[Antrax]

Runs fine on my XP and Win7.
You could try using the free Wine (http://www.winehq.org/) before trying Parallels, though you should know it's quite possible that Wine will fail where Parallels will succeed (and not vice-versa).

[jh51]

This whole thread reminds me of something I did recently, and I think that I did the wrong thing ethically.

---

I was west and had 5=5=0=3 shape.

At first, partner did not alert my double. North aske about it and she explained it as penalty. Immediately after she bid 2♦, she "corrected" her explanation to say that the double was DONT - showing an undisclosed long suit.

In retrospect, I think the ethical bid is pass instead of 2♥. From a bridge perspective it is probably right as well. 2♦ says, I don't care what you have, I want to play in diamonds.

After we won the bid, the correct explanation was forthcoming. But any harm that might have been done had been done.

[AlexJonson]

aguahombre, on 2011-July-04, 08:33, said:

Quoted OP because I wanted to answer what was originally asked. I think pretending partner knows 2C was Drury is the right way to go. The fact that 2S is undiscussed in your follow-ups just means you have to assume it means something and still must assume partner knows we are in a Drury sequence.

So, here is where we might go off the rails; but it seems required under the circumstances: you have a Drury response and also a club suit, so it seems 3C (dangerous with the UI but appropriate without) is the ethical bid. To bid 3 or four hearts, hiding the club feature for fear that pard is not on the Drury track would seem improper. Perhaps if the club suit really sucked, you could justify not showing it; but otherwise, just going to hearts would feel wrong.

I think this is an excellent reply, and manages not to mention the word 'cheating'.

Personally I think it is mostly undesirable to accuse fellow posters of cheating, whether or not prefixed by 'Probst'.

[Antrax]

Was I accused of cheating somewhere?

[WellSpyder]

jh51, on 2011-July-05, 15:36, said:

---

I was west and had 5=5=0=3 shape.

At first, partner did not alert my double. North aske about it and she explained it as penalty. Immediately after she bid 2♦, she "corrected" her explanation to say that the double was DONT - showing an undisclosed long suit.

In retrospect, I think the ethical bid is pass instead of 2♥. From a bridge perspective it is probably right as well. 2♦ says, I don't care what you have, I want to play in diamonds.

After we won the bid, the correct explanation was forthcoming. But any harm that might have been done had been done.

What would you have done if partner had alerted and given the correct explanation of your double, and then bid 2♦? If you would have passed then, you should pass in the situation you actually found yourself in. And certainly it seems sensible to pass from a bridge point of view if you think 2♦ shows a desire to play there whichever option you have.

That is not what I would expect 2♦ to show over a double with the meaning you have given, however! I would expect it to show a desire to play in 2♦ if you have long diamonds, a desire to play in (at least) 3♣ if you have clubs, and a desire (probably) to play in at least two of one of the majors if you have both majors. And I would certainly expect to bid 2♥ over 2♦ if I had both majors - and to expect partner to expect me to do this...

[paulg]

Antrax, on 2011-July-05, 23:35, said:

Was I accused of cheating somewhere?

Absolutely not, you've shown a commendable desire to understand the laws in a difficult area and started an interesting thread.

[Cyberyeti]

AlexJonson, on 2011-July-05, 15:51, said:

I think this is an excellent reply, and manages not to mention the word 'cheating'.

Personally I think it is mostly undesirable to accuse fellow posters of cheating, whether or not prefixed by 'Probst'.

Somebody hasn't actually read the posts and doesn't understand the issues.

Nobody accused anybody of cheating.

What was said was that bidding 2♣ with a hand that is suitable for both a natural 2♣ and a Drury bid, with the intention of deciding what 2♣ meant based on whether partner alerted would be cheating. This is not what happened here.

A Probst cheat is a construct used in rulings and accuses nobody of anything unethical. In a nutshell it says that if for whatever reason you do what a cheat would do, you have to be ruled against, it makes no presumptions about intent.

[blackshoe]

Some players will, when the TD utters the word "cheat", block out everything else said in their umbrage at "being accused of cheating".

[RMB1]

blackshoe, on 2011-July-06, 06:17, said:

Some players will, when the TD utters the word "cheat",

I am sure no TD would use the word "cheat" (in any combination) to a player at the table or in relation to a ruling affecting that player. I suppose I might use the word when consulting a player about a ruling as long as I hadn't identified the players involved.

Even if someone else at the table uses the word then I will not repeat it.

Player: "Are you accusing me of cheating?"
TD: "At the moment I'm not accusing anyone of anything."

Player: "He call me a cheat?"
TD (to other player): "What did you say, did you use that word?"

Player gives a detailed description of strange goings on, clearly suggesting that opponents are cheating.
YD: "I agree that appears strange, I think I understand your concerns."

[blackshoe]

IN describing the "Probst cheat", my understanding is that John would say something like "I do not think you are a cheat, but you have done what a cheat would do, and the laws require me to rule against you". My point was that given that statement, an awful lot of people will hear the word "cheat", and block out everything else.

Of course, if no TD ever uses the word, the point is irrelevant.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2011-July-06, 20:22, said:

IN describing the "Probst cheat", my understanding is that John would say something like "I do not think you are a cheat, but you have done what a cheat would do, and the laws require me to rule against you".

The "actual" imaginary Probst cheat does it on purpose, I believe. I will find out for sure.

[bluejak]

blackshoe, on 2011-July-06, 06:17, said:

Some players will, when the TD utters the word "cheat", block out everything else said in their umbrage at "being accused of cheating".

That's true but not really relevant. If you are trying to explain that they are doing something wrong, people of that sort do not listen to your arguments whatever you say.

[aguahombre]

Vampyr, on 2011-July-06, 21:05, said:

The "actual" imaginary Probst cheat does it on purpose, I believe. I will find out for sure.

The term itself, although catchy, is unfortunate. My understanding is that someone who does it on purpose is a just plain cheat. A Probst ruling does not imply that the person/pair being ruled against cheated --only that what occurred would also have been done by someone unethical.

Perhaps, "Probst adjustment", or something should have been coined.

[blackshoe]

bluejak, on 2011-July-07, 10:11, said:

That's true but not really relevant. If you are trying to explain that they are doing something wrong, people of that sort do not listen to your arguments whatever you say.

Good point.

[RMB1]

aguahombre, on 2011-July-07, 10:46, said:

The term itself, although catchy, is unfortunate. My understanding is that someone who does it on purpose is a just plain cheat. A Probst ruling does not imply that the person/pair being ruled against cheated --only that what occurred would also have been done by someone unethical.

I don't think that "Probst cheat" was coined to explain how to make a particular ruling, but to explain why the laws (in particular laws 16, 23, 73) are as they are.

I don't think you can give a ruling to a player by saying "I have to rule against you because you did something a cheat would do". Instead you need to explain your ruling using the words "could have known" or "logical alternative not [demonstrably] suggested"

[AlexJonson]

Cyberyeti, on 2011-July-06, 02:06, said:

Somebody hasn't actually read the posts and doesn't understand the issues.

Nobody accused anybody of cheating.

What was said was that bidding 2♣ with a hand that is suitable for both a natural 2♣ and a Drury bid, with the intention of deciding what 2♣ meant based on whether partner alerted would be cheating. This is not what happened here.

A Probst cheat is a construct used in rulings and accuses nobody of anything unethical. In a nutshell it says that if for whatever reason you do what a cheat would do, you have to be ruled against, it makes no presumptions about intent.

Cyberyeti

I understand everything that you said and the posts and their point.

I was, perhaps inadvisably, suggesting that you do not ever join in discussion of cheating, Probst or otherwise, with posters (or anyone else in my opinion, publicly, unless it's serious and intended).

I apologise if I offended you.

There are several very well informed posters who talk about cheating en passant. I think they ought (IMHO) to just stop doing it.

This is a slight deviation from Antrax post, but of course you can see from what I say, that of course I am not accusing Antrax of anything.