Echognome

Adam- Very good post. I like how you characterized the different games.

Tim, I appreciate your input on the matter. My view is that people are unnecessarily entangling the Loop issue (which to me is not an issue) and less than full disclosure. I believe the laws are pretty clear on disclosure. If you feel that they are uneforceable in many cases, then I agree with you. I would go further to say that you cannot stop all forms of cheating either and that's how I view people trying to skate on disclosure issues. So to answer your post directly, I'd say you have the solution. When the opening side then opens a bad weak two-bid and opens it anyway (that isn't a problem in itself), but then his partner plays him for it (let's say he "fields it"), then we do have a problem. But this problem is no different than any other problem involving psyching. I hope that clarifies it. -Gnome

I'd rather discuss this in the other thread I made. I think the answer is you simply extend your strategy as you mentioned (the if X becomes if you psych less than Y% we do Z). I really don't see the problem being the Loop, but rather a side issue that the opponents aren't giving full disclosure.

I would first applaud the attempted discussion at disclosure. The practical solution is to rely on the general thresholds set by the regulating authorities. I know you picked 1 in 20 to demonstrate a point, but I suppose it's more like 1 in 100 that is legal. If the opening side psychs less than that, I don't see what the problem is. We're not protected against psyching in general are we?

So, my solution to the Loop is as follows: 1) If the opponents ask me what defense I play, then I can tell them my entire strategy set. If they play X, I play Y, for all X (that is reasonable). The opponents can then tell me what they play. The opponents are defined to be limited to playing only strategies allowed by convention regulations. They are allowed to psych (deviate from their agreements), but restricted to the general rules and disclosure relating to psychs. Note that we do not have the Loop of: "We play conventional doubles" "Then we play a weak NT" "Then we play penalty doubles" "Then we play a strong NT" etc. Because the conversation goes: "We play penalty doubles against weak NT (and 3rd NV NT) and conventional doubles against strong NT." "Ok. Then we play strong NT." The conversation doesn't go: "Then we play a strong NT, but we're going to psych it often." My feeling is that this is how people would like to play the game. 2) My understanding from Ed and David is that the conversation should go differently. "What defense do you play against NT?" "I won't tell you until you tell me what your agreements are about 1NT first. You have to declare your agreements first before I have to tell you my defense according to regulation." "We play a strong NT." "Then we play conventional doubles." "Then we play ..." <interrupted> "Director!"

This simplest form of a loop (in pure strategies) comes from the "Matching Pennies" game. From Wiki: Note that this is a simultaneous game and has an equilibrium in mixed strategies, but not pure strategies.

Rather than add on to Fred's thread, I thought it prudent to start a thread on "the Loop" here. As I think the explanations are clearest relying on the well-established theory of games, I thought it best to start with some definitions and work from there. Much of this has been compiled from Wiki for my convenience. STRATEGIES Game - A game consists of a set of players, a set of moves (or strategies) available to those players, and a specification of payoffs for each combination of strategies. We can also add a set of information or beliefs available to the players. Strategy - In game theory, a player's strategy in a game is a complete plan of action for whatever situation might arise; this fully determines the player's behaviour. A player's strategy will determine the action the player will take at any stage of the game, for every possible history of play up to that stage. A pure strategy provides a complete definition of how a player will play a game. In particular, it determines the move a player will make for any situation they could face. A player's strategy set is the set of pure strategies available to that player. A mixed strategy is an assignment of a probability to each pure strategy. This allows for a player to randomly select a pure strategy. Since probabilities are continuous, there are infinitely many mixed strategies available to a player, even if their strategy set is finite. Of course, one can regard a pure strategy as a degenerate case of a mixed strategy, in which that particular pure strategy is selected with probability 1 and every other strategy with probability 0. DOMINANT AND DOMINATED STRATEGIES B dominates A: choosing B always gives at least as good an outcome as choosing A. There are 2 possibilities: B strictly dominates A: choosing B always gives a better outcome than choosing A, no matter what the other player(s) do. B weakly dominates A: There is at least one set of opponents' action for which B is superior, and all other sets of opponents' actions give B at least the same payoff as A. B is dominated by A: choosing B never gives a better outcome than choosing A, no matter what the other player(s) do. There are 2 possibilities: B is weakly dominated by A: There is at least one set of opponents' actions for which B gives a worse outcome than A, while all other sets of opponents' actions give A at least the same payoff as B. (Strategy A weakly dominates B ). B is strictly dominated by A: choosing B always gives a worse outcome than choosing A, no matter what the other player(s) do. (Strategy A strictly dominates B ). RATIONALITY Note that a player is considered rational if he does not choose a strictly dominated strategy. One of the first "loops" you hear about is: Player A is rational. Player B knows A is rational. Player A knows that B knows that he is rational. Player B knows that A knows that B knows... etc ad nauseum. In game theory, the best response is the strategy (or strategies) which produces the most favorable outcome for a player, taking other players' strategies as given. The concept of a best response is central to John Nash's best-known contribution, the Nash equilibrium, the point at which each player in a game has selected the best response (or one of the best responses) to the other players' strategies. TIMING Simultaneous games are games where both players move simultaneously, or if they do not move simultaneously, the later players are unaware of the earlier players' actions (making them effectively simultaneous). A sequential game is a game where one player chooses his action before the others choose theirs. Importantly, the later players must have some information of the first's choice, otherwise the difference in time would have no strategic effect. Extensive form representations are usually used for sequential games, since they explicitly illustrate the sequential aspects of a game. Sequential games are often solved by backward induction. I think that is enough for a common set of definitions at this point.

Maybe we can start a separate thread on "the Loop", because this is an example of terrible thread jacking. Apologies for my contribution to that end.

Of course it does. I was just telling you how you broaden your strategy space. If you have to broaden it further, so be it. I can't really explain further on the matter.

Further extending the aside... sigh. Note that I only mentioned "mixed strategies" if you included your propensities to psych in your disclosures as a mixed strategy. If you psych using a mixed strategy, then that should be, de facto disclosable. Or do you disagree? Best response is definitional and is used to define a strategy that is the best response to another player (or all other player's) given strategy. A Nash equilibrium is defined as a fixed point of a best response correspondence. In order to guarantee existence of an equilibrium, you have to allow for mixed strategies (to get out of your rock-paper-scissors dilemma). A mixed strategy is a superset of pure strategies. So I'm not really sure what it is you are trying to say. Explain and I can respond. Or give an example. Note that in bridge, someone has to decide first. What you are mentioning above as "dependent strategy" I called a "conditional strategy". There is no loop if the game is not played simultaneously. If it is, then the only equilibrium exists in mixed strategies (see my response above). A further aside? If people do not disclose their strategy, then you have a further wrinkle. It is handleable, in game theory, at least since your strategies depend on the information available. It may be via disclosure or your belief that your opponents are lying. Did I miss anything?

Tough to add anything insightful to what Frances wrote. So, I'll simply concur with her.

What do psyches have to do with agreements? Edit: Other than that they are a departure from what you have agreed. You are associating my use of the word "strategy" with psyching, which I had no intention of at all. I understand why you do this, but you are "dead wrong" in your interpretation of what I'm saying. Further edit: Even if you want to pull the propensity to psych into your agreements and disclosure (and I don't have a problem with that), given the order in which bidding occurs, do you agree that it is not a loop? The defense has a conditional strategy, whereas the side opening NT can have a strategy knowing the conditional strategy. It is no more of a loop than full rationality is a loop. And even if it is a loop in rationality, you know that it is solvable (at least in mixed strategies).

When I read this, I thought "No matter what you might gain in more accurate bidding, you will lose in extra memory strain on an infrequent auction." The auction is rare and there is a standard meaning. Why not find lower lying apples on the tree?

After reading the accounts, I certainly believe Fred didn't field in the Vandy. You can just imagine someone giving the bidding problem without any reference to any AI from the opponents and it's a completely different situation. I'm sure this is why it becomes difficult to judge. You never get a bidding problem with such details given as Fred has and then asked what you would do. I suspect if TD's polled in such a fashion, they might get quite different answers than without such details. I think the Loop argument is really a joke and also detracting from the main issue here. Expand your minds folks! It's really, really simple: "What is your defense to 1NT?" "Against weak we play X, against strong we play Y, if you are in 3rd NV we play Z." So guess what? You have to bid 1NT before we defend. You can choose your range given our strategy (which is conditional), so go ahead and decide. No Loop. It's only a loop if you limit your strategy space. Unlimit yourself.

Sathya, Fair enough for a question. Unfortunately, I do not have enough familiarity with the methods to know how they bid these types of hands. I guess they have to choose whether 3♣ shows this hand or the same hand shape with QJTxxxx in clubs instead. Perhaps they pass 2♥ on that hand? -Gnome

If we're playing jump shifts to a minor as invites, then if we judge our hand to be too heavy for an invite, it's obviously a GF. I personally don't view our hand, with a heart void, to be a GF, so then I would start with 3♣ invitational. In my personal methods, we don't allow 3 card support for that bid, so North, with his weak trump spots, might try 3NT. If we're not playing invitational jump shifts, then I would need to know what we are playing. As an example, are we playing 2/1 GF except rebid of a minor? In that case, then that's my obvious choice. North can then rebid 2♥ and over our 3♣ call, he can try 3NT. I can't answer what else I would do until I know what we are playing.

Not that you might not run into trouble later, but it seems exceedingly simple to play: 1♥ - 1♠; 2♣ - 3♦ = 5-5 GF Of course it's going to be difficult to show your entire hand, but it's not to say that it cannot be done. You might also argue that some people play 3♦ as INV. So be it. But every system you design is going to have some difficult hands to bid. Obviously if you give me an uncontested auction every time, put me down for relay.

24C = 75F which seems like a very comfortable temperature. I'm sure the humidity might make things a lot hotter, but I would hardly think of the words "heat wave". :P B) Although I do note that you say it's 3:30AM. I imagine that it might stay above 90F in certain parts of the south well into the morning.

[hv=d=e&v=n&s=sxhxxxdqxxxcqxxxx]133|100|Scoring: MP (2♠) - P - (4♠) - Dbl; (P) - ?[/hv] Problem courtesy of Ch00. What say you?

Totally agree with this comment. Even if you choose to upgrade to 1♣, why not break the relay to show your suit? Perhaps you play breaks as showing misfits with partner, but then that's more the reason not to open a strong club in the first place.

I would bid 2♠. I considered 2♥ and 2NT. I don't like 2NT, because it precludes reaching 3♣ (if that's what partner wanted to do) and it may preclude 3♦ if you don't have a system to reach there. That leaves me with 2♥ or 2♠ and I like the idea of showing 9 of my cards, even if it's an overbid because of the scattered honors. I can live with 2♥ though.

1. It seems that the TD has a prudent policy. If the TD can replace missing pairs before the tourney starts, then there will be less of a hassle at the start of the tournament with substituting missing players and it will be more enjoyable for everyone. 2. There are many, many tournaments that occur on BBO all the time. How put out were you that you had to wait until the next tournament? 3. If you were just going to be away for a brief amount of time, why did you log off? Why not just click on that little box on your profile that says "Be Right Back"? 4. I personally think of this talk of deceipt by BBO is nonsense. I think you were put out, because you had a TD that actually does work in order to make their tournaments more enjoyable! Suppose you play in the tournament where the TD doesn't care. Let's the tourney start with offline pairs. About 10 tables start with missing players. Maybe the TD let's the players sort out their own subs, but this doesn't happen. So the tables are sitting there not being able to play. Now BBO is hearing complaints that the TD is doing nothing. Just be grateful you have a TD willing to work!

I would hardly call it a "pet gadget" and will also go so far as to say it's "standard" in many places. I think it's somewhat ironic Wayne, that I went out of my way to clarify that this wasn't the style in all places, something you often harp about when the talk becomes ACBL centric, and that you have a hard time acknowledging that there may be a local standard different from what you play. What gives?

Too strong in my book, but if you need to make an adjustment, just add, say the ♠T or the ♥Q. Whatever it is you need to do. Perhaps you don't have a hand in your system with this problem, because you would open 2♣. To each his own. I was just answering Wayne's question of how you show such a hand in that 18-20 range.

I pass as well. It's possible they make. Tough luck.