Opinions on random choice in the system?

[szgyula]

Recently, somebody suggested that in certain situation it is beneficial to allow multiple bids for a certain hand and select one randomly. An example would be to pick randomly the 1 minor opening for (roughly) equal minor suits (e.g. 3-3). The national regulating body quickly declared that any system having this element can not be natural (green), i.e. this convention makes the system red. This also implies that this system can not be played in many tournaments.

 

It is clear that they can make this ruling (and did). This post is simply asking for input about the practice in this regard in other countries.

 

As a side issue, the minor openings were also regulated in a natural system: if you have to choose between the minor openings, you MUST choose the longer. A system that calls for opening 1D with a holding of AKQ.5432 in the minors is red. I also used to play a system where you could open 1C with minors like AQJx.Qxx, especially in the 3rd seat after two passes to ward off a C opening lead in 1NT (likely contract). This would also be a red system. How is this in other countries?

 

Please do not bring in psych and tactical bids -- limit the discussion to the agreed (explicit or implicit) system. Please do not discuss the merits of these systems, concentrate on the legality of such systems.

[hrothgar]

 

The national regulating body quickly declared that any system having this element can not be natural (green), i.e. this convention makes the system red. This also implies that this system can not be played in many tournaments.

 

It is clear that they can make this ruling (and did). This post is simply asking for input about the practice in this regard in other countries.

 

 

The ACBL convention charts do not explicitly discuss mixed strategies.

I am not aware of any examples in which a player has petitioned to have one approved.

 

In general, the ACBL's General Convention Chart and Midchart operate under the principle that methods need to be explicitly sanctioned to be approved.

 

If something is natural (and there is a lot of debate over what's natural) its pproved.

If something is explicitly lists as approved you get to play it (sometimes subject to additional constraints like the suggested defenses)

Other methods are banned

 

I'd argue that a mixed strategy clearly isn't natural, therefore its not legal at the GCC or the Midchart level.

 

Last time I checked, the Superchart worked in the opposite manner.

If something isn't explicitly banned, you're allowed to play it.

 

Here, once again, the Superchart fails to mention mixed strategies.

I'd argue that they are legal at this level.

[paulg]

In Scotland, where WBF colours are also used, I expect that these systems would be classified as green. Basically however the opening bid is chosen, a 'natural' opening bid is the result. As long as the bid is properly disclosed then I don't see the problem.

[szgyula]

In Scotland, where WBF colours are also used, I expect that these systems would be classified as green. Basically however the opening bid is chosen, a 'natural' opening bid is the result. As long as the bid is properly disclosed then I don't see the problem.

I think the counterargument as follows: Nobody can choose truly randomly between bids. Thus, there is an "implicit agreement" that you can not disclose. I do not agree but this is one argument I heard.

 

To be honest, I can think of millions of borderline situations where I sometimes bid A, sometimes bid B with the exact same hand. E.g. there is a very thin line between the 2S and 1S, especially in 3rd seat. This is even "worse" than a truly random choice as there IS an implicit agreement that you cannot really explain.

[hrothgar]

I think the counterargument as follows: Nobody can choose truly randomly between bids. Thus, there is an "implicit agreement" that you can not disclose. I do not agree but this is one argument I heard.

 

There are simple enough counter arguments.

 

Let's assume that I want to use the following convention

 

If I hold 3-3 in the minors, I open 1C 50% of the time and 1D 50% of the time.

 

I sum the total value of my spades (counting 2 for a deuce, 3 for a "three" 11 for a Jack, and so on

If the total is even, I open 1C

if the the total is odd, I open 1D

 

Prior to the start of the tournament, I disclose my partnership agreement to the opponents.

(In this case, I disclose the probability density function)

 

Furthermore, I register the mechanism by which I generate entropy to the tournament director.

 

At the close of the event, anyone who cares can validate that the behavior (the set of bids made) match the disclosed agreement.

[aguahombre]

Please do not bring in psych and tactical bids -- limit the discussion to the agreed (explicit or implicit) system. Please do not discuss the merits of these systems, concentrate on the legality of such systems.

After I vote "legal", can I add that I encourage our opponents to do it?

 

It seems that if opening a 3-card suit is considered "natural", and unless you have some Canape methods which follow, your properly disclosed proclivities should be allowed.

[gnasher]

I sum the total value of my spades (counting 2 for a deuce, 3 for a "three" 11 for a Jack, and so on

If the total is even, I open 1C

if the the total is odd, I open 1D

Couldn't you just count how many odd spades you hold?

[paulg]

I think the counterargument as follows: Nobody can choose truly randomly between bids. Thus, there is an "implicit agreement" that you can not disclose. I do not agree but this is one argument I heard.

When people make such an argument, what they are really saying is that, "We believe you have partnership experience and, on some hands, the choice of opening bid is not random, but you are failing to disclosing this".

 

It is down to a question of trust, but we have seen regulators in other countries take similar measures when they feel that a method is too prone to abuse. For example, dual-message signals (like odd=encouraging, even=suit preference) are banned in a number of jurisdictions, even though they are permitted as discard methods (in this case the problem is seen as tempo abuse, not disclosure, but it is similar).

[hrothgar]

Couldn't you just count how many odd spades you hold?

 

Yeap. Moreover, I hope that I would arrive at the same answer...

[BillHiggin]

I also used to play a system where you could open 1C with minors like AQJx.Qxx, especially in the 3rd seat after two passes to ward off a C opening lead in 1NT (likely contract). This would also be a red system. How is this in other countries?

 

Please do not bring in psych and tactical bids -- limit the discussion to the agreed (explicit or implicit) system. Please do not discuss the merits of these systems, concentrate on the legality of such systems.

 

Perhaps you might consider editing the final line to explicitly say "I am the only one allowed to mention tactical bids in this thread!"

[szgyula]

Perhaps you might consider editing the final line to explicitly say "I am the only one allowed to mention tactical bids in this thread!"

Actually, not quite correct: If it is explicitly part of the system and the opponents are alerted, it is no longer a tactical bid. Indeed that is what happens. The short explanation is: "it promises a 3 card minor and it does not deny longer and/or better second minor". I.e. it is an explicit partnership agreement, not a tactical bid.

[nige1]

There are simple enough counter arguments. Let's assume that I want to use the following convention. If I hold 3-3 in the minors, I open 1C 50% of the time and 1D 50% of the time. I sum the total value of my spades (counting 2 for a deuce, 3 for a "three" 11 for a Jack, and so on If the total is even, I open 1C if the the total is odd, I open 1D

Prior to the start of the tournament, I disclose my partnership agreement to the opponents. (In this case, I disclose the probability density function)

Furthermore, I register the mechanism by which I generate entropy to the tournament director. At the close of the event, anyone who cares can validate that the behavior (the set of bids made) match the disclosed agreement.

What you suggest should be illegal everywhere. Partner can estimate the probability of your holding equal minor length from his ♠ holding. The probability-density function is unlikely to be much use to opponents.Unless you also disclose your algorithm to opponents (as well as the director) opponents can't make similar deductions from their ♠ holdings. (Even if you divulged your complete method, you might still get objections from those who have a phobia of encryption).

[BillHiggin]

Actually, not quite correct: If it is explicitly part of the system and the opponents are alerted, it is no longer a tactical bid. Indeed that is what happens. The short explanation is: "it promises a 3 card minor and it does not deny longer and/or better second minor". I.e. it is an explicit partnership agreement, not a tactical bid.

Allpw me to be clear - I have nothing against tactical bids or psychs. I am quite willing to make tactical bids whenever it seems appropriate and in my youth I was quite willing to psych rather too often. But, you specifically said you would systemically open the weaker minor and that the reason was to inhibit a lead. Now you claim that was not a tactical bid. I dare say the tongue seems to have more than one tip.

But then, it does seem that every time somebody mentions the idea of "mixed strategies" that they really mean they want to employ tactical options and for some reason they prefer some name other than "tactical"!

[hrothgar]

But then, it does seem that every time somebody mentions the idea of "mixed strategies" that they really mean they want to employ tactical options and for some reason they prefer some name other than "tactical"!

 

As far as I know, I am the first person to start using this expression with respect to bridge.

 

FWIW, I disagree your assertion.

 

An optimal mixed strategy requires specification of a probability density function that describes the set of available actions.

The concept is much more formal than a "tactical bid".

 

Part of the reason that I am attracted to this construction is the formalism.

Mixed strategies can be made consistent with disclosure requirements.

 

Its a lot more difficult to do so if people are acting on random whims.

[szgyula]

Just a clarification: "Tactical bid" was meant as a mini-psych, i.e. a deviation from the agreed system that does not reach the level of a bona fide psych. Of course at one point certain tactical bids become implicit partnership agreements and must be disclosed.

[blackshoe]

Just a clarification: "Tactical bid" was meant as a mini-psych, i.e. a deviation from the agreed system that does not reach the level of a bona fide psych. Of course at one point certain tactical bids become implicit partnership agreements and must be disclosed.

The technical term used in regulations for this is "deviation". Perhaps the term "tactical bid" should be deprecated. :unsure:

[szgyula]

The technical term used in regulations for this is "deviation". Perhaps the term "tactical bid" should be deprecated. :unsure:

Agreed. There is still a slight difference, though: Both are small deviations from the system (I think the typical rule is more than a Q and more than 1 in length). Both are intentional. In my mind "tactical bid" wants to confuse the opponents more than the partner. Deviation does not necessarily include this motive, the intention may be completely different. One example would be a situation that the agreed system has no correct bid for and one chooses less misleading bid. But I agree "tactical bid" should be deprecated.

[RMB1]

I have seen "tactical bid" used to describe control/cue bids in a suit where they do not have control. This (to me) has always looked like a psyche: gross, deliberate and intended to deceive.

 

Except that psychic control bids are often not psyches because there is partnership understanding (experience) behind them. Of course, these are rarely disclosed.

[EricK]

I have seen "tactical bid" used to describe control/cue bids in a suit where they do not have control. This (to me) has always looked like a psyche: gross, deliberate and intended to deceive.

 

Except that psychic control bids are often not psyches because there is partnership understanding (experience) behind them. Of course, these are rarely disclosed.

It's one of those irregular verbs:

 

We make tactical bids;

You psyche;

They have an undisclosed partnership agreement.

[barmar]

It's one of those irregular verbs:

 

We make tactical bids;

You psyche;

They have an undisclosed partnership agreement.

Don't forget the conjugation with proper nouns:

 

Rueful Rabbit missorts his hand;

Mrs. Guggenheim misbids.

[gombo121]

There are simple enough counter arguments.

 

Let's assume that I want to use the following convention

 

If I hold 3-3 in the minors, I open 1C 50% of the time and 1D 50% of the time.

 

I sum the total value of my spades (counting 2 for a deuce, 3 for a "three" 11 for a Jack, and so on

If the total is even, I open 1C

if the the total is odd, I open 1D

 

Prior to the start of the tournament, I disclose my partnership agreement to the opponents.

(In this case, I disclose the probability density function)

 

Furthermore, I register the mechanism by which I generate entropy to the tournament director.

 

At the close of the event, anyone who cares can validate that the behavior (the set of bids made) match the disclosed agreement.

 

In this case you are simply failing full disclosure. Your decision is related and is traceable to essential part of the deal and it may be possible for your partner to figure out the key information, eg., he happen to hold all odd spades (of course, if you're explaining the algorithm to opps, its OK, but it is not a mixed strategy any more).

To be truly (pseudo)random the entropy source have to be unrelated to the deal and I believe that human is incapable of producing one without any external aids, so systemic mixed strategies are doomed.

 

On the other hand, "may be light in the third seat" essentially is a mixed strategy and nobody seems to be complaining.

[hrothgar]

In this case you are simply failing full disclosure. Your decision is related and is traceable to essential part of the deal and it may be possible for your partner to figure out the key information, eg., he happen to hold all odd spades (of course, if you're explaining the algorithm to opps, its OK, but it is not a mixed strategy any more).

To be truly (pseudo)random the entropy source have to be unrelated to the deal and I believe that human is incapable of producing one without any external aids, so systemic mixed strategies are doomed.

 

There is no reason why the key needs to be disclosed to partner.

 

As a practical example, lets assume that we use the count the number of odd spades held by partner key suggested by Gnasher.

 

Partner to know whether I choose to open 1C if I hold an odd number of spades or an even number.

(For that matter, there's 101 different possible ways to generate this same 50-50 coin flip)

 

The big concern is that partner and i adopt mechanisms that produce the same PDF

[awm]

I wonder how this interacts with Zia's claim that he doesn't know how Michael Rosenberg decides which minor to open with 4-4. If Michael were to choose randomly (or based on the number of odd spades), would it really matter at this point? If such a high-level and experienced partnership can claim to have "no agreement" about this, it would suggest that a random choice is perfectly legal (and perhaps need not even be disclosed, if the partnership hasn't discussed it in depth).

[aguahombre]

Zia doesn't know how MR decides, and I agree that this choice by MR whatever the key is legal. But the mere fact that with a balanced 4-4m he is not consistent in choosing one or the other is certainly disclosable when asked.

[nige1]

On BLML, a long time ago, I asked about the legality of pseudo-random pseudo-psyches e.g.

• With four deuces, you "psych" 1♣ if you feel like it.
• With four treys, 1♦
• .. And so on, holding any other specified set of cards that you can remember.

Psychs would be infrequent. A benefit would be that partner would be suspicious of your bid, only when lacking all the cards in the appropriate specified set. Hence it would be a kind of controlled-psych. Of course, you would be cheating unless you disclosed this to opponents, so that they could use similar clues. Anyway, such an agreement might flout some anti-encryption rule variants.