foo

It really is very simple. Say you are playing the 1st board vs. a total stranger when this situation comes up. What is the right thing to do? The math shows that apriori there is a 23% chance that LHO Falsecarded. Thus playing LHO to have Falsecarded is not the percentage action. Therefore, get a better count on the hand before commiting oneself if you can, but the evidence =at this point= is that you should play for split honors. Any plan of play that differs from this is not based on Bridge logic. It is based on table feel and other such psychological considerations. Why Justin calls this elementary exercse in mathematical logic "hopeless" is beyond me.

I still fail to see how it is a "psychic control" if its purpose is to allow responder to successfully field systemic bids. Psyches are not systemic bids. That's the whole point. What part of "deliberate gross distortion of one's hand" sounds like a systemic bid? A method that allows a pair to distinguish safely between systemic bids and "deliberate gross distortions" AKA psyches is by definition a psychic control. There are other regulations that define just how light or wide ranging a bid or set of bids is allowed to be for various conditions of contest.

I refer you to my post on Nov 17 2007, 05:49 AM where I responded to Hannie: QUOTE (Hannie @ Nov 17 2007, 12:05 AM) Could you post a hand where the opponents opened and then bid drury and you had 25 HCP? Where I gave not just a board or two (which would prove nothing), but posted an entire strategy demonstrating the use of Drury in 1st or 2nd as a psychic control to allow the users to jam the auction whenever they held major suit length regardless of the values in Opener's hand. In that post I made the claim that such a method was also Dominant: the only defence that gives the opponents a reasonable chance at achieving parity is to also adopt these methods. Once that happens, scores become far more based on the luck of who gets to speak first rather than Bridge skills. Such things have been, rightly IMHO, deemed bad for Bridge. I also stated that this was, to the best of my knowledge, very close to the logic followed by the ABCL when deciding how to respond to Barry Crane's petition for Drury to be legal in all seats. In all ways, this was as real and valid a set of examples as I could bring to the discussion. Anyone with a simulator can create a set of specific boards based on the post I made to test the validity of the logic presented. As I have stated before, I have no problem with advancements in systemic methods. I strongly support and advocate them. I do have a problem with unfair methods or with methods that will negate the value of Bridge skills in favor of luck ATT. I consider that attitude to be analogous to my objections to unfair methods in any other game or sport. IMHO Bridge is supposed to be a game based on skill as much as possible and on luck as little as possible. Not everyone feels that way, and I respect that; but for me Bridge will always be a game where I want skill to matter as much as possible.

Calm down. You sound like you are about to have a stroke. All the physically possible holdings for LHO given the play so far are relevant because they are the basis for the rest of the calculations as to what the percentage play is. Not to mention the opponents =can't= lie outside those bounds. =Then= we apply logic to the possible holdings to reduce them to the probable actions. Given the percentages, if Declarer must commit themselves on the basis of this information alone, they should play for split honors. The falsecard is only a 23% chance and therefore ~4.4:1 odds against. As I said, if one can get a better count on the hand before committing oneself, one should.

The OP's description is xx in Dummy AKQ9xx in hand played the A from hand ...and LHO popped the J. "You have in ♠: AKQ9xx versus xx in dummy. You play ♠A and LHO plays the ♠J." Thus: .......xx........... J??.........x???.. ....AKQ9xx.....

The principle to apply here is "am I a minimum, Maximum, or average for the bidding so far"? minimums should pass. Maximums should bid 3♥ Average hands should make a call between those two extremes if one is available. Here you have a minimum for the auction so far. Pass. Responder is still ATT. Don't hang them when they hold a 6 count. Don't overexcite them when they hold an Invite+ hand. Let them have their chance to decide what is right for the partnership.

You evidently are trying to be a "rules lawyer". The spirit of the rules is that a bid that is a deliberate gross distortion of your hand from systemic agreement is a psyche. Being 2+ cards short or an A or more light is definitely a gross distortion. If you do it deliberately, I'm sure every TD on earth and just about every expert player would say you are psyching. In many cases, I'm sure that deliberately being a K or more light would be enough to convince those TDs and esperts that you were psyching.

Yes, that's called "playing for the drop". Your point? All I said is that one should not assume that the opponents have Falscarded in this situation. The correct default assumption is that the opponents are playing cards that they must play. So when LHO sees xx in Dummy and you play the A from the closed hand with them putting one of the 2 missing honors on the table as 2nd hand, you should assume they are playing cards they must play. Not that they choose to play. For you to assume that LHO is acting like they know you are holding AKQ9xx in the closed hand is "taking a position". Not playing the percentages. Such a Falsecard is only safe or logical for 1 specific holding: JTx+xx. That's only 10.17/44.65= 22.78% of LHO's possible holdings. Playing the J 2nd hand from Jx or Jxx when one can not see any other honors is not logical since it could cost the defence (and playing J under the A 2nd hand when holding JTxx would be ludicrous). Therefore it is anti-percentage to assume that LHO deliberately threw the J under the A. They are more likely to have had no choice but to play an honor here. If one can, one should get more of a count on the hand before committing oneself in this suit, but you do not always have that luxury. EDIT: and Justin, the name is "Foo". Not whatever hrothgar decides to call me.

If your system is to open 12+ or 11-15 or 9-14 or whatever and you open an A or more light, you have psyched. If your system is to open 5cM (or 4cM) and you open a 3- (or 2-) card Major, you have psyched. If your system contains a specific bid to allow responder to successfully field your bids whether you have opened according to system or you have psyched, then you are playing a psychic control.

Why do you say things like this? Because I provided the proof to back up the mathematical statement? Playing your opponents to have Falsecarded when the odds don't support it is by definition taking an anti-percentage position. Taking anti-percentage positions is not to be done lightly.

Play the odds. Not the opponents. Unless you are very confident of your table feel xx + AKQ9xx The holdings where LHO =can= play the J without RHO playing the T while following are: J+Txxx 1/14 (02.83%) Jx+Txx 3/14 (10.17%) Jxx+Tx 3/14 JT+xxx 1/14 JTx+xx 3/14 JTxx+x 3/14 (actually 8.48%) As one can see, split honors is higher percentage than the falsecard regardless of LHO's skill.

Please stop referring to me as "Ron". I have nothing against systemic bidding. I have a fundamental dislike for unfair systemic methods in Bridge just as I do in any other game or sport. Psychic controls and Dominant methods are examples of unfair systemic methods in both my opinion and, far more importantly, the opinion of the vast majority of regulating authorities of Organized Bridge. The same authorities have for the most part deemed Drury in 1st or 2nd chair to be an unfair method. Unlike some of their more arbitrary decisions, this one is backed by reasonable argument. You and others can argue all you want, but it is not going to change any time soon. Also, arguing against the reasonable decisions of the regulating authorities hurts your ability to argue against their unreasonable decisions. ...and if you are so out of the mainstream that you disagree with the mainstream regulatory view that Dominant methods and psychic controls are bad for Bridge, we will simply have to agree to disagree. Nor are you ever likely to get much satisfaction from said regulating authorities.

Can you define "psychic control" for us? A psychic control is a systemic bid designed specifically to find out if pard has the values documented for their bid or has considerably less, thereby allowing the partnership a safety net they would not otherwise have. So if an opening bid promises 12+ Playing Points or 11-15 HCP or 9-14 HCP or whatever, and you play a method specifically designed to identify when partner has broken system and made a bid with considerably less than systemically agreed upon values, you are playing a psychic (as in psyche) control. Such bids were all the rage at one point in the history of Bridge. Experience has shown they are bad for people's enjoyment of the game and bad for the overall caliber of Bridge that occurs ATT because they devalue Bridge skills in favor of being the first to speak. IOW, they make Bridge a more random and less skill based game.

We start with "why is drury hated by many" and end with drury (for 1st and 2nd seat opeings) as a "Dominant" method - nice roundabout The conversation simply evolved that way. There are some who have posted in this thread that they believe Drury is a psychic control no matter what seat it is used in. Hopefully that has been put to rest by showing the situations where it really is vs is not. There are some that believe drury is not useful. Hopefully that has been disproven by the conversation so far as well. Drury is nigh unto unique in that it is allowed in some seats and not others. It's only natural that people would be curious about that and question why. So the summary for the thread so far is 1= Drury is useful. 2= Drury is =too= useful opposite a 1st or 2nd chair opening.

Let's see if I can remember some of the stuff they were worried Barry Crane would do if he was allowed to play Drury in all seats at Matchpoints. 1S by Barry at Favorable in 1st or 2nd seat. 1S-2C!;2S all pass. Barry could have anything from a 5♠332 or 5♠431 =zero= count to bad 15 count and the auction would be the same. In fact, let's say Barry does open 1M with a 5cM in 1st or 2nd no matter what his values are Favorable and tweaks the strategy appropriately at other vulnerability ratios. On the occasions Barry only has 0-5 HCP and Responder has 10, or the occasions where Barry had 0-4 HCP and Responder has 11, the Opponents have 25+ HCP between them. Given the 1S opening, there is no "safe suit" to overcall 1S in, and competing later in the auction means taking forward going calls at the 2 or 3 levels when in theory the opponents are showing 22+ HCP between them. Compare and contrast this to knowing that the Drury side is more likely to be in the partscore zone than in the game or slam zone because one of them is limited to less than an opening bid. Go set up some appropriately realistic simulations if you want to test the situation. Will you sometimes be wrong no matter what you do? Of course. Most Bidding is about probabilities, not certainties, after all. But opponents playing Drury in 1st or 2nd are pretty much guaranteed to give you problems that can only be "addressed" by you adopting Their methods and opening before them. That's the definition of a Dominant method. Since Dominant methods have been deemed Bad For Bridge, Drury in 1st or 2nd chair is Not Good For Bridge. That Drury used this way is also a psychic control should be obvious.

♠Q54 ♥J9 ♦AK76 ♣7653 + ♠K932 ♥AQ7 ♦8 ♣KQJ84 The man has a point. You only have 3 top tricks unless they lead ♥'s to give you 4 top tricks. Dx lead. CH won by their CA. Dx return by them. You now have 7 tricks established and must take 2 more without Them getting in again with a ♦ unless ♦'s broke 44 (unlikely). A Hx opening lead from Kxxxx allows you to have 8 tricks before you are endplayed. So how did the Acol declarer make 10 tricks in NT? Surely the defense did not lead a Black suit? Or did ♦'s break 44?

I strongly agree with mikeh on most points here. Playing either SA or 2/1 GF the normal auction holding these cards and with Responder simply trusting HCP (the normal thing to do when holding a flat hand) is 1C-1D;1S-3C;3N Anyone opening 1N with the E cards is grossly distorting their hand. My only differences in PoV with mikeh are that, a= for me and most experts I play with as partners, Opener bidding 2 suits "up the line" only promises 8+ cards in the two suits. (For one thing 4441's become hard to bid otherwise...). Thus 1C-1D;1N is a 4333. b= I play that Responder must have Invite+, not GF+, values for 1C-1D when holding 4+D and a 4cM (I will bypass even a normal 7 card D suit to bid my 4cM when holding a minimum response. Judgment still matters here. (14)62 is less often a minimum than (24)61. Having a stiff rather than 2 card tolerance for Opener's minor is a downgrade.) I find this gives pretty much the same benefits as playing the "classic" GF Walsh style while being less constrictive.

So conventions where the partnership's assets are unlimited are banned or should be banned? Take 1M-1NT-?, where 1NT is forcing and, in the partnership style, unlimited - is this version of 1NT forcing banned in your opinion? How about 2C(strong)-2D(waiting) - two conventions, partnership assets unlimited - therefore banned in your view? What is this "speak in code" and "not privy to" that you talk about? The opponents do not hear 1O-2R, and then later are told what O and R are. They hear 1H-2C or 1S-2C, 2C is alerted, and both the opening and the alert are explained when asked. So the sequences are not "in code", and the opponents are "privy to" the method of communicating. Here's some examples to hopefully help clarify matters. Your RHO deals and opens 1M. You are holding a flat or close to flat opening bid. This a common situation where passing is often the percentage action. So you do, and Responder bids 2C! showing a LR+. Your partner passes and Opener bids 2M showing a minimum. You shrug and defend 2M. Only it turns out Opener has Opened something like a 0-6 HCP hand and your side is cold for a game. 4 hands later it happens again. This time you decide to be a bit more aggressive to protect against being stolen from and compete to or past 2M. Unfortunately, this time the exact same auction hides the fact that you have put your head on the chopping block and they X you into oblivion when they have most of the HCP but no game. Still later, you decide to "get in fast and get out" as a better way to compete safely. Wrong again. This time They were cold for a game; but the game pays less than the drubbing you get for being in Their auction. A few more repetitions of stuff like this shows that you and your pard have problems in these auctions that you simply don't have when you know one of opponents didn't have the values to open. Essentially, the opponents have a more or less free ride to at least the 2M level unless you want to take a high risk of being akin to Marie Antoinette and "sent to the guillotine" Nor is that the only advantage the other side seems to have after opening 1M in 1st or 2nd chair. Their game and slam bidding is also far more accurate than standard methods allow for; and to add insult to injury you are forced to compete less than you could vs standard methods, ...and it is all because They have a way of bidding that We can't decipher fast enough to safely judge the relative of worth of Our hands soon enough for Us to safely compete. In stark contrast, 4th hand has a much easier time deciding whether it is safe to compete or not and how if so after a 3rd seat opening. Regardless of whether They play Drury after a 3rd seat opening or not. The above is why Drury is fine convention after a 3rd or 4th chair opening but a unfair advantage after a 1st or 2nd chair opening.

Everyplace is a place where the principles of Free Speech apply or there is no place where they apply. The issue is that stark. OTOH, no one has the right to force others to listen to what they don't want to hear. Nor is Free Speech a license to be rude. They had the right to say what they did. That's free speech. They also have the twin obiligations to conduct themselves appropriately to the circumstances and their station and to take the consequences of that speech if it requires so. That said consequences must be measured to the degree of the infraction, and that they have the right to go to court if they feel it is not, is also self evident.

Oh mastery of clarity, please explain the following: You claim that Drury over first and second seat openings was "rightfully" banned because its a psychic control. Moreover, Drury was explictly sanctioned in the same jurisdication over third and fourth seat openings. Why was it so necessary to ban psychic controls over first and second seat openings but not over third and fourth seat opening? What makes this especially puzzling is the frequency of so-called "psyches" over third and fourth seat opening bids as opposed to first and second seat openings. My impression is that "Psyches" are several orders of magnitude more frequent over third and fourth seat opening. (I'd almost go so far as to say that I can't ever recall hearing of a "Psyche" in first or second seat. "Systemic Psyches ala Roth-Stone or K-S don't qualify for obvious reasons) In short: If you are actually banning Drury because its a psychic control, then there is no logical reason why you'd ban this over first and second seat opening but not over third and fourth seat opening. The logicial conclusion is that the refusal to sanction the bid came about for other reasons... For anyone who cares, there was a decent thread on rec.games.bridge last year title "Drury as psych control". I quote my previous post on this topic: "...the problem with using a raise like Drury opposite a 1st or 2nd chair opener is not that Opener might be light. The problem is playing a convention like Drury when the partnership's assets are unlimited. The opponents then have an impossible evaluation problem for at least the 1st 2 rounds of the auction while the Drury users have a method for communicating that the opponents are not privy to until it is very likely too late to be useful. ...and that, folks violates the basic concept that all players at the table should be able to judge the likely worth of the hands at the table given the bidding. No partnership is allowed to "speak in code" that the other side does not understand." If you don't understand that the situation is different when the partnerhip's assets are unlimited than when one of the hands has denied an opening bid, then you do not understand this game as well as I thought you did. Drury after a 3rd seat opening is simply not as effective as the old RS and KS methods of "revealing a psyche" were. In short, it simply doesn't work as a psychic control in that circumstance. It does work as a psychic control after a 1st or 2nd chair opening. Thus it is banned in one circumstance and allowed in the other.

Let's start by saying that I have relatives in active service in the US military. I have relatives who have been highly decorated, some posthumously, in that service. I also have relatives who are Conscientious Objectors. Both sorts consider(ed) themselves highly patriotic. None of them are very happy with the man presently serving as POTUS even as they do everything they can to support the ideals of the USA and their fellow citizens serving in the Armed Forces (or any other form of government service). Anyone who thinks that Patriotism means supporting one's government leaders no matter how one feels about their actions is wrong and needs to reread The Federalist Papers and the words of such people as Thomas Paine (the likes without whom there would be no USA). Americans have an historical precedent given to them by those founding fathers of an OBLIGATION to question their leaders and peacefully object when those leaders are not speaking and acting up to the standards they as citizens feel are appropriate. Especially when those words and deeds are leading to the deaths of their fellow citizens. Especially when those words and deeds are leading to what they feel are attacks on the rights their ancestors died establishing or protecting. I also suggest everyone go listen to the speech Michael Douglas makes at the end of the movie _The American President_ if they want a better idea of what it really means to be an American Citizen. In this context, it is amazing to me that the actions of the Venice Cup winners in Shanghai have caused such controversy. 1= They did not make an overt political statement. They said that they, like the majority of Americans, did not vote for the current Chief Executive. a= Mr Bush won the electoral vote. Not the popular vote. b= Mr Bush has had the lowest approval rating of any president in history. Nixon included. c= Mr Bush is an anti-Semite when many of those who play Bridge are Jewish. (...He's also anti-gay, and anti-minority, and... all that goes with being a proud member of what is presently called the White Religious Right in the USA.) d= Mr Bush has engaged in words and deeds that many consider to violate the principles documented in the Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. e= Americans traveling abroad are presently consistently being "put on the spot" by foreigners about the present American leadership. That one might want to distance oneself from the leadership in order to stop being "put on the spot" is only human. Disaproving of the human serving as POTUS is not the same as disaproving of the USA or being unpatriotic to the USA. It can't be. The USA would cease to exist as a democracy the instant that became true. On that sad day those who want to destroy the USA will have won. 2= The folks laughing during the US national anthem were in the audience, not members of USA1. 3= Nonetheless, the members of USA1, like any other public figures, have an obligation to comport themselves to certain standards of public behavior. The right of Free Speech does not allow for one to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater or to do the metaphorical equivalent without consequence. Even though USA1's actions were no where near as risky or inflamatory, still they must bear responsibility for whatever reaction those actions precipitated, They had the absolute right to do what they did no matter what anyone else thinks about their taste in doing so. They also have an absolute obligation to fully "take the heat" for those actions. If in the process of taking said heat some members of USA1 feel they are subjected to more than fair pressure or consequences, they then have the right to seek legal recourse for that perceived imbalance. Enough said. Now let's get back to Bridge.

SA and 2/1 GF don't have a direct forcing raise until Jacoby 2N is introduced: 1M-3M is a Limit Raise 1M-3N is 13-15 flat (after J2N is introduced, this often becomes something conventional) The Old Fashioned 1M-3M as a GF Raise is very much no longer mainstream.

what helene said Add me to this group.

Just to help there are 3 normal answers to this test 3 is the norm, this is because The brain cannot process "OF". 4 is rare (this is what I did) 6 is genius or you have seen the test before 6 is also the answer you get if you read the sentence backwards because you want to avoid pattern based bias... B) (I've never seen the quiz before. Was surprised anyone got any answer other than 6.)

More "wisdom" from Foo Playing Drury opposite a first or second seat opening bid can hardly be considered a psychic control. Crane played methods in which a light openings in first and second seat were systemic. The light openings practiced by his partnership were not exceptions. They were not random deviations. They were integral parts of the system and should not be described as "psyches". In much the same vein, the artificial 2♣ advance that Crane wanted to use wasn't a "psychic control" any more that Drury over a 3rd/4th seat opening is a psychic control. (Even the Brits have stopped describing Drury as a psychic control). I agree that the ACBL has the authority to ban Drury over a first or second seat opening. (They can sanction or refuse to sanction whatever they damn well please). However, if the ACBL is going to ban a method, they should do so in the correct manner. They should openly state that they don't want to allow methods that support light openings in first / second seat rather than hiding behind intellectually bankrupt arguments. From what I can tell, the entire concept of "Psychic Controls" has gone by the wayside. These concepts were discarded when people got more sophisticated about what constitues an "agreement". Its sad to see folks trying to resurrect this sort of crap. Ah, the dulcet tones of those attempting to confuse an issue to protect or push their agenda. So let's put paid to such attempts at confusion with a bit of clarity. First, the concept of a psychic control has not been discarded. What has been discarded is the concept that allowing them is good for Bridge. Psychic controls are not allowed in most jurisdictions of Organized Bridge. They are unlikely to ever be as acceptable again as they were in days of yore. Second, the problem with using a raise like Drury opposite a 1st or 2nd chair opener is not that Opener might be light. The problem is playing a convention like Drury when the partnership's assets are unlimited. The opponents then have an impossible evaluation problem for at least the 1st 2 rounds of the auction while the Drury users have a method for communicating that the opponents are not privy to until it is very likely too late to be useful. ...and that, folks violates the basic concept that all players at the table should be able to judge the likely worth of the hands at the table given the bidding. No partnership is allowed to "speak in code" that the other side does not understand. The use of a psychic control by a partnership whose assets are not yet limited gives them the ability to bid more safely than others at the table in any of the partscore, game or slam levels. It does so in such a way that inhibits competition to such an extent that the side using psychic controls basically has "free rein" at the table as long as they are first to speak. In short, psychic controls are a way of a creating a Dominant bidding system. Such things are not good for Bridge.