glen

Yes, you are missing something since the ACBL policy is missing something that qualifies an agreement. ACBL: An agreement to psych, either explicit or implicit, is illegal For example, say it said: An agreement to bid 1S, either explicit or implicit, is illegal Without qualification, this policy would be illegal by bridge laws. If it stated: An agreement to bid 1S with less than 8 points, either explicit or implicit, is illegal This would be okay, now they have added qualification. What happens when they use the policy without qualification is this: ACBL: An agreement to psych, either explicit or implicit, is illegal TDs: We have logged you psyching multiple times with regular pd - therefore you have an agreement to psych - please curtail TDs don't have to record how you psyched, or when you psyched, or how often you psyched - just you are psyching with a regular partner, so it must be illegal by ACBL "policy" as established this summer. As to the actual board, I really don't care about the TD ruling etc. I posted the board since some wanted to see it. What I do care about is this: I can no longer psych in ACBL BBO tournaments with my regular partner, since any result on such a board is under the threat of immediate adjustment by employing the policy. To use your "kind of like a sporting event" example, I don't mind the pass interference call by the ref here, but if this wrong pass interference is going to be called frequently, against the rules of the game, then there is a serious long term problem.

Thanks Ben for your very detailed reply, and your kind words once more on bridgematters.com All of my tournament hands with my wife were in ACBL BBO tourneys. I believe my wife did psyche at least once, because my selective memory remembers a 7 or 8 point opening at some point – perhaps it was in the days before 1138. Yes, my psychic bids may not be successful – that may be a reason for me to avoid them, but not for asking me to curtail them. My wife and I play the same system – same ranges etc. However we have different styles and we play a system that allows one choice of bids, which accounts for the different frequency of bids. I have not seen any regulation on partnerships being forced to adopt the same style, or being forced to have a system that does not provide options. As you note, "clearly your psyches are not controlled" – I believe it is this single factor that should allow me to continue to psych, as long as it does not become excessive, or develop into a pattern of particular psyches, or find my partner catching a bunch of them. I do understand that the TDs are attempting to regulate the game to maximize the pleasure for their customers, and they are making good faith decisions and policies. However I believe that this particular policy is bad for the long term health of the game, since it will discourage younger players from playing and drive even more of them towards that bluffing game. I would especially like an online bridge site to permit relative free-wheeling in tournament play, as our more youthful players will enjoy this. Certainly the brick-and-mortar bridge clubs can continue to enforce rules to keep their existing clientele happy (for example, one local club has a rule that one can never, ever, open 1NT with a singleton). I believe that this is short-sighted, but far less dangerous than allowing the same regressive approach to infest tournament play on our most popular online bridge site.

I wrote the following letter to ACBL@bridgebase.com, and cc'ed the ACBL's Mike Flader ------- The ACBL web site accurately informs us that: “Clearly the Laws permit psychs. Psychic bidding is a part of the game.” In the Summer 05 NABC bulletins, Mike Flader, ACBL Associate National Tournament Director, stated, as what it appears to now be ACBL policy, that “An agreement to psych, either explicit or implicit, is illegal”. Since players are permitted to psych by the Laws, and players know that each other can psych, what is actually illegal is this policy as stated. I ask that the ACBL tournaments on Bridge Base Online discontinue use of this illegal policy. I do understand that it could be possible to state “An agreement to psych in a certain way or at certain times, either explicit or implicit, is illegal”. However this is not what was stated, and it is not what is being enforced in these ACBL BBO tournaments. Please reply with your decision on this item, and if this illegal policy will continue to be enforced, the suggested means for appealing this decision, perhaps using the ACBL arbitration methods I believe are made available to members. Thanks in advance! A copy of this letter will appear on the BBO Forums.

She rarely does it, and not my idiotic type psychs. The actual hand reminded me of the super-weak psyches some Canadian players used to have as part of their system, so on impulse and driven by Canuck tradition I launched it. My selective memory reminded me that I did another psych recently - no idea if this was one of the ones reported or not. It reminded me of some of the preemptive bids of Canadian experts Carroll/Turner so couldn't resist. I had xxxx xx xxx AKQx - white vs red in third seat - I opened 3♣ (okay Carroll/Turner would require a fifth club), the next player bid 3♦, my wife raised to 4♣ on a flat hand with 3♣s (oh joy, the 4 level on a 4-3 with not a lot of points) and the next hand, reading partner for a ♣ void based on the bidding and holding 4♣s to the jack, jumped to 5♦, which was not successful. As one can see from the 4♣ raise, it is best I forget making another attempt at this type of psychic bid. Oh well, have to study up on Zia for some new moves... Oh, I forgot - can't use Zia moves any more, since I'm over 6 - cross that - 2 now. Well at least Zia can still play bridge, because he must be under that 2 quota for moves.

First, a story of more tournament fun this last weekend. Auction by the opponents goes 2♠-2NT-3♦-3♠-All Pass. I click on 3♦ – reply by expert is “not sure” – clicking again and asking private question gets no reply. Call TD. After 5 minutes TD is unable to get any clarification from expert (also I asked what would 3♣ mean, no reply etc.). TD asked us to continue play. Weak two bidder shows up with Kxxx in ♦s. Dummy remarks at end of hand that hand was very well played given the distraction. Some of the postings here had some questions, which I’ll try to answer: Yes, I have psyched more than the recorded times, but not, I feel, a great number of times. However, a significant number of times I have had close to my bid but not exactly it. For example xx AKQJx Jxx xxx is an opening 1♥ bid for us – recently I opened xxx AKQJ xxx xxx with 1♥. My partner is aware that I psych. However we have the rule that we always bid as if there is no psych – for example she would have doubled 3NT if she was in the pass out seat. This is not done for ethical reasons, although it does help in this area (also it avoids seeming to have miracle catches that people worry about with husband/wife online pairs). It is done since bidding becomes too complex if one has to keep considering did partner pysch – so we rule that out as an option and bid our hands. As to not seeing the logic behind the psych used, it was an idiotic psych. Once the bidding continued 1NT-Double I thought I was doomed. If West had passed 3♣ then partner would have got us to at least 4♦, if not higher, and that would be terrible. Most, but not all of my psyches are not vulnerable. No idea on total number of psyches. I know the total number of boards since we only pay $ for ACBL tournaments, and we get 12 boards for each $2 for the two of us. We play a mama-papa 2/1 system, and not with a weak notrump. There is more than one ETM system, and only some use a weak notrump – my wife and I play none of the ETM systems. Thanks for all the replies!

Another, older, article that discusses the ACBL position on psychs is at: ACBL: Dealing With Psychic Bids Let’s use this as a guideline: So, since as the ACBL notes that the Laws permit psychs and that psychic bidding is a part of the game, players can expect to face psychic bidding at some point – so it’s mere occurrence is not a surprise. Also since I vary the nature of my psychic bidding and it is not frequent or excessive relative to the number of boards we play, my psychic bidding on any particular hand will be as much as a surprise to my regular partner as it is to my opponents. In other terms, since the Laws permit psychs, knowing that I can psych is not an illegal agreement for our partnership. However knowing the types of psychs and when I psych would form an illegal agreement, which would be established by repetitive use of the same psyches in the same situations. Thus for a log of psyches to be used in banning a player from psyching, it should either show: 1) An excessive number of psyches, as a percentage of boards played over a certain period of time. 2) A certain type of psych used with the same partner. I don’t believe the ACBL BBO tournament director logs show this, and thus I believe it is unfair to ban me from psyching in these tournaments at this time. Some follow-up points I would like to make: If the opponents are under the assumption that psychs will not occur, then they will be more surprised than my partner when a psychic bid does occur. Is it the fault of the psychic side that some opponents have made this assumption? If a partnership has an agreement never to psych, isn’t this an illegal agreement – they have a non-disclosed agreement that their opponents would not know? Thus should I pre-alert opponents that I have been, in effect, banned from psyching? For the actual hand, I believe the subsequent bidding after the psychic bid, and the end result, had nothing to do with the director ruling. From what I was told, the ruling was based solely on the fact that I had psyched a number of times before with this regular partner. Also if I psyched again, I was led to believe that a similar ruling would be imposed regardless of subsequent bidding after the future psychic bid. Note on the actual hand, if I was North playing with a regular expert partner, I would have doubled 3NT since it is going down, even if partner had psyched with a weak hand and long diamonds, or opened with a very distributional opening bid (“rule of 20” 7-6 hand for example – this latter example is not part of our style). I would not double with the North hand if I had no club stopper and not much in quick tricks. The style my wife and I play is more straight-forward – we don’t make a bid that doesn’t show something else not already known – that is she would not double 3NT for penalty since she had already doubled 1NT for penalty and her partner still had a bid to make. However if her RHO had passed 3♣ she would have bid again, likely choosing from 4♦ or Double – she would not just bid 3♦ since that would not be forcing. Also if her LHO had bid 3NT instead of 3♣ and it had come around to her, she would have doubled in a flash (too bad, so sad if I had psyched), since a pass would close out the auction.

[hv=d=s&v=e&n=st43hkq74dat653ca&w=sak85haj63dk84ck6&e=sqjh92dj2cqj87432&s=s9762ht85dq97ct95]399|300|Scoring: MP[/hv] Bidding was 1♦-1NT-Double-3♣-Pass-3NT-All Pass Since North had already doubled 1NT for penalty, she passed 3NT to allow partner to decide what to do - since the contract went down it would have been better to double, assuming no score adjustment. North led a low diamond showing that she liked diamonds. I won the queen when West ducked, and shifted to a heart which West won with the Ace. The club King was won with the ace and North cashed her three other winners for down one.

Tonight playing in an ACBL BBO tourney, I psyched a board – I opened with two points white vs red in 1st seat with a 4-3-3-3 shape. After the hand was over, the director gave us an average minus, and the opponents an average plus. The reasoning provided was that I was recorded to have pysched 6 times over the last 4 months with my regular partner, my wife. The director deemed that my 6 recorded psychs over a 4 month period had established an implicit agreement to psych. In reply I pointed out that: 1) I don’t psyche frequently relative to the number of boards we play, which is in the 1000s over the last 4 months. 2) My psychs are different – that is I don’t psyche the same way each time. This reasoning was not sufficient to overturn the ruling. During the same tournament, the lead director (“ACBL” without a number) joined our table and after confirming with me that my wife was my regular partner, asked that I curtail my psyching bids. From my point of view, this is a virtual ban on my psyching in ACBL BBO tournaments, since I only play with my wife for the vast majority of tournaments, even though psyching is considered part of the bridge game. In the NABC Summer 05 bulletins, Mike Flader, Associate National Tournament Director, wrote about psychs in a two part article: NABC Summer 05 Bulletin 1 - See Page 4 NABC Summer 05 Bulletin 2 - see page 4 ACBL regulates psyches as per this statement in the first article: I argue that 6 recorded hands over 1000s of hands played are not a pattern of frequent psychs, and that we do not have an illegal agreement. My questions for forum members are: 1) Do we have an illegal agreement, whether by Flader’s article, and/or by ACBL policy? 2) Should I write a letter to the ACBL bulletin, providing my viewpoints on this concern? Besides these questions feel free to comment, even quite harshly. Thanks in advance!

Thanks for the reply Ben! Would prefer to email "record@bridgebase.com" instead of "abuse" which sounds too strong for this. btw I wrote two emails to acbl@bridgebase.com a while back - did not get a reply or a read receipt back - would anybody know if that email stream is read by anybody?

In a recent BBO ACBL tournament, one advanced opponent has: [hv=d=s&v=e&s=s4h76dq9762cqt853]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] Bidding is Pass(by this hand)-1♠-Double-Pass-? The opponent passed and obtained +1400 and 12.2 IMPs, as the advanced takeout doubler had: [hv=d=s&v=e&s=s4h76dq9762cqt853]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] TD was asked to investigate the pass of the takeout double, and determined that the opponent had been distracted so had passed by accident, so no adjustment was possible. Should the TD be able to roll back the result to average for both sides when this type of serendipity happens, or is it better to use some sort of recorder system (do we have one?) just in case there is a long term trend, or do we let players investigate each other (yuck), or just let this stuff happen as it does online?

You can't use cant, or at least shouldn't use the name since already parked here: http://www.bridgematters.com/overnt.htm

EW could argue that this layout is impossible since North did not raise ♠s

What does one bid if 5-5 with a major & a minor?

Thanks for all the replies. For a more typical use of Puppet Stayman see the Richard Pavlicek System at: http://www.rpbridge.net/7g19.htm#04 It appears the key difference is that Klinger has gone with 1NT-2♣-2♦-2♥/♠s as a natural invite with a 4 or 5 card suit (2♥ can be 4-4 invite in the majors), and 3♣ as a game force Stayman ask for four card majors. By comparison, the Pavlicek System uses 2♥ to show no four card major or 4♠s, 2♠ to show 4♥s, 2NT to show both majors invite, and 3♣/♦ to handle the both majors game force hand types. The Klinger version looks easier to use. Klinger must use his 96 pages to cover the various follow-ups in considerable detail.

You are playing in an IMPs pairs ACBL BBO Tourney, and you hold: ♠: --- ♥: AKQ74 ♦: J82 ♣: 98743 You are vulnerable vs. not, and the opponents have told you they play "anything goes" weak two bids. Your RHO opens 2♠s, alerted as a "weak two, could be just 5♠s". You pass, responder passes, and partner balances with a double. It goes pass to you, and your bid now is? I was surprised by the decision the player made. Here was the full layout: Board 7, EW Vul ____ ♠: T6 ____ ♥: J8632 ____ ♦: KQ96 ____ ♣: JT ♠: --- _______ ♠: KQJ972 ♥: AKQ74 ____ ♥: 95 ♦: J82 _______ ♦: A7 ♣: 98743 ____ ♣: KQ2 ____ ♠: A8543 ____ ♥: T ____ ♦: T543 ____ ♣: A65 The West player decided to pass, and the result was down 2 for +500 and 9.9 IMPs. The tournament director was called by the South player when West revealed the ♠ void, in case there was a failure to alert (and since penalty doubles were not on convention card). The TD determined that the "auction was produced by reasoned decisions based on the alerted, potentially 'off-shape' weak two bid", and EW had no special agreements (e.g. penalty doubles). The NS players accepted this ruling.

Why can't it fit into Keri? The difference would be that 2♣ would go to 2♦ only if opener does not have a five card major, and then the rest of Keri sequences would apply. If opener shows a five card a major, responder if weak with ♦s passes to play 2M or bids 3♣ as a retransfer to ♦s.

Here's a useful link: http://www.australianbridge.com/article_34-4_5cM.htm

A review of Ron Klinger's new book 5-Card Major Stayman appeared in the November ACBL Bulletin. Three questions for anybody who might know: 1) Is this designed to go with his KERI, or just a more normal notrump structure? 2) What hand types are covered by this Stayman - in particular the review says "they allow your side to play in two of a major if opener does not have a five card major". 3) Are opener's rebids to 2♣ different than in standard Puppet Stayman - the review states "he presents a system of responses and continuations after a 2♣ inquiry that, if not superior to puppet Stayman, are less forgettable." Review also notes that after 1NT-2♣-2♦(no five card major)-?, now 3♣: Stayman 3♦/♥: Transfers 3♠: Slam try Mods: Please change description to "What's New Here?" - thanks in advance

For those who have played the Fantunes methods (or close relatives) extensively, which opening bids deliver more net + IMPs? For example is the 2♠ opening more likely to produce IMPs over time than the other two level bids. Would the system be hindered much by moving the 2♦ opening hand types into the 1♦ opening, freeing up 2♦ for something else? One opinion I have of the Fantunes methods is that although they are sub-optimal (i.e. in my view) they don't task the players compared to many other sophisticated systems, so the players remain fresh for play and defence challenges. Any comments on this?

We now have a group picture up of many of the Canadians (including some playing for US teams) at the 05 World championships: http://www.bridgematters.com/canada05.htm Completely unrelated, but might be of interest if you listen to CDs on your personal computer, is my warning about Sony BMG CDs (and their XCP software) at: http://www.bridgematters.com/badsony.htm

North had a "Star" besides their name, so I believe their self-described expert status was quite true. I had never seen this before (passing a low level negative double with a void in the suit doubled) so was wondering if it was a style played elsewhere. As I was writing this I was spec'ing the person - their partner had a choice on this hand: ♠ K3 ♥ 963 ♦ T94 ♣ K8754 Bidding was 2♠-Pass(this hand)-Pass-Double-Pass-3♣-Pass-3♠-4♣-Pass-? So partner balanced a weak two with a double, and then bid 4♣ after you bid 3♣ and responder bid 3♠. Your bid? . . . . . . . . . . . . On actual hand doubler had: ♠ 4 ♥ AKQT2 ♦ Q7 ♣ AQJT6 The 3♣ bidder bid 4♥ over 4♣ and found the only successful game. Edit: I don't want to put a new reply, so I just note this here for the file - this thread has nothing to do with other threads about pairs accusing other pairs etc. that I just read. This thread was just to post a strange thing I saw today, to see if it looked strange to others as well.

I found this ACBL BBO Sunday IMPs tourney hand interesting, for the decision made by the expert North: -------- ♠ AJ6532 -------- ♥ --- -------- ♦ AJT63 -------- ♣ A6 ♠ 87 ---------- ♠ KQ4 ♥ T32 -------- ♥ AK986 ♦ Q98 -------- ♦ 2 ♣ QT732 ---- ♣ J854 -------- ♠ T9 -------- ♥ QJ754 -------- ♦ K754 -------- ♣ K9 With everybody vulnerable (board 4), after Pass-1♠-2♥-Double(negative)-Pass-?, North has a choice of bids, with a good 6-5 and a ♥ void. At the table the choice taken was to pass the negative double, since, as Nouth explained, “partner must have hearts”. If this was a problem in the Bridge World Master Solvers’ Club I wouldn’t think of passing, but I wonder if others have had success with these types of decisions? Note that it was confirmed it was a negative double, not a penalty double.

It actually is controlled in a way. Since it costs $1 to play per person every 12 boards, and since there is no real prize money, cheating costs money. One might say the cheaters can get recognition from "winning", but there are two factors against this: 1) There is no masterpoint awards for overall so it's impossible to collect a huge number of masterpoints via these ACBL tourneys. 2) No one notices if you do win anyway. So cheating is controlled, in a way, since there is long term benefit to cheating, and it costs $ to keep cheating. The other control to cheating is published hand records. After a while blatant cheaters leave so much wreckage from their hit n' runs, that it becomes obvious what's going on. Note that less than 10 boards really proves nothing - after some time one should be about to point to 40 or 50 boards where the cheating seems to be happening. Thanks again to Fred, Sheri, and Uday for keeping this site free and open, and working hard to keep close to 10,000 concurrent users up and running on Saturday.

Yup, I was able to rule out the weak option once I knew 10+. However I did not have "all the info" as I didn't know if 3C was forcing or not, so when opener bid 3NT I could not tell if he was accepting an invite, or just bidding with any hand and a ♥ stopper. However as I noted I didn't think we were damaged even without all the info. The three primary things one needs to know about a bid are: 1) Range 2) Suit/suits lengths promised/suggested 3) Forcing or not. The third is important to reveal. For example if the opponents played 1NT as 12-14, balanced, and forcing, one would play a different defence than if it was non-forcing. Sometimes new partnerships or new players don't know the answers to these questions - they should describe as best they can.

Agreed. Often the system meanings of 1♥ and 1♠ are made relatively symmetric, but there are significant advantages in opening 1♠ with 4♠s that are not found in 4+♥s 1♥ openings.