What does this hesitation suggest?

[nige1]

While I must admit, I'm not particularly familiar with any of the laws surrounding this issue. As a player, I do think it's somewhat ridiculous to consider it unethical to think when making a decision. Sometimes players considering whether they should be giving count, or preference.. etc.. Rather, it's clear to me, that the most unethical player at the table is the one who chooses to read into a break in tempo, and changes their course of action intending to run to the director if they've guessed wrong. It's shameful. If this player had absolutely no conceivable decision, I understand, but it's trick 2, and decisions at trick 2 can have significant relevance to defeating a contract. While I agree that this decision is straight forward, and may well mark the 10 to their partner, this is identical to when a defender is thinking with the King of a suit on the table, does anyone doubt whether they have the Ace? Are they now obligated to play it?

Exactly what I think. I always only blame myself for guessing wrong.

 

It's frightening that here and on BridgeWinners, there are interminable threads where experts condemn a director-call as "unethical, "shameful" or worse.

 

IMO, the rules of bridge need radical simplification and clarification. They are too sophisticated and subjective.

 

Nevertheless, however bad we deem the rules to be, we players should comply with them. Also, if we feel that a putative irregularity might have damaged us,. then we should be free to call the director without fear of abuse.

[barmar]

Who are these people? Tim was a colleague of mine when I was moderating Roundtables on Genie about thirty years ago.

GEnie -- blast from the past!

 

I don't really remember which groups I was in -- maybe TV and personal finance.

[pilowsky]

As much as I like you guys, you really need to know that this is all complete nonsense.

If ever there was a need for Bridge clocks so that every player could play their cards in their own time without fear of idiotic arguments like this one erupting, it's an idiotic argument like this one.

None of you is psychic, none of you is a mind-reader. The entire idea that it is possible to tell where any particular card is from a 4, 5 or 6-second pause is completely silly.

I know that it has become part of Bridge lore (and apparently now law) that this is possible but it isn't. James Randi would have a great time with you lot.

 

Also, peoples processing speed varies dramatically for all sorts of reasons. Some people may even have brief episodes of petit mal epilepsy that they are completely unaware of (incidence up to 4.6/100,000 apparently) or they could have sleep apnoea.

Or if they are British they could just have eaten a bad kipper.

 

Get over yourselves.

[nige1]

As much as I like you guys, you really need to know that this is all complete nonsense. If ever there was a need for Bridge clocks so that every player could play their cards in their own time without fear of idiotic arguments like this one erupting, it's an idiotic argument like this one. None of you is psychic, none of you is a mind-reader. The entire idea that it is possible to tell where any particular card is from a 4, 5 or 6-second pause is completely silly. I know that it has become part of Bridge lore (and apparently now law) that this is possible but it isn't. James Randi would have a great time with you lot. Also, peoples processing speed varies dramatically for all sorts of reasons. Some people may even have brief episodes of petit mal epilepsy that they are completely unaware of (incidence up to 4.6/100,000 apparently) or they could have sleep apnoea. Or if they are British they could just have eaten a bad kipper. Get over yourselves.

 

I agree with Pilowski that the rules of Bridge over-rely on subjective judgment, especially mind-reading. And I also agree that a timed-game would reduce controversial rulings.

 

In this particular case however, under current rules, Sven Pran and Paul Lamford convince me. IMO, the director should rule 100% in favour of declarer. The laws specify that defenders should take special care with tempo when it's likely to affect opponent's actions. East could have known that his hesitation would give declarer a false impression.

[Zelandakh]

This thread has an interesting twist in these covid days as now the OLer cannot delay quitting trick 1 for their thinking time. I would hope that this would have an influence on the way that a ruling might be judged.

[Cyberyeti]

How hard is it to know which card gives the correct signal? If you play standard count, a high card shows even; if you play upside-down, a low card.

 

Are you talking about contemplating whether this is a count, attitude, or suit preference situation? Again, this is something players are supposed to anticipate so that they don't hesitate.

 

Clearly, being able to plan ahead like this requires experience, but I don't think that's a serious problem. Novice players have extremely random tempo, often hesitating when there's nothing much to think about, so you can't really infer much from it.

 

This is my problem with things like odd/even signals, playing a slow card suggests you didn't have the card you needed to give the correct signal, so thinking about it tells partner to ignore it.

[pilowsky]

If you read Waldrop's Dream Machine about the development of the personal computer, you will come across a moment when Steve Jobs (I think) asks the designers to add noise to the computer so that people will believe that it is actually doing something.

When replaying hands on the teaching table you will find that GIB randomly, but reproducibly, adds specific amounts of time at certain points for no good reason. The amount of time is always the same. There is no reason for it. GIB doesn't need to pause or think.

It seems that the programmers have added pauses here and there to simulate thinking in order to create verisimilitude.

Why else?

Should I call the Director when in a timed robot tournament GIB wastes my time unnecessarily?

Obviously not, but I don't infer that East has the King of Diamonds either. I also don't do it just because Barry burps or Nigel scratches himself.

Perhaps if Paul knowingly rubbed his nose and did a Robert Redford imitation I'd get worried.

[Zelandakh]

This is my problem with things like odd/even signals, playing a slow card suggests you didn't have the card you needed to give the correct signal, so thinking about it tells partner to ignore it.

As opposed to high/low signals when a fast card is attitude/count and a slow card is suit preference.

[Cyberyeti]

As opposed to high/low signals when a fast card is attitude/count and a slow card is suit preference.

 

Don't have this problem playing pretty much count throughout, but yes, any signal with multiple purposes (we had a real issue with a pair playing prism signals and tempo) is abusable in this way.

[Zelandakh]

Don't have this problem playing pretty much count throughout, but yes, any signal with multiple purposes (we had a real issue with a pair playing prism signals and tempo) is abusable in this way.

So if you have 852, you play count on the first round and then count again on the second round just in case partner missed the first signal?

[nige1]

When replaying hands on the teaching table you will find that GIB randomly, but reproducibly, adds specific amounts of time at certain points for no good reason. The amount of time is always the same. There is no reason for it. GIB doesn't need to pause or think. It seems that the programmers have added pauses here and there to simulate thinking in order to create verisimilitude.

Seems reasonable but, in my experience, with a singleton or no real choice, GIB seems to play quickly.

Should I call the Director when in a timed robot tournament GIB wastes my time unnecessarily?

Obviously not, but I don't infer that East has the King of Diamonds either. I also don't do it just because Barry burps or Nigel scratches himself. Perhaps if Paul knowingly rubbed his nose and did a Robert Redford imitation I'd get worried.

We've been here before. Pilowsky is right that if the rules were changed to make Bridge a timed game then Bridge would be more fun and many problems would disappear.

We disagree, however, about current rules. IMO....

• Players shouldn't hesitate spuriously when that is likely to hoodwink opponents.
• Players shouldn't base inferences on unauthorised information from their partners.

Law-breakers regularly rationalize such behaviour. I feel that is partly the fault of victims for failing to call the director to judge whether an infraction has occurred, to assess damage (if any) or to impose procedural penalties (if appropriate).

 

Pilowsky is right that this is a contentious area. Many players, like Lamford and Mycroft, seem to agree with Pilowsky that such director calls are officious or unsporting or worse.

[Cyberyeti]

So if you have 852, you play count on the first round and then count again on the second round just in case partner missed the first signal?

 

We play the 2 the first time and the 5 unless it's REALLY obvious suit preference situation, no need for thought

[mycroft]

Wow, Nigel, I'm either bad at explaining, or you really don't read me well. I wouldn't mind some citation for "calling the TD is unsporting". I will say "calling the TD as an A player on a pair of total newbies for whom even the A player can see the hesitation means 'I've never seen this auction before', not whatever it would mean if said A player, or I, made that hesitation, could be an issue, especially if they're intimidating when doing so" (with a special note that it's *really easy* for an A player to be intimidating to newbies). But I've always said "call the TD politely, explain the issue politely, and let the TD handle it from there on, and accept the ruling with good grace unless it's obviously wrong."

 

I do have an issue with "I think they're having a mistake and we'll get a good result out of it. But if it turns out working for them, I'll call the TD to get from him what I couldn't get at the table". But that usually comes up *in opposition* to lamford, et al, so I'm not sure how you conflate the two.

 

I certainly am on the record as stating that bridge clocks, no matter how they are set, are gameable, and will be gamed. That doesn't mean they aren't a good thing for "establishing length of hesitation" on some random play.

[nige1]

Wow, Nigel, I'm either bad at explaining, or you really don't read me well. I wouldn't mind some citation for "calling the TD is unsporting".

In recent Lamford threads, where it transpired that

• The Rabbit misinformed opponents.
• With correct information opponents could have achieved a better result.

You seemed to criticise the director call. This seems at odds with ...

But I've always said "call the TD politely, explain the issue politely, and let the TD handle it from there on, and accept the ruling with good grace unless it's obviously wrong."

That seems a much better approach, when you suspect that an opponent broke the law. I agree that it us up to the director to judge whether there was an infraction and to determine damage if any. And I agree that the director should be wary of a one-sided view, being careful to gather evidence from both sides, not just the side that shouts louder.

 

For a clear infraction, however, even without damage, I feel that you should call the director. Furthermore, if the director judges that the infraction might be deliberate, then he should consider imposing a PP. Blackshoe might agree.

 

IMO, if players called the director for more problems, we would enjoy a smoother and more pleasant game. And there might be less slander and back-biting in the bar, afterwards.

[mycroft]

That was "I think they're having a mistake and we'll get a good result out of it. But if it turns out working for them, I'll call the TD to get from him what I couldn't get at the table". And yes, I think that kind of doubleshot is unsporting, *especially* when the caller is - shall we say, stingy with the truth? - in what he explains to the TD and expects him to believe straight up.

 

But that's not calling the TD, and accepting the result; that's actively setting up the opponents so that if things are one way, he gets a good score at the table; if it goes the other way, he gets a good score from the TD. That - not calling the TD - is the problem I had. Oh, and needing to replace my BS-detector because the arm snapped. But that happens at least once a tournament, especially if they've never seen me before, so there it is.

 

Using the TD as a referee, to avoid rancor at the table; that I definitely approve of, even if my response after investigation is "for you, that hesitation would be meaningful. for them, it means they have 40 MPs and have never seen anyone overcall their 2♣ opener before. No relevant UI, no damage". Calling the cops, or using the TD as a beatstick, or playing dumb and innocent when everyone knows you're one of the best table-readers in the city, that I have issues with.

[barmar]

When replaying hands on the teaching table you will find that GIB randomly, but reproducibly, adds specific amounts of time at certain points for no good reason. The amount of time is always the same. There is no reason for it. GIB doesn't need to pause or think.

Actually, it does.

 

During the auction, some bids come automatically from the bidding database, while others allow or require simulations; simulations slow things down noticeably.

 

And during the play, simulations are also involved. The time this takes will depend on how many legal bids the robot has available. If it's following suit, it only has to analyze the results of playing cards of that suit, but if it's on lead or void in the suit, it has many more options and has to analyze the results of each of them.

 

One place where I've noticed that the robot is usually slow is when I'm taking a losing finesse -- it seems like it always takes a few seconds to decide to win it. But if the finesse is winning, it just plays its lowest card.

[pilowsky]

Actually, it does.

 

During the auction, some bids come automatically from the bidding database, while others allow or require simulations; simulations slow things down noticeably.

 

And during the play, simulations are also involved. The time this takes will depend on how many legal bids the robot has available. If it's following suit, it only has to analyze the results of playing cards of that suit, but if it's on lead or void in the suit, it has many more options and has to analyze the results of each of them.

 

One place where I've noticed that the robot is usually slow is when I'm taking a losing finesse -- it seems like it always takes a few seconds to decide to win it. But if the finesse is winning, it just plays its lowest card.

 

What I am saying is that I have taken an individual hand and measured the actual latency to make a bid or play a card at a certain point. Over and over again. Reproducibly.

I used to do this for a (small) living. With oscilloscopes and *****.

 

 

Sometimes, GIB will pause for a couple of seconds before making a bid. I understand what you mean by simulations. The same thing applies to humans. We call it thinking.

Say an experienced player has a 4333 with 16HCP - 1NT no problem. Make it 5422 and 14 or 18 HCP and an inexperienced player - now you have issues. Make it 5431 and 19HCP now you have a Forum question and a Director call.

 

 

This is why I think that all the carry on about pauses and meaningful glances is so silly in a thinking game. It's a thinking game. Let people think.