[helene_t]

OleBerg, on Aug 5 2009, 07:40 PM, said:

WesleyC, on Aug 5 2009, 08:18 PM, said:

Very interesting thread.

Although this explanation solves the loop it fails miserably in terms of full disclosure and is no doubt illegal.

Well then, a simple solution is to make it legal. Bridgeplayers made the laws; bridgeplayers can change them.

Simply say that penalty doubles does not have to be pre-disclosed.

Sometimes we will know what NT defense opps play because we know them, or because they have done something over our NT defense earlier in the same match.

So it doesn't quite solve the problem. Besides, the problem potentially extends to other situations (strength of jump overcalls, for example). So the complete "solution" is to allow non-disclosed defenses against any call which opps are known to psyche with some frequency. Not very practical.

The solution is IMHO to ban mixed strategies in regular partnerships.

[helene_t]

Echognome, on Aug 5 2009, 05:55 PM, said:

I think the Loop argument is really a joke and also detracting from the main issue here. Expand your minds folks! It's really, really simple:

"What is your defense to 1NT?"
"Against weak we play X, against strong we play Y, if you are in 3rd NV we play Z."

I don't think you understood what the problem is, Matt.

We don't want to play penalty doubles against any w/r 3rd seat 1NT opening. We want to play penalty doubles if the probability that it is a psyche is higher than say 2%.

So to avoid the loop they have to state their psyching frequency first. They say it is 3%. We play penalty doubles, then. But because of that they have changed their psyching frequency to 1%. That is fine but the problem is that they don't tell us in advance. So they have made us play an inadequate NT defense. If they stated in advance "oh in that case we only psyche on 1% of hands" then we would have to disclose that we play artificial doubles, and they would change back to 3% etc.

[Echognome]

I'd rather discuss this in the other thread I made. I think the answer is you simply extend your strategy as you mentioned (the if X becomes if you psych less than Y% we do Z). I really don't see the problem being the Loop, but rather a side issue that the opponents aren't giving full disclosure.

[OleBerg]

helene_t, on Aug 5 2009, 10:58 PM, said:

OleBerg, on Aug 5 2009, 07:40 PM, said:

WesleyC, on Aug 5 2009, 08:18 PM, said:

Very interesting thread.

Although this explanation solves the loop it fails miserably in terms of full disclosure and is no doubt illegal.

Well then, a simple solution is to make it legal. Bridgeplayers made the laws; bridgeplayers can change them.

Simply say that penalty doubles does not have to be pre-disclosed.

Sometimes we will know what NT defense opps play because we know them, or because they have done something over our NT defense earlier in the same match.

So it doesn't quite solve the problem. Besides, the problem potentially extends to other situations (strength of jump overcalls, for example). So the complete "solution" is to allow non-disclosed defenses against any call which opps are known to psyche with some frequency. Not very practical.

The solution is IMHO to ban mixed strategies in regular partnerships.

I agree, it is only a partial solution.

A better solution could be to allow mixed defenses.

Like: After each double, we switch between penalty and artificial.

(I would believe this to be legal if you only switched between tournaments.)

So when asked what double means, a correct reply would be something like:

Possible artificial meaning is: Long minor, four card major.


Of course I know this will never happen, much to much risk of UI, or suspection thereof, being implicit part of the agreement.

[helene_t]

Fred, I think you are being unreasonable towards Jan. Fair enough that you disagree with her but remarks like "you are really starting to tempt me to insult yours" don't move the discussion forward IMHO.

[nigel_k]

JanM, on Aug 5 2009, 02:16 PM, said:

Next hand doubled. Fred bid 2♣ Stayman. Sorry Fred, but yes, that does suggest that you might have had some doubt about your partner's 1NT opening - many people would have redoubled with your hand, which of course would have exposed the psych when Brad pulled.

This is not logical. If partner's 1NT is suspect then XX is safer than 2♣.

If partner psyched he can pull the XX to his suit. Everyone will look at him and smile then the auction will continue normally.

Over 2♣ the psycher has to choose between passing, possibly conceding a number of undoubled undertricks (unless his suit is clubs) or making the Stayman response and risking partner leaping somewhere with his next bid.

If anything, the choice of 2♣ over XX suggests trust in the 1NT opening.

After LHO tanks and RHO bids 2NT, Fred is fully entitled to pass, drawing the obvious inferences from the opponents' actions.

[fred]

helene_t, on Aug 5 2009, 10:10 PM, said:

Fred, I think you are being unreasonable towards Jan. Fair enough that you disagree with her but remarks like "you are really starting to tempt me to insult yours" don't move the discussion forward IMHO.

Excuse me, but Jan started this with a thinly-veiled attack on my integrity as a bridge player (by suggesting that I fielded a psych).

When I made it clear to anyone with half a brain that I did not field a psych, Jan (who I happen to know has considerably more than half a brain), continued to defend her position with a series of inane posts.

Meanwhile I suppose Jan should be congratulated as she managed to deflect attention away from her friend who, at best, intentionally broke the rules and onto me who, at worst, exhibited bridge judgment that is apparently beyond her capacity to understand.

I am not the one being unreasonable here. If my words have been overly harsh for some then I am sorry, but I do not take kindly to suggestions that I behaved unethically or to arguments that would only work against a fool.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[JanM]

fred, on Aug 5 2009, 02:39 PM, said:

JanM, on Aug 5 2009, 07:16 PM, said:

Fred's hand was 875, A653, J6, QJ86. He was in first seat at favorable vul. He passed, the next person passed, his partner (who held A64, QJT8, 8743, 93) opened 1NT. Next hand doubled. Fred bid 2♣ Stayman. Sorry Fred, but yes, that does suggest that you might have had some doubt about your partner's 1NT opening - many people would have redoubled with your hand, which of course would have exposed the psych when Brad pulled.

This is nonsense, Jan.

As I am sure you know, many/most people play "system on" over artificial Doubles and 2C overcalls of 1NT bids.

So far as I know, most people who play "system on" over double (I would have said all before reading your post) also play that redouble shows a good, usually balanced hand that is interested in penalizing the opponents.

Quote

Many of these (including me) have found it best to generally ignore the opponents and utilize their own well-developed methods over their own 1NT openings to try to get to their own best contract. The approach has the further advantage of making it harder for the opponents to know when and how they should compete if the hand actually belongs to them.

Even if you disagree with this philosophy and prefer to play a style which maximizes your chance of collecting a penalty, to suggest that my 2C bid amounted to "fielding a psych" because to Redouble would give my partner a chance to expose his own possible psych is (to put it mildly) completely absurd.

For someone who said that his statement that he would be more likely to psych 1NT against a pair playing conventional doubles did not mean that he was playing a different NT range against conventional and penalty doubles to talk about "completely absurd" statements is mind-boggling to me.

I did not say that the reason to redouble would be to give partner a chance to expose his psych and I am sure you know that I did not mean that. The reason to redouble is to give your side a better chance to double the opponents. That is less attractive if the 1NT opening is suspect. Not only is it less likely you will be able to penalize the opponents, but it is far more likely that redouble will force partner to expose the psyche. (to the person who suggested that RDBL was "safer" than bidding Stayman because partner's bid would expose the psyche, that is true only if you think it is good for your side to have the psych exposed).

Quote

Quote

Next hand passed, Fred's partner bid 2♥. The DBLer bid 2NT. Fred now explains at great length why he thinks this exposed his partner's psyche. I'd suggest that if you didn't think your partner might psyche 1NT, your reaction to this auction would be "great, we've got the opponents, I should let partner know I have some values by doubling."

Absolutely - if my partner had never psyched 1NT before I might well have lost the ability to add and subtract small integers.

I could look at my own 8 HCP, add that to the 20 or so on my right, and factor in the values that my LHO had suggested with his tempo and conclude that, based on what was left over for my partner "Great - we've got the opponents! Let's defend 2NT Doubled when I know we have far less than half the deck!".

Not sure if you are trying to insult my intelligence, but you are really starting to tempt me to insult yours.

Peter Weichsel, on your left, was not confident that the 2NT bid in this auction showed a 2NT opening, but I am an idiot because I suggest that maybe it doesn't. Thanks a bunch.

Quote

Quote

I agree that the facts (the hands and bids) speak for themselves here and I think that if I am being wishy washy you are "protesting too much." And I was also at the table, by the way. My discussion of the hand was primarily with my husband, not gossiping about what happened with players who didn't know the facts.

Well your husband happens to be not only a great player, but an excellent mathematician who is more than capable of adding and subtracting small integers. He also happens to be a person who is personally familiar with "Double then 2NT shows a 2NT opening" (because I know he used to play this and for all I know he still does).

So if Chip can really say that "you did something wrong" with a straight face (and say it directly to me as opposed to through your inane posts), I will certainly give his opinion the respect and consideration it deserves.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

I am trying very hard not to speak for my husband or for anyone else. I mentioned that my conversations had been primarily with my husband after you accused me of gossiping with people who did not know the facts. You are now accusing me of some sort of deliberate campaign to divert this discussion from what my "friend" did to what you did in the past. Although one of your opponents is a better friend of mine than you are, the other is not. Apparently you think that a person can't be rational when discussing the actions of friends. Possibly you should consider that concept with regard to your statements about what Brad would or would not say and do. Whether you heard it or not, his statement about continuing to psych as long as the opponents continued to play non-penalty doubles was made more than once - some of the times he said something like "as long as you continue to play stupid methods, I will continue to psych." I'm sure that was to some extent in response to his opponents' attitude about this hand, but I do not have any reason to believe that it was an untrue statement.

And I started this conversation by saying that you "arguably" fielded the psych. I did not intend that as any sort of attach on your integrity, "thinly veiled" or not. You responded and have continued to respond with more and more vicious posts. I won't speak for my husband on the bridge issue, but I can tell you that he has told me to stop wasting my time responding to your attacks. So next time I get off the plane, I will refrain from looking at this thread.

[aguahombre]

as fully discussed on another thread, a couple months ago --xx of pard's NT is played by most as some kind of a run-out to a long minor, or with both majors and a weak hand or whatever is agreed. If I remember weak notrump runouts correctly, in the early days pass demanded a runout start, and xx suggested they had made a mistake. To suggest that 2C showed suspicion about a psyche is just not right. It was Stayman. If Responder had fielded the alleged psyche at an improper time (immediately when the double occurred}, he would have to pass with that hand (8-count and a major) and then let things happen.

Finally in the middle of this strung out string, Fred stated that the normal NT range is 14+ to 17. So, forget pass, and forget XX. 2C was normal old Stayman.

[1eyedjack]

aguahombre, on Aug 6 2009, 02:08 AM, said:

as fully discussed on another thread, a couple months ago --xx of pard's NT is played by most as some kind of a run-out to a long minor, or with both majors and a weak hand or whatever is agreed.   If I remember weak notrump runouts correctly, in the early days pass demanded a runout start, and xx suggested they had made a mistake.

Possibly, in the context of a weak 1N opening and an unambiguous penalty double, an artificial "runout" XX and systems otherwise "off" is the norm. We are advised in this thread that the 1N opening was not weak, and the double was artificial. So the comparison is I think irrelevant.

Even if it were both true and relevant (that the majority play a runout method after 1NX) we are assured by Fred that he was not playing such a method but "systems on". There is no reason to disbelieve him and assuming that you do believe him discussion of what some other majority might play is otiose. We are advised that systems "on" is the agreement in force in that situation, and we have no reason to think otherwise.

I would be interested to know from Fred what XX would have meant in the Vanderbilt hand, according to his systems, and what sort of hand would have qualified. It might be that XX in their system would have been entirely artiificial even in the cotext of "systems on" continutiations (although I suspect that Fred would have told us by now if that were the case).

For myself, I would like XX to promise serious game interest, which this hand lacks. Others might prefer XX merely to promise the balance of values, which this hand holds. The argument for "systems on" is that once the opponents have got their oar in with an artificial double, the race is on to find fits and to disrupt opponents from finding fits. Doubles to show balance of values can come later if space affords. If you are going to give the opponents all the space that they need (by way of XX) then it behoves you to be sure that you are comparing your hoped-for penalty with the expectation of a game bonus. "Balance of values", for this purpose, may be a tad greedy, although it may work better against less than expert opponents.

[aguahombre]

oneeyed---the intent of my post was to confirm that 2C after a double, artificial or not, of a strong NT is usually played as stayman, which is what Fred had. It was in reply to Ms. Martel's assertion that redouble would have been a reasonable action if Fred had not "fielded" the psyche early. You could wait a long time to have a hand where redouble would be necessary after a strong NT is doubled, and Fred's 8-point stayman hand is not one of those moments. If the double was artificial, waiting around and trying to unscrew a random card showing redouble and get to the right spot is not a good plan.

I brought up how things change if the NT was weak because I thought Jan, among others might be referencing weak NT in their posts by mistake.

[1eyedjack]

aguahombre, on Aug 6 2009, 07:25 AM, said:

oneeyed---the intent of my post was to confirm that 2C after a double, artificial or not, of a strong NT is usually played as stayman, which is what Fred had. It was in reply to Ms. Martel's assertion that redouble would have been a reasonable action if Fred had not "fielded" the psyche early. You could wait a long time to have a hand where redouble would be necessary after a strong NT is doubled, and Fred's 8-point stayman hand is not one of those moments. If the double was artificial, waiting around and trying to unscrew a random card showing redouble and get to the right spot is not a good plan.

I brought up how things change if the NT was weak because I thought Jan, among others might be referencing weak NT in their posts by mistake.

OK, thank you - I misunderstood you

[marie__L]

How many time your partner is dealer non vulnerable?
It happen only 6 times a day, I think (assuming you play 48 boards per days).

On these 6 times how many times the auction does begin with 2 pass?
Less than 50%

On the 3 remaining times how many time do you have an opening hand with more than 12 HCP?
50% of the time maybe?

And on the 1.5 remaining board, there are many hands ( with for instance a 7 or 8 cards suit or 2 suiters) that you will prefer to open 3(or4) in this suit rather than to psyche with 1NT.

I think finally this situation doesn’t occur more than one time on 100 boards.

Then if your partnership psyches about 2 or 3 times during a tournament, it means you do this almost each time it is possible. Then it seems to me it could be fair to consider it as a part of your system and to let your opponents know you are likely to do it so that they have( like you) have the ability to add and subtract small integers.

I don’t think any legal eagle will help here.
I don’t think invoking the laws 49B or 402A or 36W is appropriate in this affair.

The rule they brake is not the point here I believe. Every pair playing in the Spingold knows the system they play when their 1NT opening is doubled for penalty. Beside they alerted the penalty double (when it wasn’t required) to catch you attention.
This wasn’t intended to gain any illegal advantage.
This was intended to offend you and to let you know ( not a nice way I admit) that they dislike these systematic psyches opening 1NT with nothing in 3rd seat NV.

No need to legislate here.
You have been wounded?
Then just go and let him know you think he is a fool then possibly throw him a punch.
This should help you to feel better.

This is way the best way to solve what I think is more a personal affair than a bridge affair

[Jlall]

I don't get how or why Fred or Brad's actions are even being called into question. The opps SAID that they intentionally did not disclose an agreement they had. There can never be any reason to intentionally do this, and if you do that you must be guilty of some form of cheating no matter what the opps have done. Seems really straight forward.

The only thing that's puzzling is that the opps volunteered the info that they failed to disclose on purpose, rather than just saying "sorry I forgot to say what we do against 3rd seat white NTs." Maybe this implies the opps didn't know they were doing something wrong, but that seems bizarre.

[McBruce]

Just how far off topic are we going to get on this thread? The original issue here is a pair that deliberately withheld an agreement in a major event. I'm interested to see what, if anything, has been done by the officials. I'm not particularly interested in developing a justification for the pair's actions.

I don't see a way that anything that Fred and Brad might have done in the past can justify the deliberate concealment of an agreement. There are ways to deal with partnership understandings concerning psyches -- especially at major events where hands are recorded -- you collect evidence and you make a case. So far on this thread we have seen one hand, and the evidence is questionable, but because of this, a pair decided to take it upon themselves to conceal an agreement in order to combat a potential psyche that seldom actually occurs.

As I said in my original post on this, it would be wrong if nothing was done because of Fred's behavior following the incident (he originally mentioned that he nearly got a Zero Tolerance warning). It would also be wrong if nothing was done because officials suspected that Fred and Brad were gaining an illegal advantage with their occasional notrump psyches. Somewhere here, serious prinicples of our game's rules have been deliberately broken. If nothing is done, the ACBL is saying that:

--anyone who gets burned by a psyche is free to use underhanded methods to combat them
--a player who reacts with natural shock and disbelief when a rule is deliberately broken against him in a targeted and personal way can be ignored because his behavior was not perfect during the incident
--players who have psyched in the past will not receive the same treatment as pairs who don't psyche

I'd like to hear more about what's being done about this incident and less about why Full Disclosure might in some cases be optional.

[OleBerg]

Jlall, on Aug 6 2009, 10:16 AM, said:

I don't get how or why Fred or Brad's actions are even being called into question. The opps SAID that they intentionally did not disclose an agreement they had. There can never be any reason to intentionally do this, and if you do that you must be guilty of some form of cheating no matter what the opps have done. Seems really straight forward.

The only thing that's puzzling is that the opps volunteered the info that they failed to disclose on purpose, rather than just saying "sorry I forgot to say what we do against 3rd seat white NTs." Maybe this implies the opps didn't know they were doing something wrong, but that seems bizarre.

LOL.

Have you read the thread?

[OleBerg]

McBruce, on Aug 6 2009, 10:28 AM, said:

I don't see a way that anything that Fred and Brad might have done in the past can justify the deliberate concealment of an agreement.  There are ways to deal with partnership understandings concerning psyches -- especially at major events where hands are recorded -- you collect evidence and you make a case. 

Not really.

To me it seems impossible to prove that a pair invoked the loop (if it exists), and didn't psyche 1NT on a hand they'd normally have psyched on. Or the reverse.

[Cascade]

There is an irony here.

In a way the opponents of Fred and Brad who did not disclose in advance their meaning of a double over a third seat favourable potentially psychic 1NT seem to be suggesting that that third seat favourable potentially psychic 1NT is in fact an agreement implicit if not explicit. That is both sides have the argument that their opponents are not fully disclosing their methods.

Fred acknowledged earlier that they disclose their slightly light but offshape with a long minor 1NTs but that they do not disclose their psychic 1NTs even though the frequency of the latter is comparable.

Marie above made a good argument for why a psychic bid that occurs virtually every time you are in a position to make it is really part of your system. (I didn't necessarily agree with her conclusions about how to deal with this.)

It is my observation that there is a sub-culture of expert bridge players who believe strongly that opening light in third seat at favourable vulnerability is "just bridge".

However there are laws and regulations that mean that repeated variations from one's explicit agreements in this way will create implicit agreements that are then subject to disclosure and regulation.

I commented in another forum about a hand where Geir Helgemo opened 1♥ on 7 HCP in third seat. Other commentators and spectators said things like "they do this in Norway". Without trying to pick on Helgemo or Norway if "they do this in Norway" it seems to me that it has reached the threshold where it has become an implicit partnership agreement. There is no problem with this except that such agreements are subject to regulation. In Helgemo's case the relevant regulation said that 7 HCP 1-level openings were HUM systems and were not allowed to be played in the event.

In Fred's case 1NT openings that can be 14+-17 or some pile of junk will be a split range of greater than 5 HCP and therefore are subject to the relevant regulation which I believe in the ACBL is that no conventions may be played thereafter.

The "its just bridge" brigade seem to ignore the problems that such an implicit agreement makes perhaps by claiming that the deviation is still a psyche long after the threshold for implicit agreement has passed. I have no real idea whether Fred or Geir Helgemo have overstepped this threshold. They would know better. Nevertheless there is a potential conflict between disclosure and the system regulations.

Personally I would be happy with the "its just bridge" argument except that it creates an uneven playing field when some participants adhere strictly to the rules and others allow the boundaries to become fuzzy.

[bluejak]

hotShot, on Aug 5 2009, 07:28 PM, said:

Maybe I'm wrong, but doesn't the seating rights in a team match define what team has to disclose their agreements first?
I thought that the team that has to take seats first, has to define their system first too.

That applies in some cases to HUMs, not otherwise.

In top class events teams are expected to file their methods in advance.

[bluejak]

JanM, on Aug 5 2009, 08:16 PM, said:

Fred's hand was 875, A653, J6, QJ86. He was in first seat at favorable vul. He passed, the next person passed, his partner (who held A64, QJT8, 8743, 93) opened 1NT. Next hand doubled. Fred bid 2♣ Stayman. Sorry Fred, but yes, that does suggest that you might have had some doubt about your partner's 1NT opening - many people would have redoubled with your hand, which of course would have exposed the psych when Brad pulled.

I am afraid that is illogical.

If he had doubts about his partner's 1NT, then the obvious solution is to redouble and give his partner a chance to expose the psyche by pulling the redouble.

So his 2♣ bid is strong evidence that he is not allowing for a possible psyche by partner.