[OleBerg]

bluejak, on Jul 31 2009, 02:20 AM, said:

Interestingly enough - and to my considerable surprise - the EBU decided a couple of years back that changing system between one table and the next, for example based on who they were playing against, was legal so long as they had separately prepared system cards for the two systems.

Why did that surprise you?

[Trinidad]

OleBerg, on Aug 1 2009, 10:25 AM, said:

If you want to believe in the best in other people, they might want to highlight a problem. And it was just a coincidence it hit Fred + partner.

Certainly I wouldn't expect people to tell about what had happened, unless they had, what they themselves considered, a good reason.

That is pretty much what I was thinking.

Rik

[bluejak]

You cannot change systems by vulnerability/dealer except in special cases. This seemed a considerably laxer position.

[hrothgar]

bluejak, on Aug 1 2009, 10:46 PM, said:

You cannot change systems by vulnerability/dealer except in special cases. This seemed a considerably laxer position.

This has always struck me as a bit odd...

Players are able to complete change their opening ranges by seat/vulnerability
Players are able to change the conventions that they use by seat / vulnerability
Players change their bidding style, opening structures, you name it...

But, god forbid, that they claim that they're changing their system

[Trinidad]

bluejak, on Aug 1 2009, 02:46 PM, said:

You cannot change systems by vulnerability/dealer except in special cases. This seemed a considerably laxer position.

This is still in the EBU (England) context, right?

Rik

[helene_t]

Trinidad, on Aug 2 2009, 07:33 AM, said:

bluejak, on Aug 1 2009, 02:46 PM, said:

You cannot change systems by vulnerability/dealer except in special cases.  This seemed a considerably laxer position.

This is still in the EBU (England) context, right?

Rik

I recall a post from Chamaco about how to deal with an Italian rule saying that one can only play two different systems. Which was a problem since they liked to play several different systems. Anyway, it wasn't clear how much you have to change your system before it becomes a different system.

Pairs who play the Lorenzo system play at least 3 systems:
- Nonvul 1st/2nd: Pass shows 8-11 points so the rest of the system is mended to contain all weak hands.
- Nonvul 3rd/4th: The system is a follow-up to the opening pass.
- Vul: Probably some normalish system

Since the system has (or used to have) some popularity among quasi-serious Dutch and Belgian pairs (and Hok Amsterdam used to play it in the highest Dutch division) it would surprise me if it was illegal in those countries.

Anyway, agree with Richard, such rules are silly as they raise lots of interpretation problems. Of course it is undesirable if a pair has 50 conventions that opps need to discuss defense against and want to play it in a two-boards-per-round event. But if a pair wants to play stone-age Acol, Stone-age Precision, WJ2005 and SAYC under four different circumstances I can't see how it could be a problem.

[Trinidad]

helene_t, on Aug 2 2009, 05:56 AM, said:

Trinidad, on Aug 2 2009, 07:33 AM, said:

bluejak, on Aug 1 2009, 02:46 PM, said:

You cannot change systems by vulnerability/dealer except in special cases.  This seemed a considerably laxer position.

This is still in the EBU (England) context, right?

Rik

I recall a post from Chamaco about how to deal with an Italian rule saying that one can only play two different systems. Which was a problem since they liked to play several different systems. Anyway, it wasn't clear how much you have to change your system before it becomes a different system.

Pairs who play the Lorenzo system play at least 3 systems:
- Nonvul 1st/2nd: Pass shows 8-11 points so the rest of the system is mended to contain all weak hands.
- Nonvul 3rd/4th: The system is a follow-up to the opening pass.
- Vul: Probably some normalish system

Since the system has (or used to have) some popularity among quasi-serious Dutch and Belgian pairs (and Hok Amsterdam used to play it in the highest Dutch division) it would surprise me if it was illegal in those countries.

Anyway, agree with Richard, such rules are silly as they raise lots of interpretation problems. Of course it is undesirable if a pair has 50 conventions that opps need to discuss defense against and want to play it in a two-boards-per-round event. But if a pair wants to play stone-age Acol, Stone-age Precision, WJ2005 and SAYC under four different circumstances I can't see how it could be a problem.

Helene,

I am surprised to see this coming from a mathematician.

In uncontested auctions in bridge, there are only 2 seats: 1st seat and 2nd seat. What many people consider 3rd and 4th seat are just responses to a Pass by 1st or 2nd seat.

Rik

[bluejak]

Of course. The question I am answering is [reworded] "Why do you find it surprising that the EBU L&EC allow you to change system for different opponents?". What is allowed or not in Zambia [for example] is hardly relevant to the question nor my answer.

[FrancesHinden]

bluejak, on Aug 1 2009, 08:46 PM, said:

You cannot change systems by vulnerability/dealer except in special cases. This seemed a considerably laxer position.

Obviously it's a laxer position, but I don't find it particularly surprising. To my mind, the only reason to restrict what you can do against one opponent (e.g. changing systems by vulnerability or position) is because it's harder work for the opponents to cope with multiple different systems.

If you are playing different systems against different pairs, it's no different to the experience of each pair from your playing the same system against everyone. So there seems no reason to restrict it.

[FrancesHinden]

bluejak, on Jul 30 2009, 06:07 PM, said:

However, it is general bridge knowledge that players do wilder things against takeout doubles than penalty doubles, so a decision on a hand may take some note of what the defence plays.

Funnily enough, my 'general bridge knowledge' is almost exactly the opposite: I will pre-empt more often, and more randomly, against pairs playing penalty doubles. This is because I consider penalty doubles to be very inferior defence to pre-empts, so I think the balance between giving the opponents problems and making partner guess changes in favour of giving the opponents more problems.

The point is still valid, however - that a decision on a hand may make some note of the defence.

[FrancesHinden]

Trinidad, on Jul 31 2009, 09:42 AM, said:

fred, on Jul 30 2009, 11:18 AM, said:

Do we ever open 1NT with a true psych? Yes - but we always bid as if facing 14+ to 17 unless the opponents make it clear that the opener has nothing resembling a normal 1NT opening.

How often do we open 1NT with a true psych? I would guess less than once per long tournament.

Combined with your statement that you play about 5 long tournaments per year, this makes me estimate that the open 1NT with a "true psych" about 2-3 times per year. Many people would think that if you psyche the same bid twice (in a lifetime) with the same partner it will be a partnership agreement. I am not one of these "many people". But if my partner would psyche a 1NT opening 2-3 times a year, I would notice it and I would allow for it, even if I may not be aware of it at the time that I do that.

An implicit agreement is not a psyche. An implicit agreement is part of your system, despite the fact that it is not written in your system book. Implicit agreement need to be disclosed.

Quote

Would we be more likely to open 1NT with a true psych if the opponents were not playing penalty doubles? Yes.

If you think the above admissions suggest that my partnership is doing something wrong, that is your right of course. In that case, however, I would still hope that you believe that the degree to which what we are doing is wrong pales in comparison to what my opponent did yesterday.

It looks like you are varying your implicit agreements (and thus your system) depending on the defense the opponents play. That gets you (and your opponents) into "The Loop". In my opinion that is wrong.

I sympathize with you that you are not doing anything wrong deliberately or knowingly. I agree with you that this is in sharp contrast to your opponents who knew what they were doing.

But I do understand the frustration of opponents who cannot defend against your system, because you and apparently more pairs invoke "The Loop" on them. This situation is even more frustrating since "Loopers" invariably get away with it. Their action stopped you from Looping. They forced you to chose a system and they decided how to defend against it. And when the situation came up they explained their actual defense. This defense was not something that you had never seen before or that you couldn't cope with. You could not have been damaged by the misinformation that you were given at the start of the match. After all, you are entitled to ask for their NT defense to be prepared to handle your subsequent bidding (think Lebensohl, negative doubles) and not to be prepared for your previous bidding (what hands do I open 1NT with?).

Your opponents had a list of pairs that they would use this trick on, a list of Loopers. Maybe you are not the most blatant Looper, but when they compiled their list, you were added to it. That means that to those players you have the reputation of not disclosing your implicit agreements properly (and the reputation that you vary them). If I would be on a list like that, that would worry me.

Quote

As I understand it, by definition psyching is not part of a bidding system.

That is correct, but so is the reverse: If it is part of your bidding system, it is not a psyche. And these "1NT openings in third seat versus pairs that play conventional doubles that are either (balanced, 14-17) or (something random)" seem to be implicitly part of your system to the extent that even your opponents know it. And if these are implicitly part of your system then they are not psychs.

Let me finish by wishing you good luck in your Spingold match today.

Rik

I think you are slightly over-reacting.
I'm not Fred, and I don't know how often he opens a dodgy NT.

But let me tell you how I think when I'm NV vs V in third seat after two passes, looking at e.g.

Qx
xx
xx
QJ10xxxx

My possible calls include
- Pass
- 3C/4C
- 1NT
- 2NT
- 1H
- 1S

Most of the time, I'll probably open the boring 3C, because I'm a bit boring.
However, sometimes I may decide to psyche. This will depend on the state of the match, my opinion of my opponents etc. If I decide to psyche then my choice of psyche also depends on various things - a fairly large random factor, but also my opponents' defence to pre-empts and to 1NT/2NT openings comes into it.

Quote

You say that you bid as if facing a 14+-17 1NT, unless opponents make it clear that the opener has nothing resembling a normal 1NT opening. How do the opponents make that clear?

Well, P P 1NT x (penalties) xx (natural) P 2C can be a hint that partner's 1NT opening is not exactly kosher.

Quote

You have two opponents and only one partner. Doesn't that on average mean that it should be twice as likely that one of your opponents psyched? What makes you guess that out of the three possible psychers it was your partner who psyched? Why are you invariably correct with this guess? Could it be because you have seen him psych in this situation before? Could it be your partnership experience and thus your implicit agreement that in this situation you can bid 1NT on hands that don't look anything like a regular 1NT opener?

Without any partnership experience at all, it is still true that there are some actions which are more likely to be a psyche than others. In particular, penalty doubles of part-scores are not psyched.

P P 1NT x (penalties)
No-one ever psyches a penalty double of a 1NT opening (OK, I'll be honest, I've never ever seen it, I can't prove it doesn't happen).

P P 1S 1NT
The 1S opening is vulnerable against not. An opening 1S bid at red is a truly rare psyche, a favourable 1NT overcall isn't.

P P 1NT x (penalties); 2H (to play) x (penalties) 3C
The 1NT opener clearly does not have a normal 1NT opening (it doesn't have to be the 5-count above, it might be a 3136 12-count, but you can be 100% certain that it's not 15-17 balanced).

1H x 1S 2S
P 4S

Either the opponents have had a misunderstanding about the meaning of 2S, or partner has psyched his 1S response. No-one psyches a natural 2S bid or a raise to game.

I could go on, but you probably get the point.

[mr1303]

That last auction happened to me once.

Everyone had their bid, and 4S was cold.

[Trinidad]

FrancesHinden, on Aug 3 2009, 08:11 AM, said:

I think you are slightly over-reacting.
I'm not Fred, and I don't know how often he opens a dodgy NT.

Just for the record. I am not really reacting. Fred's opponents were reacting and I am trying to explain what their motives could have been.

In my view, if opponents know that your 1NT openings are regularly not what is described on the convention card then your partner must know that too. Then you have an implicit agreement. Bidding according to an implicit agreement is no longer psyching. (BTW, the fact that partner bids as if it is a genuine 15-17 1NT opening is not relevant. The only relevant fact is that partner knows that you regularly have something that isn't remotely like a 15-17 NT.) And, just like with all agreements, implicit agreements must be disclosed and can be barred.

Rik

[JanM]

In fairness to Fred's opponents, I suspect (but do not know) that the basis for their decision to use this method is a hand from a match earlier this year in which, after Brad psyched 1NT in 3rd seat favorable and got away with it (after Fred arguably fielded it), he stated to his opponents "as long as you don't play penalty doubles, I'm going to keep psyching 1NT." These were not the same opponents, but the argument was very loud then (and in the Spingold).

[fred]

JanM, on Aug 5 2009, 02:30 AM, said:

In fairness to Fred's opponents, I suspect (but do not know) that the basis for their decision to use this method is a hand from a match earlier this year in which, after Brad psyched 1NT in 3rd seat favorable and got away with it (after Fred arguably fielded it), he stated to his opponents "as long as you don't play penalty doubles, I'm going to keep psyching 1NT." These were not the same opponents, but the argument was very loud then (and in the Spingold).

Jan,

Regarding the psych in the Vanderbilt:

1) I certainly did not field it. If you want me to explain why, let me know and I will be happy to do so. The person who runs the ACBL's Recorder Program (also known as The ACBL's Secret Police Department) didn't seem to understand, but I expect your bridge skills are more than sufficient to get the point if I provide you with all the facts.

2) I have no recollection of Brad saying what you quoted him as saying and, knowing Brad quite well, this is not the sort of thing that I think he would be likely to say under normal circumstances. It should be noted that one of my opponents on the hand in question behaved like a particularly poor sport so maybe Brad thought he was justified in rubbing it in a little. It should also be noted that I was sitting on the other side of the screen so, if Brad really did say this, I might not have heard it.

Even if you disagree regarding 1) and have reason to believe in 2), I really hope you are not suggesting that such things (or anything else for that matter) would justify what my opponent did on the hand in question.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[JanM]

1) I said "arguably" - I was there and at the time I couldn't tell. I have heard some discussion since & I know that there are people who believe that the psyche was fielded to some extent at least.

2) As I said, I was there and Brad definitely said something along the lines of "if you don't play penalty doubles I will continue to psych" - it was a while ago and I don't remember the exact words, but I definitely heard them and I think that other people could also have heard them. I am certainly not suggesting that you did, but I am sure that you tend to tune out comments of that sort (properly).

I am not suggesting anything about whether your opponent was justified, because I honestly do not know what your opponent did or did not do or say. I know what you think they did and said. I also happen to know (and undoubtedly should not repeat) what the director thought was said. I can also understand the motivation for wanting to play penalty DBLs in that situation without specifically stating it - I think that Helene's suggestion

Quote

Couldn't the opps just have said "we play artificial dbls against 14+ notrumps and penalty against weaker notrump openings"? When a thrid-seat nonvul notrump opening by a pair known for funny notrump openings comes up the double is of course penalty since they don't consider it a 14+ opening.

is an excellent one and on the other hand I suspect that you would find that as unacceptable as what you think actually happened.

[fred]

Jan,

I am disappointed by your wishy-washy response. In particular:

1) Your reference to "what other people said" about my alleged fielded psych in the Vanderbilt. Do you think they were at the table? I was at the table. Are you suggesting that I may not be telling the truth about what happened? The facts (which you seem to have no interest in) speak for themselves. I have nothing to hide. If anyone thinks that I fielded that psych and wants me to explain why I didn't, all they have to do is ask me (though of course that would show considerably more backbone and common sense than gossiping about what happened with other players who don't know the facts).

2) Your apparent refusal to believe my account of what happened in the Spingold. Not only was I at the table, but several other nearby people heard the same thing (kibitzers, my partner, players and kibitzers and a nearby table, and even the partner of the person who made the statement). Are you suggesting that I am may not be telling the truth about what happened? Again the facts (which you again seem to have no interest in) speak for themselves.

3) Your attempt deflect attention from what your friend did in the Spingold onto what I did in the Vanderbilt. This is not about me.

Your defense of your friend is admirable in a way, but in this case it is completely misplaced. Your friend did something wrong. At best your friend thinks it is OK to take the Law into one's own hands. At worst, well, I won't say it publicly but you know what I am getting it.

Ask your friend what really happened. If your friend does not back up my account of the facts, then I have no problem suggesting that your friend is not telling the truth. If you still would rather believe your friend than me and would like me to provide several additional eyewitnesses to set the record straight, let me know.

But please cut the "I don't know what happened" crap. I claim that I know what happened. If you think I am lying then just say so and be done with it.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[OleBerg]

fred, on Aug 5 2009, 06:30 AM, said:

<snip>At best your friend thinks it is OK to take the Law into one's own hands. <snip>

Hi Fred

In Europe w have a concept called "civil disobedience". It means something like:

"Breaking the law, not really for a benefit, but to get some attention towards a neglected problem." It is part of the civil disobedience to clearly announce what you are doing.

Many university educated, smooth-talking liberals would say, that the concept is good for developing democracy, and some even consider it a somewhat courageous thing to do.

To me this sounds like what your opponents were up to.

Being on the other side of the Atlantic, it is of course difficult for me to know what really happened, so consider this an "input" rather than a claim.

[blackshoe]

Civil disobedience is not unique to Europe. There was this guy named Thoreau...

[OleBerg]

blackshoe, on Aug 5 2009, 09:47 AM, said:

Civil disobedience is not unique to Europe. There was this guy named Thoreau...

Yes I see my post could be misunderstood.

I just described what we have in Europe, where I live. I didn't mean to claim it didn't exist elsewhere, just that I don't know about it. (And that it seemed that Fred might not be familiar with the concept.)