You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

evand comments on Open Thread August 31 - September 6 - Less Wrong Discussion

5 Post author: Elo 30 August 2015 09:26PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (326)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: evand 02 September 2015 07:48:34PM 2 points [-]

That's an excellent practical example, though it doesn't really have the explicit probability math I was hoping for.

In particular, I like that you'll see stuff like which player thinks the partnership has the better contract flips back and forth, especially around auctions involving controls, stops, or other specific invitational questions. The concept of evaluating your hand within a window ("My hand is now very weak, given that I opened") is also explicitly reasoning about what your partner infers based on what you told them.

I think the most important thing here might be that bridge requires multiple rounds because bidding is limited bandwidth, whereas giving a full-precision probability estimate is not.

Comment author: Lumifer 02 September 2015 08:04:49PM *  3 points [-]

If you want explicit probability math, you might be able to construct some kind of cooperative poker (for example, allow two partners to exchange one card from their hands following some very restricted negotiations). The probabilities in poker are much more straightforward and amenable to calculation.