[blackshoe]

The problem is that RAs have mandated that the opening is specified first, and cannot be changed based on the defense chosen to it. So whether there is or is not truly a loop absent such a regulation doesn't matter.

[awm]

Echognome is missing a few things here. Some of them:

(1) You can't really play mixed strategies with regard to agreements, since you and partner cannot legally have shared secret random information.

(2) There are many cases where forcing opponents to play a pure strategy and then playing best response leads to a better result than mixed Nash.

(3) There is still a loop. Imagine that my strategy for Rock-Paper-Scissors is "If you play rock, I play paper; if you play paper, I play scissors; if you play scissors, I play rock." You are playing the same strategy. This will not resolve unless someone is forced to "decide" first. Note that this is not the same as a mixed strategy, it is a dependent strategy.

(4) All of this is predicated on opponents' disclosed strategy being identical to their real strategy. Frequent psychs might imply that this is not the case.

[awm]

As far as the issue at the table goes, it seems clear that the opponents have deliberately failed to disclose their agreements. This is a very serious offense (see some of the earlier posts) and should be brought before a disciplinary committee. A thirty-day suspension is likely.

It is possible that there are also issues with Fred and Brad's psyching and disclosure tendencies. However, the proper avenue for dealing with this is through the recorder process. The opponents deliberate violation of law is not a proper response. The fact that the ACBL recorder process seems to be somewhat disfunctional is another matter (and might be dealt with by complaints to the appropriate committee) but again this does not justify the opponents' action.

[hrothgar]

awm, on Aug 5 2009, 08:43 PM, said:

(1) You can't really play mixed strategies with regard to agreements, since you and partner cannot legally have shared secret random information.

I would (and have) argued the following:

1. You and partner can agree to some approximate probability density function

2. You and partner can agree to a mechanism to randomly sample from said pdf (say the distribution of spot cards in your hand)

3. You and partner can NOT share the "key" that you are using (If I hold a 6 of clubs, I will open 1NT. if I do not hold the 6 of clubs, I will open 3m)

The obvious analogy is cryptography:

The security of a good crypto system depends on the secrecy of the key and not in concealing the algorithm

[Echognome]

Further extending the aside... sigh.

awm, on Aug 5 2009, 09:43 AM, said:

(1) You can't really play mixed strategies with regard to agreements, since you and partner cannot legally have shared secret random information.

Note that I only mentioned "mixed strategies" if you included your propensities to psych in your disclosures as a mixed strategy. If you psych using a mixed strategy, then that should be, de facto disclosable. Or do you disagree?

awm, on Aug 5 2009, 09:43 AM, said:

(2) There are many cases where forcing opponents to play a pure strategy and then playing best response leads to a better result than mixed Nash.

Best response is definitional and is used to define a strategy that is the best response to another player (or all other player's) given strategy. A Nash equilibrium is defined as a fixed point of a best response correspondence. In order to guarantee existence of an equilibrium, you have to allow for mixed strategies (to get out of your rock-paper-scissors dilemma). A mixed strategy is a superset of pure strategies. So I'm not really sure what it is you are trying to say. Explain and I can respond. Or give an example.

awm, on Aug 5 2009, 09:43 AM, said:

(3) There is still a loop. Imagine that my strategy for Rock-Paper-Scissors is "If you play rock, I play paper; if you play paper, I play scissors; if you play scissors, I play rock." You are playing the same strategy. This will not resolve unless someone is forced to "decide" first. Note that this is not the same as a mixed strategy, it is a dependent strategy.

Note that in bridge, someone has to decide first. What you are mentioning above as "dependent strategy" I called a "conditional strategy". There is no loop if the game is not played simultaneously. If it is, then the only equilibrium exists in mixed strategies (see my response above).

awm, on Aug 5 2009, 09:43 AM, said:

(4) All of this is predicated on opponents' disclosed strategy being identical to their real strategy. Frequent psychs might imply that this is not the case.

A further aside? If people do not disclose their strategy, then you have a further wrinkle. It is handleable, in game theory, at least since your strategies depend on the information available. It may be via disclosure or your belief that your opponents are lying.

Did I miss anything?

[WesleyC]

Very interesting thread.

echognome said:

"What is your defense to 1NT?"
"Against weak we play X, against strong we play Y, if you are in 3rd NV we play Z."

This 'solution' doesn't fix the loop at all. It simply gives the advantage to the opening side, who can tweak their openings to match the defensive agreements. As Fred admitted earlier, the range of hands he opens 1NT changes based on knowledge of Z.

The solution which solves the loop in favour of the defending side is :

"What is your defense to 1NT?"
"We play nothing that requires prior discussion"

After 1NT is opened, the defenders will ask about its style and then explain to the the opening side their defensive agreements.

Although this explanation solves the loop it fails miserably in terms of full disclosure and is no doubt illegal.

The opponents in Fred's OP were trying to protect themselves against this 'opening advantage', but in doing so offered partial (and misinforming) information. Clearly they are in the wrong.

However as I've been in their position myself (against players less ethical than Fred) they do have my sympathy.

[Echognome]

WesleyC, on Aug 5 2009, 10:18 AM, said:

This 'solution' doesn't fix the loop at all. It simply gives the advantage to the opening side, who can tweak their openings to match the defensive agreements. As Fred admitted earlier, the range of hands he opens 1NT changes based on knowledge of Z.

Of course it does. I was just telling you how you broaden your strategy space. If you have to broaden it further, so be it. I can't really explain further on the matter.

[OleBerg]

hrothgar, on Aug 5 2009, 07:50 PM, said:

3.  You and partner can NOT share the "key" that you are using (If I hold a 6 of clubs, I will open 1NT.  if I do not hold the 6 of clubs, I will open 3m)

Why?

[hotShot]

Maybe I'm wrong, but doesn't the seating rights in a team match define what team has to disclose their agreements first?
I thought that the team that has to take seats first, has to define their system first too.

[Echognome]

Maybe we can start a separate thread on "the Loop", because this is an example of terrible thread jacking. Apologies for my contribution to that end.

[fred]

WesleyC, on Aug 5 2009, 06:18 PM, said:

This 'solution' doesn't fix the loop at all. It simply gives the advantage to the opening side, who can tweak their openings to match the defensive agreements. As Fred admitted earlier, the range of hands he opens 1NT changes based on knowledge of Z.

You sure I admitted that?

I think all I admitted was that I would be more likely to psych a 1NT opening against opponents who were not playing penalty Doubles.

That is not to say that I would often (let alone always) psych 1NT with a weak hand non-vul in 3rd position against such opponents or that I would never psych 1NT with a weak hand non-vul in 3rd position against opponents who did play penalty Doubles. To do either of these things would amount to making agreements about psychs after which point they cease being psychs.

My 1NT range is always 14+ to 17. That does not change based on the defense my opponents are playing.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[OleBerg]

WesleyC, on Aug 5 2009, 08:18 PM, said:

Very interesting thread.

Although this explanation solves the loop it fails miserably in terms of full disclosure and is no doubt illegal.

Well then, a simple solution is to make it legal. Bridgeplayers made the laws; bridgeplayers can change them.

Simply say that penalty doubles does not have to be pre-disclosed.

(I would include normal take-out-doubles too. The same problem exists regarding pre-empts and defenses to them.)


On another note:

I often act as a tournament director, and I rub noses with the country's highest placed directors (and the best IMHO). I feel fairly sure that Fred's opponents (In the "Fielding Psyche" case) would have been dismissed fairly quickly here. If taken to appeal, I have no problem imagining some of the harsher types of appeal committee members, calling it an "appeal without merit".

To be fair, we don't even use the concept, "fielding a psyche", though if done it would obviously be illegal. Either failure to disclose, or worse, intentionally using UI.

Edit: We also predisclose how often we psyche.

[Trinidad]

fred, on Aug 5 2009, 11:36 AM, said:

Trinidad, on Aug 5 2009, 03:50 PM, said:

But let me ask you this: I told you what I think might be the reason for your opponents' actions. Why do you think your opponents acted as they did?

Some warped sense of justice based on ignorant rumors of what happened in the Vanderbilt made them think they were justified in terms of taking the Law into their own hands.

I admit that that is a possible explanation.

Rik

[JanM]

fred, on Aug 5 2009, 09:10 AM, said:

TimG, on Aug 5 2009, 12:46 PM, said:

fred, on Aug 4 2009, 11:30 PM, said:

1) Your reference to "what other people said" about my alleged fielded psych in the Vanderbilt. Do you think they were at the table? I was at the table. Are you suggesting that I may not be telling the truth about what happened? The facts (which you seem to have no interest in) speak for themselves. I have nothing to hide. If anyone thinks that I fielded that psych and wants me to explain why I didn't, all they have to do is ask me (though of course that would show considerably more backbone and common sense than gossiping about what happened with other players who don't know the facts).

2) Your apparent refusal to believe my account of what happened in the Spingold. Not only was I at the table, but several other nearby people heard the same thing (kibitzers, my partner, players and kibitzers and a nearby table, and even the partner of the person who made the statement). Are you suggesting that I am may not be telling the truth about what happened? Again the facts (which you again seem to have no interest in) speak for themselves.

I am curious about two things (even though I have no standing in the matter) and would welcome a detailed account of both:

1) The Vanderbilt hand which involves the alleged fielding; and

2) In the Spingold match, the specific questions asked and answers given regarding defense to 1NT.

Thanks,
Tim

1) The psych in the Vanderbilt:

My hand was very similar to this (I do not remember my exact spot cards but they were really bad): xxx Axxx Jx QJxx

I passed as dealer at favorable vulnerability. My LHO and screenmate also passed. When the tray came back, my partner had opened 1NT (14+ to 17) and my RHO had doubled.

I asked my screenmate what the double meant (contrary to what Rik seems to think, my partner I and I do not normally try to find out our opponents' 1NT defense before the match starts and then adjust our agreements accordingly). I was told "clubs, diamonds, or both majors".

I bid 2C (Stayman). I assume nobody thinks this bid constituted "fielding a psych".

I tried to find the Vanderbilt hand last night, but it was late and I couldn't find it quickly. I have now found it (thank you Vugraph Project). I'm afraid I don't know how to do a "hand viewer" from the .lin file, but for anyone who wants to look at it that way, you can get the lin file here: http://www.sarantako.../vandy/r163.lin

Fred's hand was 875, A653, J6, QJ86. He was in first seat at favorable vul. He passed, the next person passed, his partner (who held A64, QJT8, 8743, 93) opened 1NT. Next hand doubled. Fred bid 2♣ Stayman. Sorry Fred, but yes, that does suggest that you might have had some doubt about your partner's 1NT opening - many people would have redoubled with your hand, which of course would have exposed the psych when Brad pulled.

Next hand passed, Fred's partner bid 2♥. The DBLer bid 2NT. Fred now explains at great length why he thinks this exposed his partner's psyche. I'd suggest that if you didn't think your partner might psyche 1NT, your reaction to this auction would be "great, we've got the opponents, I should let partner know I have some values by doubling." Of course the opponents' bidding helped field the psych, but the fact that your partner often psychs in this position against players who don't use penalty doubles helped. For example, if you were playing with yourself, I suspect you would have been less likely to conclude from the opponents' bids, explanations and tempo that you had psyched 1NT.

I agree that the facts (the hands and bids) speak for themselves here and I think that if I am being wishy washy you are "protesting too much." And I was also at the table, by the way. My discussion of the hand was primarily with my husband, not gossiping about what happened with players who didn't know the facts.

Quote

2) The question/answer in the Spingold:

The question was something like "what do you play over our 1NT?".

The answer was something like "We play Woolsey. Double shows blah blah blah. 2C shows blah blah blah etc...".

I am not certain about this, but I believe my partner then asked them to clarify some aspect of this that was unrelated to the possibility that the Double might be anything other than artificial.

As I said above, it is not usual for my partner and me to ask our opponents this question (or any particular question for that matter) before a match starts. The reason we asked in this case was because one of my opponent's questions to me and their "secret meeting away from the table" made it obvious they were paying special attention to their notrump defenses.

And to Rik, who still does not get the point, I will add this: if we are considering a 3rd seat 1NT psych, we do not look at our opponents' convention card in the "1NT defenses area" just before we make our decision. Typically we will not know what their defense is when we make this decision unless we have some history playing against the pair in question and happen to remember.

Psyching 1NT is not part of our system - it is a psych. It is something we do on occasion. It is something we might do regardless of what defense the opponents are playing (though knowing they are playing non-penalty Doubles does increase the odds that we might do this).

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

As for the Spingold, I and everyone else within about 50 feet of you, certainly heard your and Brad's opinion of what the opponents had said. I did not hear what your opponents said when the director was summoned. I do not think that you are intentionally misstating that, only that you may have interpreted some words differently than others would - for instance, that they "deliberately" did not mention that they play penalty doubles of 3rd seat non vul 1NT opening bids. I would actually be surprised if anyone who was casually asked about their defense to 1NT and played conventional doubles except over 3rd seat non-vul openings would mention that in their pre-game discussion of methods. I know I don't. I believe you that your opponents did not mention it; I question your conclusion that this was a nefarious plot against you. That they actually leaned over backward when the bid came up to alert it and explain that in this situation, unlike all others, the double was penalty, suggests that they were not trying to mislead you.

[WesleyC]

WesleyC said:

As Fred admitted earlier, the range of hands he opens 1NT changes based on knowledge of Z.

Fred said:

You sure I admitted that?

'Range' was a poor choice of word. Due to the increased frequency of psyches the 'set' of all hands on which you open 1NT is changed by knowing your opponents defensive agreements. Logically, being able to make that change must be advantageous to you.

[fred]

JanM, on Aug 5 2009, 07:16 PM, said:

Fred's hand was 875, A653, J6, QJ86. He was in first seat at favorable vul. He passed, the next person passed, his partner (who held A64, QJT8, 8743, 93) opened 1NT. Next hand doubled. Fred bid 2♣ Stayman. Sorry Fred, but yes, that does suggest that you might have had some doubt about your partner's 1NT opening - many people would have redoubled with your hand, which of course would have exposed the psych when Brad pulled.

This is nonsense, Jan.

As I am sure you know, many/most people play "system on" over artificial Doubles and 2C overcalls of 1NT bids. Many of these (including me) have found it best to generally ignore the opponents and utilize their own well-developed methods over their own 1NT openings to try to get to their own best contract. The approach has the further advantage of making it harder for the opponents to know when and how they should compete if the hand actually belongs to them.

Even if you disagree with this philosophy and prefer to play a style which maximizes your chance of collecting a penalty, to suggest that my 2C bid amounted to "fielding a psych" because to Redouble would give my partner a chance to expose his own possible psych is (to put it mildly) completely absurd.

Quote

Next hand passed, Fred's partner bid 2♥. The DBLer bid 2NT. Fred now explains at great length why he thinks this exposed his partner's psyche. I'd suggest that if you didn't think your partner might psyche 1NT, your reaction to this auction would be "great, we've got the opponents, I should let partner know I have some values by doubling."

Absolutely - if my partner had never psyched 1NT before I might well have lost the ability to add and subtract small integers.

I could look at my own 8 HCP, add that to the 20 or so on my right, and factor in the values that my LHO had suggested with his tempo and conclude that, based on what was left over for my partner "Great - we've got the opponents! Let's defend 2NT Doubled when I know we have far less than half the deck!".

Not sure if you are trying to insult my intelligence, but you are really starting to tempt me to insult yours.

Quote

I agree that the facts (the hands and bids) speak for themselves here and I think that if I am being wishy washy you are "protesting too much." And I was also at the table, by the way. My discussion of the hand was primarily with my husband, not gossiping about what happened with players who didn't know the facts.

Well your husband happens to be not only a great player, but an excellent mathematician who is more than capable of adding and subtracting small integers. He also happens to be a person who is personally familiar with "Double then 2NT shows a 2NT opening" (because I know he used to play this and for all I know he still does).

So if Chip can really say that "you did something wrong" with a straight face (and say it directly to me as opposed to through your inane posts), I will certainly give his opinion the respect and consideration it deserves.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[OleBerg]

JanM, on Aug 5 2009, 04:30 AM, said:

"as long as you don't play penalty doubles, I'm going to keep psyching 1NT."

I find this claim quite interesting.

Has Brad really said that? Because if he has, and he and Fred does not predisclose that 1NT has a higher bluff-frequency, they are, in my opinion, no better than their opponents. Actually worse, because they would obviously be doing it for their own benefit. Something that is not as obvious for their opponents.

Please note that the sentence not only implies that he will do it in the future, but also that he has already done it.

A more stretched implication is megalomania.

[fred]

JanM, on Aug 5 2009, 07:16 PM, said:

As for the Spingold, I and everyone else within about 50 feet of you, certainly heard your and Brad's opinion of what the opponents had said. I did not hear what your opponents said when the director was summoned. I do not think that you are intentionally misstating that, only that you may have interpreted some words differently than others would - for instance, that they "deliberately" did not mention that they play penalty doubles of 3rd seat non vul 1NT opening bids. I would actually be surprised if anyone who was casually asked about their defense to 1NT and played conventional doubles except over 3rd seat non-vul openings would mention that in their pre-game discussion of methods. I know I don't. I believe you that your opponents did not mention it; I question your conclusion that this was a nefarious plot against you. That they actually leaned over backward when the bid came up to alert it and explain that in this situation, unlike all others, the double was penalty, suggests that they were not trying to mislead you.

The exact word your friend used was "intentionally", not "deliberately". But no matter, neither of these words is open to the sort of "misinterpretation" that you suggest might be possible.

Your friend made it very clear what was going on.

I find it unbelievable to the point of laughable that you are now complimenting my opponents on how they "bent over backwards" to disclose their agreements.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[fred]

OleBerg, on Aug 5 2009, 07:40 PM, said:

JanM, on Aug 5 2009, 04:30 AM, said:

"as long as you don't play penalty doubles, I'm going to keep psyching 1NT."

I find this claim quite interesting.

Has Brad really said that? Because if he has, and he and Fred does not predisclose that 1NT has a higher bluff-frequency, they are, in my opinion, no better than their opponents. Actually worse, because they would obviously be doing it for their own benefit. Something that is not as obvious for their opponents.

Please note that the sentence not only implies that he will do it in the future, but also that he has already done it.

A more stretched implication is megalomania.

As I said, I have no recollection of Brad saying that and, knowing him well, I consider it unlikely that he would ever say something like that.

However, Jan claims to have heard Brad say this and, unlike her, I am willing to trust what other people say they heard.

What Jan did not mention, however, was that one of my opponents behaved rather poorly after the psych in question. The discussion at the table became rather heated. Assuming Brad really did say this, I have no doubt that his statement was mostly intended to annoy my opponent (who IMO very much deserved it).

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[TimG]

fred, on Aug 5 2009, 09:10 AM, said:

When the tray came back my partner had responded 2H and my RHO had bid 2NT. I asked my LHO what 2NT meant. He did not know, but he made it clear that he thought he could figure it out and that he wanted me to wait before bidding until he had a chance to do so. I gave him that chance. After about 3 minutes he said something like "I really don't know but I think he has 6-4 in the minors" (ie with unknown 6-card suit).

Do you think that your LHO would have been better able to figure it out if he was alert to your partner's tendency to psych? Was he entitled to that information?