5 ms·

From the article: > Probability comes into play here: understanding distributions of cards and possible hands that opponents can have will allow you to figure

by SamBam 4y ago

From the article: > Probability comes into play here: understanding distributions of cards and possible hands that opponents can have will allow you to figure out how to play for the maximum number of tricks. This means that even in Duplicate Bridge there is an element of luck. If I know that the King of Spades is most likely in the hand of my opponent on my left, and I decide to act on that uncertain belief, we've entered the territory of luck. If I was right, I'll have a big advantage over the other "duplicate" teams I'm competing against. If I was wrong, I'll be scored poorly.

medler 4y ago
The element of luck is canceled out. If you get a great hand, it doesn’t matter, because your opponent at the other table has the exact same hand. We could quibble about whether this means there’s zero luck or merely a very small amount of luck involved, but in either case there is at most a small amount of luck.
- ALittleLight 4y ago
  What if you are only good at playing great hands and your opponent is good at playing average hands and bad at playing great ones. On average your opponent would be a better player, since average hands are more common. But, by luck, you are in a situation where your skill counts and not your opponent's.
- SamBam 4y ago
  You didn't read my comment. I didn't say anything about getting a great hand. I understand what Duplicate Bridge is. I was saying that sometimes bridge players make decisions based on luck/probability. They could be quite certain a specific card is in a specific hand, and different players might decide to go with their hunch or not. If they are lucky they will be rewarded for their hunch, if they are unlucky they will be punished for it. Let's put it even more clearly: suppose we had two players on separate tables, both have the same hand, and both have had the exact same series of events leading to their third trick (same bids, same cards played), and both players have accurately worked out that the King of Spades is most likely in the hand of the opponent to their right. One player goes with his gut and plays as if the King is definitely there, the other plays cautiously because he's not positive. Which player will end up with more points at the end? You can't know from the information given, because it depends on whether the first player was lucky or unlucky. (Yes, like poker the luck will eventually even out. I'm just saying it's wrong to say they're is no luck, when people can make decisions based on incomplete information.)
  - ackfoobar 4y ago
    Over more deals that element of luck averages out. But of course this can also be said for poker. To be pedantic we should then say duplicate bridge reduces a great deal, but not remove, the element of luck. But that's a mouthful.
Chris_Newton 4y ago
The thing with bridge is that, like poker, the game itself is unbiased. There is often an element of probability, but stronger players will tend to play lines that are more likely to succeed, so over time they have a better average performance. It’s also true in both games that as you improve you develop a deeper understanding to the point where you’re almost playing a different game. Where a beginner might be happy to play 100% lines, an improving player will consider the cards they can see but also what might be happening with the others and they will play lines that get better results on average by looking at the probabilities. A good player will see a bigger picture still, not only considering a priori possibilities for the hidden cards but also drawing inferences from what every other player does or doesn’t do and what each player would have known at the time. That means a lot of “lucky” decisions that good players make actually had a much higher probability of success than an intermediate player’s calculations would suggest. At this level, both games also have an element of not just playing your own cards well but also painting a credible but incorrect picture for one or more opponents to trick them into doing something that helps you. That certainly does need an excellent understanding of the probabilities, but the final result is mostly due to the skill of the players in setting the trap and then either avoiding or falling into it.
- kqr 4y ago
  > That means a lot of “lucky” decisions that good players make actually had a much higher probability of success One thing I like about poker is that winning in the long run is not about improving your probability of success, it's about improving the expected profits. So you could actually start winning more by playing lower-probability hands, as long as when you win them, your profits are much greater. This is one of the peculiar life lessons of Poker that I haven't seen many other places. Is bridge like that or is it purely about probabilities?
  - Chris_Newton 4y ago
    Yes, that’s a big element in bridge as well. Both phases of the game are built around a combination of smaller/incremental scores combined with key thresholds where you get big bonuses if you try to reach them and make it but there is also a high cost if you over-reach and miss. Depending on the tactical situation and the precise form of scoring, making it to a key threshold or preventing your opponents from doing so could be the only thing that really matters. You’ll gladly sacrifice a smaller ± score even with a high probability of winning a few extra points from it in order to achieve your main objective more reliably. However, in other tactical situations or forms of scoring, whether or not a side reaches a key threshold is mostly irrelevant and the relatively small variations add up to make all the difference over time.

by SamBam 4y ago

medler 4y ago

The element of luck is canceled out. If you get a great hand, it doesn’t matter, because your opponent at the other table has the exact same hand. We could quibble about whether this means there’s zero luck or merely a very small amount of luck involved, but in either case there is at most a small amount of luck.

ALittleLight 4y ago
What if you are only good at playing great hands and your opponent is good at playing average hands and bad at playing great ones. On average your opponent would be a better player, since average hands are more common. But, by luck, you are in a situation where your skill counts and not your opponent's.
SamBam 4y ago
You didn't read my comment. I didn't say anything about getting a great hand. I understand what Duplicate Bridge is. I was saying that sometimes bridge players make decisions based on luck/probability. They could be quite certain a specific card is in a specific hand, and different players might decide to go with their hunch or not. If they are lucky they will be rewarded for their hunch, if they are unlucky they will be punished for it. Let's put it even more clearly: suppose we had two players on separate tables, both have the same hand, and both have had the exact same series of events leading to their third trick (same bids, same cards played), and both players have accurately worked out that the King of Spades is most likely in the hand of the opponent to their right. One player goes with his gut and plays as if the King is definitely there, the other plays cautiously because he's not positive. Which player will end up with more points at the end? You can't know from the information given, because it depends on whether the first player was lucky or unlucky. (Yes, like poker the luck will eventually even out. I'm just saying it's wrong to say they're is no luck, when people can make decisions based on incomplete information.)
- ackfoobar 4y ago
  Over more deals that element of luck averages out. But of course this can also be said for poker. To be pedantic we should then say duplicate bridge reduces a great deal, but not remove, the element of luck. But that's a mouthful.

Chris_Newton 4y ago

The thing with bridge is that, like poker, the game itself is unbiased. There is often an element of probability, but stronger players will tend to play lines that are more likely to succeed, so over time they have a better average performance. It’s also true in both games that as you improve you develop a deeper understanding to the point where you’re almost playing a different game. Where a beginner might be happy to play 100% lines, an improving player will consider the cards they can see but also what might be happening with the others and they will play lines that get better results on average by looking at the probabilities. A good player will see a bigger picture still, not only considering a priori possibilities for the hidden cards but also drawing inferences from what every other player does or doesn’t do and what each player would have known at the time. That means a lot of “lucky” decisions that good players make actually had a much higher probability of success than an intermediate player’s calculations would suggest. At this level, both games also have an element of not just playing your own cards well but also painting a credible but incorrect picture for one or more opponents to trick them into doing something that helps you. That certainly does need an excellent understanding of the probabilities, but the final result is mostly due to the skill of the players in setting the trap and then either avoiding or falling into it.

kqr 4y ago
> That means a lot of “lucky” decisions that good players make actually had a much higher probability of success One thing I like about poker is that winning in the long run is not about improving your probability of success, it's about improving the expected profits. So you could actually start winning more by playing lower-probability hands, as long as when you win them, your profits are much greater. This is one of the peculiar life lessons of Poker that I haven't seen many other places. Is bridge like that or is it purely about probabilities?
- Chris_Newton 4y ago
  Yes, that’s a big element in bridge as well. Both phases of the game are built around a combination of smaller/incremental scores combined with key thresholds where you get big bonuses if you try to reach them and make it but there is also a high cost if you over-reach and miss. Depending on the tactical situation and the precise form of scoring, making it to a key threshold or preventing your opponents from doing so could be the only thing that really matters. You’ll gladly sacrifice a smaller ± score even with a high probability of winning a few extra points from it in order to achieve your main objective more reliably. However, in other tactical situations or forms of scoring, whether or not a side reaches a key threshold is mostly irrelevant and the relatively small variations add up to make all the difference over time.