Monitoring psychs

[1eyedjack]

Psychic bids (and their abuse) seem to be a popular subject at present.

 

As pointed out in another thread, in F2F games there is normally an opportunity (in some jurisdictions possibly an obligation), seldom upheld, to report psychs, not for the purposes of adjustment but for the purpose of monitoring specific partnership/player trends, the better to determine whether the element of surprise is equal for all players at the table.

 

In the online environment, all hands (psychs or otherwise) are recorded automatically, but whether or not they are psychs is not distinguished. If you suspect a player of psyching sufficiently frequently as to give rise to an undisclosed implicit partnership agreement then you can complain to abuse and involve someone like Inquiry, Rain or whoever in a considerable amount of boring research.

 

I have a suggestion which would involve a bit of up-front programming but which should I believe result in less consumption of human resources and greater efficiency in their use when invoked.

 

The proposal is simply to enable a player at the table automatically to flag a hand as a psych, which flag would then be stored with the hand along with the billions of other hand records. There might be an option for comments to be appended to the flag, and the opposing side would also be able to add comments but would not be compelled to do so.

 

At that stage of merely flagging the hand there would be no trigger for human review. If you think that the psych has been fielded and that an adjustment is in order (in a tournament where adjustment is a possibility), then by all means this should be elevated immediately to a director call at the time.

 

Then, if at a later date someone asks abuse to review the behaviour of a player they can see a history of reported psychs.

 

There would also be an opportunity for an automatic trigger for review of psychic behaviour if the frequency of psych reports exceeds some pre-set level (which level could be adjusted according to available resources).

 

The identity of the reporter would also be recorded, so that if there appears a trend that someone has a habit of reporting spurious psychs then those reports can be discounted accordingly.

 

In this manner, on the hand recently reported by Glen, the star players could simply have reported the psych and get on with the game. Not only would the original result have stood, but the resources of the TD would not have been called upon at a time when the TD probably has more important things on his plate.

 

It might also be possible for a measure of an individual's reported psych frequency to be visible to opponents at a table. This would I think be a contentious measure and possibly only feasible if, at the point of reporting, an alleged psycher were able to add to the flag another flag to indicate agreement to the claimed psych, so that the published index of psych frequency displayed a measure of both contested and uncontested psych claims. I think that gets too complex to implement and lean in favour of not publishing these stats - but the possibility is interesting.

[hrothgar]

It might also be possible for a measure of an individual's reported psych frequency to be visible to opponents at a table. This would I think be a contentious measure and possibly only feasible if, at the point of reporting, an alleged psycher were able to add to the flag another flag to indicate agreement to the claimed psych, so that the published index of psych frequency displayed a measure of both contested and uncontested psych claims. I think that gets too complex to implement and lean in favour of not publishing these stats - but the possibility is interesting.

I'd welcome such a feature

 

There are players here in MA who tell each other horror stories about my psyches before team matches. They whip themselves into a frenzy of paranoia and desperation before each and every match. They spend more time blubbering over the thought that I might psyche then they do focusing on their own game. It's all really quite lovely. I don't have to psyche against any of them any more since the damage has already been done.

 

Now we're going to provide a lovely "Psychometer" to broadcast this same information to each and every person I play against.

 

Lovely. ABSOSO-freaking-LOUTELY LOVELY

 

One things for sure... I'll need to find some way to pad my stats and make sure that my psyching frequency is set much higher than it actually is.

[helene_t]

Good idea.

 

I wouldn't expect too much of the data quality since most people have wacked idea about what the word "psyche" means. But maybe I will be positively surprised.

[1eyedjack]

One things for sure... I'll need to find some way to pad my stats and make sure that my psyching frequency is set much higher than it actually is.

The opportunity to pad the stats is one compelling reason for not making them publicly available. Take away the visibility and you take away the incentive.

[Oof Arted]

 

The identity of the reporter would also be recorded, so that if there appears a trend that someone has a habit of reporting spurious psychs then those reports can be discounted accordingly.

 

:o

 

MMM

 

Just curious as to the definintion reporting of 'Spurious' psyches.

 

If someone reports a psyche then it either is or is not a psyche

 

surely there is no in between

 

:)

[1eyedjack]

MMM

 

Just curious as to the definintion reporting of 'Spurious' psyches.

 

If someone reports a psyche then it either is or is not a psyche

 

surely there is no in between

 

:)

I agree, but whether in a particular instance a call is or is not a psych is a question that should be tested by reference to objective criteria. This is subject to interpretation on which individuals may disagree. Certain individuals are more prone to classifying calls as psychs than others, and for the more extreme cases their judgement may be called into question simply because of that tendency, and hence the value attached to their labelling a call as a psych may be discounted. Maybe not discounted to nothing. But before you examine a particular hand that has been labelled a psych by some other party, you might reasonably judge that the likelihood of its actually being a psych is rather higher if it has been so labelled by one who has no particular history of recording psychs than one who records every alternate hand as one. The underlying purpose of recording the identity of the recorder is not to make a judgement on whether a particular hand is a psych but in order to provide a statistical measure of whether it is worthwhile anyone else's time or effort to look into the hand further.

 

That said, a related point about discounting the records that I omitted from the OP is a suggestion that psych records should themselves depreciate over time. A more recent history of psyching should be more significant than a tendency in the distant past.

[1eyedjack]

I have another suggestion, that would be simpler to implement. But before that, a brief anecdote (the relevance of which will become apparent):

 

I have noticed (quite rarely) that some TDs who run tournaments include in the tourney rules a requirement that a player who intends to psych on a hand first notify the TD (by implication psychs are permitted in these tourneys, for which small mercy we should be grateful). I can understand the logic to this but it causes me a small concern. Having pre-notified the TD I would expect to see the TD in attendance as a kibitzer at the table for the remainder of the hand or auction (unless he is otherwise busy). His mere visible presence at the table might tip off the players of the heightened likelihood of psychic activity, particularly if there are other indications in the auction to suggest the possibility. Of course the TD may have just blundered into the table by chance, but there is an element of restricted choice at play. We do not want to get into the Schodinger dilemma where the act of observation influences the result.

 

On, then, to my alternative suggestion (to the OP). Neither alternative need be pursued to the exclusion of the other, but this alternative may suffice and is certainly simpler.

 

The proposal is that an individual would self-certify a psych at the time of calling it, by use of an additional button to be provided in the interface, next to the Alert button. It would operate in a similar fashion to the alert button, by colour-coding the psyched bid (differently from the alert colour). This would not be visible to other players at the table until the hand is complete, but may be visible to kibitzers (in particular a kibitzing TD). As a sop to the TDs in the above anecdote, such a "psych-alert" could be auto-notified to the TD of a tourney instantaneously.

 

Given that part of the definition of a psych is that it must be deliberate, it seems only right and proper that self-certification be integral to the reporting facility. Failure to self-certify a psych would be regarded as prima facie evidence that in the opinion of the bidder it was not a psych, which might be taken into account in a subsequent dispute over whether there was misinformation or adequate disclosure.

 

There may be a complication in cases where an individual psychs an alertable bid. It might require an additional colour code for a bid that is both alerted and psyched (the alert colour being visible to opponents for the duration of the hand). Maybe colour coding is not appropriate for one of the parameters, and perhaps appending the bid with an exclamation mark to signify a psych is better, so that it does not interfere with the alerting colour coding. And of course some bridge players are colour blind.

 

Anyway, under this alternative, on the hand in the other thread that exploded the general interest, Glen would have self-certified his 1N opener. At the conclusion of the hands the star opponents would have no cause to call the TD, unless they expressly felt that damage occurred under the laws for which they were entitled to redress.

[helene_t]

I am concerned that the presence of a "psych" button in the interface might make certain people (even more) paranoid by drawing their attention to the possibility that a call could be a psyche, and by suggesting that BBO consider psyches to be such a frequent thing that it warrants special handling in the interface.

 

Then there is a technical issue which could probably be solved somehow: If I first make a call and a few secs later realizer that I must mark it as a psych, the natural thing to do would be to click the call and then click "psych". But the mere act of clicking a call triggers an alert of the opponents, which I think is the way it should be. Presumably I would have to click "psych" first and then click the call. Or maybe the "psych" button just marks the most recent call.

[NickRW]

....Then there is a technical issue which could probably be solved somehow:...

I am fairly sure that F+U could knock something up for everyone in a few weeks - though given that this functionality is the sort of thing that might have to be retrofitted into the windows client in order to provide a properly fair and level playing field, it would probably be quite tedious.

 

The issue is more whether it is wanted in the first place and who is going to do the actual monitoring. I can imagine some idiots getting paranoid that either they are falsely (in their view) labelled as a psycher, or others getting equally paranoid that their opps may be. Witness the long threads about psychs on these forums - but they are mostly a storm in a tea cup (I think anyway - as genuine psychs are actually pretty rare and therefore, when they do occur, [normally] perfectly legal). Thus it could, on an ongoing basis, create a lot more work than it saves regardless of how easy the intial programming effort might be.

 

Nick

[1eyedjack]

it could, on an ongoing basis, create a lot more work than it saves 

If you read my posts you would realise that the proposal would not involve anyone in any extra work - quite the reverse. No-one would look at the psych reports unless and until attention is drawn to "abuse" (or ACBL or whoever) of the need in the case of a particular player. In that event the evailability of the psych reports should cut down on the amount of work, not increase it, by (1) focusing attention on the general level of concern about the player, from a number of sources other than the complainant, and (2) focusing attention on hands that support that concern. At present, in the absence of such reports, there already exists a formal avenue to complain to "abuse" where abuse is suspected. "Abuse" has some statistical tool in the form of BridgeBrowser etc with which to investigate such complaints. This suggestion would just add to that armoury without in any way increasing the case load.

 

Indeed, the reverse is the intention. Not only would it involve "abuse" (etc) in less work on those occasions when they are asked to get involved, but it would involve the TD in fewer calls to the table where the sole purpose is to report a psych, and it would clarify, on those occasions when the TD is actually called, whether redress is sought for a perceived infraction. All of that serves to save time and work, not add to it.

 

I also find it hard to construct any argument in support of the hypothesis that restricting the reporting opportunity to web-based client users would in anyway prejudice equity.

[NickRW]

it could, on an ongoing basis, create a lot more work than it saves 

If you read my posts you would realise that the proposal would not involve anyone in any extra work - quite the reverse....

I did read the original posts and I understand your intent. I am not sure, however, that once the proposed system was in place that there would, in reality, be less work. You'd not just pay lip service to having some way of monitoring these things (which is, effectively, the way it is in most enviroments whether on-line or not), but actually make it 100% obvious that you do have a system. People will then want the system used = more emails to abuse complaining about perceived psyches - perhaps very many more.

 

That is no bad thing from BBO's point of view if they were a subscription system and wanted to promote a totally and utterly clean playing environment - but that isn't the product they're selling (or rather providing essentially free) - places like Bridge Club Live do (or try to do) that.

 

Nick

[Oof Arted]

I have another suggestion, that would be simpler to implement.  But before that, a brief anecdote (the relevance of which will become apparent):

 

 

 

 

The proposal is that an individual would self-certify a psych at the time of calling it, by use of an additional button to be provided in the interface, next to the Alert button.  It would operate in a similar fashion to the alert button, by colour-coding the psyched bid (differently from the alert colour).  This would not be visible to other players at the table until the hand is complete, but may be visible to kibitzers (in particular a kibitzing TD).  As a sop to the TDs in the above anecdote, such a "psych-alert" could be auto-notified to the TD of a tourney instantaneously.

 

Given that part of the definition of a psych is that it must be deliberate, it seems only right and proper that self-certification be integral to the reporting facility. Failure to self-certify a psych would be regarded as prima facie evidence that in the opinion of the bidder it was not a psych, which might be taken into account in a subsequent dispute over whether there was misinformation or adequate disclosure.

 

There may be a complication in cases where an individual psychs an alertable bid.  It might require an additional colour code for a bid that is both alerted and psyched (the alert colour being visible to opponents for the duration of the hand).  Maybe colour coding is not appropriate for one of the parameters, and perhaps appending the bid with an exclamation mark to signify a psych is better, so that it does not interfere with the alerting colour coding.  And of course some bridge players are colour blind.

 

Anyway, under this alternative, on the hand in the other thread that exploded the general interest, Glen would have self-certified his 1N opener.  At the conclusion of the hands the star opponents would have no cause to call the TD, unless they expressly felt that damage occurred under the laws for which they were entitled to redress.

;)

 

Not sure about a psyche button that alerts the TD but no one else.

 

Some tournies have a TD and also playing TD's who at present gert the same messages as the non playing TD - Missing Player - TD required etc

 

This could cause a problem for those playing not least wondering what is going on at another table

 

:P

[jillybean]

Something we could do immediately is to post any psyches forum members come across, as players or TD;s. Could be interesting.

[Mbodell]

The last one (psych/tactical) I came across was in real life against my teammates at the Sacramento regional in the qualification day of the final 2 day swiss. It really pissed them off (mainly because they thought maybe they had some sort of special agreement about the double that wasn't lead directing which I think is unlikely).

 

1♥ - (P) - 2nt - (P)

4♣ - (p) - 4nt - (P)

5♣ - (P) - 5♦ - (X)!

foo - (P) - 6nt AP

 

I forget what the bid was over the double, showing the ♥Q I think. The doubler doubled on something like xxx xx Q843 Jxxx. Of course the 2nt bidder had Kx of diamonds and thought he was protecting the diamond position. The person who passed through out had A 4th of diamonds. 6nt has 11 tricks, but 6♥ makes with the layout as long as you play for A of diamonds onside (debatable if you would against a low diamond lead with the lead directing double and either J9x or T9x in the declarers hand).

 

I held the xxx xx Q843 Jxxx hand and also had a chance to double diamonds in the auction but didn't and they made 6♥ against us for -1430 into the -100.