Talk:Suit combination

message: I am not sure about showing lists of the "correct" way to play various suit combinations for three reasons:
:1) There is often going to be split opinion on what is the "best" way
:2) If they are calculated using freeware software then how can we be sure they are "correct"? and surely this would be original research?
:3) If they are copied from publications, then what about copyright?
Abtract 19:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please have a look at the discussion on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Contract_bridge. JocK 22:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: will do.Abtract 22:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK I have read it (again, since I had forgotten I contributed to the original debate). This only confirms my view that we are on the wrong track here. My reading of the previous debate is that these tables are coming from an editor applying a computer progam in other words original research!Abtract 22:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Contract bridge about the use of a well-established computerprogram to generate examples seems to have converged to the conclusion that such does not constitute a violation of the Original Research Policy. If you have a strong opposing view, it might be best to add your arguments to the discussion there. JocK 23:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

text: According to that rationale an example of a numerical multiplication like 1234 * 5678 = 7006652 obtained using a spreadsheet (or calculator) would be classified as 'original research'..? C'mon, anyone with a notepad and a pencil can check/derive the correct suit combinations, like anyone can check the above multiplication. It's just cumbersome, not complex. JocK 23:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

text: By the way: some time ago I checked the suitcombination examples listed in the article. All were listed in Roudinesco. However, we should still settle this discussion as the specific suitcombinations listed in the various tables referred to in this article are not all guarenteed to have been published either by Roudinesco or in 'The Encyclopedia'. JocK 23:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Suit combinations

message: "According to The Bridge Players' Encyclopedia"... Is this an existing publication? And more importantly: why would we remove the explanation that goes with the examples now atributed to this (non-existent?) publication? IMO this last edit certainly does not improve the article.  JocK 00:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: published by Paul Hamlyn. London, international edition edited by Ben Cohen and Rhoda Barrow ... bear in mind there were no citations in this section before my edit. Abtract 23:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see, that is the British edition of The Official Encyclopedia of Bridge. I prefer to refer to the latter (as was already done in the article) as it is much better known globally, and likely more up to date. JocK 23:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have no problems with that but there were no citations in the sections I have removed or changed ... these were clearly OR. We must be very careful not to show suggestions as though they are fact - the firsat section where I changed the examples was incorrect previously. Abtract 00:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please specify your objections against any of the examples in this discussion thread (rather than deleting 2/3 of the article without any discussion). Thanks. JocK 00:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My objections are clear - this is OR. Unless citations can be given to show that these are examples and suggested lines of play from recognised published sources, then they are not allowed in Wikipedia. Examples which apparently arrive out of thin air are not good; examples arising from the application by an editor of a computer programme are not allowable; and citations from a dubious web source are just that 'dubious'. What we need in this and (other) articles are references to published sources like the "(Official) Encyclopedia of Bridge" and other writings by reputable bridge pundits.Abtract 09:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that you have now put some citations in ... excellent. I will reconsider my objections in this light. Abtract 09:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Bridge Players Encyclopedia

message: The citations help ... I have improved the 'examples' section by removing POV words. However the next section I have removed entirely for two reasons. First, it doesn't show both sides of the debate, it only shows the "correction" but not the original version; second, it simply doesn't make sense - the suggestions as to what an expert player might or might not do with Axx are garbled. Abtract 14:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Improving

message: Does anyone know? is it a "reputable published source"? Abtract 21:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Warmerdam has published in the Bridge Journal IMP on the subject. I believe later editions of the OEoB have made corrections to their article 'suit combinations' based on Warmerdam's list of errors spotted. (Can't check this, as I don't have the latest edition of the OEoB). JocK 23:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But the site that's quoted just seems like a personal site ... IMHO this is not a reputable published source, and its not good enough to say he has written in a mag but you cant find the reference. sorry but this citation just isnt sufficient.Abtract 00:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What is this site that is referenced?

message: I am having difficulty believing that 2.09 tricks are better than 2.12 trick regardless of scoring method ... I also wonder what the difference is between "best" and "optimal" ... plus there are no citations in this section so I wonder if it is original research or are the citations simply missing? Abtract 22:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What he is saying is that if every other person played the contract by the method that takes 2.12 tricks on average then if the same combination was played many times then by taking the 2.09 trick method you would get a higher total match point percentage. Imagine it as the 2.09 method is sometimes 2 tricks worse but and some times 1 trick worse. However, it is one trick better more times than it is 1 or 2 tricks worse Cambion 17:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I suspected it meant that but I wonder if you agree that the the explanation in the article is somewhat convoluted ... and moreover has no citations which makes it appear as OR? And I remain unhappy about best and optimal not being synonyms. Abtract 18:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Goal setting

message: I just had to laugh when I saw "non-exploitive play" without definition or reference (presumably it is buried somewhere in Game theory ... all this to avoid using "recommended". I simply don't have time for this nonsense but I guaranty that when I look in again in a month or so "non-exploitive play" will be missing ... Abtract 11:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: As improvements go ... 

message: Why do the pages like "Suit combinations - missing QJ" show up briefly, then disappear? Mark314159 (talk) 02:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Those pages were unreferenced and the result of original research so they were deleted. Abtract (talk) 19:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, but (a) Why do they flash on the screen before disappearing? and (b) Why aren't older versions available, as with other edits? Mark314159 (talk) 02:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry no idea. Abtract (talk) 17:05, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suit combination pages flash up briefly 

message: :Tables of suit combinations 
:The correct treatment of the various suit combinations obtained with the computer program SuitPlaySuitPlay by Jeroen Warmerdam is listed in separate tables. These are classified according to the honour cards (ace, king, queen, jack and ten) missing from the two hands. The tables can be reached using the links provided below.
That was the final prose section, preceding "See also" and other footer sections. --P64 (talk) 00:18, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  delete Tables 

message: Probably the particular suit combinations covered in the regular and "Mixed strategies" sections need specific references.
: KT84:Q32 and KT87:Q32
These are so similar that any reader may suppose a clerical error by the wikipeditor --except for the mention of "small change", which is unmotivated. Why is this "small change in layout" appropriate?
If the second, "Mixed strategies" example, represents a correction of some manual analysis, then it needs reference to the particular manual analysis. --P64 (talk) 00:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Then change it ... your other recent edits have been good so go for it. Abtract (talk) 17:10, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  citation needed 

message: The play described as a Grosvenor Gambit is not actually one.  Taking the ace can hardly be described as illogical or irrational - at most it may be poor play, and there are many reasons why the defender may think it's the right thing to do.  I would suggest that the entire sentence is removed.  Estienne (talk) 01:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grosvenor Gambit