[helene_t]

Better take this discussion to another forum.

[fred]

Phil, on Jul 29 2009, 10:42 PM, said:

Let us know what happens.

Sounds a disciplinary hearing should be convened.

What has happened so far:

- The TD who came to our table seemed more interested in the fact that my partner and I were upset than that the opponents might have done something wrong.

- After the session, when I approached the same TD and asked what would be done he said something like "I don't believe your opponent's statement that the lack of disclosure had been intentional should be taken seriously" (really!!!).

- After that I sought out a higher-ranking (and higher-quality IMO) TD and explained what happened. That TD was rather shocked (appropriate IMO) and told me to fill out a recorder form.

- I expressed concern that it might take months before anything was done with my recorder form and, since a procedural penalty or suspension might be in order and might impact the match, I requested that this be dealt with immediately.

- The TD I spoke to agreed to immediately bring the situation to the attention of other higher-ranking TDs.

- As of now I have heard nothing more. If I do hear more I will post the details.

- My team won the match (yay).

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[Phil]

I'm glad Fred's team won, and this affair didn't affect the result. However, I strongly believe that matters like this transcend the outcome of the match and should be not be 'received and filed' by the national recorder sometime next year. Has anyone ever received a follow-up to a recorder form?

Great post by Axman. Who is this guy? Sounds like someone in the know.

To Poohbear: While I agree with what you are saying for the most part, what Fred's opponents did was deliberately change their methods after disclosing their agreements, for the purpose of deceiving their opponents. Amazingly they admitted this after the fact, which is de facto evidence of cheating (as well as stupidity). I hope that high-level pairs do not vary their agreements as much as you say they do. The real evidence would occur when partner successfully fields it, although I suspect many of the transgressions occur when partner is out of the game, such as a 3rd seat green 1N opening. I would insta call the director if 1st seat passed a prime 8 or soft 9 over a 3rd seat 1N opening, against many 'national' level pairs.

I believe Fred and Brad have adopted penalty doubles over 3rd seat 1N openings, which punctuates the proclivity of this psyche. But that's neither here nor there.

[fred]

I don't pretend to understand the laws in this area, but as far as I am concerned I really don't care if the opponents want to change their methods when they play against me or anyone else.

I also could care less about what was written on the opponents' convention card. I never look at convention cards - if I need an answer I will ask a question. But FWIW I would bet heavily that the opponents' convention card made no mention of this special agreement that apparently only applies in certain situations against certain pairs.

What I care about in this case is the intentional failure to disclose.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[fred]

Trinidad, on Jul 30 2009, 12:22 PM, said:

I have the feeling that the same might be going on here. Just read on and ask yourself whether the following applies to you (I don't know whether it does, but I have seen your position on artistry elsewhere):

• You are known for your "artistic" bidding.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
• As a result, your 1NT opening is not really what it states on your card. Instead it is what it states on your card with "artistic deviations".
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
• Your artistic deviations are fairly frequent against pairs who play conventional doubles of 1NT and rare (or even absent) against pairs who play penalty doubles of 1NT.

If you don't recognize yourself in these three statements then don't read the next part, since it doesn't apply to you.
=======================================

I am afraid you have misunderstood my use of the word "artistic" in a previous post.

I used that word in response to a post by Ken Rexford who derisively suggested that any pair who has less formal agreements about, for example, cuebidding than he does was playing "nonsense bridge".

I took offense to that statement (and I suspect would many players who are considerably more successful than Ken and who do not formalize their agreements to the degree that he prefers).

My use of the word "artistic" (which I contrasted with "scientific") pertained solely to a partnership style in which some bids are not intended to "show" specific types of hands but are intended instead to suggest general direction, intention, opinion, etc...

That being said, it is true that pairs that believe in this style are not generally slaves to things like HCP count. So, even though my convention card says that my 1NT openings show 14+ to 17 HCP, I have no problem admitting that I have occasionally opened 1NT on some hands that contain (say) 13 HCP, a reasonable 6-card minor, and positional values in the other suits.

The main purpose of this bid is not to screw the opponents - it is to describe my hand and to get to the right contract. It does happen to be the case that such bids sometimes show tactical gains as well. Whether or not I choose to make such a bid has nothing to do with the defense to 1NT that my opponents happen to be playing.

Do I do this often? No - as far as I can recall I have done it once in the past year though I should admit that I have played only 5 (long) tournaments or so in the past year.

Does our partnership take allowance for this possibility? No - we always bid as if facing a "normal" 14+ to 17 HCP hand.

Do we disclose this possibility to our opponents? Yes - when we explain our 1NT range we include "but we can upgrade and/or be offshape". If they ask for more details we will provide them.

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.

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.

Quote

If you do recognize yourself in these three statements then you are adjusting your system depending on what defense the opponents play. That is generally not allowed.

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

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[bluejak]

You are correct, psyching is not part of a bidding system.

There is a requirement to tell opponents what you play, though how you do it [apart from in answer to a direct question] is a matter of Regulation not Law.

Whatever you play, opponents can have a defence to. So, for example, you cannot have the following loop:

What are your pre-empts? Wild.
Ok, we play penalty doubles.
Ok, we play strong pre-empts.
Ok, we play takeout doubles.
Ok, we play wild pre-empts.
And so on and so on.

Why not? Because the defence play penalty doubles over wild pre-empts and takeout doubles over strong pre-empts. That is all they need to disclose, not what they are playing at this table. But the opening side need to disclose their pre-empting styles.

Of course, if people are looking for unethical methods, sure, there is some leeway for cheating here.

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.

Psyching is part of the game. Of course, there are always some people who want the game more boring, but as pointed out before, if you want to change the Laws rather than explain them, this is not the forum. But I do feel you could argue you are considering the next law book, so a thread under The New Laws on why you would get rid of psyching is acceptable - and I shall be pleased to say why you are wrong - but there!!!!

[Cascade]

fred, on Jul 31 2009, 04:18 AM, said:

I have no problem admitting that I have occasionally opened 1NT on some hands that contain (say) 13 HCP, a reasonable 6-card minor, and positional values in the other suits.

...

Do I do this often? No - as far as I can recall I have done it once in the past year though I should admit that I have played only 5 (long) tournaments or so in the past year.

...

Do we disclose this possibility to our opponents? Yes - when we explain our 1NT range we include "but we can upgrade and/or be offshape". If they ask for more details we will provide them.

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.

This seems odd to me.

Something that you do once per year you explain to your opponents.

But something that you do once per tournament you claim is a psychic.

Personally I think you should be allowed to play this way. However I feel that something that happens once per tournament under the current laws would quickly become part of your implicit agreements and therefore be subject to normal disclosure. And if it is then part of your system also subject to system regulations.

[fred]

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

fred, on Jul 31 2009, 04:18 AM, said:

I have no problem admitting that I have occasionally opened 1NT on some hands that contain (say) 13 HCP, a reasonable 6-card minor, and positional values in the other suits.

...

Do I do this often? No - as far as I can recall I have done it once in the past year though I should admit that I have played only 5 (long) tournaments or so in the past year.

...

Do we disclose this possibility to our opponents? Yes - when we explain our 1NT range we include "but we can upgrade and/or be offshape". If they ask for more details we will provide them.

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.

This seems odd to me.

Something that you do once per year you explain to your opponents.

But something that you do once per tournament you claim is a psychic.

Personally I think you should be allowed to play this way. However I feel that something that happens once per tournament under the current laws would quickly become part of your implicit agreements and therefore be subject to normal disclosure. And if it is then part of your system also subject to system regulations.

Not to argue with your basic point (since I don't know enough about the rules to argue your basic point), but you did manage to significantly exagerate the claims I made (I assume unitentionally). In particular:

1) Note that I referrred to "I" in the first case and "we" in the second case. It turns out that my regular partner is considerably more liberal than I am in terms of deciding when to open 1NT with "non-classic" hands which do not constitute "true psychs". Sorry I didn't think to mention this in my previous post.

2) Note that I guessed "less than once per long tournament" which is less than the "once per tournament" that you state.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[JoAnneM]

Please permit a question from a basic player. I thought that you were not allowed to change your system from one "table" to the next. So, in the case of the Spingold, do you have to file your convention card and notes, and then play that system for the entire event?

[hrothgar]

JoAnneM, on Jul 30 2009, 09:41 PM, said:

Please permit a question from a basic player. I thought that you were not allowed to change your system from one "table" to the next. So, in the case of the Spingold, do you have to file your convention card and notes, and then play that system for the entire event?

Team games are "special".

You are permitted to change your methods between rounds of a team game.
You can even change methods between stanzas within a single match.

As a well known example, Goldman and Soloway would occasionally switch from Eastern Scientific to a strong club based light opening system in the late rounds of a match if they felt that they needed to generate some "action".

[Cascade]

fred, on Jul 31 2009, 06:28 AM, said:

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

fred, on Jul 31 2009, 04:18 AM, said:

I have no problem admitting that I have occasionally opened 1NT on some hands that contain (say) 13 HCP, a reasonable 6-card minor, and positional values in the other suits.

...

Do I do this often? No - as far as I can recall I have done it once in the past year though I should admit that I have played only 5 (long) tournaments or so in the past year.

...

Do we disclose this possibility to our opponents? Yes - when we explain our 1NT range we include "but we can upgrade and/or be offshape". If they ask for more details we will provide them.

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.

This seems odd to me.

Something that you do once per year you explain to your opponents.

But something that you do once per tournament you claim is a psychic.

Personally I think you should be allowed to play this way. However I feel that something that happens once per tournament under the current laws would quickly become part of your implicit agreements and therefore be subject to normal disclosure. And if it is then part of your system also subject to system regulations.

Not to argue with your basic point (since I don't know enough about the rules to argue your basic point), but you did manage to significantly exagerate the claims I made (I assume unitentionally). In particular:

1) Note that I referrred to "I" in the first case and "we" in the second case. It turns out that my regular partner is considerably more liberal than I am in terms of deciding when to open 1NT with "non-classic" hands which do not constitute "true psychs". Sorry I didn't think to mention this in my previous post.

2) Note that I guessed "less than once per long tournament" which is less than the "once per tournament" that you state.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

Fair enough. I certainly missed the change from "I" to "we" - this happens when one can't sleep and gets up at 5am to read forums

[Echognome]

In the EBU, if I recall correctly, you are allowed to change your methods against pairs in a pairs game. At the time, my partner and I played a strong club, light opening system with relays. Against one pair at our local club, who we felt were highly unethical (e.g. after a 5 or 6 round auction one would ask "was that 3♦ bid natural?" and then pass at his final turn, only to have his partner incredibly find a diamond lead!) we would play a different system. The system we played against them was "If it's alertable, we don't play it!" At that time, things like Stayman were alertable, so we played 1NT - 2♣ as a weak takeout in clubs. We also played "random leads" against them, where we would shuffle our cards in front of them and lead.

[bluejak]

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.

[Trinidad]

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

I am afraid you have misunderstood my use of the word "artistic" in a previous post.

I used that word in response to a post by Ken Rexford who derisively suggested that any pair who has less formal agreements about, for example, cuebidding than he does was playing "nonsense bridge".

I took offense to that statement (and I suspect would many players who are considerably more successful than Ken and who do not formalize their agreements to the degree that he prefers).

My use of the word "artistic" (which I contrasted with "scientific") pertained solely to a partnership style in which some bids are not intended to "show" specific types of hands but are intended instead to suggest general direction, intention, opinion, etc...

I do sometimes misunderstand things. I see "artistic bridge" as a loose, free style of bridge where the basic agreement is to make what you think is the most descriptive natural bid, rather than following agreements that are formalized in a system book. I would certainly not equate "artistic bridge" to "nonsense bridge" already for the fact that I play "scientific bridge" with one partner and "artistic bridge" with all others (including the partner that I play most with).

But there are clear differences in the extent to which artists and scientists disclose their agreements. Scientists will explain that bid X showed a 5341 with 11-13 HCPs, 0 aces, 2 kings, one of them being the ♠K. Many artists will explain 1♥-1♠; 3♣ as "natural". If you ask further, they will say that it is game forcing. But while they know that partner has made this bid a dozen times on a three card suit and a few times on a doubleton, they will not say that in practice they use 3♣ as an artificial game force to show genuine jump shifts or game forcing single suiters. When a problem arises, they will claim that it is "just bridge". They may even say something like: "What would you then have bid with my hand?" (To which there scientific opponents think: "I would have bid Gazilli" or "I would have opened with a forcing pass", depending on just how scientific these opponents are.)
The fake jump shift is a situation known to many experienced players, which is why I chose it as an example, and therefore usually will not lead to damage. But there are tons of situations where artists know that their partner's bid is often not natural (and they will allow for that) but where experienced scientists don't have a clue (and the artists aren't going to make them any wiser). Furthermore, the exact auctions that maybe "suspect" vary from pair to pair, because they are the result of partnership experience. Many artistic players don't understand that they have to disclose this partnership experience. The reason is that they mistakenly view it as "general bridge knowledge".

Rik

[Trinidad]

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.

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?

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?

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

[helene_t]

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.

Hmmm ... is there a legal basis for that assertion?

If "wild things" are genuine psyches, then ok.

But as Rik argues, the fact that Fred and Brad were put on the "undisclosed penalty double" list of the pair in question suggests that they considered those "wild things" part of the system rather than psyches. Now they could be wrong, or they could be harassing Fred and Brad for some non-bridge reason that we don't know about. But if they could persuade the AC that they are right then we are in the "loop".

Suppose we put on our CC that we play a mixed strategy: with a balanced 8-count with three spades in third seat w/r we pass 60% of the time and open 1♠ 40% of the time. Nobody believes that those 40% are truely random events: they may depend on the state of the match, the facial expression of the opponents, etc. Suppose it also depends on what defense opps play to our 1♠ opening. In that case we would be in the "loop".

Trinidad said:

Your opponents may have found a way to force you to play by the rules. They would love to see this case presented in a hearing.

The fact that they alerted the penalty double and said they deliberately failed to disclose that agreement in advance, suggests that indeed they would love a hearing. But they will get penalized. Maybe they are aware that they will get penalized, and are just hoping that Fred and Brad get penalized, too?

[bluejak]

helene_t, on Jul 31 2009, 11:21 AM, said:

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.

Hmmm ... is there a legal basis for that assertion?

No: why should there be? I said it was "general bridge knowledge".

It is "general bridge knowledge" that experts are more likely than novices to bid 3NT knowing there are fewer than 25 HCP between the two hands. There is no "legal basis" for that assertion either.

[mycroft]

Speaking only for myself, I think a discussion like:

"So when they asked you what your defence to NT was, you said <whatever>, including that double was conventional, [editorial/mycroft: I'm assuming here that said convention doesn't strongly invite partner to pass, like a Lionel "11+, spades and another" double]?"
"Yes."
"And here, it went P-P-1NT-X, alerted and explained as penalty?"
"Yes."
"You do know that penalty doubles of 1NT are the non-Alertable meaning?"
"Well, we do now."
"And you are now saying that you have that agreement opposite third-seat 1NT openers, against pairs known to you to operate?"
"Yes."
"As an aside, do you do switch back and forth in pair games as well?"
<aside...>
"And you knew that this was such a pair, and didn't tell them of this agreement when they specifically asked?"
"Yeah."
"And you told them that you deliberately didn't mention this part of your agreement?"
"Yes."
"You didn't just forget to mention this rare occurrance?"
"No."

Well, I don't think it would matter what happened on the board, at least for deciding who won the match.

Please note I would have to get all the way through that to be that drastic. I have been known to forget sometimes when we open 1D "11-15, 2+D" that NV, it could be a not-good balanced 16, and be embarrassed after it goes 1D!-1H; 1NT! Everybody has small kinks in their system that they forget about until the exact sequence comes up; and if that happened in this case, then there'd only be a failure-to-disclose penalty.

If they didn't tell you about their system, in a situation where it is likely to help them, that's a problem. If they deliberately didn't tell you, knowing it is likely to help them, that's a totally other issue.

I repeat, I only have one person's view of the story (not that I don't believe Fred of all people, but, well, we've all read the casebooks, no? I believe (most of) the appellants and defendants there, too, and the two sides of the story can still vary significantly), and I wasn't there; I am speaking only for myself.

[helene_t]

Ccouldn'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.

[OleBerg]

helene_t, on Jul 31 2009, 12:21 PM, said:

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.

Hmmm ... is there a legal basis for that assertion?

If "wild things" are genuine psyches, then ok.

But as Rik argues, the fact that Fred and Brad were put on the "undisclosed penalty double" list of the pair in question suggests that they considered those "wild things" part of the system rather than psyches. Now they could be wrong, or they could be harassing Fred and Brad for some non-bridge reason that we don't know about. But if they could persuade the AC that they are right then we are in the "loop".

Suppose we put on our CC that we play a mixed strategy: with a balanced 8-count with three spades in third seat w/r we pass 60% of the time and open 1♠ 40% of the time. Nobody believes that those 40% are truely random events: they may depend on the state of the match, the facial expression of the opponents, etc. Suppose it also depends on what defense opps play to our 1♠ opening. In that case we would be in the "loop".

Trinidad said:

Your opponents may have found a way to force you to play by the rules. They would love to see this case presented in a hearing.

The fact that they alerted the penalty double and said they deliberately failed to disclose that agreement in advance, suggests that indeed they would love a hearing. But they will get penalized. Maybe they are aware that they will get penalized, and are just hoping that Fred and Brad get penalized, too?

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.

I toyed with doing the same in my youth, but never got around to it. (Edit: Rather; I toyed with doing something like it.)