ggwhiz Posted January 20, 2012 Report Share Posted January 20, 2012 partner explains that "It could be lead directional with a fit, could be running, could be lead directional with a void, could be a psyche." Reminds me of my favorite committee ruling. A local pair playing a home-grown system out of town explained an alert as "could be this, could be that, could be something else" and repeated it on further requests for info. Declarer finally bid 3nt in exasperation, wide open in their bid suit and made a bunch on a different lead. At committee he said "Anyone who doesn't have the courtesy to explain the alert doesn't have the courtesy to lead partners suit." and won at the speed of light. It's a headache but too much yada yada in the explanation won't help. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xcurt Posted January 20, 2012 Report Share Posted January 20, 2012 Reminds me of my favorite committee ruling. A local pair playing a home-grown system out of town explained an alert as "could be this, could be that, could be something else" and repeated it on further requests for info. Declarer finally bid 3nt in exasperation, wide open in their bid suit and made a bunch on a different lead. At committee he said "Anyone who doesn't have the courtesy to explain the alert doesn't have the courtesy to lead partners suit." and won at the speed of light. It's a headache but too much yada yada in the explanation won't help. Who appealed? If the methods pair, this sounds like the mother of all AWMWs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ggwhiz Posted January 20, 2012 Report Share Posted January 20, 2012 Who appealed? If the methods pair, this sounds like the mother of all AWMWs. Yes it was. No AWM but it brought joy and happiness to the local Bridge community. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted January 20, 2012 Report Share Posted January 20, 2012 What was the basis of their appeal? That declarer's repeated questions misled them into finding the wrong defense? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted January 20, 2012 Report Share Posted January 20, 2012 Also I didn't call him a cheat. I said what he is doing is mild form of cheating Isn't someone who cheats a cheat? Hecertainly was doing NOTHING like cheating.You seem to be contradicting youself. Is there a missing quotation box? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ggwhiz Posted January 20, 2012 Report Share Posted January 20, 2012 What was the basis of their appeal? That declarer's repeated questions misled them into finding the wrong defense? Yes and declarers accepted defence was that he couldn't get a straight answer, just yada yada. The pair that lost the ruling had become a pain in the butt with non, inadequate or many thought intentionally mis-leading disclosure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the hog Posted January 21, 2012 Report Share Posted January 21, 2012 You seem to be contradicting youself. Is there a missing quotation box? I didn't call him a cheat, Bluecalm did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted January 23, 2012 Report Share Posted January 23, 2012 I didn't call him a cheat, Bluecalm did.There's no "bluecalm said:" in your post -- that's what I meant about the missing quotation box. Compare it to your reply to me, where it's clear who said what. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mgoetze Posted January 24, 2012 Report Share Posted January 24, 2012 Fred said I could post his reply to my email question.... Oh, now I know why Fred never responds to my posts... I need to make him aware of them personally... will keep that in mind. I'm sure Fred will appreciate it when I point out my next really important question to him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the hog Posted January 24, 2012 Report Share Posted January 24, 2012 There's no "bluecalm said:" in your post -- that's what I meant about the missing quotation box. Compare it to your reply to me, where it's clear who said what. Yes, but if you had read all the posts in the thread you would know this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
straube Posted February 1, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 1, 2012 http://justinlall.com/tag/psyches/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glen Posted February 2, 2012 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 http://justinlall.com/tag/psyches/To update his 2006 post: ... criteria before considering a psyche: Have a limited partner.Have a suit to run to.Have a partner not named Hamman. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.