on the dealer function, however, this might have been in a private conversation.

[helene_t]

Maybe claims cause a positive bias. I'm not suggesting deliberate invalid claims, but sometimes it goes too fast in clocked tournaments and sometimes on borring boards in the main room. Besides, claims protect declarer against misclicks and stupid mistakes on the last tricks.

[Gerben42]

Quote

Besides, claims protect declarer against misclicks and stupid mistakes on the last tricks.

Defenders too! I like to claim as defender as well. I hate playing a hand out when nothing is going to happen so if declarer won't claim I will do so for him.