Bridge in Thailand
Bill Jacobs
community did a thorough and correct job of explaining why that ruling
was wrong.
But some of the comments seemed overly venemous. So let's look at it
from Pattaya's view. Obviously, I'm guessing a bit here ...
Pattaya runs a bridge club in Thailand and makes a living, or part of a
living, from it. It's a commercial venture.
His customers are keen bridge players, but they are not experts. They
play at his club for their bridge fix, and one of their few requirements
is that they do not get cheated out of a decent result.
To avoid the possibility of his customers feeling cheated, Pattaya makes
a rule that psyches are not allowed. This is a sound business decision.
OK, this means the game they are playing is not technically Duplicate
Bridge, but his customers don't know that and they don't care either.
Pattaya runs a happy and successful club and he makes money out of it.
No one on rgb should complain about that?
Now the best player in the area has a game at the club and up comes an
awkward hand that he opens 2C and subsequently is forced to rebid 3S on
109x. He ends up in a slam off the spade ace-king, and it makes.
His opponents, Mr and Mrs Upright Citizen, look at the hand and say:
what's going on, he's psyched 3S with 109x. They feel cheated. They
GENUINELY feel cheated.
Pattaya is called to the table and faces a business decision. He can
either give the bridge ruling and explain gently to Mr and Mrs Citizen
that they were unlucky; Mr Expert didn't deliberately mislead them; he
was forced into bidding a non-suit on a difficult hand. The Citizens
won't accept this: "it's crazy talk. This is not fun. I'm not going to
come back and be subject to this sort of stuff."
Lost income for Pattaya.
Or he can explain to Mr Expert: "I realise it wasn't delibereate to
mislead, but we have a rule here about bidding non-suits, and I'm going
to adjust the score".
A sound BUSINESS decision. The Citizens are happy. Mr Expert may be
unhappy, but there are more Citizens around here than Experts. OK,
Pattaya has blotted his copybook by trying to justify to rgb that he made
a sound BRIDGE decision, but perhaps that's human nature.
My point is this: I bet that there are hundreds of clubs around the world
that don't play for masterpoints, and are run as businesses to make
money. And I bet the owners of these clubs work hard to ensure that good
bridge players don't descend on the club and start making his customers
unhappy (and leave) due to legitimate tactics that the regular players
don't understand. Let's not get all hoity-toity about telling them how
to run their business.
Comments?
Cheers ... Bill
BBO expert
> Pattayabridge bravely posted a director's ruling yesterday, and the rgb
> community did a thorough and correct job of explaining why that ruling
> was wrong.
>
> But some of the comments seemed overly venemous. So let's look at it
> from Pattaya's view. Obviously, I'm guessing a bit here ...
>
> Pattaya runs a bridge club in Thailand and makes a living, or part of a
> living, from it. It's a commercial venture.
>
> His customers are keen bridge players, but they are not experts. They
> play at his club for their bridge fix, and one of their few requirements
> is that they do not get cheated out of a decent result.
>
> To avoid the possibility of his customers feeling cheated, Pattaya makes
> a rule that psyches are not allowed. This is a sound business decision.
> OK, this means the game they are playing is not technically Duplicate
> Bridge, but his customers don't know that and they don't care either.
...
> Comments?
I mostly agree - I might even play at the club if I happened to be there,
but the one thing I feel strongly about is that _there was no psych_! Even
if 2C had been artificial, everybody seems to agree it wasn't a psych. If
it was in fact supposed to be a natural strong 2C as the bidder has said,
it's even less of a psych. And then 3S was not a psych by anybody's
definition but Pattayabridge's. So I don't object to him banning psychs,
as long as the club rule is made known to all newcomers - though I think
it's a poor idea - but I object to him then defining a psych in such a way
that an experienced player can't even know when he's psyched.
raija d
"Bill Jacobs" <bill....@quest.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9AE67F60AF0BDb...@210.8.230.24...
Your points are very valid if it was indeed a BUSINESS decision but
Pattayabridge brought it up for discussion on rgb as a BRIDGE decision and a
RULING issue. He needs to accept that as a BRIDGE AND RULING issue, his
decision was thoroughly wrong and deserved to be exposed as thoroughly
wrong. From BRIDGE/RULING/LAW point of view his TD action was indefensible
and illegal although from BUSINESS point of view it might have been
sensible.
I guess this pretty much repeats what you just said LOL.
Raija
henry...@yahoo.com
If he bans psyches as a business decision, I can understand it even
though I disagree with it.
If he bans psyches in certain restricted level games as a business
decision, I can accept it more even though, again, I disagree with it.
But I did not read his post as an attempt to justify a business
decision. I read it as an attempt to justify a director's ruling.
But even so, I foresee grave danger with this precedent.
Consider this responder's hand:
xxx
ATxx
KJx
xxx
after the uncontested auction 1d 1h 3d ? What shall responder bid?
Or more basically, what CAN responder bid?
Remember, the precedent that 3s is the bidding of a non-suit would
seem to imply that he can't bid 3s. Can he bid 3nt without stoppers
in either unbid suit? Should he raise to 4d with his 3=4=3=3 hand?
Or must he rebid 3h on his 4-bagger? What then is opener to do when
he has 3 hearts?
Richard Pavlicek made the excellent point in another thread that the
legal definition of a psyche should include the characteristic that it
is the player's initial action. I do not want to be accused of
psyching when I make a false qbid with
AKQxx
x
AKJxx
xx
and get a limit raise to 3s from partner. Slam may not be good, but
it has to be a lot better if i can dissuade a club lead from the
enemy.
Still, even though the various legal authors have not yet seen fit to
adopt Richard's very sensible suggestion, I would be loathe to define
a bid such as 4c as a psyche and then have someone bar it at a bridge
club.
Henrysun909
Player
clearly states "Any system is allowed". The rider is given that if you
are not playing Standard, it is polite to infor the opponents of this
fact before commencing a hand against them.
It would seem that any system is NOT allowed.
CBFalconer
>
... snip ...
>
> Consider this responder's hand:
>
> xxx
> ATxx
> KJx
> xxx
>
> after the uncontested auction 1d 1h 3d ? What shall responder bid?
> Or more basically, what CAN responder bid?
>
> Remember, the precedent that 3s is the bidding of a non-suit would
> seem to imply that he can't bid 3s. Can he bid 3nt without stoppers
> in either unbid suit? Should he raise to 4d with his 3=4=3=3 hand?
> Or must he rebid 3h on his 4-bagger? What then is opener to do when
> he has 3 hearts?
No problem. Opener is missing either the heart or club set, or
both. 3NT is not a reasonable place to play. Bid 4 D. This
leaves room for slam investigation.
--
[mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
[page]: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
Try the download section.
brsri...@gmail.com
I can't understand why it is showing now that I am the author when all
I did was being the first in giving the answer to pattaya's bridge
club query.
Boris
ahri
bill....@quest.com says...
<cut>
IMO OP didn't present the problem in that light, he simply wanted to
cofirm his ruling which was wrong. If he was to protect income, he would
not post here to ask for opinion.
Will in New Haven
>
The bidder didn't say it was natural. He said it was an artificial
intermediate/strong two-bid in a system that had a stronger artifical
2D. As someone who has played Benjamin two-bids that are very similar
to what the bidder was playing, I can say that the 2C bid was far from
a psyche and wasn't even much of a stretch. The bidder did _nothing_
wrong and the ruling was horrible. As a business decision it was very
similar to "if we serve Black people our other customers won't like
it."
--
Will in New Haven
Charles Brenner
That struck me as odd as well. "Who is this bsrich...," I thought,
"such a newsgroup techie that he can see and respond to messages that
are invisible to me?"
I just did a little research -- looked at rec.games.bridge using a
dedicated newsreader (i.e. instead of the generally more convenient
Google Groups). Sure enough, the original post to which you responded
is there. Therefore I'm guessing that the poster used a mechanism,
perhaps a "cancel" message, to remove it. Google groups honors the
mechanism but once it's out to servers worldwide it's not that hard to
find.
Charles
Adam Beneschan
> community did a thorough and correct job of explaining why that ruling
> was wrong.
>
> But some of the comments seemed overly venemous. So let's look at it
> from Pattaya's view. Obviously, I'm guessing a bit here ...
>
> Pattaya runs a bridge club in Thailand and makes a living, or part of a
> living, from it. It's a commercial venture.
One thing that's bothering me about this post: Pattaya is a city, not
a person. Unfortunately, we don't know the name of the person who
runs the Pattaya Bridge Club so I realize this makes it difficult to
have a discussion about this.
Just one: I don't have a problem with a club adopting special rules
that are contrary to the Laws, as long as I know going in what those
special rules are. But if I'm going to pay money to play a game, and
I have no way of knowing beforehand what I can or can't do, that seems
somewhat unfair. That would be the case if any "creative" bid of a
non-suit is considered to be a psych.
If some club (I'm not saying the PBC does this, but perhaps one of the
other hundreds of clubs you mention might) rules against a newcomer
anytime they do something that makes one of the regulars feel
offended, interpreting the rules in a way to ensure that the regular
customer is happy and the newcomer is ruled against, that's even more
grossly unfair and perhaps fraudulent, even if it might seem like a
good business decision. That sort of favoritism is just wrong.
-- Adam
BBO expert
> The bidder didn't say it was natural. He said it was an artificial
> intermediate/strong two-bid in a system that had a stronger artifical
> 2D.
Sorry, you're right - I confused your post where you commented on the
_possibility_ that it was a natural bid, with vincit's explanation.
> As someone who has played Benjamin two-bids that are very similar
> to what the bidder was playing, I can say that the 2C bid was far from
> a psyche and wasn't even much of a stretch. The bidder did _nothing_
> wrong and the ruling was horrible.
Unless he failed to alert the 2C bid, if required - but that would in no way
excuse the ruling, anyway, as the ruling wasn't based on failure to alert.
> As a business decision it was very
> similar to "if we serve Black people our other customers won't like
> it."
No, it was nothing close to that.
brsri...@gmail.com
Well, not anymore :)
Eric Leong
Suppose the tables were turned.
The regular customer opened 2C and bid 3S.
Would the same ruling be made?
Eric Leong
Bill Jacobs
> Suppose the tables were turned.
> The regular customer opened 2C and bid 3S.
> Would the same ruling be made?
>
I hope so. If he's going to be wrong, we'd like him to be consistently
wrong.
It's somewhat hypothetical because the regular, even if he opens 2C,
probably rebids 4C.
Cheers ... Bill
pattayabridge
>
I deleted the post because, as Bill said, there were too many rude and
unnecessary agressive comments. For those unfamiliar wirh the post,
the hand was s1093 hAK d4 cAKJ10984 and the uninterrupted bidding went
2c - 2d - 3c - 3h - 3s and onto 6c. The contract made when the
opponents failed to cash the ace, king of spades. I have not defined a
psyche, as 'BBO Expert' incorrectly implies. However, the definition
of a psyche from the Official Encyclopedia of Bridge is “a bluffing
call to create the illusion of strength or length in a particular suit
or to conceal weakness”.
The 3s bid would appear to contravene the latter part - concealing the
three small in spades when I would most certainly expect a control. In
a higher level competition I would expect the 3s bid to be alerted if
it could be just three pieces. It appears that I am in the minority
here, perhaps my English is so bad that I mis-interpret "conceal
weakness'?
Bill Jacobs has got everything spot on; when a regular (not too good)
pair complain about a visiting international expert bidding a suit of
109x then I either repremand the bidder or lose two regular customers.
There are not enough good players and psychers in Pattaya for me to
run a bridge club just for them or to run two parallel competitions.
And, incidentally, the club rules are clearly printed out and on
dispaly and also on the club website. At our club psyches and bidding
1NT with a singleton are not allowed. Many members of this forum
objected, but then they probably are of a much higher standard than
the average player at our club. I would also like to add another quote
from the encyclopedia - "People who employ psychic calls against less
experienced players may be guilty of unsportsmanlike psyching and
thereby be in violation of (ACBL) league regulations".
One final point. Repeated psyches and psyches with a partnership
understanding are illegal everywhere. Most clubs, with a regular
clientel, can control this by keeping a note of all reported psyches
and then repremand/ban the culprits. Our club is somewhat unique as
50% - 75% of the players are tourists. I obviously do not know the
psychic history of visiting players and so take the simple route of
informing visitors of the club rules and asking expereienced players
not to psyche.
pattayabridge
The local rules, including the ban on psyches, are VERY clearly stated
on the club website under 'local rules' - http://www.pattayabridge.com/LocalRules.html
Charles Brenner
> However, the definition
> of a psyche from the Official Encyclopedia of Bridge is “a bluffing
> call to create the illusion of strength or length in a particular suit
> or to conceal weakness”.
> The 3s bid would appear to contravene the latter part - concealing the
> three small in spades when I would most certainly expect a control. In
> a higher level competition I would expect the 3s bid to be alerted if
> it could be just three pieces. It appears that I am in the minority
> here, perhaps my English is so bad that I mis-interpret "conceal
> weakness'?
Perhaps you misinterpret "to", which in this case means "with the
intention to". The player in question and many posters expressed the
believable opinion that 3S isn't intended as a deceptive bid, but
rather a least of evils choice to avoid very unpalatable choices such
as 3NT with a singleton in an unbid suit.
We always have to judge these situations from the perspective that the
player held a certain hand, then had to choose a bid. Oddly though,
there's occasionally a tendency to turn this backwards and instead
think of the bid that was chosen and consider the possible hands the
player might have held. If the player in question had the option (in
some fantasy variant of bridge) of having QJx of spades but chose
instead to hold 109x for a 3S bid, then I suppose you say it wes a
psyche. But the player didn't have that choice. To blame him for
psyching is to blame him for the hand he was dealt, not for the bid he
made.
Charles
pattayabridge
>
> - Show quoted text -
Sorry Boris, I deleted the post
(a) because of rude abusive replies from people like 'player' and
'Will in new haven'.
(b) When I (much later) was informed that the 2c was a Benji style
bid.
I assumed that the post and all associated comments would disappear.
Seems it does not work that way and all comments remain despite the
origional post being deleted.
henry...@yahoo.com
While not daring to comment on the business aspect of this discussion,
there is so much wrong with the bridge aspect that I hardly know where
to begin.
The definition of a psychic bid that most of us work with is this: A
bid that deliberate and gross misstatement of honor strength and or
suit length. (This definition goes back in ACBL land to at least the
1970s; see for example:
http://web2.acbl.org/codification/CHAPTER%2012%20-%20Section%20A.pdf)
Note the phrase "gross misstatement." If one assumes that in the
normal course of affairs this 3s bid would show 4 pieces, then to be
short by 1 card hardly qualifies as 'gross.' Or, to consider it from
another angle, the rebid of a 3-card club suit with
x
AQx
KJ9xxx
AKjx
instead of an offshape 1nt (illegal in your club anyway) is one common
way in the US to handle this awkward pattern (too good for a 3d rebid,
not enough hearts for a 3h raise). Is it illegal in your club to do
so?
Even in what I consider a repressive ACBL environment, it is
explicitly not illegal to open 1nt with a singleton although it may
not be wise to. If someone were to decide that
K
AQx
J9xxx
AQxx
was best described via a 1nt opening bid, I would not agree with that
decision but it could hardly be called irrational. And yet your club
has legislated that out of the discussion.
If you check out this link, there is a club in the ACBL that has
regulated psyches in a similar fashion to you:
http://www.villagecardclub.org/info/policy/SpecialTreatments.pdf
It says, specifically, "Lastly, as a reminder to the membership, the
VCC has a standing rule regarding the use of a psychic bid. A "psych"
is defined as a deliberate and gross misstatement of honor strength or
suit length. A psychic bid may be made only once per calendar day.
However, psychic bids used against lower strata opponents are
prohibited."
Does that mean that opening a hand like
xx
AKxxxx
xxxx
x
as SJ Simon recommended in Why You Lose at Bridge is illegal? Or that
his Simon Doubles with JTxxx in the two unbid suits are illegal? or
that opening 1s with
Axxxxx
KTxx
Jx
x
(long time readers of the BW may recognize this hand from an editorial
in the late 1970s) is illegal?
Maybe opening 2c with
x
Axx
x
AKJxxxxx
as an American internationalist did in the 1989 Venice Cup is also
illegal?
Heavens, I hope not.
Henrysun909
henry...@yahoo.com
I've just reviewed that link. It seems that I won't be playing there
either, viz:
Re revokes: "In particular I note that Law 61B states that one
defender may not ask his partner if he has revoked. This is nonsense
in my view and most certainly will not be applied in this club."
Re insufficient bids: "We need to be less strict about the rules when
a player make an insufficient bid. As an example, suppose partner
opens 1D and you respond 1H but it transpires that there was an
intervening 1S overcall that you did not notice. Then the offender
should be allowed to change his bid to a negative double (which means
the same as 1H if there was no overcall) without penalty. This is not
‘standard' rules – but simply common sense and so what applies at our
club."
Re: seeing the last trick: "The strict rules of bridge do not allow
you to see the last trick once everybody has turned their card over.
This can cause problems (uncertainty as to where the lead is etc.) and
with the large number of inexperienced players at our friendly club we
do relax this rule so that anybody may ask to see the cards for the
last trick before any card is played to the next one."
And of course opening 1nt with a singleton is not allowed.
Henrysun909
henry...@yahoo.com
Or, to consider it from
another angle, the rebid of a 3-card club suit with
x
AQx
KJ9xxx
AKjx
instead of an offshape 1nt (illegal in your club anyway) is one common
way in the US to handle this awkward pattern (too good for a 3d rebid,
not enough hearts for a 3h raise). Is it illegal in your club to do
so?
****************
Stupid keyboard. Hand should not have 14 card and should be
x
AQx
KJ9xxx
AKx
HS
vincit
***** Terry, as everybody is telling you 3S is a natural bid
> The 3s bid would appear to contravene the latter part - concealing the
> three small in spades when I would most certainly expect a control. In
> a higher level competition I would expect the 3s bid to be alerted if
> it could be just three pieces. It appears that I am in the minority
> here, perhaps my English is so bad that I mis-interpret "conceal
> weakness'?
**** Yourself asked me to play with the gentleman who happened to
partner me for this hand
Again 3S is natural and would not be alerted whatever bridge you play
> Bill Jacobs has got everything spot on; when a regular (not too good)
> pair complain about a visiting international expert bidding a suit of
> 109x then I either repremand the bidder or lose two regular customers.
> There are not enough good players and psychers in Pattaya for me to
> run a bridge club just for them or to run two parallel competitions.
> And, incidentally, the club rules are clearly printed out and on
> dispaly and also on the club website. At our club psyches and bidding
> 1NT with a singleton are not allowed. Many members of this forum
> objected, but then they probably are of a much higher standard than
> the average player at our club.
**** I undrstand what you are saying, but this not the point !
2C/3S are not psyches, your website mentioned you are a "BRIDGE" club
so lets play bridge
5431 with a bare singleton H minor oriented can be an accptable 1NT
opening
I would also like to add another quote
> from the encyclopedia - "People who employ psychic calls against less
> experienced players may be guilty of unsportsmanlike psyching and
> thereby be in violation of (ACBL) league regulations".
> One final point. Repeated psyches and psyches with a partnership
> understanding are illegal everywhere. Most clubs, with a regular
> clientel, can control this by keeping a note of all reported psyches
> and then repremand/ban the culprits. Our club is somewhat unique as
> 50% - 75% of the players are tourists. I obviously do not know the
> psychic history of visiting players and so take the simple route of
> informing visitors of the club rules and asking expereienced players
> not to psyche.
**** Yes you are right, but it has nothing to do with the ruling or
the situation at your club
Both Your analysis and various statements in your 297 News were flawed
and the way it was described not "fair"
Please dont be stubborn !
>
> www.pattayabridge.com
Bill Jacobs
> I assumed that the post and all associated comments would disappear.
> Seems it does not work that way and all comments remain despite the
> origional post being deleted.
>
True. Once you've posted on usenet (whether an original post or a follow-
up), there's no way to make it disappear. It's propagated to hundreds
(thousands?) of news servers around the world.
So beware!
ahri
@p10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, henry...@yahoo.com says...
<cut>
Well, at least we now know that they play some fun game that sounds
close to bridge. Not sure why he asked opinion on this group tho.
ahri
@v26g2000prm.googlegroups.com>, jf.f...@mac.com says...
> **** Yes you are right, but it has nothing to do with the ruling or
> the situation at your club
> Both Your analysis and various statements in your 297 News were flawed
> and the way it was described not "fair"
> Please dont be stubborn !
Completely agree with you. After such speach, I can't see why he did ask
for opinion on this group at all, if he is making up his own rules.
Analysis are completely hillarious tho :).
pattayabridge
>
> - Show quoted text -
My ACBL book of 1987 adds "or to conceal a weakness". So your
statement that your definition goes back to at least the 1970's is 'so
much wrong that I hardly know where to begin'. So tha ACBL has changed
their definition to something very clearly inferior - what's new? An
enormous number of ACBL rules and regulations are obviously ridiculous.
pattayabridge
Very glad you won't be visiting us Henry, we can do without your kind.
Ours is a friendly club with many beginners and the rules were agreed
by the comitee. We most certainly do not want an unknown visitor
coming along and psyching. He will be banned.
pattayabridge
The answer is yes, it's not allowed. Anyone who opens 1NT with these
cards needs their brains tested and would not be of a high enough
standard to play at our club, low as it may be.
pattayabridge
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
OK Vincit, I give up. The goal posts have changed since my 1984 ACBL
book and it seems 3s is not a psyche these days.
I retract the accusation of psyching and have put the following in
news-sheet 298.
Thank you for the clarification Vincit. The Benji-style 2c opening was
clearly correct so that just leaves the 3s bid - which was what the
complaint was about. I fully understand that you did not mean it as a
psyche, but is it? I thought it was but it appears that most of the
worldwide bridge players agree that it is not a psyche. The definition
of a psyche from my 1984 edition of the Official Encyclopedia of
bridge is "a bluffing call to create the illusion of strength or
length in a particular suit or to conceal weakness". The 3s clearly
conforms to the definition of a psyche on the last count - concealing
weakness in the spade suit. In my opinion it was psyche but it appears
that the ACBL have now dropped the "or to conceal weakness", so
anything goes? One huge step backwards for mankind. The 3s bid would
be fine in a regular partnership if it was alerted as 'waiting - could
be just three pieces'. I do not consider 109x 'natural'. However, I
have to bow to the majority and to the mighty god ACBL and accept that
3s is not a psyche under the new rules.
♠
ahri
@a6g2000prm.googlegroups.com>, te...@pattayabridge.com says...
> However, I
> have to bow to the majority and to the mighty god ACBL and accept that
> 3s is not a psyche under the new rules.
Just of curiosity, would you respond 1S to 1C opening with:
xxxx
AKx
Kxx
Kxx
It conceals weakness in spades!
Peter Smulders
ade2-c3c...@a6g2000prm.googlegroups.com:
> The definition
> of a psyche from my 1984 edition of the Official Encyclopedia of
> bridge is "a bluffing call to create the illusion of strength or
> length in a particular suit or to conceal weakness".
Also by this definition the 3S bid was not a psyche since it was not "a
bluffing call". The intent to mislead is an essential ingredient of a psyche,
and it was already in 1984.
pattayabridge
> pattayabridge <te...@pattayabridge.com> schreef in news:3edb6545-c30a-4574-
>
> > The definition
> > of a psyche from my 1984 edition of the Official Encyclopedia of
> > bridge is "a bluffing call to create the illusion of strength or
> > length in a particular suit or to conceal weakness".
>
> Also by this definition the 3S bid was not a psyche since it was not "a
> bluffing call". The intent to mislead is an essential ingredient of a psyche,
> and it was already in 1984.
I guess you missed the IMPORTANT bit about concealing weakness??? But
as this is not in the modern rules one can clearly psyche controls or
whatever you want.
BBO expert
> On Jul 25, 10:01 am, BBO expert <n...@test.com> wrote:
>>
>> I mostly agree - I might even play at the club if I happened to be there,
>> but the one thing I feel strongly about is that _there was no psych_!
>> Even if 2C had been artificial, everybody seems to agree it wasn't a
>> psych. If it was in fact supposed to be a natural strong 2C as the
>> bidder has said, it's even less of a psych. And then 3S was not a psych
>> by anybody's definition but Pattayabridge's. So I don't object to him
>> banning psychs, as long as the club rule is made known to all newcomers -
>> though I think it's a poor idea - but I object to him then defining a
>> psych in such a way that an experienced player can't even know when he's
>> psyched.
> I deleted the post because, as Bill said, there were too many rude and
> unnecessary agressive comments.
LOL. Everybody thought you were wrong.
> I have not defined a
> psyche, as 'BBO Expert' incorrectly implies.
Excuse me? I didn't imply. I stated it explicitly. You can not find your
source in law.
> However, the definition
> of a psyche from the Official Encyclopedia of Bridge is “a bluffing
> call to create the illusion of strength or length in a particular suit
> or to conceal weakness”.
The "Official Encyclopedia of Bridge" - even if it says this - is not the
last word on the laws of the game. You, as director, should not be using
it as the source of your rulings.
> The 3s bid would appear to contravene the latter part -
Only to you. By definition, a natural bid in a suit shows at least three
cards. 3S is a perfectly legitimate natural bid. If it discourages the
opponents from leading a spade, that's simply a benefit of making the right
bid.
> It appears that I am in the minority here,
That's not an appearance - I've never seen such agreement on this group. I
don't think anybody supports your ruling.
> One final point. Repeated psyches and psyches with a partnership
> understanding are illegal everywhere.
That's simply not true. There is nothing illegal about psyching. Even with
a regular partner. Only concealed understandings are illegal.
> I obviously do not know the
> psychic history of visiting players and so take the simple route of
> informing visitors of the club rules and asking expereienced players
> not to psyche.
Did you, in fact inform this player, or did you expect him to read a notice
on the wall? Did you inform this player of your odd definition of a psych?
And most important in your defence, did the player's partner alert his 2C
bid? If partner didn't alert the opening bid, did the player explain the
failure to alert at the end of the auction? Since it was apparently
supposed to be strong but not natural or game forcing, I imagine that would
be alertable - in which case he was probably the victim of his own bidding,
even if your ruling was terrible.
BBO expert
Apparently Eddie (at the Pattaya club) supported him - so he's got agreement
from _one_ person.
Peter Smulders
80f8-c84...@a3g2000prm.googlegroups.com:
Look, let me spell it out.
In order to qualify (according to your definition) it has to be
1) a bluffing call to create the illusion of
2) strength or length in a particular suit
3) or to conceal weakness.
Condition 1) has to be fulfilled, and either 2) or 3) (or maybe 2) and 3))
If 3) is fulfilled but 1) is not, we don't have a psyche.
BBO expert
> OK Vincit, I give up. The goal posts have changed since my 1984 ACBL
> book and it seems 3s is not a psyche these days.
No, they haven't. You have read something into the rules that never
existed.
BBO expert
> On Jul 25, 8:54 pm, pattayabridge <te...@pattayabridge.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 25, 1:25 pm, Player <ron...@msn.com> wrote:
>>
>> > There is another quirk. If you look at the Pattaya Club Web site, it
>> > clearly states "Any system is allowed". The rider is given that if you
>> > are not playing Standard, it is polite to infor the opponents of this
>> > fact before commencing a hand against them.
>> > It would seem that any system is NOT allowed.
>>
>> The local rules, including the ban on psyches, are VERY clearly stated
>> on the club website under 'local rules'
>> -http://www.pattayabridge.com/LocalRules.html
>>
>> www.pattatabridge.com
>
> I've just reviewed that link. It seems that I won't be playing there
> either, viz:
>
> Re revokes: "In particular I note that Law 61B states that one
> defender may not ask his partner if he has revoked. This is nonsense
> in my view and most certainly will not be applied in this club."
Are you going to quit playing in the ACBL, too, Henry? iirc, the new laws
specifically address this by saying that you can't ask once anybody has
played to the next trick - implicitly making it legal to ask for a little
while.
> Re insufficient bids: "We need to be less strict about the rules when
> a player make an insufficient bid. As an example, suppose partner
> opens 1D and you respond 1H but it transpires that there was an
> intervening 1S overcall that you did not notice. Then the offender
> should be allowed to change his bid to a negative double (which means
> the same as 1H if there was no overcall) without penalty. This is not
> ‘standard' rules – but simply common sense and so what applies at our
> club."
I'm not sure that isn't legal in the ACBL under the new laws, too.
henry...@yahoo.com
Are you now waying the the ACBL book of 1987 (which I presume is the
Encyclopedia) is now the legal standard for defining a psychic bid?
Henrysun909
henry...@yahoo.com
Actually, I almost never psych (it is my older brother Steven who does
so). On principle, I'd rather play bridge according to the laws then
according to the laws as modified by a director.
Henrysun909
henry...@yahoo.com
So that when a multi-time european champion opened 1nt with
K
JTxx
AQx
AJxxx
in the 1979 Bermuda Bowl (he was even playing Blue Team Club and 4-
card majors, so that opening 1h and rebidding 2c would have been a
perfectly good description of his shape) needs his head examined?
Methinks you are turning this into a personal attack against everyone
who disagrees with your bridge decisions as the director of a club.
Henrysun909
henry...@yahoo.com
If the new laws permit someone to ask to see the last trick after the
trick has been turned, then it isn't illegal anymore. I wasn't aware
of that change and have not yet had a chance to sit down with the new
lawbook.
As for substituting a negative double for an insufficient 1h response,
I can't imagine that being legitimate since it would send the UI that
responder did not want to bid 2h and make his bid sufficient, thus
indicating that responder either has 4 hearts or has 5+ hearts and
weakness.
However, as stated previously, I have not seen the new laws and so
will reserve judgment.
My more basic complaint is not whether the laws are right or wrong but
rather the unilateral disregard for the rule of law reflected in these
various alterations. Having set the precedent, who knows but that a
director might rule that opening 3s with
Jxxxxx
xx
xxx
xx
white versus red is a psych because it is obviously below the strength
requirement of the rule of 2 and 3? Or that opening 1c with
AQTx
AQJx
5432
K
is a psych in order to avoid opening 1d?
Its the attitude that "I'm the director, so I can decide which laws
should be followed and which ones should not" that offends me.
Henrysun909
henry...@yahoo.com
Actually, that is true. Zia, among others, is famous for making
psychic qbids in the hope of attracting a favorable lead against a
slam. Woolsey has been known to psych splinters in the same hope.
Henrysun909
Martin Ambuhl
> Very glad you won't be visiting us Henry, we can do without your kind.
> Ours is a friendly club with many beginners and the rules were agreed
> by the comitee.
I always wonder about people who claim to be friendly but who can "do
without your kind." A common variant of this is "I'm not racist but ...".
BBO expert
> On Jul 26, 8:49 am, BBO expert <n...@test.com> wrote:
>> henrysun...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> >>www.pattatabridge.com
>>
>> > I've just reviewed that link. It seems that I won't be playing there
>> > either, viz:
>>
>> > Re revokes: "In particular I note that Law 61B states that one
>> > defender may not ask his partner if he has revoked. This is nonsense
>> > in my view and most certainly will not be applied in this club."
>>
>> Are you going to quit playing in the ACBL, too, Henry? iirc, the new
>> laws specifically address this by saying that you can't ask once anybody
>> has played to the next trick - implicitly making it legal to ask for a
>> little while.
Sorry, I got this one wrong. I was thinking about the rule on drawing
attention to quitted tricks being pointed incorrectly (law 65). However, I
don't think ACBL players will stop saying "No hearts partner?" any time
soon, illegal or not.
>> > Re insufficient bids: "We need to be less strict about the rules when
>> > a player make an insufficient bid. As an example, suppose partner
>> > opens 1D and you respond 1H but it transpires that there was an
>> > intervening 1S overcall that you did not notice. Then the offender
>> > should be allowed to change his bid to a negative double (which means
>> > the same as 1H if there was no overcall) without penalty. This is not
>> > ‘standard' rules – but simply common sense and so what applies at our
>> > club."
>>
>> I'm not sure that isn't legal in the ACBL under the new laws, too.
>
> If the new laws permit someone to ask to see the last trick after the
> trick has been turned, then it isn't illegal anymore. I wasn't aware
> of that change and have not yet had a chance to sit down with the new
> lawbook.
That was the one I _didn't_ comment on Henry - I'm pretty sure that one's
still illegal.
> As for substituting a negative double for an insufficient 1h response,
> I can't imagine that being legitimate since it would send the UI that
> responder did not want to bid 2h and make his bid sufficient, thus
> indicating that responder either has 4 hearts or has 5+ hearts and
> weakness.
Well, I admit I'm not sure about that. I find "the same, or more precise
meaning" more confusing than the old language. Surely the negative double
_is_ more precise - but I can't say I disagree that you now have some UI.
>
> However, as stated previously, I have not seen the new laws and so
> will reserve judgment.
>
> My more basic complaint is not whether the laws are right or wrong but
> rather the unilateral disregard for the rule of law reflected in these
> various alterations.
I agree. "This is nonsense" is a poor reason for disregarding the laws.
henry...@yahoo.com
In checking out pattayabridge.com, I managed to come up with some
other tidbits that might incline someone used to playing bridge not to
play bridge there:
From news sheet 297: Do not bid a suit with the intention of
inhibiting a lead - you will be penalized.
From news sheet 296, discussing KTx KQ9xx void AKQJx after a 1h
opening bid to your left:
RHO opens 1♥ and what do you bid? I actually bid 1NT at the table and
Jeremy said that it was a psyche. Dave sided with me, saying that a
1NT overcall guarantees 15-18 and a stop but may be unbalanced. Jeremy
insisted that if unbalanced, then the shortage must be ace or king.
So who's right? Well of course you know the answer. What did you bid
with Hand E in this week's quiz? It is from page 251 of Eric
Crowhurst's "Acol in Competition". Eric advocates a 1NT overcall. So
a 1NT overcall does not guarantee a balanced hand nor an honour in the
short suit, just a good H stop.
From newsheet 275, discussing xxx J xxxx Axxxx in 3rd seat at
favorable:
At favourable vulnerability, one visitor opened this hand with 1C in
3rd seat. I will take this opportunity to remind all that psyches and
extremely weak opening bids are not allowed at our club. Around 8 or
so points for a 3rd seat opening would be acceptable, 5 is not. I was
going to adjust the score as this 'psyche' prevented N-S from reaching
4♥. But the 4♥ contract went down when bid on the next four occasions
and so West got a poor score anyway and so no adjustment was
necessary. I did inform West of the club rules.
**************
I obviously don't have time to go through all of the newssheets, but
these modifications of the game, even though well intentioned because
of the number of beginners, just doesn't seem to me to be the game of
bridge anymore.
Henrysun909
henry...@yahoo.com
> henrysun...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> ... snip ...
>
> > Consider this responder's hand:
>
> > xxx
> > ATxx
> > KJx
> > xxx
>
> > after the uncontested auction 1d 1h 3d ? What shall responder bid?
> > Or more basically, what CAN responder bid?
>
> > Remember, the precedent that 3s is the bidding of a non-suit would
> > seem to imply that he can't bid 3s. Can he bid 3nt without stoppers
> > in either unbid suit? Should he raise to 4d with his 3=4=3=3 hand?
> > Or must he rebid 3h on his 4-bagger? What then is opener to do when
> > he has 3 hearts?
>
> No problem. Opener is missing either the heart or club set, or
> both. 3NT is not a reasonable place to play. Bid 4 D. This
> leaves room for slam investigation.
>
> --
> [mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
> [page]: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
> Try the download section.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Chuck,
wouldn't 3nt be a reasonable spot if partner has
AKx
x
AQT9xx
Axx
as opposed to being in a no-play 5d?
But notwithstanding that particular point, if responder can't bid a 3
card suit because it is a psyche, then he has to either (1) rebid 3nt
without stoppers in the suits, or (2) rebid 3h on a 4 card suit, or
(3) raise to 4d on 4333 shape. None of those options seem optimal to
me.
Of course, one could argue that opener should anticipate this problem
and rebid 2nt instead of 3d. I have no quarrel with that point of
view. But surely the 3d rebid could not be considered wrong.
Henrysun909
Richard Pavlicek
> Richard Pavlicek made the excellent point in another thread that the
> legal definition of a psyche should include the characteristic that it
> is the player's initial action...
No. I wrote and have always believed that a psyche
should be defined as a _partnership's_ first action.
For example, opening 1H on a non-suit (or with close
to zero points) is a dangerous venture. Conversely,
if partner opens 1S and you respond 2H on a non-suit
(with a spade fit) there is little risk; I call this
a _tactical_ bid to differentiate.
But then, I've never been to Thailand. Bridge must
be pretty dull there with all the Thai boards.
--
Richard Pavlicek
Web site: http://www.rpbridge.net
henry...@yahoo.com
ROFL, and apologies for misrepresenting your position. (But at least
I did know there was something about an initial action in there
somewhere.)
But whether it is a player's initial action or a partnership's initial
action, it would make much better sense than the ACBL's failure to
distinguish tactical bids from psyches, essentially making them the
same when they are in fact rather different.
Henrysun909
Bill Jacobs
news:3edb6545-c30a-4574...@a6g2000prm.googlegroups.com:
>
> OK Vincit, I give up. The goal posts have changed since my 1984 ACBL
> book and it seems 3s is not a psyche these days.
> I retract the accusation of psyching and have put the following in
> news-sheet 298.
>
> Thank you for the clarification Vincit. The Benji-style 2c opening was
> clearly correct so that just leaves the 3s bid - which was what the
> complaint was about. I fully understand that you did not mean it as a
> psyche, but is it? I thought it was but it appears that most of the
> worldwide bridge players agree that it is not a psyche. The definition
> of a psyche from my 1984 edition of the Official Encyclopedia of
> bridge is "a bluffing call to create the illusion of strength or
> length in a particular suit or to conceal weakness". The 3s clearly
> conforms to the definition of a psyche on the last count - concealing
> weakness in the spade suit. In my opinion it was psyche but it appears
> that the ACBL have now dropped the "or to conceal weakness", so
> anything goes? One huge step backwards for mankind. The 3s bid would
> be fine in a regular partnership if it was alerted as 'waiting - could
> be just three pieces'. I do not consider 109x 'natural'. However, I
> have to bow to the majority and to the mighty god ACBL and accept that
> 3s is not a psyche under the new rules.
>
Well done. But it's got nothing to do with the ACBL. And the Laws Of
Bridge trump the 1984 Encyclopedia.
Cheers ... Bill
Andrew
> On Jul 25, 10:01 am, BBO expert <n...@test.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Bill Jacobs wrote:
> > > Pattayabridge bravely posted a director's ruling yesterday, and the rgb
> > > community did a thorough and correct job of explaining why that ruling
> > > was wrong.
>
> > > But some of the comments seemed overly venemous. So let's look at it
> > > from Pattaya's view. Obviously, I'm guessing a bit here ...
>
> > > Pattaya runs a bridge club in Thailand and makes a living, or part of a
> > > living, from it. It's a commercial venture.
>
> > > His customers are keen bridge players, but they are not experts. They
> > > play at his club for their bridge fix, and one of their few requirements
> > > is that they do not get cheated out of a decent result.
>
> > > To avoid the possibility of his customers feeling cheated, Pattaya makes
> > > a rule that psyches are not allowed. This is a sound business decision.
> > > OK, this means the game they are playing is not technically Duplicate
> > > Bridge, but his customers don't know that and they don't care either.
> > ...
> > > Comments?
>
> > I mostly agree - I might even play at the club if I happened to be there,
> > but the one thing I feel strongly about is that _there was no psych_! Even
> > it was in fact supposed to be a natural strong 2C as the bidder has said,
> > it's even less of a psych. And then 3S was not a psych by anybody's
> > definition but Pattayabridge's. So I don't object to him banning psychs,
> > as long as the club rule is made known to all newcomers - though I think
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> unnecessary agressive comments. For those unfamiliar wirh the post,
> the hand was s1093 hAK d4 cAKJ10984 and the uninterrupted bidding went
> 2c - 2d - 3c - 3h - 3s and onto 6c. The contract made when the
> opponents failed to cash the ace, king of spades. I have not defined a
> psyche, as 'BBO Expert' incorrectly implies. However, the definition
> call to create the illusion of strength or length in a particular suit
> or to conceal weakness”.
> The 3s bid would appear to contravene the latter part - concealing the
> three small in spades when I would most certainly expect a control.
Every poster on the thread has pointed out that 3S was not intended as
a bluffing call. The bidder had the following hobbesian choices:
* 3S = less than sufficient spade stopper
* 3NT = no stoppers in 2 unbid suits
* 4C = good natural description, but bypasses the most likely game
contract
* 4H = insufficient trump support and wrong type of hand for play in
hearts, and bypasses the most likely game.
All choices have serious flaws. In an expert panel, I would expect to
see votes for 3S, 4C and 4H with 3S getting the most votes and no one
would consider it a psyche.
> In a higher level competition I would expect the 3s bid to be alerted if
> it could be just three pieces.
3S does not necessarily show a suit. it's usually bid on a fragment as
an attempt to get to 3NT.
> It appears that I am in the minority here, perhaps my English
> is so bad that I mis-interpret "conceal weakness'?
There is nothing wrong with your English, but you did leave out the
beginning of the sentence where it specified, "A bluffing call to
create the illusion..." 3S was not a bluffing call, even if the suit
was weak. It's the only advance that leaves 3NT in the picture without
overstating diamond and spade stoppers.
Suppose the auction had instead gone:
2C -- 2D
3C -- 4C
4S -- 5C
6C
This 4S call is a true bluffing call bid purely to discourage a spade
lead. Punish the psycher in this case if you like, but not on the
actual hand, where 3S served a constructive purpose.
> Bill Jacobs has got everything spot on; when a regular (not too good)
> pair complain about a visiting international expert bidding a suit of
> 109x then I either repremand the bidder or lose two regular customers.
I doubt ruling against these players would lose you business. Explain
calmly that opener had no good alternatives and so made a least-of-
evils bid. Also point out that had they led either diamonds or clubs
they would have beat the hand so they had their chances for a top even
without a spade lead.
> Most clubs, with a regular
> clientel, can control this by keeping a note of all reported psyches
> and then repremand/ban the culprits. Our club is somewhat unique as
> 50% - 75% of the players are tourists. I obviously do not know the
> psychic history of visiting players and so take the simple route of
> informing visitors of the club rules and asking expereienced players
> not to psyche.
Personally, I have no problem with your choice to ban psychics in your
club.Its reasonable to try to protect junior players from destructive
tactics especially if your business depends on it. My problem is with
the broad definition of psychics that you apply.
When a player opens 1NT (12-14) holding: K, QT9x, KQTx, KT9x he is not
psyching. He has decided the hand is closer to 12-14 balanced than to
any other opening his system allows him. That is applying judgment,
not psyching. If you label this application of judgment as psyching
where does it stop? My judgment differs from conventional wisdom in
many areas--that is an advantage my experience gives me--I know when
to break conventional rules. Beginners need protection from
destructive actions not from the mild deviations that all experts use
to improve their constructive bidding.
Andrew
vincit
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> OK Vincit, I give up. The goal posts have changed since my 1984 ACBL
> book and it seems 3s is not a psyche these days.
> I retract the accusation of psyching and have put the following in
> news-sheet 298.
>
> Thank you for the clarification Vincit. The Benji-style 2c opening was
> clearly correct so that just leaves the 3s bid - which was what the
> complaint was about. I fully understand that you did not mean it as a
> psyche, but is it? I thought it was but it appears that most of the
> worldwide bridge players agree that it is not a psyche. The definition
> of a psyche from my 1984 edition of the Official Encyclopedia of
> bridge is "a bluffing call to create the illusion of strength or
> length in a particular suit or to conceal weakness". The 3s clearly
> conforms to the definition of a psyche on the last count - concealing
> weakness in the spade suit. In my opinion it was psyche but it appears
> that the ACBL have now dropped the "or to conceal weakness", so
> anything goes? One huge step backwards for mankind. The 3s bid would
> be fine in a regular partnership if it was alerted as 'waiting - could
> be just three pieces'. I do not consider 109x 'natural'. However, I
> have to bow to the majority and to the mighty god ACBL and accept that
> 3s is not a psyche under the new rules.
>
> ♠
Fair enough, but it took you a long time !
So I accept your kind invitation (still you did send it yet LOL) to a
French restaurant on soi 13/3
They have some good red wine too
Just let me know when you can set it up
So next time you challenge me you will know a good meal is at stake
The least you could do
WOULD THE FORUM ACCEPT MY RULING THIS TIME : Pattaya Bridge Club (Mr
Terry Quested) must pay me a good LUCH in a French Restaurant as a
form of apology for his "hilarious" ruling so that evrybody can move
on until the next "psych" at the pattaya bridge Club
Still I think you are totally confused in your definition of a psych,
in orde to avoid any furher incidents (with me or others) You may
consider to ban psyches ONLY when opening the bidding
You views about singleton are again totally flawed : X, HX, A, are
three different types of singleton and a 1NT 5431 with a bare H is a
semi-balanced hand !
Fohrer alias Vincit alias Smiling tiger (TERRY send me your date many
thanks !)
CBFalconer
> te...@pattayabridge.com says...
>
>> However, I have to bow to the majority and to the mighty god
>> ACBL and accept that 3s is not a psyche under the new rules.
>
> Just of curiosity, would you respond 1S to 1C opening with:
> xxxx
> AKx
> Kxx
> Kxx
>
> It conceals weakness in spades!
Yes. No it doesn't. And, depending on partners attitude, I will
be happy to play 4S.
CBFalconer
> pattayabridge <te...@pattayabridge.com> wrote:
>
... snip ...
>
>> The local rules, including the ban on psyches, are VERY clearly
>> stated on the club website under 'local rules'
>> -http://www.pattayabridge.com/LocalRules.html
>
> there either, viz:
>
> Re revokes: "In particular I note that Law 61B states that one
> defender may not ask his partner if he has revoked. This is nonsense
> in my view and most certainly will not be applied in this club."
Good local ruling, IMO.
>
> Re insufficient bids: "We need to be less strict about the rules
> when a player make an insufficient bid. As an example, suppose
> partner opens 1D and you respond 1H but it transpires that there
> was an intervening 1S overcall that you did not notice. Then the
> offender should be allowed to change his bid to a negative double
> (which means the same as 1H if there was no overcall) without
> penalty. This is not ‘standard' rules – but simply common sense
> and so what applies at our club."
Ugh. Ridiculous.
>
> Re: seeing the last trick: "The strict rules of bridge do not
> allow you to see the last trick once everybody has turned their
> card over. This can cause problems (uncertainty as to where the
> lead is etc.) and with the large number of inexperienced players
> at our friendly club we do relax this rule so that anybody may
> ask to see the cards for the last trick before any card is
> played to the next one."
Depends on the overall format. The point is that a trick should
not be hidden from a side by the speedy 'turning' of the other
side.
>
> And of course opening 1nt with a singleton is not allowed.
Ugh. Ridiculous.
CBFalconer
> CBFalconer <cbfalco...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> henrysun...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>> ... snip ...
>>
>>> Consider this responder's hand:
>>>
>>> xxx
>>> ATxx
>>> KJx
>>> xxx
>>>
>>> after the uncontested auction 1d 1h 3d ? What shall responder bid?
>>> Or more basically, what CAN responder bid?
>>>
>>> Remember, the precedent that 3s is the bidding of a non-suit would
>>> seem to imply that he can't bid 3s. Can he bid 3nt without stoppers
>>> in either unbid suit? Should he raise to 4d with his 3=4=3=3 hand?
>>> Or must he rebid 3h on his 4-bagger? What then is opener to do when
>>> he has 3 hearts?
>>
>> No problem. Opener is missing either the heart or club set, or
>> both. 3NT is not a reasonable place to play. Bid 4 D. This
>> leaves room for slam investigation.
>
>
> AKx
> x
> AQT9xx
> Axx
Yes. But even with that strength, 4 clubs and 2 spades is more
likely, and then 5D is cold. Give him 4 clubs to the AQ and 6
diamonds is on a hook.
> as opposed to being in a no-play 5d?
>
... snip ...
>
> Of course, one could argue that opener should anticipate this problem
> and rebid 2nt instead of 3d. I have no quarrel with that point of
> view. But surely the 3d rebid could not be considered wrong.
No, and it may lead to slams much more regularly than 2NT.
CBFalconer
>
... snip ...
>
> Its the attitude that "I'm the director, so I can decide which laws
> should be followed and which ones should not" that offends me.
Fine. However, at least he is taking a position, and making the
conditions more or less evident to all. I think persuading him to
revise his position is a useful thing. Pure criticism is not.
After all, the society in Thailand is probably not what you expect
in your local club.
vincit
ULTIMATE EMAIL TO Terry Quested (Pattaya Bridge club) (I am not trying
to push him in the corners)
Sorry if sometimes my English appears not to be correct, it is not my
first language, indeed I am making best endeavours to be as clear as
possible
Hello TERRY
You have decided to ask for the Forum opinions reference to 3S
NO ONE has proved you right, so you are not in the "minority" you are
ALONE
That being said, I have now read the club's rules (maybe I should have
done it sooner LOL) and you are distorting the GAME in such a way that
it cannot be called bridge anymore
Still this way of doing is totally beyong my comprehension, it is
DISCRIMINATION as no good players after having read -your rules will
ever show up
So change and/or amend them, time is of teh essence (LOL)
You have stated that any systems are allowed so if I was to play
again, I will play the following :
1C = Strong or any minimum with C
1D = 5 cards in H
1H = STRONG NT including (5431 and 4441 with a bare honnor)
1S = 5 cards 9HCP and more
1NT = Weak
2C = 55 majors or 5H4S weak or VERY STRONG
2D = D (can be 5 cards)
2H = 5H4m or weak in H
2S = 5S4m or weak in S
2NT = AKQxxx in D or 65
3X = undiciplined prempts
3NT = constructive prempt in H
4C = 65
4D = 65
Can I play this system in your club ? (you said any system is
allowed!)
PLEASE CONFIRM
As already mentioned your views reference to the definition of a psych
are totally flawed and you do not seem to be 100% convinced, let me
tell you if you call the director on the 3S bid in a high level
competition, you'll make a fool of yourself and you may even get a
WARNING for your attempt.
I am now waiting your invitation, and promise I will not order the
more expensive wine the 600 Baths bottle will be fine, you can also
invite any of your bridge's customer.
FAIR ENOUGH ?
Fohrer alias smiling tiger alias vincit
vincit
SECOND ULTIMATE MAIL TO PATTAYA BRIDGE AWAITING MY INVITATION TO THE
NEARBY FRENCH RESTAURANT !
Terry
You did not give the whole auction
2C - 2D - 3C - 3H - 3S - 4NT - 5H - 6C
In this auction in my opinion 4NT "should" not be Blackwood it
"should" show 6H balanced with a desire to play 6 somewhere
At table I knew it was Blackwood as for average and beginners 4NT is
always BW
If one is to say 4NT as a BW it is the opener
Was the 4NT a psych? according to your statements it has to be a psych
Did I make anything wrong answering a BW ?
If I bid 4C on the way to slam instead of 3S dont you think I do
confirm a spade stopper
So according to what you say this is a "bluff" a very serious psych to
inhibit the Spade lead on the way to 6C
You mentioned singleton are not allowed etc etc
You are not specific enough
x that is a singleton
K/Q that is a bare honor
A that is a bare Ace
For instance :
You "wil"l splinter with a singleton in a fit situtation and you will
not open 1NT with a 5431 and a x
You "will not" splinter (in my views not my style) with a bare Ace and
will not open 1NT
You "will" not splinter (only my opinion) with a bare K/Q and will
open 1NT on a 5431
UNLESS you are using transfer splinters and you have a tool that may
help you out in these situations
So these "singletons" are different types of "objects" they behave
quite differently depending upon the auction and their value keep
changing if you consider the dynamics of competitive bidding
ARE YOU CONVINCED?
All the best
Fohrer (alias smiling tiger alias vincit)
raija d
"vincit" <jf.f...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:38885f01-ced4-4cac...@z11g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
Terry
For instance :
ARE YOU CONVINCED?
All the best
*********
Don't beat a dead horse... :)
vincit
> "vincit" <jf.foh...@mac.com> wrote in message
Hello Pataya bridge club
Lets dare the oxymoron : you silence is very noisy !
You have stated in your web site : "any system is allowed" : Forcing
Pass is allowed ? (Please confirm)
Another thing why do keep quoting Standard American System and ACBL
Do these codes and/or systems have any "jurisdiction" here ?
Most players are European (some players from Norway, Sweden are known
international players and they show time from time to time in the high
season)
And as such we do not want to hear about SAYC (one of the worst system
ever created) or ACBL
Why dont you refer to the EBL or the WBF and just use a 5 card major
opening and let the players agree on other issues
Also many players in your club are usind 2D multi, being begginers
this is laughable, also they should not use Weak two bids as it
requires good judgment !
Finally you should ban Blackwood as it is a difficult and dangerous
gadget when misused
Smiling tiger still awaiting his invitation for a good lunch and being
very thirsty !!
vincit
>
> news:38885f01-ced4-4cac...@z11g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 27, 4:59 am, CBFalconer <cbfalco...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > henrysun...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > pattayabridge <te...@pattayabridge.com> wrote:
>
> > ... snip ...
>
> > >> The local rules, including the ban on psyches, are VERY clearly
> > >> stated on the club website under 'local rules'
> > >> -http://www.pattayabridge.com/LocalRules.html
>
> > > I've just reviewed that link. It seems that I won't be playing
> > > there either, viz:
>
> > > Re revokes: "In particular I note that Law 61B states that one
> > > defender may not ask his partner if he has revoked. This is nonsense
> > > in my view and most certainly will not be applied in this club."
>
> > Good local ruling, IMO.
>
> > > Re insufficient bids: "We need to be less strict about the rules
> > > when a player make an insufficient bid. As an example, suppose
> > > partner opens 1D and you respond 1H but it transpires that there
> > > was an intervening 1S overcall that you did not notice. Then the
> > > offender should be allowed to change his bid to a negative double
> > > (which means the same as 1H if there was no overcall) without
MESSAGE TO PATTAYA BRIDGE CLUB
Terry, I have just read the 298 newssheet on your website !
What is going on with you !
Still you have published my email which were only intended for your
eyes
You are not giving the real picture
Furthermore you wrote "It seems that bridge players worldwide consider
♠109x a biddable suit, no a psyche" which is not a confusing statement
Please rectify, the truth is : 3S is a technical and natural bid (not
a biddable suit as no ' card suit is promised)
Also as you made a big deal out of "nothing" you should be more
explicit in your 298 and copy the very good reasons that were duly
explained to you
For the moment you have the benefit of the doubt but again I am very
surprised of how you have related this Board
Why dont you publish my other emails in the 298 ?
You are totally wrong as proven by the Forum's authorised opinions,
your analysis (and not only this one) is flawed, your ruling is
outrageous, you obviously are very stubborn
So please copy the reasons why you are mistaken according to the
Forum, anybody can be wrong, everybody can make mistakes and act too
quickly as you did in your ruling resulting in a "hilarious" ruling,
as I was a victim of your position and lack of knowledge , and I was
slighly p.... off
Now you have rectify in a more straightforward and cristall clear way
as you're still implying you were right and this is not correct,
english is not my first language as already stated, still I feel a
touch of sarcastism and irony in your 298
THE ONLY THING YOU HAVE TO DO IS : apologize and buy me a lunch (bis
repetita) and be ashamed and if you're a nice man you will swear you
will never do it again (LOL)
Should you not do it, I will do it myself ..... as I would consider
you're being dishonnest
I told you already if you do not change your rules you CANNOT claim it
is a bridge club, maybe you can call it a "mini bridge" club or a
"semi-bridge" club as you said there were "semi-psyches" (I do not
know what this animal is)
Still I am waiting both for your invitation and for a clear
description of the answers you've got
AGAIN 3S IS NOT A SUIT understood ? Or is it a lost cause ? I already
told you 2C would deny a two suiters !
So act now
vincit
INDEED ABOVE ONE HAS TO READ : Furthermore you wrote "It seems that
bridge players worldwide consider ♠109x a biddable suit, no a psyche"
WHICH A CONFUSING STATEMENT
ahri
> > Just of curiosity, would you respond 1S to 1C opening with:
> > xxxx
> > AKx
> > Kxx
> > Kxx
> >
> > It conceals weakness in spades!
>
> Yes. No it doesn't. And, depending on partners attitude, I will
> be happy to play 4S.
I did not ask anyone with common sense, I asked pattaya :).
ahri
says...
> > Completely agree with you. After such speach, I can't see why he did ask
> > for opinion on this group at all, if he is making up his own rules.
> > Analysis are completely hillarious tho :).
>
> Apparently Eddie (at the Pattaya club) supported him - so he's got agreement
> from _one_ person.
Using his words: he found his kind :).
CBFalconer
>
... snip ...
>
> Still I think you are totally confused in your definition of a
> psych, in orde to avoid any furher incidents (with me or others)
> You may consider to ban psyches ONLY when opening the bidding
> You views about singleton are again totally flawed : X, HX, A,
> are three different types of singleton and a 1NT 5431 with a
> bare H is a semi-balanced hand !
Of course he would consider:
A Kx Kx AKJxxxxx
opening the auction with 3NT to be a psyche. Only 18 points, and
definitely unbalanced. I'll even give up one of the kings. I'll
also admit there are probably better bids.
vincit
MESSAGE FROM TERRY QUESTED TO SMILIGTIGER
You can play any system you llike as long as EVERYTHING unexpected is
alerted. If there is a failure to alert by you OR YOUR PARTNER then
you may well be penalised and get an unfavourable adjusted score. I
suggest you fill out a convention card - I will not do that for you.
Next time a beginner latches on to you I will happily leave him
playing with you.
As to the two psyche posting, I would not have posted it if your first
e-mail complaint had said that you were playing Benjamin type twos. It
was the fact that TWO dubious bids were made on the same hand that
initiated the post. Your first e-mail implied that 2c was normal and
EVERYBODY on the forum said it was an overbid.
You can go along to any restaurant you like and wait for me, it will
be a long wait.
If you don't like the club rules, then don't come - it's that simple.
I am most certainly not changing any rules for you.
Terry Quested
Director and webmaster of the Pattaya Bridge Club.
tel 038 422924 or 038 424909
e-mail: -
pattay...@yahoo.com or
te...@pattayabridge.com
ANSWER FROM SMILIGTIGER
Hi Terry
2C strong did not refer to the way the Americans play it
I do not know about Benjamin, it is just the way evrybody's play it in
Europe (2C Strong/2D GF normally you would answer your aces and/or
control)
It was alerted they did not ask anything
BUT AS YOU SAID IT WAS ONLY THE 3S BID THAT WAS THE ISSUE
I asked the "beginner" not him to play with me as he is a very nice
guy
Fine anyway we are allowed overbids and poor judgement aren't we ?
The bids were dubious ONLY in your imagination actually 3S is a very
natural smart bid
Your final answer shows how stubborn you're are
It was your choice to ask for a Forum's ruling not mine
I would have expected you to apologise as any "educated" person would
have done in such a situation but it is a lost cause, this type of
behavious is beyond my comprehension
Finally I think you should post the main significant answers that you
got on the board (of course not the one that you consider rude) or I
will make a booklet and give it to every single player of the club
myself, it that all right with you ?
Please inform, me ASAP
Sincerely yours and many thanks we had a good fun !
vincit
ND FINALLY
I am not going to waste my time answering any more of your silly e-
mails.
vincit
> te...@pattayabridge.com
NEWS FROM PATTAYA WEB SITE (LOL)
Bandwidth Limit Exceeded
The server is temporarily unable to service your request due to the
site owner reaching his/her bandwidth limit. Please try again later.
Apache/1.3.37 Server at pattayabridge.com Port 80
vincit
> In article <92c95dce-d9e3-4bd9-be0a-55a703f57073
> @p10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, henrysun...@yahoo.com says...
>
> <cut>
>
> Well, at least we now know that they play some fun game that sounds
> close to bridge. Not sure why he asked opinion on this group tho.
Vincit is a LIAR. You can refer to a previous post that pattayabridge
openly retracted the accusation of a psyche, so the section 'he
maintained his decision 3S is a psych' in the above entry is clearly
untrue. I also have an e-mail from him to confirm that he read the
post. As to the 2c opening (refer to the two psyches in one hand
entry) Vincit is again a LIAR. His partner was playing Standard
American (I have confirmation of this, and I also have an e-mail from
Vincit, which he DEMANDED I not reproduce on the internet, where he
says that a standard 2c is the correct opening bid). And by "demand",
I mean that he even threatened to take me to court if his e-mail was
not deleted from the internet! The auction also confims that 2c was
standard and most certainly not Benji-style, his partner (who has
never ever played anything but basic Standard American) obviously
thought that he had a standard 2c opener. Also, if you actually bother
to read the mentioned news-sheet about the 1NT overcall,
pattayabridge (i.e. Terry) did indeed bid 1NT but stated very clearly
in the news-sheet that dbl was a better bid. Vincit has problems. I
asked him not to e-mail me any more. He has sent me over 40 spam e-
mails when I explicitely said I did not want to hear from him any
more. They are mostly unread and I have stored then in a J-F_garbage
file. Before Vincit had his apparent problems he included the
following in an e-mail to me:
"Your Web site is great, your news is very interesting (still I
disagree on many things) as it makes me think of many situations I can
analyse. Your interference of 1NT with the stopper and the shortness
is perfectly correct and it is absurd to state you have psyched"
So, on July 23rd , Vincit said in an e-mail to me that that 1NT was
"perfectly correct". Funny how it has suddenly changed into something
worth sending to the forum, especially when I clearly stated in the
news sheet that 1NT was the bid I made at the table but that dbl was a
better bid - please read the news sheet - www.pattayabridge.com/news_sheet/2008/News296.htm
- to be sure that it is not me who is a liar.
I do not claim to be a great bridge player, but I am well above
average and do put a lot of effort into promoting the game. Please
have a look at the web-site, www.pattayabridge.com . Even Vincit says
that the "website is great". Have a look at the guestmap to see what
visitors think of our club having played there, and what people think
of the website.
I have posted nothing on this forum for days, Vincit goes on and on
and on ....
I have written 298 news sheets to date, I expect at least one or two
articles in each to be questionable - so expect about 600 more post
from the unstoppable Vincit.
I am totally sick of Vincit; enough is enough, but not for him.
Is this forum really the place for people like Vincit to be
vindictive? I run a very sucessful, friendly bridge club. I have a
"great website" (Vincit quote) with weekly news-sheets and conventions
section for anybody to read or download free of charge. I do a lot for
the game. Not everybody will agree with everything I say and I am
probably quite frequently wrong. Unlike Vincit, I am happy to admit
when I am wrong. Vincit is never wrong? Funny how NOBODY liked his 2c
opening.
Enough, Vincit, I strongly suggest that you drop your vendetta against
pattayabridge. I know that your aim is to make pattayabridge look
foolish, but
keep at it and everybody will realise who is the fool. Look in the
mirror.
It is well known that the game is not getting enough players, do you
think that my efforts, or the antics of Vincit, are likely to get new
recruits?
It would be nice to know how many other members think that Vincit
should stop.
Incidentally, the club did ban Vincit. Good riddance, we can do
without his type.
Smiling tiger? Maybe smiling ass.
vincit
openly retracted the accusation of a psyche, so the section 'he
maintained his decision 3S is a psych' in the above entry is clearly
untrue.
YOU HAVE TO RETRACT IT AT YOUR CLUB NOT HERE AND LET EVRYBODY KNOW WAS
NOT CORRECT
Vincit
I also have an e-mail from him to confirm that he read the
post. As to the 2c opening (refer to the two psyches in one hand
entry) Vincit is again a LIAR. His partner was playing Standard
American (I have confirmation of this, and I also have an e-mail from
Vincit,
I PLAYED WITH YOU 2C/2D STRONG WHY NOT WITH HIM ?
I TOLD HIM WE PLAY 5 CARD MAJOR NOT A STANDARD US SYSTEM
which he DEMANDED I not reproduce on the internet, where he
says that a standard 2c is the correct opening bid). And by "demand",
I mean that he even threatened to take me to court if his e-mail was
not deleted from the internet!
BECAUSE YOU MENTIONED MY FULL NAME AND THERE WAS PRIVACY ISSUES THAT
HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CONTENT !
The auction also confims that 2c was
standard and most certainly not Benji-style, his partner (who has
never ever played anything but basic Standard American) obviously
thought that he had a standard 2c opener.
I TOLD YOU 2C IS STANDARD STRONG 2C IN EUROPE NOT US 2C GF BUT WHY IS
IT A PROBLEM AS 3S IS THE ISSUE
Also, if you actually bother
to read the mentioned news-sheet about the 1NT overcall,
pattayabridge (i.e. Terry) did indeed bid 1NT but stated very clearly
in the news-sheet that dbl was a better bid.
YOU BID 1NT AND MAYBE YOU WERE DRUNK !
Vincit has problems. I
asked him not to e-mail me any more. He has sent me over 40 spam e-
mails when I explicitely said I did not want to hear from him any
more. They are mostly unread and I have stored then in a J-F_garbage
file.
YES BUT YOU STILL READ THEM (LOL) BUT WONT HAPPEN AGAIN, YOU WERE
BEING FREE BRIDGE LESSONS
Before Vincit had his apparent problems he included the
following in an e-mail to me:
"Your Web site is great, your news is very interesting (still I
disagree on many things) as it makes me think of many situations I can
analyse. Your interference of 1NT with the stopper and the shortness
is perfectly correct and it is absurd to state you have psyched"
So, on July 23rd , Vincit said in an e-mail to me that that 1NT was
"perfectly correct".
A SENSE OF HUMOUR AS AN ENGLISHMAN YOU SHOULD KNOW WHAT I AM TALKING
ABOUT
QUOTE THE SECOND ONE YOU HAVE A TWO PAGE SUMMARY WHY 1NT IS HILARIOUS
(ALSO I USED PAVLICEK UTILITY TO GIVE YOU A PICTURE OF THE HAND)
YOU "L..E" BY OMISSION
Funny how it has suddenly changed into something
worth sending to the forum, especially when I clearly stated in the
news sheet that 1NT was the bid I made at the table but that dbl was a
better bid - please read the news sheet -www.pattayabridge.com/
news_sheet/2008/News296.htm
- to be sure that it is not me who is a liar.
YES ANYTHING BETTER THAN 1NT
I do not claim to be a great bridge player, but I am well above
average
DO NOT BE A BRAGGART ! THE AVERAGE IN THAILAND ?
and do put a lot of effort into promoting the game. Please
have a look at the web-site,www.pattayabridge.com. Even Vincit says
that the "website is great". Have a look at the guestmap to see what
visitors think of our club having played there, and what people think
of the website.
YES YOUR SITE IS GREAT AND I LIKE IT
I CAN PERUSE ALL THE SHEETS EASILY
I have posted nothing on this forum for days, Vincit goes on and on
and on ....
I have written 298 news sheets to date, I expect at least one or two
articles in each to be questionable - so expect about 600 more post
from the unstoppable Vincit.
YOU MOSTLY GIVE RECIPES THAT ARE ALL QUESTIONABLE
BUT YOUR TARGET COMPLETE BEGINNERS SO NO PROBLEM
I am totally sick of Vincit; enough is enough, but not for him.
LOL
Is this forum really the place for people like Vincit to be
vindictive?
NO I AM JUST VINCIT-IVE
SOMETIMES A PAIN IN THE NECK, I KNOW ALREADY
I run a very sucessful, friendly bridge club.
TRUE
I have a
"great website" (Vincit quote) with weekly news-sheets and conventions
section for anybody to read or download free of charge. I do a lot for
the game. Not everybody will agree with everything I say and I am
probably quite frequently wrong.
YES VERY TRUE
Unlike Vincit, I am happy to admit
when I am wrong. Vincit is never wrong? Funny how NOBODY liked his 2c
opening.
BECAUSE YOU SAID IT WAS A US 2C STRONG BID AND IT IS NOT
SHOULD IT BE IT WOULD BE A GROSS OVERBID (maybe a very bad bid), SO
WHAT
I TELL YOU FROM MY PERSPECTIVE IT WAS A STRONG 2C (C/D/H/S/NT)
Enough, Vincit, I strongly suggest that you drop your vendetta against
pattayabridge. I know that your aim is to make pattayabridge look
foolish,
NO NOT AT ALL ..... YOU DONT NEED ME
but
keep at it and everybody will realise who is the fool. Look in the
mirror.
IF YOU INSIST ...
It is well known that the game is not getting enough players, do you
think that my efforts, or the antics of Vincit, are likely to get new
recruits?
I HAVE ALWAYS BEEN VERY NICE WITH YOUR CLIENTELE
I AM NOT SURE THEY ARE ALL AWARE OF WHAT YOU'RE DOING
It would be nice to know how many other members think that Vincit
should stop.
Incidentally, the club did ban Vincit. Good riddance, we can do
without his type.
Smiling tiger? Maybe smiling ass.
OK JUST CONFIRM IT OFFICIALLY
THE CLUB MEANS YOU CORRECT?