[the hog]

awm, on Jun 8 2009, 12:15 PM, said:

snipped

Apparently I am in the minority (judging by the actions of certain local expert players who are widely thought to be ethical) but I feel that if you routinely open 1nt "15-17" in regular partnerships on twelve and thirteen counts including a six-card minor suit, some disclosure of this practice really ought to be required.

Yes, I can't disagree with that, however the comment about the 6 card minor intrigued me. Opening 1NT with a 6322 shape with a 6 card m in the appropriate range wouldn't raise an eyebrow in Aust.

[jdonn]

The discussion about 6 card minors and holding a singleton as separate issues is not the right discussion to be having imo. Holding 1246 shape is the discussion that should be had. (I find that alone an extremely gross distortion, and when combined with being 2 points light it's all the grosser.) Holding a 6 card minor when 3226 may be fine just like holding a singleton king when 1444 may be fine. But, to take that example, even 4414 is a lot more of a distortion than 1444 imo so really you need to consider the shape as a whole.

[Cascade]

The_Hog, on Jun 8 2009, 05:46 PM, said:

awm, on Jun 8 2009, 12:15 PM, said:

snipped

Apparently I am in the minority (judging by the actions of certain local expert players who are widely thought to be ethical) but I feel that if you routinely open 1nt "15-17" in regular partnerships on twelve and thirteen counts including a six-card minor suit, some disclosure of this practice really ought to be required.

Yes, I can't disagree with that, however the comment about the 6 card minor intrigued me. Opening 1NT with a 6322 shape with a 6 card m in the appropriate range wouldn't raise an eyebrow in Aust.

It would if you were my partner.

I think it is seldom right to open in range with a six-card minor. The hands with the equivalent playing strength are minimum or sub-minimum for the strict HCP range. Otherwise too often you find that you have a couple of extra unwanted tricks at the end of the hand.

[cherdanno]

Cascade, on Jun 8 2009, 01:19 AM, said:

I think it is seldom right to open in range with a six-card minor. The hands with the equivalent playing strength are minimum or sub-minimum for the strict HCP range. Otherwise too often you find that you have a couple of extra unwanted tricks at the end of the hand.

Wayne, reading your posts I think very often that you and me live on different planets, and I have a suspicion on which planet most of the other posters live.

How you got the idea that anyone was suggesting to open 1N with 6322 and a 17 count is beyond me. Just because people are discussing opening 1N with 6322, why do you have to assume that they have no clue about hand evaluation? I guess you read "appropriate range" as "having the stated number of hcp". Come on. You know The_Hog better than this.

[Cascade]

cherdanno, on Jun 8 2009, 06:27 PM, said:

Cascade, on Jun 8 2009, 01:19 AM, said:

I think it is seldom right to open in range with a six-card minor.  The hands with the equivalent playing strength are minimum or sub-minimum for the strict HCP range.  Otherwise too often you find that you have a couple of extra unwanted tricks at the end of the hand.

Wayne, reading your posts I think very often that you and me live on different planets, and I have a suspicion on which planet most of the other posters live.

How you got the idea that anyone was suggesting to open 1N with 6322 and a 17 count is beyond me. Just because people are discussing opening 1N with 6322, why do you have to assume that they have no clue about hand evaluation? I guess you read "appropriate range" as "having the stated number of hcp". Come on. You know The_Hog better than this.

Maybe you are right.

Maybe I misinterpreted Ron's post.

[Gerben42]

Several points:

About the ruling:

As someone 3 pages ago said, the main point is not just the impossible ruling, but the fact that those affected by the ruling (Glen and his partner) were not notified about the director's decision as soon as it was taken.

About the opponents:

I think calling the director here was completely out of line.

About the player in question:

I guess I wouldn't have psyched here, mostly because of Fred's reasoning. Why play around, what's the fun in that? Second because I don't think it's winning bridge. But I guess Glen had his reasons and would not have psyched against Mrs. X and Mrs. Y.

About "scaring away the regulars":

I think this is a self-serving argument. People don't like psyches because they are taught not to like them by others who incorrectly think this is cheating or ruining the game or whatever. The problem is with the bridge teachers. We are killing the game when we set our teaching goal to: "play in a no-fear club" rather than trying to teach people to play in real tournaments. Just because your newbies are 65 doesn't mean they won't want to play in tournaments as well in 2-3 years! Tournament players are given a bad name in most clubs, so people are discouraged to improve or to participate in real bridge tournaments.

[hotShot]

Can anyone explain to me,
why it's cool to win a poker game psyching
and
uncool to psyche in a bridge game?

[qwery_hi]

hotShot, on Jun 7 2009, 11:38 PM, said:

Can anyone explain to me,
why it's cool to win a poker game psyching
and
uncool to psyche in a bridge game?

In one case it's like
taking candy from a baby
in the other like
taking candy
from the chocolate factory.

Oooooh, what fun with poetry!

[1eyedjack]

It occurs to me rather late in the day that star players may get psyched against on BBO rather more frequently than other players. That may be a source of irritation to them, but probably one which they need to rise above (or else log on under an alternative non-star alias).

[the hog]

Cascade, on Jun 8 2009, 01:46 PM, said:

cherdanno, on Jun 8 2009, 06:27 PM, said:

Cascade, on Jun 8 2009, 01:19 AM, said:

I think it is seldom right to open in range with a six-card minor.  The hands with the equivalent playing strength are minimum or sub-minimum for the strict HCP range.  Otherwise too often you find that you have a couple of extra unwanted tricks at the end of the hand.

Wayne, reading your posts I think very often that you and me live on different planets, and I have a suspicion on which planet most of the other posters live.

How you got the idea that anyone was suggesting to open 1N with 6322 and a 17 count is beyond me. Just because people are discussing opening 1N with 6322, why do you have to assume that they have no clue about hand evaluation? I guess you read "appropriate range" as "having the stated number of hcp". Come on. You know The_Hog better than this.

Maybe you are right.

Maybe I misinterpreted Ron's post.

My fault. My poor expression in that post.

[glen]

Troll: Stop. Who would cross the Bridge of Psychs must answer me these questions three, ere the other side he see.
Sir Lancelot: Ask me the questions, Troll. I am not afraid.
Troll: What... is your name?
Sir Lancelot: My name is Sir Lancelot of Camelot.
Troll: What... is your quest?
Sir Lancelot: To seek the Holy Grail.
Troll: What... is your favourite colour?
Sir Lancelot: Blue.
Troll: Go on. Off you go.
Sir Lancelot: Oh, thank you. Thank you very much.
Sir Robin: That's easy.
Troll: Stop. Who would cross the Bridge of Psychs must answer me these questions three, ere the other side he see.
Sir Robin: Ask me the questions, Troll. I'm not afraid.
Troll: What... is your name?
Sir Robin: Sir Robin of Camelot.
Troll: What... is your quest?
Sir Robin: To seek the Holy Grail.
Troll: What... is the capital of Assyria?
[pause]
Sir Robin: I don't know that.
[he is thrown over the edge into the volcano]
Sir Robin: Auuuuuuuugh.
Troll: Stop. What... is your name?
Galahad: Sir Galahad of Camelot.
Troll: What... is your quest?
Galahad: I seek the Grail.
Troll: What... is your favourite colour?
Galahad: Blue. No, yel...
[he is also thrown over the edge]
Galahad: auuuuuuuugh.
Troll: Hee hee heh. Stop. What... is your name?
King Arthur: It is 'Arthur', King of the Britons.
Troll: What... is your quest?
King Arthur: To seek the Holy Grail.
Troll: What... is the air-speed velocity of an unladen swallow?
King Arthur: What do you mean? An African or European swallow?
Troll: Huh? I... I don't know that.
[he is thrown over]
Troll: Auuuuuuuugh.
Sir Bedevere: How do know so much about swallows?
King Arthur: Well, you have to know these things when you're a king, you know.

[jdonn]

BBO forums, the leper colony for analogies so bad they have been shunned by civilized society.

[uday]

I fear FG won't be able to resist the troll-bait. Maybe i'll be able to head him off...

Glen, I know you have an issue with free-speech (psychs) and not-so-free-speech (psychs). I suspect somehow that the various camps that have expressed opinions won't meet anyplace they consider agreeable to all.

Factual things, tho, before we get back to the raving:

1. Psychs are legal, to a limited extent. How limited? Fuzzy. Should they be limited? Fuzzy.
2. TDs are human, thus capable of error.
3. ACBL club games (like ours) are owned and operated by independent operators (like us), not "the ACBL" in Memphis.

I'll toss in my observations while I'm here

a. It is fun to be provocative, in real life as well as at the table
b. Some people are easily bored
c. It is easier to get what you want if you know what you want
d. Flies, honey, vinegar


U

[barmar]

hotShot, on Jun 8 2009, 03:38 AM, said:

Can anyone explain to me,
why it's cool to win a poker game psyching
and
uncool to psyche in a bridge game?

Bridge and poker are very different games.

Poker is a very simple game, that is really only made interesting by the bluffing possibility.

Bridge is a relatively complex game, and is quite interesting and intellectually challenging even without the possibility of psyches. To some psyches make the game too random. Consider all the books and columns that teach inferences in bridge. A player can learn all this, and it seems to fly completely out of the window when bluffs are involved.

Because bluffing is so important in poker, it's taught early to players. It only takes a few minutes to teach the basics of the game, so there's not much else to teach but this strategy. Bridge players often have to spend weeks or months just to achieve minimal competency in the basics of the game, and during this time they're usually just taught the normal meanings of everything. The possibility of bids not meaning what they're supposed to never comes up, because there's too much normal stuff to teach.

The discovery of psychic bidding in bridge seems to them analogous to a player taking a card from another player's hand in gin rummy.

[Cascade]

barmar, on Jun 9 2009, 08:01 AM, said:

hotShot, on Jun 8 2009, 03:38 AM, said:

Can anyone explain to me,
why it's cool to win a poker game psyching
and
uncool to psyche in a bridge game?

...
The possibility of bids not meaning what they're supposed to never comes up, because there's too much normal stuff to teach.

This seems almost always to come up in my series of learners' lessons at the club.

It is not a formal part of the lessons. I don't have it written in somewhere to teach but it seems to be that sometime someone will ask a question about what happens when someone makes the wrong bid and doesn't have what he or she promised in her hand.

Now this isn't a psyche it is just a mistake but it only differs from a psyche in that it is not deliberate. It seems natural to me to explain that this can happen and that you are even free to deliberately make the wrong bid. Of course you are likely to confuse your partner if you do this but it is a tactic that is allowed in the game.

[barmar]

Cascade, on Jun 8 2009, 04:23 PM, said:

barmar, on Jun 9 2009, 08:01 AM, said:

hotShot, on Jun 8 2009, 03:38 AM, said:

Can anyone explain to me,
why it's cool to win a poker game psyching
and
uncool to psyche in a bridge game?

...
The possibility of bids not meaning what they're supposed to never comes up, because there's too much normal stuff to teach.

This seems almost always to come up in my series of learners' lessons at the club.

It is not a formal part of the lessons. I don't have it written in somewhere to teach but it seems to be that sometime someone will ask a question about what happens when someone makes the wrong bid and doesn't have what he or she promised in her hand.

Now this isn't a psyche it is just a mistake but it only differs from a psyche in that it is not deliberate. It seems natural to me to explain that this can happen and that you are even free to deliberately make the wrong bid. Of course you are likely to confuse your partner if you do this but it is a tactic that is allowed in the game.

Yeah, it probably does come up frequently in that context. But as a parenthetical remark, I wonder whether it sinks in. I'm sure that the first time it comes up in real life, these students will all be totally surprised, and not recall your warning about it.

[glen]

Black Knight: None shall pass.
King Arthur: What?
Black Knight: None shall pass!
King Arthur: I have no quarrel with you, good Sir Knight. But I must cross this bridge.
Black Knight: Then you shall die.
...
King Arthur: Now, stand aside, worthy adversary!
Black Knight: 'Tis but a scratch!
King Arthur: A scratch? Your arm's off!
Black Knight: No, it isn't!
King Arthur: Well, what's that then?
...
Black Knight: Come on, then.
King Arthur: What?
Black Knight: Have at you!
King Arthur: You are indeed brave, Sir Knight, but the fight is mine!
Black Knight: Oh, had enough, eh?
King Arthur: Look, you stupid bastard. You've got no arms left!

[jdonn]

You keep subtly alluding to some secret circumstance or relevant fact that you are unable to tell us. Inquiring minds want to know?

[fred]

cherdanno, on Jun 8 2009, 03:21 AM, said:

Fred, if the intentions of these two "stars" are as noble as you assume, why did they complain to the TD about an utterly normal psych? Just to preemptively protect other players, by teaching glen a lesson not to psych in ACBL games?

Well, it's possible, but I don't think it's the most likely version of the story.

Why do you assume I assume *anything* as far as the intentions of the stars is concerned?

I have intentionally said nothing about either their behavior or their intentions (because other posters said what I thought needed to be said as far as that subject is concerned).

I didn't defend the TD either - the only thing I said about TD is that, based on the facts that Glen presented, it sounds like the TD made a poor ruling.

This should come as no surprise since, as I have said before, even the best TDs sometimes make poor rulings. Our ACBL TDs make dozens (if not 100s) of rulings every day, but of course only the questionable rulings get posted in Forums (and some such posts do get the facts wrong).

Conclude what you want from such posts, but I have good reasons to stand behind our staff. I believe our ACBL TDs by and large are much stronger than the TDs one is likely to find in a typical real life ACBL duplicate club. Furthermore, we are not afraid to admit when poor rulings are made and we make a serious effort to ensure that similar mistakes are not repeated.

As I have said before, we prefer to handle such incidents privately (via e-mail to acbl@bridgebase.com) since there is not much point in publicly embarassing a TD who makes a mistake.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[glen]

?