Interesting(?) BIT-appeal

[gordontd]

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.

This is true, though the results are usually sufficiently clear, and I have a sense of the standard of a large number of the respondents, that it is quite helpful. Aside from the large numbers involved, it is also helpful that almost none of them will know anything about the hand, whereas polling players in an event, they will usually know the hand.

[Trinidad]

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.

Indeed it was.

 

But this has a reason: The needed sample size is reduced significantly if you simply ask the question that comes with a 1:1 criterion. Or, the other way around, with the same sample size, a poll with a 1:1 criterion will be much more accurate than a poll with a 1:5 criterion.

 

Rik

[Trinidad]

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?

Yes. And this is exactly what I mean with the last solution: An interactive discussion with different inputs will be more accurate than n individual opinions, that are simply tallied.

 

If the TD discusses the case with a few players this will be more accurate than asking some of the available players individually what they would call and some others what the UI suggests.

And, of course, the same holds for the AC.

 

Rik

[blackshoe]

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.

Throwing numbers around where they aren't really applicable can lead to silly conclusions. Yet people seem to think putting a number on something has some value. I'm not so sure. Granted, "a significant proportion of the class of players in question" is a bit vague, but putting a number on it, whether it be 1 in 5, 1 in 6, or anything else, isn't a panacea. The theory behind polling is that if you poll a (very) small proportion of the set called "class of players in question" you can conclude that something is an LA if one player chooses it. When you look at it that way, the conclusion that the theory is nonsense seems obvious.

[sanst]

Rik argued correctly that polling doesn’t necessarily give a reliable or useful result. The assumption is, that the players polled

• Are of comparable strength as the players involved
  
• Have no prior knowledge of the hands and the results,
  
• Understand the methods and agreements used.
  

It can be quite hard to find those who meet these criteria. Ever tried to organize a poll when weak players were involved? Or players between who there was a considerable difference in strength?

Is there a better way to come to a decision? I rather doubt it, but prefer this situation to the one that we had before.

[pescetom]

 

It can be quite hard to find those who meet these criteria. Ever tried to organize a poll when weak players were involved? Or players between who there was a considerable difference in strength?

Is there a better way to come to a decision?

Finding other weak players is simple enough, the problem is getting meaningful answers out of them.

For difference in strength, I was taught to consider the stronger player.

One means of improvement would be online polling, involving more players with documented choices and demonstrable results.

[Zelandakh]

Is there a better way to come to a decision?

The answer to this as well as many other issues in bridge, such as many forms of cheating, is separating players into different rooms, thus allowing for self-alerting. Of course this has its drawbacks too, both in terms of the requirement for (at least) 4 different rooms and because many (most?) players enjoy the social aspect at least as much as the game, which would become lost in this model.

 

Perhaps the real solution is to accept these shortcomings and issues in club bridge but to invest in a better alternative for tournaments where money is on the line. But we are talking bridge here, so best not to expect any improvements for at least 20 years, if not longer.

[jhenrikj]

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

But that is exactly the opposite of what we want. That's why it's so important to poll players separately so that they have no chance whatsoever to influence each other.

[Trinidad]

But that is exactly the opposite of what we want. That's why it's so important to poll players separately so that they have no chance whatsoever to influence each other.

Yes, and that is exactly what is the wrong starting point. If you keep them separate, you will not get enough good votes in the poll. If you let them work together, the probability that they will get to the right answer together will be much higher.

 

It is not as if I am saying something that is revolutionary: Suppose you have 5 people available to solve a complex problem (Doesn't matter what kind of problem: financial, engineering, climate, you name it). Do you know any manager who would let these 5 work separately to gather votes at the end of the process? Of course, you don't. You let them get ideas, discuss them and weight the arguments. This will lead to a much better solution then 5 separate views.

 

This doesnot mean that polling is useless.

Suppose that a TD decides that the UI suggested the action that was taken, but that there is no LA, so no foul. Before he finalizes his decision, he checks with 4 players. It turns out that they all would have chosen an alternative action that was not suggested by the UI. Oops! The poll just corrected the TD. There is an LA.

 

But in the reverse case, it doesn't work: Now, the TD decides that the UI suggested the action that was taken and that there was an LA, so guilty. He, again, checks with 4 players. Now, none of them would chose the alternative action. The TD cannot decide that there was no LA, since the sample group is too small to establish this. The reason is that the TD is now looking for the needle in the haystack. In the previous case, he was looking for the haystack around a needle.

 

You can not reliably determine whether there is a needle in a haystack or not by sampling some parts of the haystack. You can determine whether there is hay in the haystack by sampling some parts of it.

 

Rik

[blackshoe]

I see an assumption there that the fact that some number of people chose a particular action makes that action logical. I don't think that assumption is necessarily valid.

[pescetom]

But in the reverse case, it doesn't work: Now, the TD decides that the UI suggested the action that was taken and that there was an LA, so guilty. He, again, checks with 4 players. Now, none of them would chose the alternative action. The TD cannot decide that there was no LA, since the sample group is too small to establish this. The reason is that the TD is now looking for the needle in the haystack. In the previous case, he was looking for the haystack around a needle.

This is exactly what happened to me as TD a couple of weeks ago: none of my players would choose an alternative action even though it looked blindly obvious to me. I polled online and all pollees would choose an alternative action and nobody even retained the chosen action an LA.

 

I'm not convinced that insufficient sample size is the only factor at work here, however - instead I suspect my players were biased by knowledge of the actual outcome of the hand (the chosen action was successful) and the players involved. I don't see that problem disappearing in your hypothesis of five wise players who figure out what happened in perfect understanding of the laws either - ours tend to respect each other but not necessarily those with less experience or ability, plus they are of course the ones most likely to make or necessitate a difficult TD call.

[Trinidad]

This is exactly what happened to me as TD a couple of weeks ago: none of my players would choose an alternative action even though it looked blindly obvious to me. I polled online and all pollees would choose an alternative action and nobody even retained the chosen action an LA.

 

I'm not convinced that insufficient sample size is the only factor at work here, however - instead I suspect my players were biased by knowledge of the actual outcome of the hand (the chosen action was successful) and the players involved. I don't see that problem disappearing in your hypothesis of five wise players who figure out what happened in perfect understanding of the laws either - ours tend to respect each other but not necessarily those with less experience or ability, plus they are of course the ones most likely to make or necessitate a difficult TD call.

Of course, knowledge of the hand may make the case more difficult in either way. However, I think that in a group of 5 this problem is smaller than for 5 individuals.

 

The individuals will be influenced by their knowledge, they make up their mind, and give their answer. End of story. All 5 answers will be biased.

 

In the group of 5 there is likely to be one individual (or even more) who plays the devil's advocate and says: "I pretty much agree with you, but what if we look at it from the other side? Let's make sure that we have covered all the bases." And now, the unbiased alternative answer is on the table.

 

Rik

[jhenrikj]

Yes, and that is exactly what is the wrong starting point. If you keep them separate, you will not get enough good votes in the poll. If you let them work together, the probability that they will get to the right answer together will be much higher.

 

It is not as if I am saying something that is revolutionary: Suppose you have 5 people available to solve a complex problem (Doesn't matter what kind of problem: financial, engineering, climate, you name it). Do you know any manager who would let these 5 work separately to gather votes at the end of the process? Of course, you don't. You let them get ideas, discuss them and weight the arguments. This will lead to a much better solution then 5 separate views.

 

This doesnot mean that polling is useless.

Suppose that a TD decides that the UI suggested the action that was taken, but that there is no LA, so no foul. Before he finalizes his decision, he checks with 4 players. It turns out that they all would have chosen an alternative action that was not suggested by the UI. Oops! The poll just corrected the TD. There is an LA.

 

But in the reverse case, it doesn't work: Now, the TD decides that the UI suggested the action that was taken and that there was an LA, so guilty. He, again, checks with 4 players. Now, none of them would chose the alternative action. The TD cannot decide that there was no LA, since the sample group is too small to establish this. The reason is that the TD is now looking for the needle in the haystack. In the previous case, he was looking for the haystack around a needle.

 

You can not reliably determine whether there is a needle in a haystack or not by sampling some parts of the haystack. You can determine whether there is hay in the haystack by sampling some parts of it.

 

Rik

 

You are supposed to put the pollee in the same situation as the player. In how many situations is a player allowed to discuss his options with 5 experts before he makes his choice?

 

We are not interested on knowing what the best/correct answer to the problem is. You are looking for the wrong information. We are only interested on what individuals think is the right answer, by putting them together in a group you have destroyed every possibility to find that out.

[Trinidad]

You are supposed to put the pollee in the same situation as the player. In how many situations is a player allowed to discuss his options with 5 experts before he makes his choice?

 

We are not interested on knowing what the best/correct answer to the problem is. You are looking for the wrong information. We are only interested on what individuals think is the right answer, by putting them together in a group you have destroyed every possibility to find that out.

You need to start by defining the TD's/AC's problem. You think that the TD's problem is to figure out what call people would make. Let me be very clear about that: The problem is not to figure out what call people would make. You couldn't care less about that.

 

The problem is to figure out what LAs there are.

 

We can solve this problem in two ways.

1. 
    
   
2. A poll: We ask a large amount of players: "What would your call be?" and "What are the alternatives?". (This is what TDs do. It would already be better to ask first about alternatives and then about the action they chose, but that is a topic on its own.)
   
3. We give our problem, i.e. "We need to figure out what the LAs are", to a group of "experts": experienced bridgeplayers. This group will tell us what the LAs are.
   

If you realize what the TD's question is (again: "What are the LAs?"), it becomes obvious that asking several people a different question ("What would you call?") is actually taking the long (and, hence, inaccurate) road. This problem is a separate issue on top of the statistical one.

 

So, we are definitely not asking this group what they would bid. (That would be useless, if not simply silly.)

 

Rik

[jhenrikj]

If you choose the second option the result has no value what so ever since that does not simulate the position the player is in. The pollees must be put in the same situation. What several individual players think is something you can use, what a group of players think together is of no use at all.

[barmar]

Yes. And this is exactly what I mean with the last solution: An interactive discussion with different inputs will be more accurate than n individual opinions, that are simply tallied.

 

If the TD discusses the case with a few players this will be more accurate than asking some of the available players individually what they would call and some others what the UI suggests.

And, of course, the same holds for the AC.

 

Rik

Every time I've been polled, I've tried to think out loud so the TD gets my reasoning, not just the conclusion.

[Trinidad]

If you choose the second option the result has no value what so ever since that does not simulate the position the player is in. The pollees must be put in the same situation. What several individual players think is something you can use, what a group of players think together is of no use at all.

You are taking your eye off the ball. You are focussed on polling instread of answering the question what the LAs are.

 

1. What several players say is hardly useful, because in the cases where it matters, you won't get the numbers you need to say anything accurate. So, forget it.

2. What a group of players think is far more useful, because many more of the possible answers will have been discussed. The same goes for a better understanding of the actual problem. Five people working together are much more thorough than five individuals.

 

Who says that you need to simulate the situation that the player is in? You need to figure out what the LAs are, and you need to use the best method to do that. In principle, it is a very good idea to simulate the situation the player is in. (I actually think that running a Computer sim might be helpful.) But once you realize that the statistics show that polls often are useless, you should let go of the idea.

 

And just to be precise. I have never participated in a poll that simulated the situation that the player is in. It never happens. In real life, a TD is approaching a player and typically gives him a piece of paper with a hand and an auction. Then the player is asked what he would do now.

 

The pollee knows that this is a TD case and that there is a problem and it is either UI or MI. He needs to focus on this question only. He did not see the auction as it proceeeded, so that the idea of what is going in "grows" during the auction. He doesn't get any AI from the opponents' behavior and he is very aware that this is a crucial point in the auction. This is not remotely close to simulating the situation that the player at the table was in.

 

Rik

[Trinidad]

Every time I've been polled, I've tried to think out loud so the TD gets my reasoning, not just the conclusion.

That is excellent (and I seriously mean that, no sarcasm). But how is the TD supposed to quantify your reasoning?

So, the TD knows, e.g., that Barmar passes because [he thinks the ♦K is poorly placed / he dislikes the honor structure of his hand / bidding may push the opponents into a good game]. How does that help him to establish whether 3NT / 4 ♣ / 4♠ was an LA?

 

The really useful information for the TD is:

"Pass and 4♠ are both sensible calls. 3NT is not. I would pass." [i think pass and 4♠ are LAs, 3NT is not. It never occurred to me to bid 4♣. The TD should ask about 4♣ if that is relevant.]

 

or

 

"Obviously, the choice seems to be between Pass, 3NT and 4♠. I pass and the other calls are simply wrong." [Only pass is a logical action. Again, the TD should ask about 4♣.]

 

But the above useful information is exactly what "the improved poll" would ask for, because you need less pollees to obtain a somewhat accurate result than in a poll that asks "what would you call?".

 

Rik

[barmar]

Who says that you need to simulate the situation that the player is in? You need to figure out what the LAs are, and you need to use the best method to do that. In principle, it is a very good idea to simulate the situation the player is in. (I actually think that running a Computer sim might be helpful.) But once you realize that the statistics show that polls often are useless, you should let go of the idea.

How would a computer sim accomodate "the class of player"? Do you think we can really write software to simulate the thinking of beginners versus experts?

[Trinidad]

How would a computer sim accomodate "the class of player"? Do you think we can really write software to simulate the thinking of beginners versus experts?

I am not stating that a computer sim would accomodate a class of player, but I think that there are situations where a sim might be useful. Suppose a player choses an action because he reasons that it has a much better expected value than the alternative his opponents claim he had. A sim could test whether he was correct about his reasoning and might help decide whether the claimed alternative is actually "logical" or so inferior that it is no longer logical.

 

Rik

[pran]

How would a computer sim accomodate "the class of player"? Do you think we can really write software to simulate the thinking of beginners versus experts?

No problem - provided that you can formalize the (complete) characteristics of beginners versus experts in every relevant situation.

 

But i believe this would be a real problem - probably impossible to accomplish?

 

(My opinion based on experience with computer systems and programming since January 1963)

[barmar]

A sim could test whether he was correct about his reasoning

Why does that matter? Players make judgement mistakes all the time, and actions that result from such mistakes are still logical alternatives.

 

Beginners especially. If you're trying to figure out what the LAs are for a beginner, you need to ask other beginners -- experienced players, TDs, and computers can't put themselves into the mind of a beginner.

[Trinidad]

Why does that matter? Players make judgement mistakes all the time, and actions that result from such mistakes are still logical alternatives.

 

Beginners especially. If you're trying to figure out what the LAs are for a beginner, you need to ask other beginners -- experienced players, TDs, and computers can't put themselves into the mind of a beginner.

I agree. Sims are not for beginners.

 

On the other hand, if an expert (much better than the TD) says: "Given the fact that my partner has shown xyz, I will be able to take 10+ tricks about 75 % of the time, and, therefore, bidding this game at IMPs is the only LA.", a sim could help the TD. It could test whether there are indeed 10+ tricks about 75 % of the time, something the TD might not be able to envision.

 

If the sim shows that there are 10+ tricks only 50 % of the time, the ruling is simple: The true value is 50 %, the expert was off by 25 %, the error in his estimate (or the "self serving bias"). In a pessimistic mood, this expert could well have erred on the other side and judged that game was only 25%, making bidding it a poor proposition. Staying in a partscore is an LA.

 

If, OTOH, the sim showed that there were 10+ tricks in 74.78% of the cases, the expert was correct. Staying in a partscore is not an LA for a peer of this player.

 

Rik

[blackshoe]

A sim. What, exactly, are we supposed to be simulating?

[pran]

A sim. What, exactly, are we supposed to be simulating?

Who cares?

"The information comes from a computer so you don't need worrying about understanding. Just accept it" :o