[hrothgar]

Brandal, on Jan 23 2006, 07:45 PM, said:

BUT.....and this is my "thing" regarding psyches:

You seem to have a LOT of issues about psyches: Last I heard, the problem was that the player who was making a psyche was disrespecting his partner....

Regardless

I said it before, I'll say it again: I believe that the legal construct "psyche" should be striken from the Law. The behaviour pattern that a psyche attempts to describe should be replaced with more formal structures based on the concept of a mixed strategies.

The root cause of the habitual fights surrounding psyches has a very simple cause: The legal constructs which govern the game are not harmoniously aligned with the strategies that players wish to employ. The disclosure problems that you are currently complaining about is a simple reflection of this fact...

Until you permit players the tools that they require to describe their actions, you shouldn't complain about the quality of their disclosure...

[Brandal]

hrothgar, on Jan 23 2006, 10:04 AM, said:

I have a very BIG issue if you start arguing that I can't use make use of an otherwise legal move because it puts you at a disadvantage.

I will never argue anything of that sort,I'm the first to applaud
opponents who outsmart me,be it in bidding or cardplay.

I played a tournament the other day where the host/TD said
"announce at start of round if you use bluffs/psyches"


What's next,play showing all 4 hands?

[Brandal]

hrothgar, on Jan 23 2006, 12:03 PM, said:

Brandal, on Jan 23 2006, 07:45 PM, said:

BUT.....and this is my "thing" regarding psyches:

You seem to have a LOT of issues about psyches: Last I heard, the problem was that the player who was making a psyche was disrespecting his partner....

Regardless

I said it before, I'll say it again: I believe that the legal construct "psyche" should be striken from the Law. The behaviour pattern that a psyche attempts to describe should be replaced with more formal structures based on the concept of a mixed strategies.

The root cause of the habitual fights surrounding psyches has a very simple cause: The legal constructs which govern the game are not harmoniously aligned with the strategies that players wish to employ. The disclosure problems that you are currently complaining about is a simple reflection of this fact...

Until you permit players the tools that they require to describe their actions, you shouldn't complain about the quality of their disclosure...

Nice debating techniques you have

To make it clear:

The "thing" is why I don't personally apply these
mixed strategies,the ethics part.

My opinion that I find it selfish to psyche doesn't rule out
me having another reason not to psyche?


You seem very entitled to your opinions,why mock mine?

[hrothgar]

For whats its worth, I'm going to provide an example regarding how mixed strategies might be implemented in a "fair" manner:

Lets assume that you want to employ a mixed strategy. You need to chose whether to win a trick with the Queen or the Jack. Your optimal strategy is to randomize, playing the queen 50% of the time and the Jack 50% of the time.

I argue that your best course of action is to base your decision on some external source of random information. For example, you could flip a coin. If the coin turned up heads, you would play the queen. If the coin turned up tails, you play the jack. Alternatively, you could look at the clock. If the minute hand were odd (1, 3, 5, 7, 9) play the Queen, otherwise play the Jack. Unfortunately, both of these suggestions are flawed. (There would be severe UI if you suddenly started flipping a quarter in the middle of a tournament). With this said and done, players do have easy access to a suitable source of random information - the same deck of cards that they are using to play out the hand. Hypothetically, I could look at the length of my Spade suit. If the suit length was odd, I play the Queen, other the Jack...

There are potential issues with the scheme: most notably, you need to worry about the possibility that the your source of random data might be affected by the question that you ask: For example: Lets assume that the crucial decision involved whether to play the Queen or Jack of Spades. You wouldn't want to use the length of the Spade suit as your source of entropy because the restricted choice decision doesn't happen if you happen to hold one Spade. On this occasion, you could default to using the length of the Heart suit or whatever...

Lets assume that you wanted to formally implement some such scheme:

As always, players are required to disclosure their methods. In this case, players would announce those occasions on which the used mixed strategies. Along with this, they would also provide the Probability Density Function which governed the their decision process. Before the start of the tournament, players would give the TD the "key" describing the card holding that controlled the random decision making process. At the close of the tournament, the organizers could then check to ensure that players had accurately described their methods. (You might want a proceedure in which each player submitted 5 different sets of "keys". The precise set that they used would be chosen randomly at the start of the tournament. This step would eliminate many possibilities for collusion)

I readily admit that the process I describe is complicated. I suspect that I could come up with a simplier scheme. With this said and done, the process conforms with disclosure regulations and is fair. It's also not far removed from examples of so-called encrypted signalling.

It should also be noted that many poker players employ similar strategies to randomize their betting. (I first ran into this type of process reading some work that an MIT prof did apllying game theory to poker)

[uday]

That's simple enough , but can you take it back to the bidding ?

Can I assume that mixed strats in bidding mean that when we open (say) 1N, it is either strong (say, 3/4 of the time) or a balanced bust (say 1/4 of the time)

Assuming there is some clean external source of these numbers for the moment, like the wall clock, or a characteristic of the hand: this surely isnt legal today in acbl land , is it ? Is it legal anywhere offline ?

[hrothgar]

uday, on Jan 23 2006, 10:47 PM, said:

That's simple enough , but can you take it back to the bidding ?

Can I assume that mixed strats in bidding mean that when we open  (say) 1N, it is either strong  (say, 3/4 of the time) or a balanced bust (say 1/4 of the time)

Its important to differentiate between a bid that has mutliple meanings and true mixed strategy.

Case in point: there is a bid called a "Woodson Two Way NT opening" in which a 1NT opening shows either 10-12 HCP or 16-18 HCP. This is not an example of a mixed strategy because players will open 1NT 100% of the time that that they have 10-12 HCP and 100% of the time that they have 16-18 HCP.

A mixed strategy requires that players randomly choose one of a number of different bids with a single hand. For example, assume that you're sitting red on white and there are two passes to you. You hold:

♠ K
♥ xxx
♦ AKT9872
♣ xx

You determine that your best course of action is to open

1♦ 15% of the time
1NT 20% of the time
2♦ 5% of the time
3♦ 30%% of the time
4♦ 15% of the time
5♦ 15% of the time

This is a mixed strategy

The Laws specifically forbid external aids to calculation. I had always assumed that this referred to double dummy analyzers and the like.

>Assuming there is some clean external source of these numbers for the
>moment, like the wall clock, or a characteristic of the hand: this surely isnt
>legal today in acbl land , is it ? Is it legal anywhere offline ?

Regardless of whether or not this is technically "legal" its an accurate description of the strategy that people use. You can't look at a player like Zia and beleive that he's doing anything different. He might be going from "gut" feel rather than using a random number to make his decisions, however, the key element (randomizing) is the same.

[inquiry]

I like psyches, I think we should all be encouraged to use them from time to time. There is one aspect of psyches, however that I think is a rule violation that is difficult to catch. Some people (most) will become psyche happy when they are having an average to slightly average plus game in an effort to produce a swing to win. This is fine, they are using the condition of contest and their results so far to try to win. But if their partner is familar with when they are likely to psyche, and this is it, their partner will have an easier time picking up the psyche (good game, don't pcyhe, horrible game, don't psyche, but late in a modest game, go for it).

A second place where I hate psyches is someone hopelessly out of a pairs event (way below average) psyching left and right. One thing, they are not takin gthe game seriously, second they are dramatically affecting the results of the contest without increasing their chance to win. IF their wild psyche works, they punish their unlucky opponents at their table, but more likley, their psyche will go badly for them, rewardign their current opponents to the disadvantage of the rest of the field sitting the other direction. This simply doesn't seem sporting to me.

Ben

[uday]

Quote

he Laws specifically forbit external means for calculation.

What about internal means? some function of the various hand/deal attributes might do it easily (perhaps not for the complex example you presented but surely for strategies like: open 1NT 50% of the time, pass 50% of the time)

Then again, i'm not sure what "external" means in this context.

[hrothgar]

uday, on Jan 23 2006, 11:22 PM, said:

Quote

he Laws specifically forbit external means for calculation.

What about internal means? some function of the various hand/deal attributes might do it easily (perhaps not for the complex example you presented but surely for strategies like: open 1NT 50% of the time, pass 50% of the time)

Then again, i'm not sure what "external" means in this context.

The distinction between internal and external doesn't crop up in the laws since I apparantly "invented" the term external...

This topic is formally covered a note under Law 40E Convention Cards

"A player is not entitled, during the auction and play periods, to any aids to his memory, calculation or technique. However, sponsoring organizations may designate unusual methods and allow written defenses against opponents' unusual methods to be referred to at the table"

I suspect that the original intent of the law was to prevent players from referencing their systems notes during bidding or, worse yet, pull out a copy of the Dictionary of Card Combinations during play. Its interesting to note that the use of the cards as a seed could be considered an aid to technique. (I certainly believe that a pure source of random data is likely to better than my own subjective mental coin flip which probably have patterns. Or to quote the Simpsons* "Poor, predictable Bart. Always picks rock")

* Cause the Simpsons can be applied to everything important in life

[luke warm]

Brandal, on Jan 23 2006, 09:13 AM, said:

A psych is a selfish act,"you" decide to be the only one at
the table who knows exactly what's going on,leaving pd
in the dark but trusting him to rescue "you" by not bidding
like "you" have what you bid.

i think this part is the cause of some of the posts you got... if you think about it, it really isn't logical... is it selfish because you say it is, or is it objectively selfish?

we both know that you're just voicing an opinion... the opinions of others seem to differ and, as you say, they have the laws of bridge on their side

i would argue that a psych is an altruistic act... i'm risking a blow to my ego to help my team (and/or teammates)... but regardless of our positions, both are mere opinion - worth exactly what one is willing to pay

[Brandal]

luke warm, on Jan 23 2006, 05:20 PM, said:

Brandal, on Jan 23 2006, 09:13 AM, said:

A psych is a selfish act,"you" decide to be the only one at
the table who knows exactly what's going on,leaving pd
in the dark but trusting him to rescue "you" by not bidding
like "you" have what you bid.

i think this part is the cause of some of the posts you got... if you think about it, it really isn't logical... is it selfish because you say it is, or is it objectively selfish?

we both know that you're just voicing an opinion... the opinions of others seem to differ and, as you say, they have the laws of bridge on their side

i would argue that a psych is an altruistic act... i'm risking a blow to my ego to help my team (and/or teammates)... but regardless of our positions, both are mere opinion - worth exactly what one is willing to pay

Yes,ofcourse it's just my opinion of the psyche itself,
deciding to go on my own whim outside the partnership.

The reason I don't psyche anymore(I did psyche in my "youth"),
is I have become uncomfortable with the ethical side.



Never seen anyone else call it selfish,never called it selfish
myself until yesterday.

Maybe from what I've written earlier,it's not easy to see
but I don't feel strongly either way about the psyche itself.

[Brandal]

hrothgar, on Jan 23 2006, 12:03 PM, said:

Last I heard, the problem was that the player who was making a psyche was disrespecting his partner....


Until you permit players the tools that they require to describe their actions, you shouldn't complain about the quality of their disclosure...

I believe I used the word disregard,not disrespect,
with disregard I meant "barring" partner from being
in the loop on that particular hand,he is pretty much
left in the dark?

I am NOT complaining about anything,don't know where
you get that idea,nor am I attacking "your side".

[Brandal]

hrothgar, on Jan 23 2006, 03:02 PM, said:

A mixed strategy requires that players randomly choose one of a number of different bids with a single hand. For example, assume that you're sitting red on white and there are two passes to you. You hold:

♠ K
♥ xxx
♦ AKT9872
♣ xx

You determine that your best course of action is to open

1♦ 15% of the time
1NT 20% of the time
2♦ 5% of the time
3♦ 30%% of the time
4♦ 15% of the time
5♦ 15% of the time

This is a mixed strategy

This looks more like tactical bids,or "table feel" bids than psyches.




In this scenario you draw,does both partners in the pair apply
this mixed strategy?

"Ah....this time I have to open 1NT....cool".....is more bingo than
bridge to me (I know you don't like my "way")

I have no doubt whatsoever that the strategy might work,
I just don't like it....I hope that's fair enough

[Al_U_Card]

Brandal, on Jan 24 2006, 08:42 AM, said:

hrothgar, on Jan 23 2006, 03:02 PM, said:

A mixed strategy requires that players randomly choose one of a number of different bids with a single hand.  For example, assume that you're sitting red on white and there are two passes to you.  You hold:

♠ K
♥ xxx
♦ AKT9872
♣ xx

You determine that your best course of action is to open

1♦ 15% of the time
1NT 20% of the time
2♦ 5% of the time
3♦ 30%% of the time
4♦ 15% of the time
5♦ 15% of the time

This is a mixed strategy

This looks more like tactical bids,or "table feel" bids than psyches.




In this scenario you draw,does both partners in the pair apply
this mixed strategy?

"Ah....this time I have to open 1NT....cool".....is more bingo than
bridge to me (I know you don't like my "way")

I have no doubt whatsoever that the strategy might work,
I just don't like it....I hope that's fair enough

Wouldn't 1 H be a psyche and the given bids are just distortions (interpretations)?

[pigpenz]

Brandal, on Jan 23 2006, 12:20 PM, said:

[.I played a tournament the other day where the host/TD said
"announce at start of round if you use bluffs/psyches"


What's next,play showing all 4 hands?

When I direct the first thing I announce is that psyches are part of the game and I am very tolerant of them But Please alert all artificial bids.

[hrothgar]

Brandal, on Jan 24 2006, 04:42 PM, said:

This looks more like tactical bids,or "table feel" bids than psyches.

Expressions like "tactical bids" are fairly worthless when discussing psyches.

A tactical bid is simply a psyche someone happens to approve of. (In much the same manner, a "destructive" bid is simply a preempt that someone happens to disapprove of). These are loaded terms which are intended to "spin" a debate and detract from the arguments actually being made.

I am, of course, prepared to change my mind if you can provide some objective criteria that I can use to distinquish between tactical bids and mixed strategies...

[Brandal]

hrothgar, on Jan 24 2006, 12:28 PM, said:

Brandal, on Jan 24 2006, 04:42 PM, said:

This looks more like tactical bids,or "table feel" bids than psyches.

Expressions like "tactical bids" are fairly worthless when discussing psyches.

A tactical bid is simply a psyche someone happens to approve of. (In much the same manner, a "destructive" bid is simply a preempt that someone happens to disapprove of). These are loaded terms which are intended to "spin" a debate and detract from the arguments actually being made.

I am, of course, prepared to change my mind if you can provide some objective criteria that I can use to distinquish between tactical bids and mixed strategies...

I doubt we'll ever agree,and that's ok with me,
but the given hand example you posted can be
opened at least with 1,2,3,4 Dia without gross
misdescription of the hand?

Opening it 1NT is another matter I guess.

And 5D would just be a bad bid red vs white in my opinion.

These are just my opinions,I don't think I know better
or think I'm "right" in any way,I believe forums are for
debates,not being right

[pigpenz]

inquiry, on Jan 23 2006, 03:19 PM, said:

.A second place where I hate psyches is someone hopelessly out of a pairs event (way below average) psyching left and right. One thing, they are not takin gthe game seriously, second they are dramatically affecting the results of the contest without increasing their chance to win. IF their wild psyche works, they punish their unlucky opponents at their table, but more likley, their psyche will go badly for them, rewardign their current opponents to the disadvantage of the rest of the field sitting the other direction. This simply doesn't seem sporting to me.

Ben

I had this happen to us and the rest of the field last night in a small acbl imp game.As usual it was the last board
results
5♠x-8 2000 1
4♥=1 650 4
5♥-1 -100 1


so instead of being in a winning imp position we went to a losing imps situation cause someone distored the results.

Maybe these are the type of folks that should lose their priveleges to play in tourneys not the ones who psyche.