[hrothgar]

The simpliest way to understand why this is a terrible, terrible idea is to think about counting decks at Blackjack... Any decent Blackjack player is able to keep a running count of the deck(s) and then vary their betting style dramatically based on the 10's density.

If you start building "state" into bridge sessions bridge players are going to start adapting their bidding, card play, what have you in just the same way. I can see it now...

"Wow, we had a bunch of games in the first 18 boards... I should start psyching light crazy, loosening up my preempts, what have you"

"East had really crappy hands during the first 20 boards, guess I know which way to take that two way finesse."

Simply put:

1. If you build enough "state" into the system such that people can notice, they're going to start adapting their behaviour

2. If you don't build enough state into the system for people to notice, what's the point?

[hanp]

hrothgar, on Jan 19 2010, 08:53 AM, said:

Jari, on Jan 19 2010, 04:39 PM, said:

But  still I'm not revealing where I'm from, I can tell that it's outside US, so Josh doesn't have to start mistrusting his TDs  .

Could it be... Finland?

(If I met someone named "Jari", that would be my first guess...)

Of course it is Finland, Josh should be ashamed of himself.

[RMB1]

jdonn, on Jan 19 2010, 09:03 AM, said:

What? Where do you live? That's awful if it's true, I've never heard of such a thing happening.

I know of one director in England who runs holiday bridge who will produce a new hand set if he thinks the customers will not like the first one. One reason would be a disparity of HCP N/S v. E/W.

Robin

[helene_t]

I wouldn't object to that practice at holiday bridge, as long as they don't award masterpoints.

[Fluffy]

hrothgar, on Jan 19 2010, 02:14 PM, said:

The simpliest way to understand why this is a terrible, terrible idea is to think about counting decks at Blackjack... Any decent Blackjack player is able to keep a running count of the deck(s) and then vary their betting style dramatically based on the 10's density.

my father was black jack profeesional for many years, and I uunderstand a lot about counting it, and I know how little impact it makes, thats why I suggested it, I know the difference is very slim if you do it appropiatelly.

Maybe its because I am not good enough at that, but I cannot think of a way to take advantage of the fact that I know partner will have 12 HCP average on this deal instead of 10.

[jdonn]

Fluffy, on Jan 19 2010, 11:06 AM, said:

hrothgar, on Jan 19 2010, 02:14 PM, said:

The simpliest way to understand why this is a terrible, terrible idea is to think about counting decks at Blackjack...  Any decent Blackjack player is able to keep a running count of the deck(s) and then vary their betting style dramatically based on the 10's density.

my father was black jack profeesional for many years, and I uunderstand a lot about counting it, and I know how little impact it makes, thats why I suggested it, I know the difference is very slim if you do it appropiatelly.

The difference is slim in casinos because of betting limits. Like if you are betting $10 a hand then all of a sudden bet $50,000 you will get kicked out and you don't want to make yourself suspicious so you only bet $15 or $20 when the count is in your favor. However the edge it gives you in theory (if not for betting limits) is HUGE!

[kayin801]

jdonn, on Jan 19 2010, 02:03 AM, said:

Jari, on Jan 19 2010, 03:28 AM, said:

I asked directors about this, and yes they do look through the deals before the tournaments, and occasionally redeal the deals.

What? Where do you live? That's awful if it's true, I've never heard of such a thing happening.

You know how on some (all?) of the automatic deal softwares they have printouts that not only have the hands and DD contracts but also the point distributions, suit distributions, etc. While I doubt you'd wanna specifically rotate some hands, why not throw out the entire set after seeing X pts in one direction in point count and deal a new one (subtly and don't tell anyone)? I think that kind of control isn't quite so bad... It's more work for directors, but it's not really tampering anymore. Not to mention this software will sometimes deal more hands than will be played, which are then included in the total statistics. Of course, going exactly 20 on average each way is ridiculous since anyone with a pencil and paper can predict the HCP count for the last hand ;P but maybe throw out 24+ in one direction or something (or there could be built in software control for this).

Btw, where are the sim people who can tell us the chances of having one side average X HCP over 30 or so randomly dealt boards

[Fluffy]

in spain they cannot kick you for counting , that's something I never understood from america.

My father played in the low limit tables, because the difference between the minimum and the maximum was greater there than on the other tables.

[hrothgar]

Fluffy, on Jan 19 2010, 07:06 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Jan 19 2010, 02:14 PM, said:

The simpliest way to understand why this is a terrible, terrible idea is to think about counting decks at Blackjack...  Any decent Blackjack player is able to keep a running count of the deck(s) and then vary their betting style dramatically based on the 10's density.

my father was black jack profeesional for many years, and I uunderstand a lot about counting it, and I know how little impact it makes, thats why I suggested it, I know the difference is very slim if you do it appropiatelly.

Maybe its because I am not good enough at that, but I cannot think of a way to take advantage of the fact that I know partner will have 12 HCP average on this deal instead of 10.

This must be an English as a second language issue, because what you are saying is absolute rubbish...

The only way that you could be a Blackjack professional is if you have an edge on the house and the only way to get an edge on the house is to count out the deck. I readily admit that other skills like pot management are also very important. However, counting is the foundation on which this house is built.

It's been a while since I played any serious Blackjack. However, as I recall, a reasonable counting scheme could shift the expected value from about -1% to about +.7% and this makes ALL the difference.

All those enormous casinos in Vegas were BUILT on the profits from these types of miniscule spreads. Those same casinos invest an awful lot of time and money making sure that players aren't counting and that the spreads don't ever shift in the wrong direction.

[Fluffy]

thanks richard, those are the percentages I had in mind mroe or less.

now, try to apply them to bridge, and tell me what difference it makes to know aprtner has average 8 HCP after he passes in first sit, or when he opens the bidding.

[hrothgar]

Fluffy, on Jan 19 2010, 07:57 PM, said:

in spain they cannot kick you for counting , that's something I never understood from america.

My father played in the low limit tables, because the difference between the minimum and the maximum was greater there than on the other tables.

Rules vary by state

In Nevada the casinos can ban you from counting.
I don't think that they can in New Jersey

In general, casinos that allow players to count alter the Blackjack rules to increase the house edge.

[hrothgar]

Fluffy, on Jan 19 2010, 08:02 PM, said:

thanks richard, those are the percentages I had in mind mroe or less.

now, try to apply them to bridge, and tell me what difference it makes to know aprtner has average 8 HCP after he passes in first sit, or when he opens the bidding.

Comment 1:

I don't know about you, but when I'm am doing any (serious) work on bidding methods I spend an awful lot of time studying exactly these sorts of questions.

Comment 2:

To continue with the Blackjack analogy:

Card counting "works" because the counter is able to identify relatively short periods of time when the game is stacked in his favor and adjust his betting or have the whale join the table or what have you.

I don't see the point in engaging in inane thought experiments in which you pose stupid questions and I waste time trying to derive answers. It should be perfectly obvious to anyone with half a brain that if you start adding state information to the game people are going to start altering their behaviour.

I don't know precisely how this will happen. I don't know what heuristic people are going to use to start "counting" the bridge session. (What is the bridge equivalent of "Wong Halves").

I am, however, quite sure that someone will come up with something clever...

[Fluffy]

you know, I enjoy your comments in this post, all of them, except when you compare me with people with half a brain and mad people like a white queen, I don't see the logic behind them, do you really need to make me feel insulted to support your arguments?

[hrothgar]

Fluffy, on Jan 19 2010, 09:03 PM, said:

you know, I enjoy your comments in this post, all of them, except when you compare me with people with half a brain and mad people like a white queen, I don't see the logic behind them, do you really need to make me feel insulted to support your arguments?

Sorry

Things are a bit crazy at work right now. Unfortunately, I don't have the liberty to tell customers and coworkers what I think of some of their questions / comments and some of that frustration spills out onto the forums.

With this said and done, its oft been said that there is no such thing as a stupid question. I don't accept that. A lot of your postings in this thread contain basic logical errors are factually incorrect, and/or suggest that you really haven't thought things through.

Case in point:

Quote

tell me what difference it makes to know aprtner has average 8 HCP after he passes in first sit

Comment 1: This is a non sequitur. The question you pose isn't really related to the point that I was making.

Commment 2: The question itself is lazy... If you spent a couple minutes thinking about things you'd probably be able to come up with your own answer to this question and (probably) better questions of your own.

Conversations are a two way street...
If you aren't willing to invest the time or effort necessary to construct reasonable questions don't be surprised if people start to display some annoyance...

[Gerben42]

I've played with cards with an edge only when they are hand-shuffled or one time in a goulash tournament (but then we told people in advance and we had fun!).

Anything to change the probabilities is not bridge, sorry! I think trying something like that should mean you get your TD licence revoked.

Playing Blackjack or Poker, you play MANY hands and if you have a small edge even though the swings are huge, you will be ahead in the long run.

Although it is true that a good pair has a bigger edge on the field when they hold more HCP than average than when they have the weaker hands, this ALL EVENS OUT in the long run. In any kind of game. Yes even rubber bridge

[barmar]

Have any of you played the Money Bridge Tournaments on BBO, which are programmed to give the human player the most HCP on every hand? Knowing that none of the other players can have more HCP than you makes a big difference in bidding and figuring out card distributions.

This isn't quite the same thing as the statistical probabilities being discussed here, but it gives you an idea of how you can alter your behavior as a result of extra knowledge like this.

[jdonn]

Fluffy here is one way it could make a large and practical difference. You have some indifferent 16 count and they open a 3 level preempt on your right. If you "know" (or have strong reason to suspect) your side is supposed to have fewer than average points on either this hand or the group of hands, you can find a good pass since partner is likely to be broke. The table that played this hand first probably overcalled 3NT and went for a number.

I think as time went on and people thought about it more, that type of situation would come up all the time.

[barmar]

You know how some people like to put notes about each hand on their private score, like what the opening lead was or how the auction went? If players knew that the hands were cooked this way, I could easily imagine them keeping a running tally of their side's HCP.

[billw55]

Gerben42, on Jan 19 2010, 02:36 PM, said:

...

Although it is true that a good pair has a bigger edge on the field when they hold more HCP than average than when they have the weaker hands

...

I wonder about this. In a club game, or a lower level tournament event, I am used to this phenomena. When ops bid and make a perfectly normal game contract, our side frequently gets a little below average, because there always seems to be a knucklehead or two in the field who don't bid it, or otherwise screw it up. I would think that it would work the other way too, that a few pairs overbid to slam so we get a good score ... but for some reason, that seems to be much less common. Perhaps club level players bid fewer slams in general?

But ... is this also true in high level pairs events? Where every pair are experienced, strong players? I would think the field protection in such events would be adequte, that the "better cards equal better scores" phenomena should disappear. But does that actually happen in practice? And if not - why?

[Jboling]

kayin801, on Jan 19 2010, 11:56 AM, said:

You know how on some (all?) of the automatic deal softwares they have printouts that not only have the hands and DD contracts but also the point distributions, suit distributions, etc. While I doubt you'd wanna specifically rotate some hands, why not throw out the entire set after seeing X pts in one direction in point count and deal a new one (subtly and don't tell anyone)? I think that kind of control isn't quite so bad... It's more work for directors, but it's not really tampering anymore. Not to mention this software will sometimes deal more hands than will be played, which are then included in the total statistics. Of course, going exactly 20 on average each way is ridiculous since anyone with a pencil and paper can predict the HCP count for the last hand ;P but maybe throw out 24+ in one direction or something (or there could be built in software control for this).

Btw, where are the sim people who can tell us the chances of having one side average X HCP over 30 or so randomly dealt boards

If you cancel the whole set based on some statistic as the average number of hcp, you will introduce constraints on that statistic, and the set will become less random in that sense that you can predict something about the future deals based on the past deals. But if the constraints are loose enough, and even better the constraints would be unknown to everbody, I think it could become impossible for the players to predict the future.

I did some sims two years ago, it was more difficult than usual when you need to do statistics on statistics of sets of deals. My conclusion was that about three sigmas (standard deviations), was about possible without the limits becoming relevant almost ever, even in a case when the limits were known to players. This means accepting 99.7% of the deals (in case you have one constraint, for instance hcp for N-S, which automatically limits E-S as well). I used sets of 26 deals as an example, with the three sigma limits 17.3-22.7:

xxxx 10.0 16.0 20.0 23.0 24.0 25.0
--------------------------------------------
21.5: 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
22.0: 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
22.5: 20.0 19.9 19.8 19.7 19.6 19.6
23.0: 20.0 19.8 19.4 18.2 17.0 13.4
23.5: 19.9 19.5 18.5 15.5 12.2 2.4

In the table I have the expected average hcp of the remaining deals, above we have the played deals so far, and to the left the average so far. So if your average will stay under 22.5 (and over 17.5) you will practically have no information at all. For instance at 20 deals we have total bias of a 6*0.2=1.2, that is slightly more than a jack totally on the remaining deals. The average will stay between 17.5 and 22.5 99.4% of the time for 26 deals, and it will be less common for less deals. So I think most of you overestimate dramatically the impact of having hcp-limits on actual playing decisions.

I also did the same statistics for two sigmas, that is 18.2-21.8 limits, which probably is too tight limits:

xxxx 10.0 16.0 20.0 23.0 24.0 25.0
--------------------------------------------
21.5: 19.9 19.8 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.8
22.0: 19.8 19.5 19.1 18.1 17.1 14.4
22.5: 19.7 19.2 18.2 15.3 12.4 3.6
23.0: 19.6 18.7 16.9 11.9 6.8 -7.7
23.5: 19.5 18.1 15.5 8.3 1.2 -20.2

Here you could probably use information about the limits around 10% of the deal sets, but only at the end of the set.

I recall that only our old Unix machine with Solaris operating system had flexible enough command tools to do the above statistics. I think I needed the command flex to grep the relevant statistics from Staverens dealer, which can do the hcp-statistics for 26 deals. The Unix machine is unfortunately no longe with us, so unfortunately I cant easily do more statistics of the above type.

Helene mentioned that she would accept such limits only in holiday bridge. I think competitve bridge could benefit from such limits as well. As I mentioend earlier if you get less points your bridge skills will have less impact on your result. HAving hcp-constraints could be viewed as design of experiments, where you try to estimate the skills of participating players. And as some of might know, truly random experiments are not optimal when you make only a finite number of tests on your test subject. I'm not suggesting that adding hcp-constraints would make tournaments optimal tests, just slightly better than truly random deals, so you could get more accurate estimates of bridge skills using less deals

Somebody mentioned finesses in this context, it is safer to use constraints on the pairs than on the individual players, as the latter could have impact on making finesses, while the former have no impact on this. During play of the hand you know the sum of the opponents hcp exactly when you see the dummy.