Interesting(?) BIT-appeal

[pescetom]

That is correct, but EBU regulation makes the skip bidder responsible for timing the pause while (as I believe!) ACBL leaves this responsibility with the skip bidder's LHO?

 

FIGB regulations say clearly that the skip bidder must exhibit the STOP for 10 seconds and his LHO can not bid until it is removed.

[jhenrikj]

I've said it before, but having the skipbidder in charge of the tempo is completely crazy. That gives the skipbidder the option to create UI for the other side.

[pran]

I've said it before, but having the skipbidder in charge of the tempo is completely crazy. That gives the skipbidder the option to create UI for the other side.

On the contrary it takes away any possibility the other side (i.e. the skip bidder's LHO) has to create UI by varying his pause for thought because he must call without hesitation when "end of pause" is signaled.

.

The only exception is that if the skip bidder signals "end of pause" before 10 seconds have elapsed then LHO is still entitled to his full 10 seconds pause for thought.

[jhenrikj]

 

.

The only exception is that if the skip bidder signals "end of pause" before 10 seconds have elapsed then LHO is still entitled to his full 10 seconds pause for thought.

 

 

 

Which means that the next player still has to keep teack of time because if the stopcard is removed to soon and the next player calls immidiatly everyone knows he was just waiting for the card to be removed. No one should be able to tell when the next player thinks 10 seconds has elapsed. He is the only one who can decide when to bid.

And if he need two extra seconds when the card is removed that can under no circumstances be UI because you should not be able to tell if he just counted the seconds slowly or actually was thinking. So if the card is removed after 8 seconds and I bid after 12 that is clearly UI only created by the skipbidder. If the card is removed at once and the next player is responsible to time the pause 12 seconds is never UI.

 

To sum it up.

 

Card removed before 10 seconds, next player bids at once, the skipbidder has created UI

 

Card removed to soon, next player bids in a few seconds, the skipbidder has created UI.

 

Card removed at exactly 10 seconds, next player bids after 2-3 more seconds, the skipbidder has created UI.

[pran]

Which means that the next player still has to keep teack of time because if the stopcard is removed to soon and the next player calls immidiatly everyone knows he was just waiting for the card to be removed. No one should be able to tell when the next player thinks 10 seconds has elapsed. He is the only one who can decide when to bid.

And if he need two extra seconds when the card is removed that can under no circumstances be UI because you should not be able to tell if he just counted the seconds slowly or actually was thinking. So if the card is removed after 8 seconds and I bid after 12 that is clearly UI only created by the skipbidder. If the card is removed at once and the next player is responsible to time the pause 12 seconds is never UI.

 

To sum it up.

 

Card removed before 10 seconds, next player bids at once, the skipbidder has created UI

 

Card removed to soon, next player bids in a few seconds, the skipbidder has created UI.

 

Card removed at exactly 10 seconds, next player bids after 2-3 more seconds, the skipbidder has created UI.

No, the next player has no obligation to keep track of the time. He always has the right to a 10 seconds (extra) pause because of the unexpected situation, and he is at liberty to call earlier once the stop card is removed.

 

The purpose of the STOP procedure is to protect the skip bidder's LHO when a probably unexpected situation in the auction occurs.

 

Whatever UI that might be created by this procedure as such can only cause damage to the skip bidder, i.e. the side causing the unexpected situation.

 

What is wrong with that?

[jhenrikj]

Whats wrong with it is that everyone can tell why the hand after the skipbid waited. If he calls at once after the card was removed he was only waiting , if he takes his 10 seconds he is thinking, if he thinks for a few more seconds after 10 he is thinking.

 

If the player after the skipbid is resonsible for the time you should not be able to tell the difference in any of the above situation (yes I know most players will give it away).

[pran]

Whats wrong with it is that everyone can tell why the hand after the skipbid waited. If he calls at once after the card was removed he was only waiting , if he takes his 10 seconds he is thinking, if he thinks for a few more seconds after 10 he is thinking.

 

If the player after the skipbid is resonsible for the time you should not be able to tell the difference in any of the above situation (yes I know most players will give it away).

And how can any of this cause damage to the opponents of the side making an unexpected skip bid and thereby causing LHO to need extra time for consideration before selecting a call?

 

It is the skip bidder's LHO who needs protection and not the skip bidder who causes the unexpected situation.

[lamford]

As I wrote in the OP, they had not discussed this or similar positions (have you discussed the position after an opponent first pass and then preempt at the fivelevel?), and N/S did not mention any agreements that were relevant. Part of the assumed BIT was surely to consider if this was a forcing pass position and what double would show and if partner would assume the same. In retrospect both believed double was takeout-oriented, but some may consider that as selfserving evidence.

When surveying some experts in the LSL, they also had not discussed the meaning of pass and double, but they would still conclude that Pass was 100% forcing and would invite partner to bid on and double would tell partner not to do so. A slow double shows something between the two. Three for the price of two, you might say.

 

What was the result of the appeal, John?

[jvage]

When surveying some experts in the LSL, they also had not discussed the meaning of pass and double, but they would still conclude that Pass was 100% forcing and would invite partner to bid on and double would tell partner not to do so. A slow double shows something between the two. Three for the price of two, you might say.

 

What was the result of the appeal, John?

The AC decided to let the result stand.

 

Personally I found this to be a difficult case. One factor was that the bidding was unusual, so that one would expect a hesitation almost independently of the hand.

 

The deciding factor was however our second poll, which asked what the hesitation suggested. 3 of the 7 players polled believed 5♠ was suggested over pass and 1 believed it was unclear what was suggested. The 3 best players polled (all have been on the Norwegian open team) however all said that the BIT suggested pass, and two of them believed a succesful pass should not be allowed. We would like to avoid putting the player in a position where there was no legal action after partners BIT. Also the chosen action was not considered to be "demonstrably suggested over another" (§16C2).

[barmar]

Whats wrong with it is that everyone can tell why the hand after the skipbid waited. If he calls at once after the card was removed he was only waiting , if he takes his 10 seconds he is thinking, if he thinks for a few more seconds after 10 he is thinking.

The basic theory is that most of the time 10 seconds is more time than they actually need to think. If the skip bidder places the STOP card for 10 seconds, and the player bids immediately after it's removed, you can't tell if they were thinking for 1 second and waiting for 9, or thinking for 8 seconds and waiting for 2.

 

Of course, if they hesitate additionally after the STOP card is removed, it doesn't really matter who controls the timing -- such a long hesitation will transmit UI either way, and we don't have any way to stop that. It's not a perfect situation.

If the player after the skipbid is resonsible for the time you should not be able to tell the difference in any of the above situation (yes I know most players will give it away).

The problem is that if they really have something to think about, it's hard for them ALSO to keep track of how long they're taking. Their mind was occupied with the decision, so they don't know how much time they need to wait to fill 10 seconds.

 

OTOH, the skip bidder doesn't have that much to think about during LHO's turn, so they can easily count the seconds in their head.

 

Of course, all this is also predicated on the assumption that LHO is able to give the impression that they're thinking during the 10 seconds. If it's obvious that it's just a pro-forma hesitation, the STOP procedure is a waste of time.

[lamford]

We would like to avoid putting the player in a position where there was no legal action after partners BIT.

That makes huge sense, but I think the word "demonstrably" in 16B should avoid that. It is a good point that the BIT might demonstrably suggest that North pass rather than demonstrably suggest that he bid 5S. I hope that one would adjust if passing the double had proved to be the winning action.

 

The more I think about it, the more correct the AC decision seems to me. While I would pass an in-tempo double as North, the slow double suggests that partner realised pass was forcing, and double therefore suggests that we pass, so we have to bid 5S to carefully avoid taking advantage of the UI.

[blackshoe]

"Hesitate" implies uncertainty. I submit that a player who is complying with a skip bid regulation does not exhibit uncertainty.

[Trinidad]

The TD polled 4 players, all bid 5♠, but one commented that he considered passing. The TD let the score stand (6♠N=) and E/W appealed.

This (again) shows the absurdity of player polls. The guideline says that if 1 in 6 would make the call (pass in this case) it is an LA.

 

Suppose that 1 in 5 players would actually pass. This clearly exceeds the 1 in 6 criterion. What are the probabilities if you ask 4 players that n of them would pass? P=comb(4,n)*(1/5)^n*4/5^(4-n)

 

n    P

0    41.0%

1    41.0%

2    15.4%

3    2.6%

4    0.2%

 

In other words, if 1 in 5 players would actually pass (if you could poll an infinite amount of players) then the probability that you find 0 passers in group of 4 is 41%. So you will be wrong 41 % of the time. You could simply flip a coin instead of polling. Then you would be wrong slightly more often.

 

So, 4 is far too small a number to poll this. To get some reliability you need to poll a whole lot of people. How about 10? We assume agin that 1 in 5 (from an infinite pool) would actually pass:

n    P

0    10.7%

1    26.8%

2    30.2%

3    20.1%

4    8.8%

5    2.6%

6    0.6%

7    0.1%

>=8    0.09%

 

So, with 10 pollees, you would go wrong 37.5 % of the time. That is clearly not accurate enough.

 

I consider 15 people about the absolute maximum number of pollees that you can realistically get in a tournament setting:

n    P

0    3.5%

1    13.2%

2    23.1%

3    25.0%

4    18.8%

5    10.3%

6    4.3%

7    1.4%

8    0.3%

9    0.1%

>=9    0.01%

 

With 15 pollees you would be wrong 39.8% of the time. I find these probabilities for wrong decisions clearly unacceptable.

 

What should we do then? The first improvement is astonishingly simple. In these polls, we consistently ask the wrong question. We ask: "What would you do?" and then we start counting. But we do not want to know what a player would do. We want to know whether pass is an LA.

 

So, instead, we ask 15 players: "Would pass be a logical alternative?". Our criterion (equivalent to the 1 in 6 actual passers) is whether the majority (50% or more) would think pass is an LA. Say that in an infinite pool of players 60% would think pass is an LA. Then the probabilities are:

n    P

<=2    0.028%

3    0.2%

4    0.7%

5    2.4%

6    6.1%

7    11.8%

8    17.7%

9    20.7%

10    18.6%

11    12.7%

12    6.3%

13    2.2%

14    0.5%

15    0.047%

 

Now, there is only a 21 % probability that the outcome is wrong. I think that is an improvement.

 

Finally, the last option: We do not poll any players! We ask 5 experienced tournament players to form a jury. They sit together, discuss and decide. They can voice their opinions, they can give arguments, they can convince or be convinced. In the end, they together weight the arguments and reach a decision. They either would consider pass an LA, or they wouldn't.

 

It is hard to quantify this, but I am convinced that the last option leads to the highest percentage of accurate decisions, because it has accurate reasoning and exchange of arguments at its base. And that is exactly what we were doing before we started to mandate polling (without knowing what polling really is).

 

Please, let's throw the polls out of the window. They give a false sense of security.

 

Rik

 

(This has nothing to do with the - independent - question whether 5♠ was demonstrably suggested by the BIT.)

[pescetom]

Please, let's throw the polls out of the window. They give a false sense of security.

(This has nothing to do with the - independent - question whether 5♠ was demonstrably suggested by the BIT.)

 

Or we simply poll more people in a more precise way.

It is still my intention to experiment polling a group of players of known level via whatsapp once this is possible, despite skepticism and ostracism here.

[gordontd]

It is hard to quantify this, but I am convinced that the last option leads to the highest percentage of accurate decisions, because it has accurate reasoning and exchange of arguments at its base. And that is exactly what we were doing before we started to mandate polling (without knowing what polling really is).

 

Please, let's throw the polls out of the window. They give a false sense of security.

And yet the widespread perception is that rulings in general have become better since polling became mainstream, which is why appeals have become less frequent. I find it strange that you present lots of figures to support your argument until you come to the conclusion where you say "it is hard to quantify this, but I am convinced..."

[jhenrikj]

Never actually heard anywhere where a LA is 1/6. Normally it takes more than 1/5 to be considered an LA. So if you ask 5, 1 must choose it and at least 2 more or even perhaps 3 must consider (or 2 choose it) it to become a LA.

 

If the ruling is close (say you have 1 choosing it and 2 more considering it out of 5), you simply poll 1 or 2 more.

 

 

I think you got the 1/6 from the old 12C1© where the offending side would get the most unfavorable possible and the offending side the most favorable probable score. Worst possible was 1/6 best probable was 1/3.

 

I'm absolutely sure that the last option with 5 TD's deciding will by far get the most incorrect rulings.

[gordontd]

we do not want to know what a player would do. We want to know whether pass is an LA.

Whether or not pass is an LA is defined in the laws as being dependant on what (like) players would do.

[Trinidad]

And yet the widespread perception is that rulings in general have become better since polling became mainstream, which is why appeals have become less frequent.

Yes, appeals have become less frequent. Yes, this is caused by polling. Yes, perhaps even the TD rulings have improved due to polling. (We got rid of TDs ruling against the alleged offending side, counting on an AC to rectify it.) But no, the overall process has gotten worse due to polling.

 

Why? ACs can only check whether proper procedure was followed. No matter how ridiculous the poll result is, it stands. My previous analysis shows that poll results are way too close to coin flips. There are 2 reasons for this:

The criterion for an LA (1 in 6) makes it like looking for a needle in a haystack. You need to look many times before you can say something reliable about low probability events. (see P.S. below)

The number of available pollees is already small if you are searching for a 1 in 2 criterion, sinc ethere simply are not that many players.

 

I find it strange that you present lots of figures to support your argument until you come to the conclusion where you say "it is hard to quantify this, but I am convinced..."

This is obviously not what I meant in my post. I assume that I wasn't clear enough. "This" referred to the fact that it is hard to quantify the accuracy of a decision by a group of people reaching a conclusion by exchanging ideas, opinions and weighting arguments. (In contrast to quantifying "that": the accuracy of a poll that can be calculated to be close to that of a coin toss.)

 

Rik

 

P.S.

 

Don't worry too much about this. Just last week I heard a story at work about a manufacturer who had a process where 0.2 % of the products failed. They decided to test a new production method during the weekend to see if they could improve on this. Between making the changes to the equipment and before reverting the changes, so they could produce the old way on Monday morning, they managed to make 30 pieces of this product. They all passed the quality test, which does not give an answer to the question whether the new method is better than the old one: At a failure rate of 0.2 %, the probability to find 0 failures in a set of 30 is 94 %. So, they had been working an entire weekend, without being able to draw a conclusion. When the consultant asked the engineer why he had done this experiment, he told: "I had told the boss that it was useless, but he told me to do it anyway. But maybe he will listen to you."

 

So, bridge bosses are not the only ones who do not understand the problems that come with sampling.

[Trinidad]

Whether or not pass is an LA is defined in the laws as being dependant on what (like) players would do.

Yes, and why couldn't you ask players what players would do (multiple answers possible) rather than ask these players what they would do (1 answer possible)?

 

Rik

[Trinidad]

I'm absolutely sure that the last option with 5 TD's deciding will by far get the most incorrect rulings.

Oh, I agree on that, but that was not my last option.

 

My last option was 5 experienced bridge players deciding. The big difference with a poll of 5 people is that these people are now not simply answering a question and we are counting, but they will need to exchange ideas, convince and weight the arguments. This means that what started as a minority view may be able to correct a wrong majority view when there are better arguments for the minority view.

 

Rik

[gordontd]

Yes, and why couldn't you ask players what players would do (multiple answers possible) rather than ask these players what they would do (1 answer possible)?

 

Rik

Why do you expect them to know what other people would do? Asking them what they would do themselves at least has an expectation that they would know the answer.

[Zelandakh]

Whether or not pass is an LA is defined in the laws as being dependant on what (like) players would do.

One of the points Rik was making in his post is that the sampling does not necessarily help us to answer this question in a meaningful way as the sample size is simply too small. Typically, a TD will sample a certain number of players and then look to see whether x percent of them choose the call and/or y percent of them considered it. But TDs are not statisticians and that is not actually the right question. The questions to ask are, given that we got a sample result of (b,c), what is the probability that the underlying probability of the call being chosen, p >= x and what is the underlying probability of the underlying probability of the call being chosen, q >= y?

 

If the sample size is too small to answer these questions then the sampling might not be giving us useful information. That seems to me to be a fairly fundamental issue to address and might be incredibly useful in providing TDs with guidelines for collecting an adequate sample size for a given level of mathematical confidence. Surely governing bodies and their TDs would welcome that rather than seeing it as a challenge to their authority in some way?

[barmar]

I'm not really an expert in statistics, but I think you should consider it in a Bayesian way. The TD likely already has a preconception about what the LAs are, and he's using the poll to support or refute it. The player's actual action and explanation of why they took it is also an existing data point.

 

Does that change the equations?

[gordontd]

If the sample size is too small to answer these questions then the sampling might not be giving us useful information. That seems to me to be a fairly fundamental issue to address and might be incredibly useful in providing TDs with guidelines for collecting an adequate sample size for a given level of mathematical confidence. Surely governing bodies and their TDs would welcome that rather than seeing it as a challenge to their authority in some way?

Certainly it is helpful to increase the sample size if possible and one way of doing this that I use is to poll on Bridgewinners. But I don't think his solution was to increase the poll size, it was to revert to the subjective method of asking strong players what they thought.

[pescetom]

Certainly it is helpful to increase the sample size if possible and one way of doing this that I use is to poll on Bridgewinners.

 

I too have sometimes used discussion forum polls to increase the sample size. The main difficult of that is that Bridgewinners offers no discretion whatsoever and this forum generates a sample size no larger than what I achieve at the club (especially if some people comment but fail to actually vote, hint Zel B-) ). Also there is little real possibility to limit responses to peer level. But it's still useful and interesting.