[nige1]

pilowsky, on 2020-November-03, 05:16, said:

When replaying hands on the teaching table you will find that GIB randomly, but reproducibly, adds specific amounts of time at certain points for no good reason. The amount of time is always the same. There is no reason for it. GIB doesn't need to pause or think. It seems that the programmers have added pauses here and there to simulate thinking in order to create verisimilitude.

Seems reasonable but, in my experience, with a singleton or no real choice, GIB seems to play quickly.

pilowsky, on 2020-November-03, 05:16, said:

Should I call the Director when in a timed robot tournament GIB wastes my time unnecessarily?
Obviously not, but I don't infer that East has the King of Diamonds either. I also don't do it just because Barry burps or Nigel scratches himself. Perhaps if Paul knowingly rubbed his nose and did a Robert Redford imitation I'd get worried.

We've been here before. Pilowsky is right that if the rules were changed to make Bridge a timed game then Bridge would be more fun and many problems would disappear.
We disagree, however, about current rules. IMO....

• Players shouldn't hesitate spuriously when that is likely to hoodwink opponents.
• Players shouldn't base inferences on unauthorised information from their partners.

Law-breakers regularly rationalize such behaviour. I feel that is partly the fault of victims for failing to call the director to judge whether an infraction has occurred, to assess damage (if any) or to impose procedural penalties (if appropriate).

Pilowsky is right that this is a contentious area. Many players, like Lamford and Mycroft, seem to agree with Pilowsky that such director calls are officious or unsporting or worse.

[Cyberyeti]

Zelandakh, on 2020-November-03, 06:55, said:

So if you have 852, you play count on the first round and then count again on the second round just in case partner missed the first signal?

We play the 2 the first time and the 5 unless it's REALLY obvious suit preference situation, no need for thought

[mycroft]

Wow, Nigel, I'm either bad at explaining, or you really don't read me well. I wouldn't mind some citation for "calling the TD is unsporting". I will say "calling the TD as an A player on a pair of total newbies for whom even the A player can see the hesitation means 'I've never seen this auction before', not whatever it would mean if said A player, or I, made that hesitation, could be an issue, especially if they're intimidating when doing so" (with a special note that it's *really easy* for an A player to be intimidating to newbies). But I've always said "call the TD politely, explain the issue politely, and let the TD handle it from there on, and accept the ruling with good grace unless it's obviously wrong."

I do have an issue with "I think they're having a mistake and we'll get a good result out of it. But if it turns out working for them, I'll call the TD to get from him what I couldn't get at the table". But that usually comes up *in opposition* to lamford, et al, so I'm not sure how you conflate the two.

I certainly am on the record as stating that bridge clocks, no matter how they are set, are gameable, and will be gamed. That doesn't mean they aren't a good thing for "establishing length of hesitation" on some random play.

[nige1]

mycroft, on 2020-November-03, 10:56, said:

Wow, Nigel, I'm either bad at explaining, or you really don't read me well. I wouldn't mind some citation for "calling the TD is unsporting".

In recent Lamford threads, where it transpired that

• The Rabbit misinformed opponents.
• With correct information opponents could have achieved a better result.

You seemed to criticise the director call. This seems at odds with ...

mycroft, on 2020-November-03, 10:56, said:

But I've always said "call the TD politely, explain the issue politely, and let the TD handle it from there on, and accept the ruling with good grace unless it's obviously wrong."

That seems a much better approach, when you suspect that an opponent broke the law. I agree that it us up to the director to judge whether there was an infraction and to determine damage if any. And I agree that the director should be wary of a one-sided view, being careful to gather evidence from both sides, not just the side that shouts louder.

For a clear infraction, however, even without damage, I feel that you should call the director. Furthermore, if the director judges that the infraction might be deliberate, then he should consider imposing a PP. Blackshoe might agree.

IMO, if players called the director for more problems, we would enjoy a smoother and more pleasant game. And there might be less slander and back-biting in the bar, afterwards.

[mycroft]

That was "I think they're having a mistake and we'll get a good result out of it. But if it turns out working for them, I'll call the TD to get from him what I couldn't get at the table". And yes, I think that kind of doubleshot is unsporting, *especially* when the caller is - shall we say, stingy with the truth? - in what he explains to the TD and expects him to believe straight up.

But that's not calling the TD, and accepting the result; that's actively setting up the opponents so that if things are one way, he gets a good score at the table; if it goes the other way, he gets a good score from the TD. That - not calling the TD - is the problem I had. Oh, and needing to replace my BS-detector because the arm snapped. But that happens at least once a tournament, especially if they've never seen me before, so there it is.

Using the TD as a referee, to avoid rancor at the table; that I definitely approve of, even if my response after investigation is "for you, that hesitation would be meaningful. for them, it means they have 40 MPs and have never seen anyone overcall their 2♣ opener before. No relevant UI, no damage". Calling the cops, or using the TD as a beatstick, or playing dumb and innocent when everyone knows you're one of the best table-readers in the city, that I have issues with.

[barmar]

pilowsky, on 2020-November-03, 05:16, said:

When replaying hands on the teaching table you will find that GIB randomly, but reproducibly, adds specific amounts of time at certain points for no good reason. The amount of time is always the same. There is no reason for it. GIB doesn't need to pause or think.

Actually, it does.

During the auction, some bids come automatically from the bidding database, while others allow or require simulations; simulations slow things down noticeably.

And during the play, simulations are also involved. The time this takes will depend on how many legal bids the robot has available. If it's following suit, it only has to analyze the results of playing cards of that suit, but if it's on lead or void in the suit, it has many more options and has to analyze the results of each of them.

One place where I've noticed that the robot is usually slow is when I'm taking a losing finesse -- it seems like it always takes a few seconds to decide to win it. But if the finesse is winning, it just plays its lowest card.

[pilowsky]

barmar, on 2020-November-03, 15:43, said:

Actually, it does.

During the auction, some bids come automatically from the bidding database, while others allow or require simulations; simulations slow things down noticeably.

And during the play, simulations are also involved. The time this takes will depend on how many legal bids the robot has available. If it's following suit, it only has to analyze the results of playing cards of that suit, but if it's on lead or void in the suit, it has many more options and has to analyze the results of each of them.

One place where I've noticed that the robot is usually slow is when I'm taking a losing finesse -- it seems like it always takes a few seconds to decide to win it. But if the finesse is winning, it just plays its lowest card.

What I am saying is that I have taken an individual hand and measured the actual latency to make a bid or play a card at a certain point. Over and over again. Reproducibly.
I used to do this for a (small) living. With oscilloscopes and *****.


Sometimes, GIB will pause for a couple of seconds before making a bid. I understand what you mean by simulations. The same thing applies to humans. We call it thinking.
Say an experienced player has a 4333 with 16HCP - 1NT no problem. Make it 5422 and 14 or 18 HCP and an inexperienced player - now you have issues. Make it 5431 and 19HCP now you have a Forum question and a Director call.


This is why I think that all the carry on about pauses and meaningful glances is so silly in a thinking game. It's a thinking game. Let people think.