Help needed: Is this considered cheating?

[Setsuna Jr]

Exact computation is indeed a lot of work, so simulation would be much easier.

The exact computation here is actually fairly simple, since we only need to consider the placement of three cards. We are placing them in 3 of 42 buckets, so there are a total of (42 choose 3) = 11480 possible placements.

14 of these buckets are in your partner's hand, so the chance of them having all three aces is (14 choose 3)/11480 = 13/410 ≈ .032
28 buckets are not. Then there are (14 choose 2)(28 choose 1) ways to put 2 aces in your partner's hand and 1 elsewhere, for a probability of 91/410 ≈ .222
Similarly there are (14 choose 1)(28 choose 2) ways to put 1 ace in your partner's hand, for a probability of 189/410 ≈ .461
And of course the probability of your partner having none is (28 choose 3)/11480 = 117/410 ≈ .285

This is a brilliant solution. I remember the bucket rules now, but I did not remember by then. I was being lazy and thinking about the Bayesian's theorem. P(A|B) = P(A) P(B|A)/P(B), where A is your partner has one A, B is you have one A. That way the calculation seems nasty.
The answer should be 4*choose(52,13)*3*choose(39,13)/choose(56,14)/choose(42,14)/(4*choose(52,13)/choose(56,14)). Far from being as elegant as yours, but it is more like a straight forward thinking.
People who knows classical probability well, either super smart, or read and think a lot. Hope you are both

[N_Faker]

If bringing up a convention is cheating, then it was cheating. If not, then it is not no matter when I said it.

I suppose it is until an administrator steps in to tell us that it isn't. It isn't really clear why they deemed this to "circumvent the rules of origin of the game", the supporting reason also makes no sense and is incorrect to boot.

[Setsuna Jr]

If bringing up a convention is cheating, then it was cheating. If not, then it is not no matter when I said it.

I suppose it is until an administrator steps in to tell us that it isn't. It isn't really clear why they deemed this to "circumvent the rules of origin of the game", the supporting reason also makes no sense and is incorrect to boot.

They won‘t give me an explanation. And they don't even try to give a chance for a self-defense in a tricky case. Apparently there is no grand jury as well, or else, based on you guys' responses, I am confident I shouldn't be guilty in this case. It's more like a dictatorship.

What's absurd is that, if I read correctly somewhere, they will punish those who appeals, if they are convicted guilty again with the same case. As long as they are not transparent why this is considered cheating, and whether or not the same moderator will rule it again, I am not risking it. This moderator who judged I am guilty seems lack of training in logic. I still have no idea why Tichu is in a beta stage has anything to do with whether bringing up a convention is cheating.

That said, do you think the moderator really care? The post's being here for a while, maybe one of the hottest recently, but I did not feel like the moderator would like to come here and explain.

[Setsuna Jr]

If bringing up a convention is cheating, then it was cheating. If not, then it is not no matter when I said it.

I suppose it is until an administrator steps in to tell us that it isn't. It isn't really clear why they deemed this to "circumvent the rules of origin of the game", the supporting reason also makes no sense and is incorrect to boot.

When you pointed it out this way, it seems as if I was hacking the game. Or else how could I circumvent the rules of origin of the game. I cannot think of any piece of rule of TICHU saying I cannot exchange cards in a certain way.

BTW, I thought I should be considered innocent until proved guilty. But in reality, I am guilty, based on an absurd reason that does not make sense to anyone who ever replied in this post, unless an administrator steps in to prove I am innocent.

[Michi42]

Frankly, I don't see how discussing anything you want or making up any strategies before the game starts, or in between hands, could qualify as cheating. It is up to you and your partner to scheme, strategise, plot, make plans and come up with whatever conventions you want.

The key point is: there must not be any "side channel" during the game as soon as you have seen your cards. Communicating by passing particular cards or by playing particular cards in a particular order is fine (as long as you obey all Tichu rules, obviously).
If you really want to come up with a convention "if I pass you a green card and then lead a low pair, I have got the Dragon and the Phoenix", please, go ahead. Good luck with that. You will find it harder than not to follow this convention.

In Swiss Fata Morgana organised tournaments, the rule simply is: there must not be any "side channel" communication during the game. Whatever goes through cards is OK. Whatever is discussed when nobody holds any cards (before the game, between hands, afterwards, or whenever) is OK.
Anything that conveys information outside of the game during a hand is not - talking, hand-waving, timing, kicking your partner under the table, you name it.

[zouzouille18]

In some other websites, moderation needs 10 moderators check and the majority's opinion wins and takes context in consideration. But it takes more time and involvment.

[RobertBr]

How about games that base on this kind of strategy? Would being a good bridge player (which means you know hidden information conveyed by bidding in particular way, according to chosen system) be considered cheating on BGA? If not this case shouldn't be considered as well.

Let us be clear, so as not to muddy waters with bad information, any hidden information in a Bridge bidding system is cheating - full stop, no exceptions. It is required in Bridge that the entire of the conventions in your bidding system be known to your opponents and that you not use it to communicate any information your opponent cannot deduce.

Tichu is a touch different because the exchange is secret but it is understandable people would translate the Bridge convention by analogy.

[Michi42]

Tichu is a touch different because the exchange is secret but it is understandable people would translate the Bridge convention by analogy.

Well, and Tichu is kind of a different game

Of course, in the end you should go with whatever works for your group.
But for the groups I have played with, as well as Tichu tournaments, passing conventions are fairly common, at the very least "pass odd left - even right" (to avoid having both partners pass the same low card to the same opponent player). Also some kind of "if you have got a bad hand, pass your best card to your partner" is natural, even if not formalised. Then if some partners have played a lot together, they will probably have established some informal conventions, which are not strictly adhered to, and thus are somewhat difficult do describe in a formal way. There are obvious things like "if I'm passing you the dog, I'm considering calling Tichu" and some less obvious things.
As you mentioned, the exchange in Tichu is secret, and there is no strict system or convention players must follow (no matter what you agreed on, you are always free to pass whatever you like to). So just let the teams come up with whatever they want, as long as all communication during a hand happens by legal in-game actions.

When playing with a stranger, I don't see anything wrong in establishing a basic ad-hoc convention. This is also common practise in tournaments with variable teams. If you don't agree at least on the "left odd - right even" convention, you are very likely to yield your opponents some 2222 or 3333 bombs.

[Chreotho]

I have a related question about a different game:

Is it considered cheating / poor sportsmanship to point out publicly in the chat a particular strategy or play that might be mutually beneficial to you and another player (but to the possible detriment of others)?

Or is it ok and should be allowed as long as it is a general, public strategy discussion available to all in the chat?

In this particular case, a player had a card in Res Arcana that would trigger an end game check. If he used it on his next turn, I would likely finish in 1st place, and that player would finish in 3rd place (out of 4, in a Swiss tournament that awards +6, +4, +2, +0 for 1st-4th places).

If he did not use it at that point, then it was likely that I would finish 2nd and the other player with the card would end up finishing in 4th (there was no possibility of him moving up to 1st or 2nd).

I suggested in the public chat that he consider the possible effects of the end game check, but without any further details.

It is quite possible that he might have figured that out on his own, and maybe I was wrong to say anything and I should have just let him do it or not.

If so, I apologize, and I will refrain from any such strategy chat in the future.

But for games that I play in person with friends, often part of the game is to publicly negotiate with the other players, perhaps pointing out who you think might be ahead, if that might encourage someone to "attack" the leader instead of attacking you. (Of course the other person is welcome to ignore your suggestion, or to attack you just because you tried to encourage him to go after someone else.)

What do others think?

Is some amount of strategy / suggestion allowable, as long as it is public and open to all?

Or is that only allowed in non-tournament, non-Arena games with friends?

Please no flames -- I am just trying to understand what other's expectations are, so that we can all have fun playing, learning, and socializing with each other.

[N_Faker]

Considering the setting you describe, it was probably unsportsmanlike of you to make a suggestion to your opponent.