Talk:Principle of restricted choice

message: I'm not sure that my description of the PRT is clear. Should I/someone else remove the combinaitons that don't matter?
Totally unclear.
Any suggestions to improve it then? Cambion 17:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarity

message: This article is full of jargon that can't be understood just by referring the bridge glossary page.  I have no idea what these terms mean; could someone in-the-know please clarify?  Thanks for any help. --Doradus 19:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem :-). As a non-bridge player, you might have chosen a wrong article to start with; many bridge players don't get the principle -- is it inavoidably difficult to explain to non-math geeks? Duja 23:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jargon 

message: Is it just me or did it look better with a simpler list eg:
*abcde
*abcdef
*abc
rather than the spaced out thing that doesn't seem to line up horizontally?Cambion 12:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with simpler list is that doesn't line up vertically. I also see the slight misalignment horizontally. I'll give it a try with a straightforward table. Duja 15:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: List format

message: I think we should try to avoid the term "quack" unless it's really awkward.  We're not computers, so having a "declaration" of what the word means up in the article intro isn't sufficient to avoid confusion, as Ralian recently demonstrated.  At least, the word "quack" itself should be a hyperlink to the appropriate definition; but my vote would be to reword the article without using "quack" at all.  --Doradus 17:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My apologies! I've been playing bridge for quite a while now and have amazingly never run into this -- rather hilarious -- terminology. I instantly grasped what it meant but thought it might have been either a typo or joke =P ralian 00:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ralian -- NP. My use of "who have played bridge" was not meant to refer to you. And Jeff Rubens, who appears to have invented the term quack, surely was being a little facetious at first, but the term turned out to be a valuable one. Xlmvp 00:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quack 

message: After a major rewrite today, this article includes two hidden comments that may be useful or interesting to some who do not examine the code; who do not read in edit mode.
: Uniform randomization may not be best in theory. Where best in theory it may be useless in practice, both because repeated play against the same opponents is limited and because humans cannot recognize or remember non-randomness very well; and also because randomization interferes with signaling between partners. Any randomization is difficult to implement and the rules of bridge forbid use of external aids such as the "seconds" displayed on a wristwatch. (on the last see )
: (The principle of restricted choice pertains to cards of different suits and hence to the choice of suits but it is much more difficult to recognize the relevant "equivalent" alternatives and the bridge literature is poorly developed. For one example see Martin (1989).) At Talk:Monty Hall problem, editor  Secondfoxbat recently challenged Martin's article harshly. Evidently the application to other non-standard situations is challenging to understand, not to mention explain. 
--P64 (talk) 03:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It does look a little cluttered. I'm pretty busy these days and have let my bridge slip enormously so one of you guys will have to tidy it up. I do agree that 'Bridge Odds for Practical Players' is a great book. :-) Cambion (talk) 19:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite 

message: I do not understand this section. What is the derivation of the odds shown in the table? How was it determined that the lies are not each equally likely? Intuitively, it seems they should be, given a random distribution of cards. 12.31.111.76 (talk) 04:23, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Odds in "Better Calculation of Odds" section