TimG

Thanks. A quick calculation shows that weak 2s are more frequent than muiderbergs at a rate of around 3 to 2. (Under assumptions of weak 2 in D/H/S, muiderberg Mm and 2♦ as multi.) weak 2 in Hearts and Spades on one side, and cancel the multi on the other We are no comparing the frequency of a Weak 2 in Diamonds versus (Muilderberg 2♥ + Muilderberg 2♠) And you're claiming that your "calculations" show that a weak two in Diamonds is about 1.5 times more frequent.... To get the 3:2 ratio you'd have to open a weak two in diamonds more than 1.5 times as often as Muilderberg in either major (unless your weak two and multi frequencies are zero).

is going to be removed. The "any call that promises four or more cards in a known suit" clause is the one that proponents of transfer openings have been citing as making their methods legal (and making it very frustrating that approved defenses are very slow to come). Removing this section will do just what you suggest: amend the chart so that the method is not allowed (the charts are written such that methods not specifically allowed are disallowed). Actually I thought that had been done already. Yes, it was an excellent development. But it really shouldn't have taken so long. Yes, apparently in July. I was told in April and assumed from your post that the wording had not been changed, now I see from your "~2002-2007" that you were just suggesting the change should have occurred sooner.

Yes. A world of difference, IMO.

I once played in the Labatt's Midnight Swiss at a regional in Montreal. Labatt's apparently paid for their sponsorship by providing a keg. Cups were also provided, no IDs checked, and there was no charge (beyond the entry fee) for the beer. Still, there was at least one sour-pussed participant that was not amused with our bidding.

Well, I'm not in favor of anything goes. But, I am in favor of approving defenses for what is allowed as the charts are currently written. I have enough bridge expertise to recognize that an adequate defense to a standard American, natural 1H opening requires more than a few lines of notes. You talk about the desires of "average bridge players" whose full system notes are likely their convention cards, but apply a different standard of "adequate" to approved defenses. I agree that approved defenses should be more thorough than what the "average bridge player" has for conventional openings that they are likely to encounter occasionally, but I get the strong sense from my correspondence with committee members that their idea of "adequate" is a higher standard than "reasonable, if not ideal". I think it is natural (and unfortunate) that opinions expressed in forums tend to be stronger than you would understand if you spoke to the writer in person, and that individuals appear more strong willed, hard headed, etc, when they post than if you discussed the matters with them in person. I expect that there are a number of people who post to these forums that would make good C&C Committee members, better than their posting style would suggest. Tim

1) I don't think the C&C Committee can make changes to the charts on their own, they can make recommendations to the BOD who have the ultimate authority to approve changes. A few years ago (less than 5, but maybe not by much) the C&C Committee did indeed recommend to the board that weak two-suited openings that could be made on 44 hands should be considered destructive. The BOD passed a change to the charts to say that such openings had to promise at least 54. Just this past summer, Multi was moved from 2+ board segments to 6+ board segments. Further, we don't know what other recommendations might have been made but ignored. 2) I have been told that this midchart section: is going to be removed. The "any call that promises four or more cards in a known suit" clause is the one that proponents of transfer openings have been citing as making their methods legal (and making it very frustrating that approved defenses are very slow to come). Removing this section will do just what you suggest: amend the chart so that the method is not allowed (the charts are written such that methods not specifically allowed are disallowed).

Perhaps the committee charged with the responsibility of making rules for an event should be made up of people who do care about the event.

From whom did you receive this? Was it a member of the committee, or Rick again? Rick. I have had no communication with any committee member regarding my April submission. I asked Rick for an update today and he provided it. It is quite possible that someone from the committee (or someone else at ACBL) has it on their to-do list to make official notification with explanation and that Rick was kind enough to reply to my inquiry before the official notification.

Jan, A few days after submitting the defense to the 1H transfer opening, I received this message from one of the committee members: A couple of weeks later from another committee member: There was a bit of back and forth with Chip before he wrote: Then, six months passed before I received this message from ACBL: The initial reaction was that the methods were "very simple" and "not difficult" to defend against. The back and forth (and minor changes to the defense) came after the warning of the "looming danger". And, it was six months (and no changes that I recall) between the defense being called "reasonable" and the approval. Now, even this "reasonable" and approved defense to a method which two committee members felt was simple to defend against has been rejected for a virtually identical method. Surely you can understand our suspicion that something is going on that hasn't been fully disclosed. There was no explanation given with the recent rejection of my submission, only a note from Rick Beye: Quite a change from "a very simple method to play against and easy to defend". (The committee member who wrote that 4 years ago is no longer a member of the committee.) Tim

This was discussed on rgb a few months ago. I was told: "As has been discussed before, the most common meaning of fielding is 'illegally allowing for partner's action' and the EBU defines it as such." Further inquiry revealed that "legal fielding" would be referred to as "allowing for".

Jan, There is an approved defense for a "1H Opening Transfer to 1S" in the defense database (available at the ACBL website). It was approved in March of 2005 which was before the new boards-per-segment divisions were created. When the mid-chart was published with the boards-per-segment restrictions, the 1H transfer opening was restricted to 12+ board segments. In April of 2008, I wrote to ACBL with two requests: 1) That a defense to a 1D transfer opening be approved. I submitted a defense that was identical to the 1H transfer opening defense (except for adding a meaning for the additional one-level overcall available over the 1D transfer opening). 2) That the committee reconsider the 12+ board segment restriction. The responses (from Rick Beye) were: 1) "I will forward this submission to the committee for their review. The time frame is indeterminate." 2) "Actually the committee was unanimous on the 12 board issue. I will point out your request." That was nearly 8 months ago and I have heard nothing further from ACBL (or the committee) regarding these matters. Not only has a reasonable defense been submitted (reasonable in that the committee already approved one for a 1H transfer opening), but a specific request to reconsider the 12+ board restriction has also been submitted. Tim Edit: This thread prompted me to inquire as to the status of my requests. I just received this response: "These items were discussed in Boston. The committee will not approved your request for transfer opening bids, beyond that one call already approved. The committee will not reduce the board / segment indicator on this call." Edit: At the Summer 2009 meetings, the C&C Committee voted to remove the 1H transfer opening and defense from the mid-chart/defense database.

Couldn't this be said of 2/1 as played my most experts?

Jack Black as Jesus? Link.

I have no idea about the history of how psychic bids have been defined by the laws, but the use of the term is very old. Here is a reference I found from a book published in 1936 (I am by no means suggesting this is an early reference -- there is nothing to suggest that there is anything new about psychic bidding or the term used to describe it). Holding ♠Jxx ♥xxx ♦xxxx ♣xxx in first seat, the author suggests an opening bid of 1♠: "There are few hands that are so desperate that an intimidating bid is almost compulsory. The 4333 with only a jack or two is the type. With an intelligent partner, the opening psyche should do no harm and may do some good. The opponents may be intimidated into bidding too little, annoyed into bidding too much, or they may get into the wrong suit, or may misguess the hand in the play. What is far more important, the bid operates as a "tip-off" to partner. He may hold such a big hand that it will be impossible for him to stay out of game, at least if you never have the opportunity to make a free pass of his opening bid. If he knows that your hand is so terrible as to justify an opening psyche, he'll have the warning he needs." After a 1♠ opening and a 2♣ overcall, it is suggested that responder, holding ♠AQT9x ♥AJx ♦AKT8 ♣8, should bid 2♦. "The chances are about ninety-nine out of a hundred that [opener] has made a dealer psyche, if [second hand] can insert a vulnerable overcall. [Responder] should make a bid that will enable him to confirm his opinion, and thank his partner for letting him know that the hand is dead. Three spades is not bad, tho two diamonds is better. Neither will be passed if [opener] should happen to have a normal opening." So, there was definitely a flavor of controlling the auction so that the psyche might be revealed even though "psychic control" was not specifically used. But, it seems to me that very early on in the history of contract bridge there was definition to when a player might be more likely to psyche and what a psyche may look like. So, psyches probably always had a hint of partnership understanding. But, 70 years ago, this understanding was thought of more as "general bridge knowledge". Tim PS The author was S Garton Churchill.

No. A psychic control is a conventional method of finding out if partner psyched. If I remember correctly, in the original Roth-Stone or KS (I don't recall which) there were very disciplined psyches and there were psychic controls. These openings were not psyches -- they were by agreement either natural with 12+ HCP or 4-6 HCP with a four-card suit and at least 3 HCP in the suit (if I recall the KS agreement accurately). There was, indeed, a control to find out which of the two possibilities opener actually had. But, because it was all by agreement, these were not psyches. They were not technically psychs, but the pair called them psychs. They had a dog and named it cat, pretty much. Right. Although as Cascade points out, the meaning of psyche has probably changed over time.

No. A psychic control is a conventional method of finding out if partner psyched. If I remember correctly, in the original Roth-Stone or KS (I don't recall which) there were very disciplined psyches and there were psychic controls. These openings were not psyches -- they were by agreement either natural with 12+ HCP or 4-6 HCP with a four-card suit and at least 3 HCP in the suit (if I recall the KS agreement accurately). There was, indeed, a control to find out which of the two possibilities opener actually had. But, because it was all by agreement, these were not psyches.

Yes, "partnership understanding to psyche" is something of an impossibility, just like a psychic control is misnamed because once there is a control it is no longer a psyche..

What people expect changes over time. Read some bridge books from the 30s and 40s if you want to get a good idea what sorts of psychic bidding (and with what sort of frequency) was once expected. I do not think it is much of an exaggeration to say that 90% of players in the ACBL would never expect a psyche. So, if you are going to gauge what should be allowed by what anyone would expect, you're going to be rather limited in what you can do in regards to psyches.

A case can be made that this partnership has an agreement that 1♠ shows either spades or something else. I suspect that in the ACBL this is a legal agreement (defense to their conventional call). They probably should not call it a psyche, because it really isn't. But, other than that, they seem to be doing the right thing and are OK rules-wise (at least in the ACBL). As an aside, this is such a common "psyche" position that most partnerships have a counter to it, don't they? I know that in my regular partnerships, double would show exactly four spades and some values, 2♠ would show 5+ spades and be forcing for one round.

I guess you can at least sympathize with declarer's claim...

I would expect better parsing of the language from an attorney. The portion you reference: That does not mean that three psyches in one session is excessive, nor does it mean that psyching less often than three times in any one session is not excessive. What it means is that when three psyches in a single session come to the attention of a director, there should automatically be an investigation.

I think there is a big difference between confidence and arrogance. Where ever arrogance would help you succeed in life, I expect confidence would also get the job done, perhaps even get the job done better.

Talking about the very top partnerships is different from talking about the best partnerships in a region let alone the average partnerships. My, perhaps naive, opinion is that money plays a role in very few partnerships. At least money passing between partners. Similar abilities to spend money on bridge travel would add to partnership compatibility.

I agree with those who suggest that the recorder system is under-utilized. Much of that is probably due to two factors: 1) people not knowing about is; and 2) the stigma of making an accusation when using the system.

At MP, stretching to the slim game in hopes of a mis-defense is wrong since a mis-defense in the normal partscore will score you the same top. At IMPs, I'm not sure I'd do it either. If we're flat out better than the other team, adding the randomness of overbidding can open the door to the opponents to score IMPs when they do the normal thing and I don't want to increase the variance. Newbies don't notice falsecards.