[Geoduck2]

Also, if the definition of a psyche is . . a deliberate and gross misstatement of honor strength and/or of suit length. . . then,
if opening with 10 points is a psyche in one case, why wouldn't it be a psyche in every case? . . . and if it isn't. . then why not?

And if the answer relates back to the intent of the player making the bid, then how does a TD determine a players intent, especially on an opening bid?

[blackshoe]

 Geoduck2, on 2011-April-09, 16:01, said:

Isn't there something additional about intent to mislead the ops?

Nope.

Once upon a time (actually, probably more than once, but never mind that...) I perpetrated a rather stupid 2♦ bid, for which I had nowhere near the values. I was told it was a "gross misbid". I said "so it was a psych?" The reply was "no, because you had no clue what you were doing".

The point of the story is that one wouldn't psych if one didn't want to mislead somebody - but that intent is not part of the definition, except insofar as the definition includes the word "deliberate".

[Geoduck2]

LOL . . . I love the story

[barmar]

 Geoduck2, on 2011-April-09, 16:12, said:

Also, if the definition of a psyche is . . a deliberate and gross misstatement of honor strength and/or of suit length. . . then,
if opening with 10 points is a psyche in one case, why wouldn't it be a psyche in every case? . . . and if it isn't. . then why not?

If you do it in 3rd seat, it's probably not a psyche, since it's common to open light in 3rd seat. If you have compensating shape (e.g. a 5-5 hand that meets the Rule of 20 or Rule of 22), it's not a psyche. If you're playing Precision, it's not a psyche, since Precision players tend to open light -- most 11 counts are opened, so a 10 count is not a "gross misstatement".

Quote

And if the answer relates back to the intent of the player making the bid, then how does a TD determine a players intent, especially on an opening bid?

The same way he determines it about any other bid: he asks him. Why do you think it's any harder to do this for opening bids than other bids?

If the player miscounted his points, or mis-sorted his hand, or something like that, it's not a psyche. If he misclicked, it's not a psyche. And if the player is ethical, he will truthfully answer why he made the bid that doesn't match his hand.

[nige1]

 fred, on 2009-August-27, 08:37, said:

Computer software advances over the years have, by and large, made it easier for TDs to do their jobs well. For example, when I started playing bridge, scoring matchpoint games was done by hand and this was a stressful, time-consuming, and error-prone process for many TDs. The development of scoring software has resulted in TDs not having to get involved in this anymore. Life has become better for both TDs and players as a result.

Scoring with travellers, scorers like Ian Morrison and Eric Crowhurst were faster and more accurate than computers. Pickup slips and Bridge-mates may now have given machines a slight edge.

 fred, on 2009-August-27, 08:37, said:

However, one relatively recent software development, that of fast double dummy solvers (like GIB) and the integration of such software into programs like BBO gives me cause for concern. I am concerned because correspondence with both TDs and players in BBO tournaments suggests to me that some TDs do not really understand what GIB is all about and depend far too heavily on GIB to help them to make scoring adjustments. [SNIP]

I agree with most of Fred's arguments but disagree with his conclusion. IMO...

Subjectivity cannot be eliminated from laws but the current Bridge-laws require too much director-judgement. Objective criteria including results at other tables and computer-analysis are more acceptable than the director's subjective judgement.

Partially, this is because justice should be seen to be done. Under current rules, players on the losing side of a ruling often complain that the ruling is unfair, especially if another director would make a different ruling on identical facts. (see BBO law-forum disputes, ad nauseam). An international acquaintance once boasted that he could predict the result of an appeal if he knew the names of the protagonists and the committee -- the facts of the case were irrelevant. He may have been exaggerating

Anyway, the director need not rely on a one-off double-dummy analysis. He could use the play-result of four robots, playing "single-dummy", from the time of the irregularity. The Robots could use the FD system descriptions of the players. The robots could generate many simulated deals, in keeping with their own hands and the players' assumptions -- and analyse each double-dummy.
They would do this before each bid or play (Similar to the way Gib plays in tournaments). And the experiment could be repeated as many times as deemed necessary.

An aside: Has there ever been a challenge-match where a Team of four humans played against four Gibs?

Both sides could play at their top-settings

Paul Gipson could allow the Metropolis team to compete in his BBO inter-city competition.

Given all the BBF Gib-libels, the result would be interesting

[bluejak]

 Geoduck2, on 2011-April-09, 16:01, said:

Isn't there something additional about intent to mislead the ops?

Intent, yes, misleading opponents, no. A psyche is deliberate. If you open 1♠ because you had a club in your spades - unusual playing online, but I have made such a bid online myself - or have opened 2♦ with diamonds forgetting you are playing the Multi then that is a misbid not a psyche. But since psyches and misbids are treated pretty much the same - they are both legal - it hardly matters.

 Geoduck2, on 2011-April-09, 16:12, said:

Also, if the definition of a psyche is . . a deliberate and gross misstatement of honor strength and/or of suit length. . . then,
if opening with 10 points is a psyche in one case, why wouldn't it be a psyche in every case? . . . and if it isn't. . then why not?

And if the answer relates back to the intent of the player making the bid, then how does a TD determine a players intent, especially on an opening bid?

You determine a players' intent by asking him why he did it!

But what do you want to know for?

[barmar]

Some organizations keep a record of psyches, so they can determine if you repeat the same type of psyche with that partner enough that a CPU is likely. So determining whether a bid is a psyche or misbid can be important.

[mycroft]

Well, as far as CPU, I don't think it matters.

I misbid 2H (meaning transfer to spades) in an auction where Lebensohl was on, having forgotten my agreement. It happened to cut them out of their heart fit, and we got a good score. So the next time I have a 6-1-x-x hand white, I do it again, as a psychic. It works again, surprisingly.

Does it really matter to partner "starting to clue in" which one was intentional and which was a brainfart? Or if both were one or the other?

"it means <X>, but partner has a habit of forgetting and bidding it with <Y>" is as much a partnership understanding as "it means <X>, but partner has a habit of psyching it with <Y>", it seems to me...

But I think those "psychic recording books" are mostly used for social engineering ("It's not illegal, it's Just Not Done Here, Dear.") But I've been known to be cynical.

[bluejak]

 barmar, on 2011-April-22, 20:56, said:

Some organizations keep a record of psyches, so they can determine if you repeat the same type of psyche with that partner enough that a CPU is likely. So determining whether a bid is a psyche or misbid can be important.

Not at all. Thew Law's the same.

[nige1]

 barmar, on 2011-April-22, 20:56, said:

Some organizations keep a record of psyches, so they can determine if you repeat the same type of psyche with that partner enough that a CPU is likely. So determining whether a bid is a psyche or misbid can be important.

 bluejak, on 2011-April-27, 16:48, said:

Not at all. Thew Law's the same.

I didn't know misbids were recorded. How are pyschs and misbids recorded? Are records collated nationally? internationally? Do such databases cause problems with any country's local data-protection or privacy legislation?

[0 carbon]

I think it would be advantageous in clocked tourneys if the software could count the time spent by each pair to help determine slow play, and award Avg+ to the pair taking the lesser time and Avg- to the pair taking more time.

[0 carbon]

Why does GIB have to always be explicitly called? Why not display best possible double dummy results for all finished hands for everyone? Then use GIB only to explore lines or partial positions.

[runewell]

Here was a hand from an IMP tourney

♠ KQxx
♥ AKJ
♦ Kxx
♣ Qxx

♠ Ax
♥ QT98x
♦ Axx
♣ AT9

in 6♥ you can pitch a diamond on dummy's spade. For the clubs, it's KJx in RHO's hand. So running the queen works, and less likely is low to the queen and then finesse the jack but that works.
But a lot of players are going to try cashing the ace and then up to the queen, losing two clubs. This is a total guess, and if the guess isn't made I think director needs to assign an average board.
I sometimes wonder if people intentionally slow play tough hands to get the double dummy result. I've argued with a TD or two and gotten justice before, but in a game this big some people will lose out.

[barmar]

 runewell, on 2014-March-12, 19:59, said:

I sometimes wonder if people intentionally slow play tough hands to get the double dummy result.

This will only work if it's the last hand of the round. Maybe we should put something in the hand dealer to avoid hands requiring guesses in that hand.

[steve2005]

I had one where they had played 2 tricks and got the double dummy result of dropping offside doubleton Q in 6N for +1.

if they guess wrong and finesse would be -4

[0 carbon]

GIB has the advantage that you can invoke it at any point in the play of the hand.
TDs adjusting "AVE" boards can play up to the last card and then use GIB to see the best result by assuming each player makes their best play. Adjusting without playing to the last card is unfair to the players.
But since this is automatic, why not an option when setting up a clocked tournament to automatically adjust unfinished boards with a contract? Yes, this can be abused too, but is still fairer to all.

[Keene_JP]

Fred -- very good article. My question relates to incident when i was directing VACB game yesterday. On an incomplete hand, GIB assigned A== and NS complained. Investigation revealed that only 4 1/2 tricks had been played. Even though declarer was very good player and outlined what he would have done (perhaps benefiting from seeing all hands afterward) i felt that with 8 1/2 tricks to go, there was too much uncertainty and let the GIB ruling stand. Was this wrong? Is there a required minimal # tricks played before adjustments other than A== should be made?

In reductio ad absurdum: one side reaches, say 3NT, and opening lead is made -- then -- that's all. Time limit reached. Given the lead, say there are 9 obvious off the top tricks and no hope for more. What should be done?

Thanks in advance for your answer -- i've caught a lot of flak over this, including be called "lazy".

-=-= Keene_JP

[barmar]

GIB doesn't assign A==. That's the default assignment for any hand that isn't completed when the round ends.

[Keene_JP]

 barmar, on 2020-July-12, 13:19, said:

GIB doesn't assign A==. That's the default assignment for any hand that isn't completed when the round ends.

[Keene_JP]

as director i've received notifications from the system re an incomplete board. by the time i get to the table, it has been adjusted to something like 'making', 'down 1'. etc. I'm the only director -- must be GIB doing this. SO -- does GIB first give A== and then later review ? Confused.