[bluejak]

JanM, on Aug 5 2009, 04:44 AM, said:

I have heard some discussion since & I know that there are people who believe that the psyche was fielded to some extent at least.

Either you are pregnant, or you aren't: either a psyche was fielded or it was not.

I think it unsuitable for this forum to report that other people thought something about a field. Please either produce the hand, the auction, and let us judge, or do not mention what other people thought. Some people thought Hitler's actions were correct: that hardly justifies them or anything else.

Nothing in any of the posts by JanM or anyone else justifies hiding your agreements. Two wrongs do not make a right. There is some feeling in htis thread that if Fred's partner did [or did not] do something, then ... I have no sympathy for this: breaking the rules is irrelevant to what someone else does or does not do.

Civil disobediaence is a fancy name for breaking the Law and is on a par with stealing.

[hrothgar]

bluejak, on Aug 5 2009, 02:10 PM, said:

Some people thought Hitler's actions were correct: that hardly justifies them

...

Civil disobediaence is a fancy name for breaking the Law and is on a par with stealing.

Must resist...
MUST RESIST

[Cascade]

bluejak, on Aug 5 2009, 11:10 PM, said:

Either you are pregnant, or you aren't: either a psyche was fielded or it was not.

I don't think this is a good analogy.

There are objective tests to determine whether or not one is pregnant. As far as I know there are no such tests to determine whether or not one has fielded a psyche.

[TimG]

fred, on Aug 4 2009, 11:30 PM, said:

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.

I am curious about two things (even though I have no standing in the matter) and would welcome a detailed account of both:

1) The Vanderbilt hand which involves the alleged fielding; and

2) In the Spingold match, the specific questions asked and answers given regarding defense to 1NT.

Thanks,
Tim

[Trinidad]

bluejak, on Aug 5 2009, 06:10 AM, said:

JanM, on Aug 5 2009, 04:44 AM, said:

I have heard some discussion since & I know that there are people who believe that the psyche was fielded to some extent at least.

Either you are pregnant, or you aren't: either a psyche was fielded or it was not.

I think it unsuitable for this forum to report that other people thought something about a field. Please either produce the hand, the auction, and let us judge, or do not mention what other people thought. Some people thought Hitler's actions were correct: that hardly justifies them or anything else.

Nothing in any of the posts by JanM or anyone else justifies hiding your agreements. Two wrongs do not make a right. There is some feeling in htis thread that if Fred's partner did [or did not] do something, then ... I have no sympathy for this: breaking the rules is irrelevant to what someone else does or does not do.

Civil disobediaence is a fancy name for breaking the Law and is on a par with stealing.

David,

One can make a case in saying that Fred's opponents hardly broke the rules. They didn't hide any relevant agreement from Fred or his partner. There couldn't possibly have been any damage either.

What is going on is that Fred plays "traditional 1NT openings" if the opponents play penalty doubles and "creative 1NT openings" when opponents play conventional doubles.

However, the opponents play conventional doubles against "traditional 1NT openings" and penalty doubles against "creative 1NT openings". This creates an impossible situation, known as The Loop. This impossible situation has been solved eons ago, in the only logical way possible: Agreements have to be disclosed in the order that the bids are made. Thus, Fred and Brad have to state first what kind of 1NT opening they play and stick to that. Then the opponens state their defense. And not the other way around.

Before the play, Fred and Brad asked for the NT defense (which is still fine, since you may want to be prepared for your subsequent bidding: Lebensohl, etc.) [against the declared "traditional 1NT openings"] . The opponents answered truthfully that they play conventional doubles [against the declared "traditional 1NT opening"].

After that, Brad and Fred changed their 1NT opening strategy to "creative 1NT openings", which they apparently are known to do, at least to the extent that the opponents knew that. And that is not fine, since it invokes The Loop. Fred and Brad didn't disclose their new agreements to the opponents either. This wasn't fine either (nor was it necessary since I get the impression that a significcant part of the tournament trail, at least including their opponents, already knows about that).

Then, when the situation came up and Fred opened 1NT, which must have been the creative 1NT opening, the opponents explained their agreements exactly as they were against the creative 1NT opening.

The only valid point that Fred can have is that he wasn't able to discuss any subsequent bidding with his partner, since he didn't know up front that the opponents played penalty doubles. But we can be pretty sure that Fred and Brad know how to play after a penalty double of 1NT, so the odds that they would be damaged because of that were very close to 0.

Rik

[Trinidad]

TimG, on Aug 5 2009, 07:46 AM, said:

I am curious about two things (even though I have no standing in the matter) and would welcome a detailed account of both:

1) The Vanderbilt hand which involves the alleged fielding; and

2) In the Spingold match, the specific questions asked and answers given regarding defense to 1NT.

Thanks,
Tim

That seems like an excellent idea.

Rik

[helene_t]

Trinidad, on Aug 5 2009, 02:14 PM, said:

The only valid point that Fred can have is that he wasn't able to discuss any subsequent bidding with his partner, since he didn't know up front that the opponents played penalty doubles.

Assuming that opps are careful to disclose any inference from their failure to double 1NT. In particular, alert (p)-p-(1NT)-p* as denying the strength for a penalty double.

[bluejak]

Cascade, on Aug 5 2009, 01:09 PM, said:

bluejak, on Aug 5 2009, 11:10 PM, said:

Either you are pregnant, or you aren't: either a psyche was fielded or it was not.

I don't think this is a good analogy.

There are objective tests to determine whether or not one is pregnant. As far as I know there are no such tests to determine whether or not one has fielded a psyche.

Whether there are or are not objective tests is irrelevant. If something can only be <whatever> or not be <whatever>, that is a fact, even if it is very difficult to determine which. Being pregnant and fielding are two things that either are or are not so, however difficult or otherwise to demonstrate.

[hrothgar]

bluejak, on Aug 5 2009, 04:46 PM, said:

Whether there are or are not objective tests is irrelevant. If something can only be <whatever> or not be <whatever>, that is a fact, even if it is very difficult to determine which. Being pregnant and fielding are two things that either are or are not so, however difficult or otherwise to demonstrate.

It seems appropriate to quote the following dictum from software development.

"You can't control what you can't measure"

Said dictum was offered by Tom DeMarco to illustrate

1. Why the folks who produce physical goods (automobiles, radios, etc) have it relatively easy.

2. Why life is hard in the service industries

[fred]

TimG, on Aug 5 2009, 12:46 PM, said:

fred, on Aug 4 2009, 11:30 PM, said:

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.

I am curious about two things (even though I have no standing in the matter) and would welcome a detailed account of both:

1) The Vanderbilt hand which involves the alleged fielding; and

2) In the Spingold match, the specific questions asked and answers given regarding defense to 1NT.

Thanks,
Tim

1) The psych in the Vanderbilt:

My hand was very similar to this (I do not remember my exact spot cards but they were really bad): xxx Axxx Jx QJxx

I passed as dealer at favorable vulnerability. My LHO and screenmate also passed. When the tray came back, my partner had opened 1NT (14+ to 17) and my RHO had doubled.

I asked my screenmate what the double meant (contrary to what Rik seems to think, my partner I and I do not normally try to find out our opponents' 1NT defense before the match starts and then adjust our agreements accordingly). I was told "clubs, diamonds, or both majors".

I bid 2C (Stayman). I assume nobody thinks this bid constituted "fielding a psych".

My LHO and screenmate thought for about 30 seconds before passing. Since neither my LHO nor I are complete idiots, I reasonably inferred that he had some values.

When the tray came back my partner had responded 2H and my RHO had bid 2NT. I asked my LHO what 2NT meant. He did not know, but he made it clear that he thought he could figure it out and that he wanted me to wait before bidding until he had a chance to do so. I gave him that chance. After about 3 minutes he said something like "I really don't know but I think he has 6-4 in the minors" (ie with unknown 6-card suit).

Now I had to decide what to bid.

The first thing that went through my head was that I did not believe my RHO had 6-4 in the minors. There were 4 reasons for this:

1) This agreement does not make any sense since there is no way my LHO, holding a variety of common possible shapes, could figure out what minor to play in.

2) It is very common among strong pairs in the USA who use an artificial Double of 1NT to use a 2NT followup by the Doubler to say "I have something like a 2NT opening".

3) My RHO is the sort of player who would understand both 1 and 2 and he is also the sort of player who prides himself on knowing his system and who would not throw his partner a nonsensical curveball (like "6-4 in the minors") and expect him to work it out.

4) My LHO clearly had no idea what 2NT meant and he had phrased his statement in such a way that I knew I would get no redress from the TD if I decided to believe my LHO's guess and it turned out to be wrong.

So I thought my RHO had something resembling a 2NT opening which makes it obvious that my partner had psyched (even without taking into account the fact that my LHO's tempo had strongly suggested that he was not broke).

It turns out I was right about what my RHO held (big surprise).

But let's think about the (absurd) possibility of my RHO really having 6-4 in the minors. IMO it would still be clear for me to stay out of the auction because:

1) My RHO had bid vul vs. not in a live auction that, from his point of view, suggested that the opponents had at least close to game-going values in terms of HCP and offered no guarantees of a good fit for either side. As neither myself nor my RHO was a total idiot (in fact, I know from significant experience that my RHO is a very sound bidder in such circumstances), it would be reasonable for me to conclude that he held a very good hand.

2) That in itself combined with my LHO's value-showing hesitation would be almost enough for me to conclude that my partner had psyched. However, arguably it is still (barely) possible that he might still have something resembling a normal 1NT opening. However, if this was the case:

- it was very likely that hearts were breaking badly (If RHO did not have enough HCP such that my partner still had a strong notrump then he surely had more than 6-4 distribution)

- finesses were probably losing for us

- game was certainly out of the question for us now so there was little upside of bidding (not to mention obvious and serious possible downside in the form of a penalty Double of 3H)

- my LHO's (hopefully momentary) brain damage that caused him to think that my RHO might hold 6-4 in the minors made it very likely that my opponents would get to a ridiculous contract if I just left them alone

- if I Doubled 2NT and my RHO really had 6-4 in the minors, I would be giving my LHO his one and only way to avoid guessing what his partner's 6-card suit was (he could Pass my Double and expect his partner to bid his long suit)

So I Passed over 2NT. Hopefully the above is enough to convince any Vanderbilt Round-of-16-quality-players out there that I was not "fielding a psych".

After great agony, my LHO bid 3C which was passed around to me. Again I passed and again I feel strongly that this was not "fielding a psych" for all the same reasons.

2) The question/answer in the Spingold:

The question was something like "what do you play over our 1NT?".

The answer was something like "We play Woolsey. Double shows blah blah blah. 2C shows blah blah blah etc...".

I am not certain about this, but I believe my partner then asked them to clarify some aspect of this that was unrelated to the possibility that the Double might be anything other than artificial.

As I said above, it is not usual for my partner and me to ask our opponents this question (or any particular question for that matter) before a match starts. The reason we asked in this case was because one of my opponent's questions to me and their "secret meeting away from the table" made it obvious they were paying special attention to their notrump defenses.

And to Rik, who still does not get the point, I will add this: if we are considering a 3rd seat 1NT psych, we do not look at our opponents' convention card in the "1NT defenses area" just before we make our decision. Typically we will not know what their defense is when we make this decision unless we have some history playing against the pair in question and happen to remember.

Psyching 1NT is not part of our system - it is a psych. It is something we do on occasion. It is something we might do regardless of what defense the opponents are playing (though knowing they are playing non-penalty Doubles does increase the odds that we might do this).

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[iviehoff]

bluejak, on Aug 5 2009, 02:46 PM, said:

Whether there are or are not objective tests is irrelevant. If something can only be <whatever> or not be <whatever>, that is a fact, even if it is very difficult to determine which. Being pregnant and fielding are two things that either are or are not so, however difficult or otherwise to demonstrate.

I agree with you about the objectivity of tests being irrelevant. But I think people might, at least colloquially, describe some bids as fielding it "a little bit". There does seem to be a level of gradation to which a bid "fields", rather than just saying it does or it doesn't.

Suppose you are thinking about a bid, and there are 5 options you might consider. They got the following scores out of 10 in a rate-these-bids evaluation, chosen with no thought as to whether partner's bid was a psyche. But if partner's bid was a psyche, then they have the properties given.

(1) bidding score 10 - not pretty if a psyche, but some damage limitation
(2) bidding score 8 - not pretty if a psyche, but better damage limitation than (1)
(3) bidding score 7 - totally disastrous if a psyche
(4) bidding score 5 - some downside if a psyche, but no disaster
(5) bidding score 2 - completely safe if a psyche

Now obviously bid 5 is fielding and 3 isn't. But which of the other bids were fielding? Given the uncertainty, it doesn't surprise me if people describe a bid such as 1, 2 as "fielding it a little bit" and 4 as "fielding it quite a bit".

[Jlall]

Just want to say it is amazing to me that anyone can try to justify the actions of Fred's opponents if they happened as Fred stated (and I know Fred to be very honest so do not doubt that he has given an accurate report).

Also, lol RHO Xed and bid 2N over 1N and LHO had no idea what it meant, and Fred is being accused of fielding a psyche? Get real.

[Trinidad]

fred, on Aug 5 2009, 09:10 AM, said:

I asked my screenmate what the double meant (contrary to what Rik seems to think, my partner I and I do not normally try to find out our opponents' 1NT defense before the match starts and then adjust our agreements accordingly).

I may not have been clear. I don't think that you (explicitly) adjust your agreements based on the opponents' 1NT defense.

I think that you have different "psyching" habits depending on the opponents' 1NT defense. I think that you are well aware of each others habits which makes them implicit partnership agreements.

To phrase crystal clear what I think: "You know that Brad's 1NT openings will look like a 15-17 balanced hand when the opponents play penalty doubles. When the opponents play conventional doubles and Brad is in 3rd seat at favorable vulnerability, you know that Brad often holds a 15-17 balanced and a few times per year he will have something very different."

And I argue that that is not "general bridge knowledge". It is knowledge specific to your partnership. That makes it an implicit partnership agreement, with all the consequences (disclosure and regulations on agreements).

fred, on Aug 5 2009, 09:10 AM, said:

And to Rik, who still does not get the point, I will add this: if we are considering a 3rd seat 1NT psych, we do not look at our opponents' convention card in the "1NT defenses area" just before we make our decision. Typically we will not know what their defense is when we make this decision unless we have some history playing against the pair in question and happen to remember.

Psyching 1NT is not part of our system - it is a psych. It is something we do on occasion. It is something we might do regardless of what defense the opponents are playing (though knowing they are playing non-penalty Doubles does increase the odds that we might do this).

I know that you think this is a psyche. And I know that you are sincere.

But let me ask you this: I told you what I think might be the reason for your opponents' actions. Why do you think your opponents acted as they did?

Rik

[TimG]

fred, on Aug 5 2009, 09:10 AM, said:

2) The question/answer in the Spingold:

The question was something like "what do you play over our 1NT?".

The answer was something like "We play Woolsey. Double shows blah blah blah. 2C shows blah blah blah etc...".

I am not certain about this, but I believe my partner then asked them to clarify some aspect of this that was unrelated to the possibility that the Double might be anything other than artificial.

As I said above, it is not usual for my partner and me to ask our opponents this question (or any particular question for that matter) before a match starts. The reason we asked in this case was because one of my opponent's questions to me and their "secret meeting away from the table" made it obvious they were paying special attention to their notrump defenses.

Were the questions that made it obvious your opponents were paying special attention to NT defenses aimed at determining your 1NT range and/or your style in regards to opening 1NT?

Suppose this was the (simplified) exchange:

Opp: What is your NT range?
You: 14+-17, but we take more liberties than most, especially in 3rd seat, and especially when NV. What defense do you play against our NT?
Opp: Woolsey, etc.

If it turns out that your opponents play a different defense to your 3rd seat NV NT openings, this seems wrong.

Change it a bit:

Opp: What is your NT range?
You: 14+-17. What defense to do you play against our NT?
Opp: Woolsey, etc.

If it turns out that your opponents play a different defense to your 3rd seat NV NT openings, have your opponents done anything wrong in not disclosing that at this point? I don't think so.

Change it a bit more:

You: What defense to do you play against our NT?
Opp: Against strong NT we play Woolsey, against weak NT we play penalty doubles.
You: Do you consider 14+-17 strong?
Opp: Yes.

Now it seems clear that the opponents have done nothing wrong.

Your opponents' private discussion away from the table and later admission that they intentionally did not tell you of their defense to your 3rd seat NV NT openings make it clear that they were choosing not to tell you about their "secret" defense. There may be something a bit dodgy in that, but they might have done it without technically doing anything wrong. Or, it seems to me that if they had been careful they could have done it without technically doing anything wrong.

The separate matter of whether a tendency to psych is part of system that must be disclosed is an interesting one. The modern approach is to say that if a tendency is strong enough to disclose, then it is a partnership agreement and thus subject to regulation. This encourages players not to disclose any possible tendencies. But, it seems that opponents should be able to adjust their defenses against pairs that are known to psych in certain situations. If the psychers don't have to disclose their tendencies, why should their opponents have to disclose their defenses to those tendencies?

I'm not sure about the argument that players should be permitted to base their frequency of psychs upon the opponents defensive methods. You get into the endless loop of: we tend to psych, we play penalty double, then we tend not to psych, then we play takeout doubles, oh then we tend to psych, etc. Of course, it would be totally impractical to enforce a tendency to psych.

[jjbrr]

Trinidad, on Aug 5 2009, 10:50 AM, said:

"I think that you have different "psyching" habits depending on the opponents' 1NT defense. I think that you are well aware of each others habits which makes them implicit partnership agreements.

To phrase crystal clear what I think: "You know that Brad's 1NT openings will look like a 15-17 balanced hand when the opponents play penalty doubles. When the opponents play conventional doubles and Brad is in 3rd seat at favorable vulnerability, you know that Brad often holds a 15-17 balanced and a few times per year he will have something very different."

Er, isn't this assuming they never psyche 1NT if the opponents are playing penalty doubles? And given the relative infrequency of psyching 1NT, isn't the difference in 1NT psyches against conventional doubles and 1NT psyches against penalty doubles almost entirely negligible, assuming sometimes they psyche against penalty doublers but maybe not as frequently as against conventional doublers?

If Fred somewhere said, "I never psyche against people who play penalty doubles," you might be right, but I guess I missed that. If he never said that, I believe all this discussion of implicit agreements is nonsense.

[fred]

TimG, on Aug 5 2009, 04:16 PM, said:

fred, on Aug 5 2009, 09:10 AM, said:

2) The question/answer in the Spingold:

The question was something like "what do you play over our 1NT?".

The answer was something like "We play Woolsey. Double shows blah blah blah. 2C shows blah blah blah etc...".

I am not certain about this, but I believe my partner then asked them to clarify some aspect of this that was unrelated to the possibility that the Double might be anything other than artificial.

As I said above, it is not usual for my partner and me to ask our opponents this question (or any particular question for that matter) before a match starts. The reason we asked in this case was because one of my opponent's questions to me and their "secret meeting away from the table" made it obvious they were paying special attention to their notrump defenses.

Were the questions that made it obvious your opponents were paying special attention to NT defenses aimed at determining your 1NT range and/or your style in regards to opening 1NT?

I do not recall the exact details (mostly because I was not really paying close attention), but I can tell you this:

It happened when only 2 players had arrived at the table (me and one of my opponents). My opponent exhibited curiousity about our notrump range - he either asked me what it was or asked to see our convention card, appeared to look at nothing more than our notrump range, and then gave me the card back.

Whatever he did made me think "that was strange - he has an unusual level of curiousity about our notrump range". Whatever he did, it certainly did not involve an extended conversation between us or much (if any) back and forth discussion.

Then my other opponent arrived at the table.

Then my opponents went and had their secret meeting away from the table.

Then my partner arrived at the table.

Then I took him away from the table and explained what had happened.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[fred]

Trinidad, on Aug 5 2009, 03:50 PM, said:

But let me ask you this: I told you what I think might be the reason for your opponents' actions. Why do you think your opponents acted as they did?

Some warped sense of justice based on ignorant rumors of what happened in the Vanderbilt made them think they were justified in terms of taking the Law into their own hands.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[Echognome]

After reading the accounts, I certainly believe Fred didn't field in the Vandy. You can just imagine someone giving the bidding problem without any reference to any AI from the opponents and it's a completely different situation. I'm sure this is why it becomes difficult to judge. You never get a bidding problem with such details given as Fred has and then asked what you would do. I suspect if TD's polled in such a fashion, they might get quite different answers than without such details.

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."

So guess what? You have to bid 1NT before we defend. You can choose your range given our strategy (which is conditional), so go ahead and decide. No Loop.

It's only a loop if you limit your strategy space. Unlimit yourself.

[hrothgar]

Echognome, on Aug 5 2009, 07:55 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."

So guess what? You have to bid 1NT before we defend.  You can choose your range given our strategy (which is conditional), so go ahead and decide.  No Loop.

It's only a loop if you limit your strategy space.  Unlimit yourself.

Sorry Gnome: I think that you are dead wrong on this one.

The scenario that you describe presupposes that there is some way to determine whether the behaviour - the decision whether or not to psyche on this particular hand - matches the disclosure (some hypothetical probability density function that describes how often one psyches).

I know a lot of cute Statistical tricks, however, I wouldn't ever want to use a scalar to try to estimate anything other than a degenerate PDF.

[Echognome]

What do psyches have to do with agreements? Edit: Other than that they are a departure from what you have agreed.

You are associating my use of the word "strategy" with psyching, which I had no intention of at all.

I understand why you do this, but you are "dead wrong" in your interpretation of what I'm saying.

Further edit: Even if you want to pull the propensity to psych into your agreements and disclosure (and I don't have a problem with that), given the order in which bidding occurs, do you agree that it is not a loop? The defense has a conditional strategy, whereas the side opening NT can have a strategy knowing the conditional strategy. It is no more of a loop than full rationality is a loop. And even if it is a loop in rationality, you know that it is solvable (at least in mixed strategies).