[pilowsky]

 pescetom, on 2021-March-01, 16:38, said:

It is trivial for software developers to enable/disable autoplay only at a certain trick. Also to add random delay to autoplay bids (and manual bids for that matter).

I used to work with engineers (software, wireless, mechanical, biomedical; you name it). I recall sitting at a table with about 15 of them (all very experienced but from different branches of engineering).
One after the other, they carefully explained how the part of the project that the other engineers were working on was 'straightforward' (not trivial, this was a polite University sitting, not a Bridge club. , also certain forum members weren't there).

The remarkable thing was that every single one of them knew, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the component of the project that they had to deal with was fantastically complicated.

I concluded that there was a 'spectrum' of difficulty. Appropriate in so many ways.

[sfi]

 Tompster, on 2021-March-01, 16:29, said:

I think there is a misconception here. Autoplay is not instantaneous - there is a noticeable pause before it is played. What are the odds that your partner leads and you have to hesitate over your singleton unless the only object is to confuse declarer? Second, if you can't stand the default option, then go into options and turn autoplay off.

What are the odds of me hesitating at trick one to work out the hand? Very high, and it's well-known that tempo at trick one will be slow. If declarer plays a quick card at trick one and third hand would autoplay a singleton it's going to be extremely easy to pick. This has nothing to do with confusing declarer and everything to do with having time to formulate a plan of action.

[0 carbon]

 pilowsky, on 2021-February-28, 16:22, said:

More problematic in face-to-face bridge is that some people always arrange the cards in their hand in a particular way. This made it possible to work out the opponents holding from where in the hand they selected their next card.

The best players don't arrange their hand at all in F2F. I compromise & put smaller cards at periphery & shorter suits in middle.

[pilowsky]

 0 carbon, on 2021-March-01, 21:18, said:

The best players don't arrange their hand at all in F2F. I compromise & put smaller cards at periphery & shorter suits in middle.

Who are these "best players" you speak of?
What about the rest of us?

[miamijd]

 pilowsky, on 2021-February-28, 16:22, said:

....

By the same token, I now also randomise tempo (slightly). Sometimes I will play a card quickly - sometimes more slowly - this is intended to prevent opponents from 'imagining' which cards I hold on the basis of timing.

....

It is not ethical to play a card out of tempo in order to send a message to your partner or to mislead the opponents. If you have something to think about, fine. But to deliberately hesitate longer than your normal tempo with, say, a singleton, is unethical. So is play a card deliberately quicker than normal when declarer leads the J toward the AT9 in dummy and you have the Q.

I'm sure you know this, right?

[pilowsky]

 miamijd, on 2021-March-01, 23:35, said:

It is not ethical to play a card out of tempo in order to send a message to your partner or to mislead the opponents. If you have something to think about, fine. But to deliberately hesitate longer than your normal tempo with, say, a singleton, is unethical. So is play a card deliberately quicker than normal when declarer leads the J toward the AT9 in dummy and you have the Q.

I'm sure you know this, right?

Did you read what I said?
I randomise tempo. This means that nobody can infer anything from the time it takes for me to bid or play. Not opps, not partner and not Director.
Sometimes I'm a little fast, sometimes a little slow.
All my delays or rapid plays are completely meaningless.
I learned this by playing with robots.
They also delay intermittently - means nothing at all.

[miamijd]

 Tompster, on 2021-February-28, 12:41, said:

I only recently discovered that I could change default play options to allow for automatic play of singletons. I really think that should be the default BBO setting for all players. It has several advantages. First, it slightly speeds the game up. I play speedballs and anything to help speed it up is good. It also gives nothing away since there is a tiny pause before the system plays the card. Secondly it keeps people from deliberately slowing the game down. More than once I have had opponents just sit without playing in the 13th round. Not sure what they are doing but no reason not to finish the hand. And while I hate to say it, it also limits opponents ability to deliberately give a false impression of their distribution by hesitating over playing a singleton. Yes, I have experienced that one, too. What do you folks think?

This is quite a horrible idea. Indeed, the opposite idea - a mandatory pause before declarer plays from dummy -- is probably called for so that the non-leading defender can think about his play and defense.

Hare are a couple of examples why the auto-play is so awful:

Suppose I am declarer at a NT contract and hold the AJx of hearts opposite a stiff in dummy. LHO opponent leads the Kh, and I have to decide whether I want to hold up to force a switch or to take the Ace. I might want to take the Ace if (A) It's MP and I think I can make all 13 tricks if things go well or (B) I am more afraid of a switch to another suit than I am of letting RHO in for a lead through my Jx.

I'm going to need a little bit of time to think about this at trick one. If dummy auto-plays and RHO quickly plays a low spot, everyone is going to know what's up when I take 10 seconds to play. Far better if I take some time before playing from dummy (as I do on all hands, even the easy ones). Then no one really knows what I"m thinking about.

Second example. Suppose the bidding goes 1NT-2C-2D-3NT by the opponents. You are defending 3NT and partner leads the 6h. You have the AQx of hearts and a nice hand overall, say 13 HCP. Dummy has a stiff heart and 10 HCP. The opponents play 15-17 NTs. Do you play the A or the Q at trick one?

That mostly depends on whether you think partner has (A) the KH or an outside entry or (B) six hearts headed by the J and nothing else. If he has (A), playing the Ah at trick one is fine. But if he has (B), you need to play the Qh at trick one, so that declarer is forced to take the trick. Now when you get in, you cash A and hit partner.

But if dummy auto-plays at trick one, then if you take a long time before playing the Q, declarer may well guess what's up and duck. If declarer does what he should do and takes at least 5 seconds or so before playing from dummy, then you have time to work out that the Q is right.

[miamijd]

 pilowsky, on 2021-March-01, 23:46, said:

Did you read what I said?
I randomise tempo. This means that nobody can infer anything from the time it takes for me to bid or play. Not opps, not partner and not Director.
Sometimes I'm a little fast, sometimes a little slow.
All my delays or rapid plays are completely meaningless.
I learned this by playing with robots.
They also delay intermittently - means nothing at all.

I did read what you said. But I doubt you fully do it in practice.

1. As a preliminary matter, do you inform the opponents you randomize your tempo? They are entitled to know. Otherwise, as an example, when you hesitate awhile before playing a card, the opponents are reasonably entitled to infer that you don't have a singleton.

2. Even if you do inform the opponents, I doubt you truly randomize your tempo on defense. Don't you ever have to think about what card to play to a trick? If you do, then your tempo is no longer random. If you don't have to think, it's random. If you do ...

[pilowsky]

 miamijd, on 2021-March-02, 00:04, said:

I did read what you said. But I doubt you fully do it in practice.

1. As a preliminary matter, do you inform the opponents you randomize your tempo? They are entitled to know. Otherwise, as an example, when you hesitate awhile before playing a card, the opponents are reasonably entitled to infer that you don't have a singleton.

2. Even if you do inform the opponents, I doubt you truly randomize your tempo on defense. Don't you ever have to think about what card to play to a trick? If you do, then your tempo is no longer random. If you don't have to think, it's random. If you do ...

So, another psychic bridge director - that 'logic' makes no sense at all. It suggests that you haven't played much online Bridge. People pause all the time for all kinds of reasons - like responding to posts!

[miamijd]

 pilowsky, on 2021-March-02, 00:34, said:

So, another psychic bridge director - that 'logic' makes no sense at all. It suggests that you haven't played much online Bridge. People pause all the time for all kinds of reasons - like responding to posts!

I play a lot of online bridge, including some events where you have to use cameras so that you can see and hear your "screenmate."

[pilowsky]

 miamijd, on 2021-March-02, 11:26, said:

I play a lot of online bridge, including some events where you have to use cameras so that you can see and hear your "screenmate."

If you can see and hear your screenmate then you are not playing online Bridge. You are playing FTF.
When I play behind screens nobody can see or hear me.
Nobody can hear me scream.

[miamijd]

 pilowsky, on 2021-March-02, 14:39, said:

If you can see and hear your screenmate then you are not playing online Bridge. You are playing FTF.
When I play behind screens nobody can see or hear me.
Nobody can hear me scream.

All of the US Bridge Federation events and a lot of the specials (like the Justin Lall memorial tournaments) are conducted on Real Bridge (online), where you have a "screenmate" just like you do in F2F bridge. Your camera is on.

[0 carbon]

 bluenikki, on 2021-March-01, 08:04, said:

More problematic in face-to-face bridge is that some people always arrange the cards in their hand in a particular way. This made it possible to work out the opponents holding from where in the hand they selected their next card.

That is cheating, of course.

I disagree - it is only cheating if Partner notices.

[mycroft]

If you notice by chance, you're allowed to use it. If you look for it, that's against the proprieties. If partner notices it, that's fine, but UI. If partner uses that information, that's against Law 16.

It's cheating if it's done deliberately, with intent. Otherwise, it's just illegal or improper.

Of course, the accusation is likely worse than the fact; but I have been known to play with my hand under the table against some opponents. One, I remember staring at the player as I moved my cards down. I'm sure he understood the entire conversation.

[pescetom]

 mycroft, on 2021-March-09, 22:46, said:

If you notice by chance, you're allowed to use it. If you look for it, that's against the proprieties.

I can see that one might notice by chance the place from which a player draws a card, but how do you get from that to it being legal to use it?
Using it implies making a hypothesis about which card it might be, which is neither a matter of chance nor a normal bridge action.
74C5 is a bit hermetic, but that "but" in "or of observing the place from which he draws a card (but it is appropriate to act on information acquired by unintentionally seeing an opponent’s card)" seems to me to imply that acting on information acquired by unintentionally observing the place from which he draws a card is NOT allowed (unlike acting when one has seen an opponent's card).

[mycroft]

What's the difference (in that Law, or in this example's fact) between the face of the card and the back?

But thank you for actually quoting the bit of the proprieties I was referencing; I thought it was actually an inference from that 74C example, not specifically mentioned in it. Serves me right for not actually RTFLB for once.

[pilowsky]

There a difference between actual knowledge and guesswork and inference.
Sure, if the opponents or partners cards are faceup, then you have actual knowledge.
If you are playing with a person and have little prior knowledge of their habits, then it is guesswork.
Finally, you might be inferring that a card is of a particular suit or number because of its location in their hand, but you don't actually know. In fact, what you are is Bertrand Russell's inductivist turkey.

You are applying the principles of logical positivism (a wissenschaftliche Weltauffassung) to the way that you apprehend the world.

This fallacious scientific world view leads many people to believe that they 'know' things when they don't

That this thinking is embedded in Bridge law (and lore) harks back to the pre-scientific era (i.e. before Fisher, Gossett, Pearson and then computers).
Conan Doyle famously believed in fairies. Many great scientists held unshakeable mystical beliefs.

Sure, it's fun to imagine that you can tell where a card is from the position that the player draws it, but the truth is you can't.
It does not follow that because someone pulled the Ace from the left once, then that is what they will do next time.

Within a few weeks of starting to play, I started randomising whereabouts the suits were placed; and then whether or not the cards in the suits were arranged L->R or R->L.

Now that I play Bridge online-only, none of this is a problem.

Of the many things I do not miss about FTF, intimidatory Director calls about fanciful ideas concerning the timing and card placement are surely in the top ten.

[0 carbon]

FWIW, F2F, I put short suits in middle and low cards at outside. But if a pro, I would not sort my cards at all.
I think it is ethical to notice where cards come from. And ethical to fool opps by their placement!
But not ethical for P to notice where cards come from.

[pilowsky]

 0 carbon, on 2021-March-10, 16:21, said:

FWIW, F2F, I put short suits in middle and low cards at outside. But if a pro, I would not sort my cards at all.
I think it is ethical to notice where cards come from. And ethical to fool opps by their placement!
But not ethical for P to notice where cards come from.

Great, thank you. Useful info and noted.
When are we playing next?