OleBerg

Whatever I bid, I sell out after that. 4♠ seems normal.

...and night.

Double is Lightner in my book. (But then again, double is always lead-directing in my book.) This makes me wonder if the scenario could be this: The experienced South asked about 3NT, to be sure his less experienced in north would know it showed a stopper, and that the double didn't show there was two cashing diamonds. Thus I am a little more confident, that the question suggests the double is indeed lead-directing.

Some people, me included, think there is a problem (the loop). The proposed changes are meant to solve that problem.

Well then, a simple solution is to make it legal. Bridgeplayers made the laws; bridgeplayers can change them. Simply say that penalty doubles does not have to be pre-disclosed. Sometimes we will know what NT defense opps play because we know them, or because they have done something over our NT defense earlier in the same match. So it doesn't quite solve the problem. Besides, the problem potentially extends to other situations (strength of jump overcalls, for example). So the complete "solution" is to allow non-disclosed defenses against any call which opps are known to psyche with some frequency. Not very practical. The solution is IMHO to ban mixed strategies in regular partnerships. I agree, it is only a partial solution. A better solution could be to allow mixed defenses. Like: After each double, we switch between penalty and artificial. (I would believe this to be legal if you only switched between tournaments.) So when asked what double means, a correct reply would be something like: Possible artificial meaning is: Long minor, four card major. Of course I know this will never happen, much to much risk of UI, or suspection thereof, being implicit part of the agreement.

I find this claim quite interesting. Has Brad really said that? Because if he has, and he and Fred does not predisclose that 1NT has a higher bluff-frequency, they are, in my opinion, no better than their opponents. Actually worse, because they would obviously be doing it for their own benefit. Something that is not as obvious for their opponents. Please note that the sentence not only implies that he will do it in the future, but also that he has already done it. A more stretched implication is megalomania.

Me too. Whether to give a PP would depend on the players level. If not to high level, and if time permitted, I would give a lecture, and then PP if it happened again. We must not forget, that there are people out there, playing this game, that are incapable of fathoming even the simplest reasoning. A good TL will make an effort to make them understand, so that they can enjoy the game, without ruining it for others.

I am far from confident that I am right, but couldn't it suggest, that the double is indeed lead-directing. If no alert is made, then the thing South might want to know, is how strong 3NT is. If it is explained as relatively strong, it indicates that the double is not based on "power", thus lead-directing. But one hell of strange question to ask.

Well then, a simple solution is to make it legal. Bridgeplayers made the laws; bridgeplayers can change them. Simply say that penalty doubles does not have to be pre-disclosed. (I would include normal take-out-doubles too. The same problem exists regarding pre-empts and defenses to them.) On another note: I often act as a tournament director, and I rub noses with the country's highest placed directors (and the best IMHO). I feel fairly sure that Fred's opponents (In the "Fielding Psyche" case) would have been dismissed fairly quickly here. If taken to appeal, I have no problem imagining some of the harsher types of appeal committee members, calling it an "appeal without merit". To be fair, we don't even use the concept, "fielding a psyche", though if done it would obviously be illegal. Either failure to disclose, or worse, intentionally using UI. Edit: We also predisclose how often we psyche.

Why?

1NT, but fully understands the reluctance.

Run to diamonds.

Yes I see my post could be misunderstood. I just described what we have in Europe, where I live. I didn't mean to claim it didn't exist elsewhere, just that I don't know about it. (And that it seemed that Fred might not be familiar with the concept.)

Hi Fred In Europe w have a concept called "civil disobedience". It means something like: "Breaking the law, not really for a benefit, but to get some attention towards a neglected problem." It is part of the civil disobedience to clearly announce what you are doing. Many university educated, smooth-talking liberals would say, that the concept is good for developing democracy, and some even consider it a somewhat courageous thing to do. To me this sounds like what your opponents were up to. Being on the other side of the Atlantic, it is of course difficult for me to know what really happened, so consider this an "input" rather than a claim.

"The lower the level of the doubled partial, the faster the thrumph lead." So a slow spade for me.

Me too. Love to be able to double freely with only three in the other major. (Might bid 2♠ on a hand well suited to a 4-3 thrumph-suit, and no other possible denominations.)

Why did that surprise you?

Hmmm ... is there a legal basis for that assertion? If "wild things" are genuine psyches, then ok. But as Rik argues, the fact that Fred and Brad were put on the "undisclosed penalty double" list of the pair in question suggests that they considered those "wild things" part of the system rather than psyches. Now they could be wrong, or they could be harassing Fred and Brad for some non-bridge reason that we don't know about. But if they could persuade the AC that they are right then we are in the "loop". Suppose we put on our CC that we play a mixed strategy: with a balanced 8-count with three spades in third seat w/r we pass 60% of the time and open 1♠ 40% of the time. Nobody believes that those 40% are truely random events: they may depend on the state of the match, the facial expression of the opponents, etc. Suppose it also depends on what defense opps play to our 1♠ opening. In that case we would be in the "loop". The fact that they alerted the penalty double and said they deliberately failed to disclose that agreement in advance, suggests that indeed they would love a hearing. But they will get penalized. Maybe they are aware that they will get penalized, and are just hoping that Fred and Brad get penalized, too?If you want to believe in the best in other people, they might want to highlight a problem. And it was just a coincidence it hit Fred + partner. Certainly I wouldn't expect people to tell about what had happened, unless they had, what they themselves considered, a good reason. I toyed with doing the same in my youth, but never got around to it. (Edit: Rather; I toyed with doing something like it.)

"Double-Secondtime-Isn't-Penalty". I don't even believe it myself.

Abstain. People always looks at me, like I am a Moron

But not much imagination. :D

Like ignoring the previous response.....lol (Sorry Jimmy, I couldn't resist...;-) But seriously, learn to be a good partner and the rest is easy (if somewhat time-consuming....) Bridge or IRL? Or both?

Hoped this topic was about the movie. :) Fortunately, no problem twisting my post in that direction. :D In the Terminator movies, humankind is close to destruction, because an artificially intelligent system (Cyberdyne) gains control, and the humans can't "switch it off". I fear something slightly similar might happen: The exclusion of common sense and discretion in favor of laws that must be obeyed, no matter how stupid. Thus another "system", uncontrolled laws, will rule. So when Global Warming, Extinction of some kind, or something else, which we could stop threatens our civilization, it will die "according to rules", as no person or group will be powerful enough to "switch it off".

Inspired by the topic "Appeal 2" I am seeking an answer, I hope you can help me with. I prefer a new thread prior to a hijack. Law 73D1 says: "D. Variations in Tempo or Manner 1. It is desirable, though not always required, for players to maintain steady tempo and unvarying manner. However, players should be particularly careful when variations may work to the benefit of their side. Otherwise, unintentionally to vary the tempo or manner in which a call or play is made is not in itself an infraction. Inferences from such variation may appropriately be drawn only by an opponent, and at his own risk." Law 73F says: "F. Violation of Proprieties When a violation of the Proprieties described in this law results in damage to an innocent opponent, if the Director determines that an innocent player has drawn a false inference from a remark, manner, tempo, or the like, of an opponent who has no demonstrable bridge reason for the action, and who could have known, at the time of the action, that the action could work to his benefit, the Director shall award an adjusted score (see Law 12C)." My initial question is: If there is such damage, can the innocent side be compensated? Well, I've asked it before (otherwhere), and have been told they can. Furthermore, this link: http://web2.acbl.org/casebooks/98orl.pdf indicates that in 1998 they could. So feel free to skip this first step. My real question is: What does the last five words ("and at his own risk") in 73D1 mean? How much different would we handle such situations, if those five words were removed, and we simply made a period after the word "opponent"?

Amazing: Zone 6 does not allow reserving rights "to obtain a friendlier environment" when in fact this decision will do exaclty the reverse. In England: "You thought a bit before doubling, didn't you?" "Sure" In Zone 6: "Director!" In Denmark: We play on regardless, and can call the director at the end of hand with full rights, without making the announcement. Seems to me like the best way to create a friendly environment.