Using GIB when adjusting scores

[bluejak]

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.

 

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! :D

 

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

[barmar]

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.

The system automatically assigns A== to incomplete boards. Then the TD can review and assign another score.

 

There's also an org-specific option that will automatically use GIB to assign a score if the board was almost done (less than 4 or 5 tricks left).

[McBruce]

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

 

If they only get 4 1/2 tricks played on the last board there is a reason somewhere and Table History may find it. If the declarer had to endure slow bidding and play on the preceding boards and this is clearly shown by Table History, I might award his side A+ and the others A-. What I look for in Table History is whether there were messages from the other side asking them to speed up or watch the clock, as well as clear breaks in tempo in fairly clear situations. Often a table loses valuable time by a player making his first call late, because he has left the table during the previous hand as dummy and not arrived back in time. If the result is obvious or close to it that is what I would adjust to, without clear evidence that one side was primarily responsible for the lateness. The key to avoiding these situations is to make sure they cannot happen by getting in there early at problem tables: in a game of 6-12 tables it is not difficult to go table to table and check to see if anyone is falling behind, stopping off to give a warning if they are. Our games are 14 minute, 2 board rounds, and I usually do a walk-through once or twice and take note of the tables that are behind, then watch them more closely later to ensure they catch up. I also claim for the last table if they have decided to embark on a time-wasting line such as cashing winners in hopes of a misclick when the defenders cannot help but know what to keep. This keeps things moving and can be corrected later if a mistake is made. In larger games you'll have more tables to watch and sometimes you won't be able to help it when half the room has bid to 5♥* and the other half is trying to squeeze out an 11th trick in 5♠ and every auction had more bids than passes and most of the room is going to be late. In those cases, you try to focus on the ones who have played the least once down to the last three minutes, so they can get in enough tricks that the decision will be apparent.