[mr1303]

The Volcanic one, who won with 59.75%

Honourable mentions also go to Nigel_K, Phil in a tie for second on 55%, Sallyally in 4th on 53, Hanoi5 in 5th on 52.5% & Echognome in 6th on 51.75%

20 participants took part, and the maximum attainable percentage in this poll was 69.5%

I should also mention that on hands 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7, over 80% of the participants selected the same options, and on 3, 6 & 7 these weren't the top scoring options.

PM me if you want to know your score if I haven't mentioned it already here (or I can post all of them if a majority want me to).

[whereagles]

The hands can be found here:

http://www.abridgema...date=1295056800
(Some have been presented rotated, for convenience.)

I'll let you know tomorrow how much your poll author scored in real life

[nigel_k]

Please no more opening bid problems next time. How can we be expected to beat a junior when two of the top scores are for opening the bidding when we don't have an opening bid?

[kayin801]

nigel_k, on 2011-February-14, 18:38, said:

Please no more opening bid problems next time. How can we be expected to beat a junior when two of the top scores are for opening the bidding when we don't have an opening bid?

I'm pretty sure Adam passed both opening bid problems

[mtvesuvius]

lol I passed the 4-5 major hand and opened the flat 11.

[JLOGIC]

I knew I couldn't beat Adam so I chose not to enter the contest

[whereagles]

Ok, so BPO 9 hands 1, 2, 3, 4 were session 1 respectively boards 21, 22, 25, 27. Hands 5, 6, 7 were session 2 boards 1, 5, 7. Hand 8 was session 3, board 1.

I though I could give you my score, but then I realized I only had the decision on two hands. One I got wrong, the other I got right, so I probably wouldn't win my own contest LOL

Anyway, before I repeat this in the future, I'd like to know which of the following you'd think it's closer to what you think:

1. "I liked the scoring format of this poll, but the hands weren't adequate for it."

2. "The hands were fine, the scoring not."

3. "The whole idea was cool, would do it again."

[cherdano]

If you really want an honest opinion: Most of the hands were not interesting. For polls, it's best to find hands with at least 3 bids that are plausible and likely to get votes. The scoring format is a joke, but who cares?

[han]

One of the hands was quite interesting I thought, even though there were only 2 reasonable options. I really didn't like the postmortems by wereagles. The scoring was fine, always difficult.

[nigel_k]

The hands were ok, but presumably you're going to choose the most interesting hands you can find for the next one regardless. As I said before, no opening bids. They should be hands where some meaningful analysis can be done.

For scoring, I guess there are three ways to do it:
1) Based on table result, the way you did it his time
2) Based on what action the moderator believes is best
3) Based on the voting

If you want a purely objective method, I prefer 3 to 1. If the popular choice is different to the choice that worked at the table, this is more likely to be because the actual hand was unusual than because the forum mostly got it wrong.

I actually think a combination of 2 and 3 could be best, i.e. the way bidding forums do it now. Score each one out of 10 based on the voting, the arguments made for each choice, and the moderators personal preference.

[cherdano]

Nigel's scoring method number 2), or his combination 2) + 3), needs a moderator above any criticism, or there will be endless discussions about scores.

[whereagles]

I'm not sure such a moderator exists

[Phil]

Whenever there are only one or two choices, it makes for a dull problem, even if the problem is well thought out. I also do not like seeing a problem that has a prior action that is patently wrong like a preemptive raise on a nine count. Anyone that does a poll in the future would be well served by screening the problems with a top player to cull out poor problems.

Following the results of the poll should determine the high score, unless the highest total on a vote runs counter to the overall trend of voting as can happen in a pass versus bid scenario.

There isn't anyone that is qualified to override a majority vote on here, unless Kokish or Cohen start posting on BBF.

I'm probably more amenable to others to partially applying the table result to the scoring. It adds a real world element, although if someone constructing a poll is going down this road, you have to be very honest and objective about choosing what hands to use, and not just those that represent how much of a genius you were at the table.

[nigel_k]

I'm willing to live with a moderator assigning scores I disagree with.

Using the table result is pretty random, especially when the problems will often be cases where the chosen table action didn't work. Using the poll result is less bad, but it has the unfortunate effect that you score high by knowing what other people will choose, rather than just knowing about bridge. And it is strongly dependent on who votes. So I think a subjective score is the least bad alternative.

[whereagles]

Phil, it's not really a matter of sorting. Sometimes good hands for problems don't show up and you have to make do with what you have. Besides, a good player may be a poor sorter.

[Fluffy]

CAn you tell me my score and position?, no need to PM me my 17th position, I am not that ashamed

[pooltuna]

Fluffy, on 2011-February-16, 02:44, said:

CAn you tell me my score and position?, no need to PM me my 17th position, I am not that ashamed

likewise

[Phil]

whereagles, on 2011-February-15, 23:19, said:

Phil, it's not really a matter of sorting. Sometimes good hands for problems don't show up and you have to make do with what you have. Besides, a good player may be a poor sorter.

Its a matter of ego.

[mr1303]

Fluffy came in with 39.25% & Pooltuna 28.75%. Which in fairness wasn't last...

Bear in mind you lost points for abstaining on two hands..

[y66]

nigel_k, on 2011-February-15, 13:27, said:

The hands were ok, but presumably you're going to choose the most interesting hands you can find for the next one regardless. As I said before, no opening bids. They should be hands where some meaningful analysis can be done.

For scoring, I guess there are three ways to do it:
1) Based on table result, the way you did it his time
2) Based on what action the moderator believes is best
3) Based on the voting

If you want a purely objective method, I prefer 3 to 1. If the popular choice is different to the choice that worked at the table, this is more likely to be because the actual hand was unusual than because the forum mostly got it wrong.

I actually think a combination of 2 and 3 could be best, i.e. the way bidding forums do it now. Score each one out of 10 based on the voting, the arguments made for each choice, and the moderators personal preference.

In Mike Lawrence's Bidding Newsletter, which is somewhat out-dated, this same problem arises. Numeric scores are provided based on table results. But the goal is really to think about the problems, understand pros and cons of alternative actions and learn something from the discussion.

With a spreadsheet, the incremental cost of multiple scoring methods, including a1+b2+c3 is negligible, once you have a template.