Recognizing the hands

[axman]

I'm not ignoring any risks. I have considered the risk you mention and concluded that it's vanishingly small.

 

I reached this conclusion because I know that if anyone else had recognised the boards, they would have called the director and said "I recognise this hand". That's what people do in this situation. Nobody would think "Ooh, I remember this hand. Let's see if anybody else does; if they don't, maybe I can take advantage of what I remember."

 

Some data may be useful here.

 

In one of the cases where there was a replay issue [when I was a principle], mid-session a rumor came to my attention that a pair of boards had not been duplicated and thus the set was in play for a second time in 24 hours. I tried to recognize those hands and did not. Yet, even though I did not recognize the hands I did two tricks better on each of the boards the second time around.

 

Which goes to show that the subconscious pays much better attention than our conscious; and what we don’t consciously remember can be remembered and acted upon subconsciously.

[barmar]

My guess is that at least 90% of players would not consciously recognize hands that they'd played during a previous session. In fact, most would have a hard time reproducing any but the most interesting 1 or 2 hands in a session they just finished, and would need a hand record for most of the spots of those hands. The Al Roth anecdote is mostly interesting as an indicator of his amazing memory of bridge hands.

 

On the other hand, the subconscious is a pretty amazing thing. I wonder if it might recognize the hands, and subtly bias the players. Probably not for most average and lower players, I suspect -- unconscious behavior is mostly used for habitual and intuitive activity, and most of bridge is not ingrained that well in non-expert players.

[mycroft]

Like gnasher, I can't imagine anyone saying "I think I recognize the hands; let's use that information". Like barmar, I can very easily see people playing the hands better the second time by making the right guesses on straight guesses, because they analyzed the hand last time, and somewhere in their subconscious, they "knew" how to play it.

 

I can't imagine playing a match where I'm told that the "right results", which I know in advance, are UI. Not only would I have the same problems as in the OP, when I *did* do the right thing, the opponents would always be wondering if it really was because it's the right thing or whether it was just that it's the thing that works on this hand. I can't imagine this being sensible or a comfortable game of bridge.

[Trinidad]

I can't imagine playing a match where I'm told that the "right results", which I know in advance, are UI. Not only would I have the same problems as in the OP, when I *did* do the right thing, the opponents would always be wondering if it really was because it's the right thing or whether it was just that it's the thing that works on this hand. I can't imagine this being sensible or a comfortable game of bridge.

I was astonished that these guys managed to play about 10 boards under these circumstances. I would be completely sick to my stomach after three. After ten I would be ready for a hospital...

 

Rik

[PeterAlan]

I believe the Al Roth story wasn't about any old club game - it was the 1955 Bermuda Bowl:

 

One incident calls for special mention. Roth picked up a hand and immediately called the director. "I've played this hand before," he told Al Sobel. Sobel told him that was impossible and instructed him to continue play. Roth insisted that he had played it before, then left the table and went over to a corner. He proceeded to write all four hands and give the paper to Sobel. "Check it out," he said. Sobel did so and discovered that Roth was absolutely correct. The hand had been played a few days before.

They don't relate how it happened, though.

[blackshoe]

I believe the Al Roth story wasn't about any old club game - it was the 1955 Bermuda Bowl:

 

 

They don't relate how it happened, though.

Cool, thanks for posting that.

 

I imagine that at some point somebody was supposed to shuffle the deck, and didn't. :P

[Zelandakh]

They don't relate how it happened, though.

It seems from his Obituary that it remains a mystery:

 

During the 1955 Bermuda Bowl, Mr. Roth was declaring a two-spade contract and felt he had played the deal before — but as a defender. He called over the chief tournament director, Al Sobel, who did not believe Mr. Roth because the cards had been dealt at the table. Mr. Sobel made Mr. Roth call out all of the cards in each hand — including the spot-cards — before he threw out the board. No one ever discovered how the duplicate deal happened.

[blackshoe]

Maybe it was a random deal, and just happened to randomly duplicate a previous deal. The odds of that are vanishingly small, but they're not zero.

[Zelandakh]

Just to add, I have found another account of the incident which says that the first time he played the deal he was defending a 1NT contract.

[barmar]

Maybe it was a random deal, and just happened to randomly duplicate a previous deal. The odds of that are vanishingly small, but they're not zero.

So small as to be negligible, IMHO. Occam's Razor applies.

[blackshoe]

You can apply it if you like; my point is that Occam's Razor or not, the chance that's what happened is not zero. IAC, we'll never know what really did happen, and it really doesn't matter anyway. B-)

[pran]

You can apply it if you like; my point is that Occam's Razor or not, the chance that's what happened is not zero. IAC, we'll never know what really did happen, and it really doesn't matter anyway. B-)

The chance is definitely not zero, but it is far less than the chance for a player even to get all thirteen cards in the same denomination. In fact the chance is exactly the same as the chance for a deal to be dealt with all the spades to North, all the hearts to East and all the diamonds to South (which of course will give West all the clubs).

 

With hand dealt boards I believe in two possible explanations: Either the board had not been redealt since last it was used or the shuffling and dealing was inferior to say the least.

[barmar]

You can apply it if you like; my point is that Occam's Razor or not, the chance that's what happened is not zero. IAC, we'll never know what really did happen, and it really doesn't matter anyway. B-)

There's also a non-zero chance of an egg un-breaking spontaneously. But I'm not going to make any decision predicated on it actually having happened.

[lamford]

If the two sets do not match but one board is the same I seek guidance from a higher source.

As you will know that the chance of two deals being identical, card for card, is of the order of 5.36E+28, I presume that you will not need guidance on this. Will you therefore be asking God if he was "having a bit of fun"?

[blackshoe]

There's also a non-zero chance of an egg un-breaking spontaneously. But I'm not going to make any decision predicated on it actually having happened.

Is there really? Can you prove it? B-)

[VixTD]

.

[barmar]

As you will know that the chance of two deals being identical, card for card, is of the order of 5.36E+28, I presume that you will not need guidance on this. Will you therefore be asking God if he was "having a bit of fun"?

Should we now merge this thread with the religious poll thread in the Water Cooler? :)

[bluejak]

This is a story that I heard this week. I wonder what the BBF-ers think the TD should do.

 

In a team match (with computer dealt hands) the following happened:

 

On one of the first boards, a player calls the TD and says that he recognizes the hand. The TD takes him away from the table and asks for more details. The player says: "I am the dealer and I will open a weak 1NT. Then, my LHO will show his spade suit and they will reach 4♠. This will go down when I cash my ♣AK and give my partner a club ruff. He has a singleton club.".

 

You are the TD, what would you do?

 

Rik

What's a BBF-er?

 

Tell him to finish the board while I check it.

 

There is nothing wrong in having a 16 year old girl (or even younger) operating a computer card dealing program or a card sorting machines provided routines and training are satisfactory.

I would have more faith in the 16-year old than some people ... :)

 

.

Haven't you copied this post from another thread?

 

:ph34r:

 

Thank goodness, I have finally caught up with the posts. :lol: