Trinidad

I agree. Sims are not for beginners. On the other hand, if an expert (much better than the TD) says: "Given the fact that my partner has shown xyz, I will be able to take 10+ tricks about 75 % of the time, and, therefore, bidding this game at IMPs is the only LA.", a sim could help the TD. It could test whether there are indeed 10+ tricks about 75 % of the time, something the TD might not be able to envision. If the sim shows that there are 10+ tricks only 50 % of the time, the ruling is simple: The true value is 50 %, the expert was off by 25 %, the error in his estimate (or the "self serving bias"). In a pessimistic mood, this expert could well have erred on the other side and judged that game was only 25%, making bidding it a poor proposition. Staying in a partscore is an LA. If, OTOH, the sim showed that there were 10+ tricks in 74.78% of the cases, the expert was correct. Staying in a partscore is not an LA for a peer of this player. Rik

I am not stating that a computer sim would accomodate a class of player, but I think that there are situations where a sim might be useful. Suppose a player choses an action because he reasons that it has a much better expected value than the alternative his opponents claim he had. A sim could test whether he was correct about his reasoning and might help decide whether the claimed alternative is actually "logical" or so inferior that it is no longer logical. Rik

That is excellent (and I seriously mean that, no sarcasm). But how is the TD supposed to quantify your reasoning? So, the TD knows, e.g., that Barmar passes because [he thinks the ♦K is poorly placed / he dislikes the honor structure of his hand / bidding may push the opponents into a good game]. How does that help him to establish whether 3NT / 4 ♣ / 4♠ was an LA? The really useful information for the TD is: "Pass and 4♠ are both sensible calls. 3NT is not. I would pass." [i think pass and 4♠ are LAs, 3NT is not. It never occurred to me to bid 4♣. The TD should ask about 4♣ if that is relevant.] or "Obviously, the choice seems to be between Pass, 3NT and 4♠. I pass and the other calls are simply wrong." [Only pass is a logical action. Again, the TD should ask about 4♣.] But the above useful information is exactly what "the improved poll" would ask for, because you need less pollees to obtain a somewhat accurate result than in a poll that asks "what would you call?". Rik

You are taking your eye off the ball. You are focussed on polling instread of answering the question what the LAs are. 1. What several players say is hardly useful, because in the cases where it matters, you won't get the numbers you need to say anything accurate. So, forget it. 2. What a group of players think is far more useful, because many more of the possible answers will have been discussed. The same goes for a better understanding of the actual problem. Five people working together are much more thorough than five individuals. Who says that you need to simulate the situation that the player is in? You need to figure out what the LAs are, and you need to use the best method to do that. In principle, it is a very good idea to simulate the situation the player is in. (I actually think that running a Computer sim might be helpful.) But once you realize that the statistics show that polls often are useless, you should let go of the idea. And just to be precise. I have never participated in a poll that simulated the situation that the player is in. It never happens. In real life, a TD is approaching a player and typically gives him a piece of paper with a hand and an auction. Then the player is asked what he would do now. The pollee knows that this is a TD case and that there is a problem and it is either UI or MI. He needs to focus on this question only. He did not see the auction as it proceeeded, so that the idea of what is going in "grows" during the auction. He doesn't get any AI from the opponents' behavior and he is very aware that this is a crucial point in the auction. This is not remotely close to simulating the situation that the player at the table was in. Rik

You need to start by defining the TD's/AC's problem. You think that the TD's problem is to figure out what call people would make. Let me be very clear about that: The problem is not to figure out what call people would make. You couldn't care less about that. The problem is to figure out what LAs there are. We can solve this problem in two ways. A poll: We ask a large amount of players: "What would your call be?" and "What are the alternatives?". (This is what TDs do. It would already be better to ask first about alternatives and then about the action they chose, but that is a topic on its own.) We give our problem, i.e. "We need to figure out what the LAs are", to a group of "experts": experienced bridgeplayers. This group will tell us what the LAs are. If you realize what the TD's question is (again: "What are the LAs?"), it becomes obvious that asking several people a different question ("What would you call?") is actually taking the long (and, hence, inaccurate) road. This problem is a separate issue on top of the statistical one. So, we are definitely not asking this group what they would bid. (That would be useless, if not simply silly.) Rik

Of course, knowledge of the hand may make the case more difficult in either way. However, I think that in a group of 5 this problem is smaller than for 5 individuals. The individuals will be influenced by their knowledge, they make up their mind, and give their answer. End of story. All 5 answers will be biased. In the group of 5 there is likely to be one individual (or even more) who plays the devil's advocate and says: "I pretty much agree with you, but what if we look at it from the other side? Let's make sure that we have covered all the bases." And now, the unbiased alternative answer is on the table. Rik

Yes, and that is exactly what is the wrong starting point. If you keep them separate, you will not get enough good votes in the poll. If you let them work together, the probability that they will get to the right answer together will be much higher. It is not as if I am saying something that is revolutionary: Suppose you have 5 people available to solve a complex problem (Doesn't matter what kind of problem: financial, engineering, climate, you name it). Do you know any manager who would let these 5 work separately to gather votes at the end of the process? Of course, you don't. You let them get ideas, discuss them and weight the arguments. This will lead to a much better solution then 5 separate views. This doesnot mean that polling is useless. Suppose that a TD decides that the UI suggested the action that was taken, but that there is no LA, so no foul. Before he finalizes his decision, he checks with 4 players. It turns out that they all would have chosen an alternative action that was not suggested by the UI. Oops! The poll just corrected the TD. There is an LA. But in the reverse case, it doesn't work: Now, the TD decides that the UI suggested the action that was taken and that there was an LA, so guilty. He, again, checks with 4 players. Now, none of them would chose the alternative action. The TD cannot decide that there was no LA, since the sample group is too small to establish this. The reason is that the TD is now looking for the needle in the haystack. In the previous case, he was looking for the haystack around a needle. You can not reliably determine whether there is a needle in a haystack or not by sampling some parts of the haystack. You can determine whether there is hay in the haystack by sampling some parts of it. Rik

Yes. And this is exactly what I mean with the last solution: An interactive discussion with different inputs will be more accurate than n individual opinions, that are simply tallied. If the TD discusses the case with a few players this will be more accurate than asking some of the available players individually what they would call and some others what the UI suggests. And, of course, the same holds for the AC. Rik

Indeed it was. But this has a reason: The needed sample size is reduced significantly if you simply ask the question that comes with a 1:1 criterion. Or, the other way around, with the same sample size, a poll with a 1:1 criterion will be much more accurate than a poll with a 1:5 criterion. Rik

Oh, I agree on that, but that was not my last option. My last option was 5 experienced bridge players deciding. The big difference with a poll of 5 people is that these people are now not simply answering a question and we are counting, but they will need to exchange ideas, convince and weight the arguments. This means that what started as a minority view may be able to correct a wrong majority view when there are better arguments for the minority view. Rik

Yes, and why couldn't you ask players what players would do (multiple answers possible) rather than ask these players what they would do (1 answer possible)? Rik

Yes, appeals have become less frequent. Yes, this is caused by polling. Yes, perhaps even the TD rulings have improved due to polling. (We got rid of TDs ruling against the alleged offending side, counting on an AC to rectify it.) But no, the overall process has gotten worse due to polling. Why? ACs can only check whether proper procedure was followed. No matter how ridiculous the poll result is, it stands. My previous analysis shows that poll results are way too close to coin flips. There are 2 reasons for this: The criterion for an LA (1 in 6) makes it like looking for a needle in a haystack. You need to look many times before you can say something reliable about low probability events. (see P.S. below) The number of available pollees is already small if you are searching for a 1 in 2 criterion, sinc ethere simply are not that many players. This is obviously not what I meant in my post. I assume that I wasn't clear enough. "This" referred to the fact that it is hard to quantify the accuracy of a decision by a group of people reaching a conclusion by exchanging ideas, opinions and weighting arguments. (In contrast to quantifying "that": the accuracy of a poll that can be calculated to be close to that of a coin toss.) Rik P.S. Don't worry too much about this. Just last week I heard a story at work about a manufacturer who had a process where 0.2 % of the products failed. They decided to test a new production method during the weekend to see if they could improve on this. Between making the changes to the equipment and before reverting the changes, so they could produce the old way on Monday morning, they managed to make 30 pieces of this product. They all passed the quality test, which does not give an answer to the question whether the new method is better than the old one: At a failure rate of 0.2 %, the probability to find 0 failures in a set of 30 is 94 %. So, they had been working an entire weekend, without being able to draw a conclusion. When the consultant asked the engineer why he had done this experiment, he told: "I had told the boss that it was useless, but he told me to do it anyway. But maybe he will listen to you." So, bridge bosses are not the only ones who do not understand the problems that come with sampling.

This (again) shows the absurdity of player polls. The guideline says that if 1 in 6 would make the call (pass in this case) it is an LA. Suppose that 1 in 5 players would actually pass. This clearly exceeds the 1 in 6 criterion. What are the probabilities if you ask 4 players that n of them would pass? P=comb(4,n)*(1/5)^n*4/5^(4-n) n P 0 41.0% 1 41.0% 2 15.4% 3 2.6% 4 0.2% In other words, if 1 in 5 players would actually pass (if you could poll an infinite amount of players) then the probability that you find 0 passers in group of 4 is 41%. So you will be wrong 41 % of the time. You could simply flip a coin instead of polling. Then you would be wrong slightly more often. So, 4 is far too small a number to poll this. To get some reliability you need to poll a whole lot of people. How about 10? We assume agin that 1 in 5 (from an infinite pool) would actually pass: n P 0 10.7% 1 26.8% 2 30.2% 3 20.1% 4 8.8% 5 2.6% 6 0.6% 7 0.1% >=8 0.09% So, with 10 pollees, you would go wrong 37.5 % of the time. That is clearly not accurate enough. I consider 15 people about the absolute maximum number of pollees that you can realistically get in a tournament setting: n P 0 3.5% 1 13.2% 2 23.1% 3 25.0% 4 18.8% 5 10.3% 6 4.3% 7 1.4% 8 0.3% 9 0.1% >=9 0.01% With 15 pollees you would be wrong 39.8% of the time. I find these probabilities for wrong decisions clearly unacceptable. What should we do then? The first improvement is astonishingly simple. In these polls, we consistently ask the wrong question. We ask: "What would you do?" and then we start counting. But we do not want to know what a player would do. We want to know whether pass is an LA. So, instead, we ask 15 players: "Would pass be a logical alternative?". Our criterion (equivalent to the 1 in 6 actual passers) is whether the majority (50% or more) would think pass is an LA. Say that in an infinite pool of players 60% would think pass is an LA. Then the probabilities are: n P <=2 0.028% 3 0.2% 4 0.7% 5 2.4% 6 6.1% 7 11.8% 8 17.7% 9 20.7% 10 18.6% 11 12.7% 12 6.3% 13 2.2% 14 0.5% 15 0.047% Now, there is only a 21 % probability that the outcome is wrong. I think that is an improvement. Finally, the last option: We do not poll any players! We ask 5 experienced tournament players to form a jury. They sit together, discuss and decide. They can voice their opinions, they can give arguments, they can convince or be convinced. In the end, they together weight the arguments and reach a decision. They either would consider pass an LA, or they wouldn't. It is hard to quantify this, but I am convinced that the last option leads to the highest percentage of accurate decisions, because it has accurate reasoning and exchange of arguments at its base. And that is exactly what we were doing before we started to mandate polling (without knowing what polling really is). Please, let's throw the polls out of the window. They give a false sense of security. Rik (This has nothing to do with the - independent - question whether 5♠ was demonstrably suggested by the BIT.)

The difference between opponents opening 1NT and a Michaels cue is that in the later case there is an enemy suit that you can cue. You need to have meta rules: Our meta rule is that a cue in the opponent's suit (in response to an overcall or our opening) is a limit raise or better. Therefore, in principle, the invitations go through the cuebid. We also have meta rules for cramped auctions. At the top of that list: When we don't have space, invitational bids are the first to go (either downgrade and simply compete or upgrade and bid game). The reason is simple: 3M is simply a narrow target to aim for. The cuebid below 3M (i.e 3♥ if we have shown spades and a minor) is invitational or better. The cuebid above 3M (3♠ if we have shown hearts and a minor or 4♥ if we have shown spades and a minor) is a good raise to 4M. We also have meta rules for either/or suits. These are cases where partner has shown the suit or another suit (Multi 2♦ or a Muiderberg 2M, or a Michaels cuebid). In all these cases, the double is takeout, asking partner to show his suit. This applies all the way up to game level. That means a double of 4♥ (when partner has shown hearts or spades) is P/C, but a double of 4♠ is simply penalty. The same for a double of 5♣ (when partner has shown clubs or diamonds) is P/C, but a double of 5♦ is simply penalty. Why do we play these up to game level? No particular reason, except that the rule is easy to remember. Are these rules as good over relatively short minors (4+ for a Muiderberg) as they are for long majors (6 for a Multi)? I don't know, but again, being consistent in similar situations is the easiest to remember. So, I do not know whether our agreement (P/C) is the best. But I do know that we will not have a misunderstanding about the meaning of double in this auction, until old age takes over. Rik

It is not orthodox but I share your perplexity in some contexts. Say TD decides to assign 3NT+2 weighted with some percentage of 3NT+1 here, the factual results of peers who played 3NT would seem to be a useful and objective aid to assigning that percentage. In principle, the scores at other tables are irrelevant. However, they are a very good "reality check" when you assign an adjusted score. The way I assign an AS is to look what would have happened without the infraction at my table only. After I have made a decision, I check with the results at other tables. Usually (fortunately) these are in good agreement. Sometimes, I have overlooked that it isn't that obvious to take all the tricks on offense or defense (e.g. because of difficulties with entries or because the play that gets the most tricks is actually technically inferior or because I have overlooked that a defender may get (pseudo-)squeezed). If there is a difference with the other scores, I will look whether the different score could have occurred at the table. Sometimes, it could have, and sometimes it couldn't. I will revise my opinion accordingly. Summarizing: I will only use the events that happened at the table where the infraction occurred. The information from results at other tables is helpful to avoid assigning a wrong AS. Rik

As I said, I was not the TD. The TD asked me for my advice. And yes, I would have found it nice if a player who appeals "because he always does", would learn that "not winning" is not the worst possible outcome of an appeal. RIk

I myself was thinking of a 50%-50% weighted AS of 2♠X-6 and 2♠X-5. I think that if East would declare a spade contract, he might easily take 11 tricks. But when I started counting the tricks for EW in a spade contract, the gathered directors smiled at me and said that down 3 should be enough, "because North would appeal anyway". So, I would have hoped that the appeals committee would have ruled a little harsher, to teach North that he should think a little more objectively before he lodged an appeal. Unfortunately, they simply upheld the TDs decision. A side question: What do we think of EW? Is it a Serious Error (12C1e) to let NS play 3♦ when East knows there is a nine card heart fit, looking at a doubleton diamond? Rik

You can safely assume that NS did not have a firm agreement and that North meant the double as lead directing. If you would tell North that 2♠ could be fit showing, he would reply with "Huh?!? What?!? What are you talking about? 2♠ is natural." I can give you the decision by the TD. He ruled that: North has already shown his diamond suit and South was not interested. Many players would not even have considered the diamond suit good enough for a lead directing double. To follow it up with 3♦ would be xxxx... sorry, I mean ... pass must be an LA. And the 3♦ bid could demonstrably have been suggested by the UI. He ruled 2♠X-3, -800 for NS, +800 for EW. Rik

The following deal occurred a couple of weeks ago. The form of scoring is Butler (IMP pairs), in a field of 10 tables with the top and bottom score removed from the calculation of the datum score. The hand was played in an average bridge club with a total of about 40 tables in play. The field consisted of the top 20 pairs in this club. [hv=pc=n&s=sa743hq9dkq652ct6&w=sj85hkj842d3cj954&n=s96h65dajt84ck732&e=skqt2hat73d97caq8&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=1n(15-17)p2d(TRH%20!H)d(Explained%20as%20takeout)2h2sppdpp3dppp]399|300[/hv] Before bidding 2♥, East asked for the meaning of the double. (If it would have been lead directing, he could have passed to make West declarer in a heart contract.) 3♦ went down 1. EW (particularly East) were not happy. They claim that North may have used UI when he pulled the contract to 3♦. How would the forum rule? Rik (I was involved as an "advisor to the TD".)

I think East should be shot if he did pull. So, I hope we don't get this hand if we ever play together. Rik

Sad. Rik

Mike, I agree with you that playing my methods (and yours), it would be automatic to bid 4♠. However, the OP specified Acol as the system. I am certainly not an expert in Acol*, but it might just be that negative freebids are fairly standard in Acol. And then 2♣ would actually show 8-11 (if you want to count points)... But perhaps the Acol experts can say something more about this? Rik *The first system I learnt was "Dutch Acol" - which is not Acol, but inspired by it - and there negative freebids were an integral part of the system (back then).

I saw on Bridgewinners that Harold Feldheim past away. I can not claim that I knew him very well, but my wife and I have dear memories of the one time we did encounter him. The following hand is hanging in a frame in our bedroom: [hv=pc=n&s=shak96dj532ckq953&w=st98742hq8753d4c6&n=skhj42dakt97cjt72&e=saqj653htdq86ca84&d=s&v=e&b=3&a=2c(Precision%2C%2011-16%2C%206!C%20or%205!C%2B4M)3c(Michaels%2C%20!H%2B!S)4c4spp5c5sppdppp]399|300[/hv] Harold was South, my wife was East and I was sitting West. A lady that I don't know was sitting North. My wife and I had met at the bridge course and we had finished it about two years before this happened at the 1997 Regional in Warren, MI. I noted the vulnerability only after I had made my Michaels' bid and I was thinking that this could get out of hand. Before his first pass, Harold turned to me and said: "These ladies sure bid them up!". I thought that he hadn't seen my hand yet. Before his next pass, he turned to me again: "These ladies are aggressive!". After the auction was over, he led a top heart and I put the dummy down. I wrote the following in 1997 (it is in the same frame as the hand): "South started to laugh out loud. A friendly, honest laugh from somebody who is really enjoying himself. I saw his point. This was not your everyday vulnerable Michaels bid." Suddenly he stopped laughing, realizing that he was playing 2 beginners. He apologized to me for his rudeness. I said it was okay and that my hand was somewhat funny, but he wouldn't have anything of it. He apologized at least three times more. The play continued. My wife didn't have any trouble finding the singleton king of trump and a minute later 5♠X made on the nose. Now Harold really started to laugh. My wife and I laughed along with him and the North lady left the table, since it was the last board of the round and a hospitality break was about to start. Harold introduced himself, and we introduced ourselves. He told about his chess adventures and the Fischer-Spasski match on Iceland. And, since I played chess before I started playing bridge, I was interested. We had a most enjoyable conversation. My wife and I went for dinner. When we came back, we decided to watch the beginner lecture that had started already. It turned out that Harold was giving it. A few seconds after we had come in. Harold asked a question to the audience. Nobody was answering. My wife and I knew the answer, but we,... obviously... were not beginners anymore, playing in the open section. Then he vaguely pointed towards me. I pointed towards myself with an asking face: Do you mean me? He yelled through the room: "YOU!! No, not you! 5♠X making against me! I never want to see you again!" After the lecture, I went to ask him whether my bid was really that bad. He answered that it was the worst bid he had seen in years, but that he could not argue with success. And he followed that with: "You used to play chess, right? Do you play blind chess? You are white, make your first move." We proceeded to play about 25 moves until the new round was called. His position was clearly better, but he offered me a draw. Only on the way home, it dawned on me that we actually had one of his books on the shelf... Our paths did not cross for more than about half an hour, but it was one of the best half an hours of my life.. Harold, rest in peace, From a one time bridge opponent that you must have forgotten ages ago Rik

Thanks, Stephen, for the clear answer. Rik

For ages, I have been playing Lebensohl after my opponents overcall our 1NT opening and I have always combined it with penalty doubles. In that case, the cuebid functions as "Stayman". I am seriously considering switching to Lebensohl + negative doubles, since I like to be able to compete at the two level. At the same time, bidding Stayman without a stopper on balanced hands is always a nervous business when we need to find a fit at the four level. The way I see things is that the negative double will also have a bit of a Stayman flavor: If RHO overcalls 2♥, our double strongly implies (but admittedly does not promise) four spades. If we think that the negative double smells like Stayman, we can use the cuebids at the three level for something more useful (and less nervous). How do those of you who combine Lebensohl with negative doubles play the cuebids? Rik