Xiaolongnu

Ah I see. I think I got it. You are trying to say that opening 1♦ is always legal because of the following. It is not a psyche cos it is agreed, neither does it look anywhere near like a psyche. On the other hand, the agreement itself is not brown sticker because brown sticker conventions are (roughly speaking) preempts and overcalls that are weak (in other words disturbing bids) that do not have an anchor suit. Opening 1♦ has no anchor suit but it is not weak. What would be illegal would be for example like I have said earlier, opening 2♠ on the green against red third seat with anything (or, to be geeky, with either weak 2 in spades or not a weak 2 in spades). We agree to play weak 2's, and we also agree to psyche whenever it is tempting to, so this psychic bid is in this sense "required" by system. Did I get my facts right, my seniors?

Anyone plays any MMORPG or online games? I used to play Valkyrie Sky but it closed down. Now trying to look for a game as good as that. I have played and liked Utopia too, many years back.

I post lots of bridge related articles on Facebook. I find it a good way to keep those not so active bridge players still in touch with the game. But yes the lack of control is a problem. And considering how a fair number of those friends are not really friends, you never know when they would backstab you. But then again, that is social media for us so I just take it as a chance to practise my public speaking skills there. Or set privacy settings. Or a balance of both.

Hi everyone. My name is Kane Tan, though my fellow Singaporeans will know me by my Chinese name Wen Yuan, or my BBO name Xiaolongnu. I am 25 this year. I started bridge 7 years ago but only started seriously playing 4 years ago, that is, during my university days (: I just graduated and the future is both bright and uncertain for me. I like cats very much, almost as much as I like bridge. Singapore is a country with a good balance of greenery and economy. The bridge field in Singapore (from what I observe) is made of more guys than ladies, among the younger players, about 50-50 among the middle aged and a little more guys by percentage among the senior players. I have very little overseas bridge experience except online play, and would like to have some exposure to the outside world some day.

bluejak, I totally agree that this is a confusing problem. In fact, I grew up in such an environment because my master plays Precision with short diamond, which is rather popular in my country. Their 1D opening could be a singleton, some pairs play it even as could be void. Of course it could also mean a hand in the Precision opening range (the Standard minimum opening range) with diamonds as the primary characteristic. But, does this mean, that this is not allowed? Cos from how I understand, such a bid is something that others might believe is a psyche but is not really, which you believe is the meaning of psyche required by system, which is in turn a brown sticker convention, illegal in club games. Or is this a totally different thing?

According to the WBF Psychic Bidding Guidelines, it seems like it is brown sticker to agree that in certain situations a psyche is expected. Is this the meaning of a psychic bid "required" by system? I totally agree that the term is a logical contradiction. For example, in lower levels I am not allowed to define that in the third seat, green against red, my partner or I is expected to psyche, to be exact, an opening of whatever does not necessarily promise an anchor suit. I would appreciate some comments on my understanding of this. I think the spirit of the law for classifying these bids as brown sticker is cos they don't want people "posing off" their brown preempts and overcalls as psyches. In the sense, in the absence of this rule, I could probably do the following. I claim that my 2S opening is natural weak 6 carded spade. But I agree secretly (and unethically) with my partner that what it really means is that I have either two majors or two minors, which is a (rather common and incredibly useful) brown sticker convention. Then, when I pull it off at the table and opps think my partner has a real spade suit and miss 6S, for example, and call the director, I could argue that we are not playing brown conventions, we have merely psyched, and it is not MI either cos the convention card clearly states that I explained correctly. In other words, players could cheat like this. The purpose of this rule is to disallow such clever and dirty solutions, and we extrapolate to any psyches that are "required" by system in general. Do you guys think I have understood this rule correctly?

Will anyone please give an example of a psychic bid required or protected by system?

Wow...I am honoured! I didn't know what to do so I called this panel of online directors to tell this story about 24 hours ago. I did not expect such a huge panel of directors to have responded. Thank you all of you very much for your ideas. I have questions. I am Kane from Singapore. I am a director. I am very junior into directing, but I have pride and take great pride in my directing. To ggwhiz: That is what I thought. Thank you. To aguahombre: I think then those are not exactly kibitzers but more of para-officials (for lack of a better word). I am referring to random kibitzers on their own initiative and have no written authority to do any of these. To blackshoe: Yes, of course in the context of ruling, guy and girl does not make a difference. But here I am appalled and especially disturbed by the observation that here an old man is bullying a young girl. She is only a high school student! He ought to be if anything more lenient and not too strict about rules on a new player! Instead he tries to "pull rank", makes use of the Asian society's unwritten rules that the young must give way and obey the old, to his own advantage. This is the breaking straw that made me consider the offence so grave that it warrants discussing it at a cross country level. And yes, I totally agree about directors who want an easy life, having worked with such prideless directors before. To bluejak: I don't mean bullying as in physical or verbal abuse. I meant bullying as in trying to self rule, which means that from my judgment it is a case of he knows a little bit about the rules, then, as an older player, tries to "lord over" the younger player. Would you consider this a disciplinary offence? As I mentioned I am particularly inclined to categorize this as bullying as like I said, the victim is a young girl while the offender is an old man. PS: Side issue, I like cats too, how could I list it as one of my interests? (: One final thing, the conclusion. So this means the correct righteous action is to inform the director away from the table? Thank you everyone (:

I post this question to directors of the world. Law 76B5 states that "A spectator at the table shall not draw attention to any aspect of the game." But what happens when a kibitzer sees an injustice so grave that he must by ethics do something about it? I have received word of a case where a player bullies another player on the table. The offender was a guy and his opponent was declarer and she was a girl. When she dropped a card on the table by accident, he told her that "this is a penalty card, leave it on the table", which is clearly nonsense. A kibitzer witnessed this. The director is not nearby. What should the kibitzer do? From the kibitzer's judgment, he has good reason to believe that besides the infraction of not calling the director, the offender could have been intentionally bullying the opponent. Common sense seems to tell us that in this type of situation, he should go and tell the director about it. Is he allowed to? I think so. The justification is that by doing so (telling the director discreetly), the kibitzer is not "drawing attention" to anything at the table. Then, when the director comes and instructs the kibitzer to explain what happened, the kibitzer may then "speak as to fact or law" safely, as he is, now, "requested to do so by the director". I justify this by believing that the spirit of the law behind 76B5 is that a kibitzer is not allowed to disturb a player or give UI to him. Giving information to the director (and righting an injustice) is not considered doing anything "unfair" to the progress of the game.

A teammate of mine suggested the following use for the 2♠ bid. Suppose the bidding goes 1♥ - 1NT - 2♣ - 2♠, then 2♠ shows doubleton heart, 4 card club, 3 card spade and 4 card diamond, in other words, 3244 with the intention of letting partner choose between 2NT, 3♥ and 3♣. Is this a good idea?