[xcurt]

aguahombre, on 2012-January-18, 11:03, said:

Yes, it was damned inconsiderate of BBO to make changes which improve the forum environment for people who are using PC's and laptops, yet inconvenient for those who choose to use other devices. I am 100% with Stephanie, this time.

I hate to break it to you but mobile devices are the future (nay, the present) of content consumption on the web.

Personally I'm done posting in handviewer until it gets fixed.*

I'll continue to read content from posters I find interesting and worthwhile.

If others don't want to read my posts because they're typically plaintext, that's their choice.

The best solution would be some server side code that reads the user agent (or a pref) and converts handviewer into text for mobile users. Fred or Uday, please???

* if you don't believe me, get an iPad and head over to bridgewinners. Read any of Kit's excellent columns, which all contain multiple diagrams on one page separated by jumps. Those pages can take over 30 seconds to load. I have FiOs so it isnt bandwidth.

[Phil]

straube, on 2012-January-18, 10:54, said:

We haven't discussed this, but I wouldn't raise. I also wouldn't raise opposite a brand new partner. For me, this is about recognizing a potential lead-directing or psyche situation.

One is OK, the other is an undisclosed agreement.

[CSGibson]

If you have the agreement that 3♠ does not have to have 4 spades because it is frequently lead directional with a fit for the preempt, then you have to alert it. It is not a natural bid as defined by the ACBL, and in my opinion does not fall under general bridge knowledge (like cue-bidding, or probing for 3N would be). If you pulled this bid out of your hat, then it would be a psyche, but it sounds like you and your partner have actually discussed this position at length, so it's actually a partnership understanding that needs to be disclosed.

[Zelandakh]

bluecalm, on 2012-January-18, 11:16, said:

You should be less arrogant and accept you try for advantage you are not entitled to.

<snip>

You try to profit from that ignorance which is mild form of cheating if you were unaware of mechanism and straight up cheating if you continue to do so.

You are out of order here bluecalm and I hope you can see that when you read your message back. Telling someone not to be arrogant while doing precisely that in your message is perhaps ironic but also not really suitable for these forums imho. Calling someone a cheat without evidence to that effect is one of the more serious actions in the bridge world and you should withdraw the accusation. It is clear to me that straube did not post this hand as a "look at me, didn't I do well"-type of post but rather to ascertain the views of more experienced players on the best way to handle this. In this I stand by my earlier answer - if the new suit were treated as natural even though it may be psyched this is ok. But where the agreement, as here, is that the new suit is often short, in effect a lead director, then this should be alerted and explained as such. Yes, the line is a bit fuzzy and if you have the former explicit agreement but psyche it very often this becomes an implicit agreement too.

[bluecalm]

I am sorry, maybe I got carried away but I got really annoyed about "giving lessons" quote.
Explaining your style which might be completely alien to your opponents is not giving lessons, talking about "general bridge knowledge" in that situation aren't lessons either. I hate this attitude - people who think their intuition and habits are expected to be treated as knowledge and explaining it are "lessons".

Also I didn't call him a cheat. I said what he is doing is mild form of cheating and if he continue to do so is straight up cheating. I probably should have used expression: "foul play". Even players who try to be ethical foul from time to time but deliberately doing so is borderline cheating at best. I am sorry for my selection of words though I should've be more careful and less emotional about the issue.

[Vampyr]

straube, on 2012-January-18, 14:57, said:

3N shows willingness to play there (to make or go down undoubled).

This is pretty standard isn't it (I am not suggesting, though, that it is not alertable)?

Clearly they can make it a lot harder when they bid a suit instead.

[straube]

Alerting is not the real issue. The laws on psyches are that they must be a surprise
to partner as much as they are to the opponents and that there are no "safe" psyches.

In the cases you gave, if for example, the 3S bid may never be raised or passed then
this is a "safe" psyche. It seems that they have discussed when these types of psyches
are going to happen. This violates the part about it surprising partner.

Their argument is that the opponents should not be any more surprised than their
partner because of the bridge logic of the situation. While this might be accurate
at the highest levels, not everyone they play against will analyse the situation the
same.

If they have an agreement that these are lead directing bids, then they are alertable
because they als show the suit that the preempter bid.

----- Original Message -----
From: dastraube@aol.com [mailto:dastraube@aol.com]
To: rulings@acbl.org
Sent: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 22:13:38 -0500 (EST)
Subject: psyching over a preempt

Hi, can you explain the rules here?

The auction goes...

P P P 2C
3D X 3S 6H

3S was bid with a stiff spade and a diamond fit

This defending partnership has discussed making lead-directing bids.
They play and alert McCabe. They've discussed how to cope with psyches
against their strong club. They have infrequently but occasionally
psyched against strong auctions after a preempt. They have the
agreement that 2H P 3C X is penalty so that opponents cannot steal
clubs. So they have an awareness that this auction is one in which a
psyche might have a good reward/risk ratio.

This partnership argues that the opponents should also be aware that
the defenders are not trying to bid constructively, that they are both
passed hands and that both had an opportunity to preempt previously.
They argue that 3S could be running from 3D doubled with length, a lead
directing bid, or a psyche.

The opponents argue that 3S is not a natural bid, that the defenders
had a concealed understanding and that 3S should have been alerted as
possibly lead-directional, possibly a psyche. They say that bidding in
this fashion is not common bridge knowledge or practice.

How would you rule? Do such bids have to be alerted?

Thanks

[blackshoe]

I gather you didn't like whatever answer Flader gave.

[straube]

bluecalm, on 2012-January-19, 05:37, said:

I am sorry, maybe I got carried away but I got really annoyed about "giving lessons" quote.
Explaining your style which might be completely alien to your opponents is not giving lessons, talking about "general bridge knowledge" in that situation aren't lessons either. I hate this attitude - people who think their intuition and habits are expected to be treated as knowledge and explaining it are "lessons".

Also I didn't call him a cheat. I said what he is doing is mild form of cheating and if he continue to do so is straight up cheating. I probably should have used expression: "foul play". Even players who try to be ethical foul from time to time but deliberately doing so is borderline cheating at best. I am sorry for my selection of words though I should've be more careful and less emotional about the issue.

I regret the "giving lessons" quote and I didn't mean to offend those who would be surprised that 3S may not be an honest bid. "Giving lessons" however is refering to something real (to me anyway) and something I was trying to convey. This situation is a little bit different than say 3C dbl 3H which is a little bit different from 2H P 2S which is a little bit different from 3C P 3N. Vulnerability matters, how strong the opponent's auction is matters, etc. So it's not clear to me in which situations we ought to alert (if ever) and which we ought not. Flader points out that there should be no "safe psyches" but some are safer than others, right? We also don't have agreements about correcting partner's bid (I feel partner would have passed 3S even doubled) though I'm personally not raising spades myself even if playing with someone I don't know.

The other issue is that say we alert this particular auction (and again, how we separate this auction from others I'm not sure) and partner explains that "It could be lead directional with a fit, could be running, could be lead directional with a void, could be a psyche." I'm not at all sure that this will satisfy everyone. I'm concerned partner would be asked how likely any of these things are and that his view of this will be influenced by how well he can recall previous instances, his hand (which is obviously not fair game), the vulnerability (which is known by everyone), the strength of the auction (which is known to everyone), etc.

[the hog]

Also I didn't call him a cheat. I said what he is doing is mild form of cheating

Isn't someone who cheats a cheat? Hecertainly was doing NOTHING like cheating.

[ggwhiz]

straube, on 2012-January-19, 10:32, said:

partner explains that "It could be lead directional with a fit, could be running, could be lead directional with a void, could be a psyche."

Reminds me of my favorite committee ruling.

A local pair playing a home-grown system out of town explained an alert as "could be this, could be that, could be something else" and repeated it on further requests for info.

Declarer finally bid 3nt in exasperation, wide open in their bid suit and made a bunch on a different lead. At committee he said "Anyone who doesn't have the courtesy to explain the alert doesn't have the courtesy to lead partners suit." and won at the speed of light.

It's a headache but too much yada yada in the explanation won't help.

[xcurt]

ggwhiz, on 2012-January-19, 18:29, said:

Reminds me of my favorite committee ruling.

A local pair playing a home-grown system out of town explained an alert as "could be this, could be that, could be something else" and repeated it on further requests for info.

Declarer finally bid 3nt in exasperation, wide open in their bid suit and made a bunch on a different lead. At committee he said "Anyone who doesn't have the courtesy to explain the alert doesn't have the courtesy to lead partners suit." and won at the speed of light.

It's a headache but too much yada yada in the explanation won't help.

Who appealed?

If the methods pair, this sounds like the mother of all AWMWs.

[ggwhiz]

xcurt, on 2012-January-19, 18:54, said:

Who appealed?

If the methods pair, this sounds like the mother of all AWMWs.

Yes it was. No AWM but it brought joy and happiness to the local Bridge community.

[barmar]

What was the basis of their appeal? That declarer's repeated questions misled them into finding the wrong defense?

[barmar]

the hog, on 2012-January-19, 18:14, said:

Also I didn't call him a cheat. I said what he is doing is mild form of cheating

Isn't someone who cheats a cheat? Hecertainly was doing NOTHING like cheating.

You seem to be contradicting youself. Is there a missing quotation box?

[ggwhiz]

barmar, on 2012-January-20, 12:13, said:

What was the basis of their appeal? That declarer's repeated questions misled them into finding the wrong defense?

Yes and declarers accepted defence was that he couldn't get a straight answer, just yada yada. The pair that lost the ruling had become a pain in the butt with non, inadequate or many thought intentionally mis-leading disclosure.

[the hog]

barmar, on 2012-January-20, 12:14, said:

You seem to be contradicting youself. Is there a missing quotation box?

I didn't call him a cheat, Bluecalm did.

[barmar]

the hog, on 2012-January-20, 23:12, said:

I didn't call him a cheat, Bluecalm did.

There's no "bluecalm said:" in your post -- that's what I meant about the missing quotation box. Compare it to your reply to me, where it's clear who said what.

[mgoetze]

straube, on 2012-January-18, 13:27, said:

Fred said I could post his reply to my email question....

Oh, now I know why Fred never responds to my posts... I need to make him aware of them personally... will keep that in mind. I'm sure Fred will appreciate it when I point out my next really important question to him.

[the hog]

barmar, on 2012-January-23, 09:33, said:

There's no "bluecalm said:" in your post -- that's what I meant about the missing quotation box. Compare it to your reply to me, where it's clear who said what.

Yes, but if you had read all the posts in the thread you would know this.