[bluejak]

barmar, on 2011-January-01, 03:44, said:

He seems to be on a campaign for "proper English" in online forums. He also blasted someone last night on r.g.b. for the contraction "y'all", which is common synonym for "you" (usually in the plural sense) in the American south.

No, I did not.

For a start, I do not blast people: I make occasional fairly humorous comments about such things. Blasting sounds malicious: my efforts are meant to be humorous.

Secondly I am not aware of any such post about y'all.

[bluejak]

nige1, on 2010-December-31, 21:03, said:

Assuming standard methods, any sane authoritative source would classify North's opening bid as a psych. As a passed hand, South could hardly hold a better hand for a double. IMO South fielded the psych so it is a red psych. Nevertheless, I remember similar past cases, where directors defended such actions, boasting about similar coups they had, themselves, accomplished. Such ploys are easy to rationalise. Directors almost always condone this kind of fielding. In the absence of any realistic sanction, it is hard to persuade players that they have done anything wrong. So cheating implications are ridiculous.

I consider the clause "Directors almost always condone this kind of fielding" libelous. This sort of psyche is nearly always adjudged to be Red. Your statement is just not true.

[bluejak]

blackshoe, on 2011-January-01, 00:17, said:

"Gonna" is a common slang term in the US. Not the Queen's English? Oh well.

There may be some bit of information I'm missing here, but the evidence presented in your post, David, does not lead me to conclude it was a psych. It may have been. It may also have been a misbid. Granted it may not matter, since both fall under your "traffic light" regulations.

I suppose I should go back and read the entire thread, but it's late and I'm tired.

I do not understand how opening a hand with five HCP can be labeled a misbid. What did he do, imagine two aces?

[alphatango]

bluejak, on 2011-January-01, 10:09, said:

I do not understand how opening a hand with five HCP can be labeled a misbid. What did he do, imagine two aces?

Possible misbid thought process:

"Both minors, weak hand. Have a bid for that; should I use it? ...[some thoughts later]... OK, I'll bid."
1D, then:
"Oh no, I meant to bid [relevant call showing weak hand with both minors]! Too late now."

Stranger things have happened.

[ggwhiz]

A possible source seems vaguely familiar in the ACBL actions taken regarding Marty Bergens mayhem with weak 2's.

If I remember right, the regulation on the legality of weak 2's was written as within 1 card of length AND 2 HCP's for strength.

This is certainly a psyche by any authority I am aware of and fielded unless N/S can prove otherwise.

[nige1]

bluejak, on 2011-January-01, 10:07, said:

I consider the clause "Directors almost always condone this kind of fielding" libelous. This sort of psyche is nearly always adjudged to be Red. Your statement is just not true.

My criticism is directed at rules rather than directors. Criticising a profession is less libellous than repeatedly branding named individuals as liars or worse. Should moderators condone the latter? I write from my own bridge-experience and from what I read in fora like this. Presumably, Bluejak has forgotten endless threads in previous fora, where directors defended light third-in-hand openers that other directors considered to be patently illegal. (David Burn categorised the practice in stronger terms). Bluejak has access to EBU/WBU records. If I'm mistaken about current practice, then Bluejak can tell us how many such red-psychs were recorded and what the sanctions were.

[bluejak]

Of course I cannot quote figures. But talking about threads on these forums is just a complete red herring: judging by the threads here you would think that there is a dispute about nearly every claims, when about one claim in a few hundred actually gets challenged.

It is perfectly normal for a complete psyche third in hand to be treated as Red when partner with a maximum pass does not treat it as such and a few odd threads does not mean that is not true.

Making a libelous criticism of TDs in general based on this sort of lack of evidence is not acceptable.

[nige1]

bluejak, on 2011-January-01, 13:03, said:

Of course I cannot quote figures. But talking about threads on these forums is just a complete red herring: judging by the threads here you would think that there is a dispute about nearly every claims, when about one claim in a few hundred actually gets challenged. It is perfectly normal for a complete psyche third in hand to be treated as Red when partner with a maximum pass does not treat it as such and a few odd threads does not mean that is not true. Making a libelous criticism of TDs in general based on this sort of lack of evidence is not acceptable.

Spuriously accusing an individual of libel is libellous. When Bridge legislatures start collecting, collating, and publishing statistics, Bluejak's and my views will be based on more than our experience.

In spite of Bluejak's contentions:

• Here, many posters classify this psych as amber at worst (not red).
• Players regard many claims as faulty but few challenge or appeal them. Again a problem with the laws rather than directors.

[jallerton]

bluejak, on 2010-December-31, 16:13, said:

My advice was that it was clearly a psyche, since they cannot have an agreement to open lighter than 8 HCP, and that it was Red. I did ask whether they had any disclosed agreement to open light in third and the answer seemed to be No. If so, then it becomes even more clearly a psyche.

The person who asked me was more worried about the arguments as to whether it was a psyche. He felt it was Amber.

There have been a few instances of this type of auction recently and I am a little concerned that there is no consensus view on where the line is drawn. Why would you have classified this as 'red' rather than 'amber'? Do you agree with the wording of the White Book paragraph quoted by Campboy, or would it be better/clearer if this said 10HCP (or 9HCP) rather than 11HCP?

[RMB1]

jallerton, on 2011-January-01, 14:55, said:

Do you agree with the wording of the White Book paragraph quoted by Campboy, or would it be better/clearer if this said 10HCP (or 9HCP) rather than 11HCP?

Surely this White Book paragraph should be part of the permitted opening bid regulations, added to EBU Orange Book 11C10 (quoted up-thread): "Whatever strength is agreed for an opening bid, it is not permitted to agree that responder may Pass a 1NT overcall with 11HCP or more."

[TimG]

I still wonder how 11 HCP (let alone the 10 in the opening post) can be a mandatory double opposite a 3rd seat opening. Even if you don't have an agreement to open "extremely" light in 3rd seat, there is no assurance that the deck isn't split pretty evenly.

[pooltuna]

barmar, on 2011-January-01, 03:44, said:

He seems to be on a campaign for "proper English" in online forums. He also blasted someone last night on r.g.b. for the contraction "y'all", which is common synonym for "you" (usually in the plural sense) in the American south.

y'all better simma down now or y'all gonna be retagged blak&blujak

[barmar]

bluejak, on 2011-January-01, 10:05, said:

No, I did not.

For a start, I do not blast people: I make occasional fairly humorous comments about such things. Blasting sounds malicious: my efforts are meant to be humorous.

Secondly I am not aware of any such post about y'all.

Sorry, it wasn't you, it was someone named Derek. You were in the thread (it's in "Comment on ruling"), and his reaction to "y'all" was very similar to your reaction here to "gonna", so I assumed it was you over there without checking.

[barmar]

alphatango, on 2011-January-01, 10:53, said:

Possible misbid thought process:

"Both minors, weak hand. Have a bid for that; should I use it? ...[some thoughts later]... OK, I'll bid."
1D, then:
"Oh no, I meant to bid [relevant call showing weak hand with both minors]! Too late now."

Stranger things have happened.

"I had a deuce mixed in with my Aces."

[campboy]

TimG, on 2011-January-01, 16:12, said:

I still wonder how 11 HCP (let alone the 10 in the opening post) can be a mandatory double opposite a 3rd seat opening. Even if you don't have an agreement to open "extremely" light in 3rd seat, there is no assurance that the deck isn't split pretty evenly.

If defending them in 1NTx with half the deck between you is a worst case scenario, it's a pretty good one. I would think the fact that your side's points are more evenly split than theirs makes 1NT favourite to go down even then. The fact that doubler is a passed hand also makes it easy for partner to pull if he has a light distributional opening. Obviously the gains from doubling when partner doesn't have a minimum hand can be very significant. It would be much more dangerous to double a 12-14 opening 1NT with 16 points, but most people would consider that auto.

[StevenG]

campboy, on 2011-January-01, 18:13, said:

If defending them in 1NTx with half the deck between you is a worst case scenario, it's a pretty good one. I would think the fact that your side's points are more evenly split than theirs makes 1NT favourite to go down even then. The fact that doubler is a passed hand also makes it easy for partner to pull if he has a light distributional opening. Obviously the gains from doubling when partner doesn't have a minimum hand can be very significant. It would be much more dangerous to double a 12-14 opening 1NT with 16 points, but most people would consider that auto.

It seems to me that it's also risky, as it gives opponents the chance to escape from a bad contract (or to get a huge score if a running suit allows them to sneak home). Certainly, if opponents are vulnerable, my preference is to pass (which I can do quite ethically, as my partners never psych) and take my +200, which is often the best score available and rarely a disaster.

I too find the EBU position seriously flawed.

[mjj29]

nige1, on 2011-January-01, 13:30, said:

Here, many posters classify this psych as amber at worst (not red).

Yes, but the only ones which get posted here are the ones where it is unclear whether it was fielded or not - ergo likely to be judged amber. If it were clearly red or clearly green, noone would bother asking this forum, so there's an in built bias to be expected.

[bluejak]

One thing I never understand is why, if you have ten points after pass pass 1X 1NT, people assume the points are split 20-20. Someone actually said so in this thread. If th points are split 10-0-15-15 around the table pass is going to get a seriously bad result. Of course pass may be right if partner is guaranteed never to have extras. This guarantee appears [strangely] to be implicit in many people's thinking both here and elsewhere this matter is discussed.

People also seem to assume that everyone opens very light third in hand. Fine: such an agreement is disclosable. If someone writes on their SC "We open every eight point hand third in hand" [a perfectly legal agreement in the EBU] then no doubt passing on this hand is not Red. The pair concerned did not. If players do not bother to write their agreements on their SC why should we not rule against them?

As a player I think passing with 10 HCP very poor bridge: I do not do it nor expect my partners to do so. So if I psyche and partner passes with 10 HCP there is strong evidence that this is Red. If players are playing a system whereby this is not the case why on earth do they not disclose it? Simple: they are not playing such a system: they are just fielding a psyche.

Please let me remind you which often seems forgotten [much more so in posts on RGB, to be fair]: a psyche is a deliberate major deviation from a pair's agreed methods. Furthermore, a pair's agreed methods are required to be fully and freely disclosed. So presuming they are playing something that they have not disclosed for whatever reason, even utter laziness, is not the way to rule.

As to the EBU wording, if you like to read it again, it does not say 10 HCP is not Red, despite people assuming it does.

[TimG]

bluejak, on 2011-January-02, 07:19, said:

One thing I never understand is why, if you have ten points after pass pass 1X 1NT, people assume the points are split 20-20. Someone actually said so in this thread.

I thought maybe I has been sloppy in my wording and you were referring to me, but I said:

Quote

Even if you don't have an agreement to open "extremely" light in 3rd seat, there is no assurance that the deck isn't split pretty evenly.

which seems far from assuming such a split, rather it is just allowing for the possibility. Those people who open light in 3rd seat and then pass a balanced 10 count when 4th hand overcalls 1N must think they gain more from the pesky 3rd hand openings than they lose from them. Or, perhaps they just play bad bridge. There's nothing in the rules against playing bad bridge, is there?

I think it is common for people to open light in 3rd seat and don't think it is unusual enough that special disclosure must be made, it is simply general bridge knowledge. If asked about style, of course, full disclosure should be practiced, I'm not suggesting hiding agreements or tendencies. Just that a tendency to open a bit light in 3rd seat is just bridge in many people's opinion.

I wonder if someone would often open 1♠ in third seat holding ♠KQTx ♥xx ♦Axx ♣xxxx, must they alert? (Or, make special note on the SC?)

[campboy]

TimG, on 2011-January-02, 10:18, said:

I think it is common for people to open light in 3rd seat and don't think it is unusual enough that special disclosure must be made, it is simply general bridge knowledge. If asked about style, of course, full disclosure should be practiced, I'm not suggesting hiding agreements or tendencies. Just that a tendency to open a bit light in 3rd seat is just bridge in many people's opinion.

I wonder if someone would often open 1♠ in third seat holding ♠KQTx ♥xx ♦Axx ♣xxxx, must they alert? (Or, make special note on the SC?)

Light openings are not alertable (at least, not for that reason), but in the EBU, where this was, special mention must be made on the CC. The CC says, by the space for 1suit openings, "Please enter your normal HCP range in the HCP column. Please tick box if you have any special agreements involving different values in particular positions (e.g. light openings in third seat) and include further details under Supplementary Details."