Weak 1M controlled by Drury

[barmar]

Again, the major reason for the psychic control regulation is that they aren't psychics that are being controlled; they're expected enough that they build system to handle them, and (almost always) that expectation is an illegal partnership understanding on the relevant regulations being used. And that isn't, really, a bad thing.

What isn't a bad thing: the PUs, or the regulation that prohibits them?

[mycroft]

Sorry, what I meant was that a regulation designed to penalize trying to get around the regulations by "not discussing", especially attempts to play an illegal system by just *not telling anybody you're doing it* (which compounds the first infraction with lack of disclosure and taking the gains from that insufficient disclosure as well), isn't a bad thing.

[Cthulhu D]

Nonetheless, it is dangerous if you do not have the agreement suggested, since partner might decide to raise to 3 or 4♠ after LHO's double. And if these raises do not exist, it seems to me that the system has been designed with psyche control in mind and should be looked at quite strictly.

 

Any system that systematically opens balanced 8 counts with an aggressive preempting style has an inbuilt psychic control in that aggressive moves opposite a psyche in 3rd are extremely unlikely, hands that would make aggressive pre-emptive raises are overwhelmingly likely to have preempted to begin with (perhaps on an assumed fit basis). But drury is clearly a psychic control and is permitted, so who knows.

[blackshoe]

Someone asked what "regularly" means in this context.

 

It's a judgment call. Basically it means "often enough that partner comes to expect it". There's no specific number, or time period, except that once is not enough. One must also remember that not all psychs are the same, so if a player makes say three different psychs in the same session, that's still not enough. Although I suppose someone could argue that it's enough to conclude that whatever partner's call, it might be a psych. OTGH, that's generally true unless partner is known to "never" psych. Bottom line: it's up to the TD.

[gnasher]

Someone asked what "regularly" means in this context.

 

It's a judgment call. Basically it means "often enough that partner comes to expect it". There's no specific number, or time period, except that once is not enough. One must also remember that not all psychs are the same, so if a player makes say three different psychs in the same session, that's still not enough. Although I suppose someone could argue that it's enough to conclude that whatever partner's call, it might be a psych. OTGH, that's generally true unless partner is known to "never" psych. Bottom line: it's up to the TD.

That sounds like a definition of "frequently". Doesn't "regularly" imply that it follows a fixed pattern, such as psyching every Tuesday on the third board of the day?

[barmar]

That sounds like a definition of "frequently". Doesn't "regularly" imply that it follows a fixed pattern, such as psyching every Tuesday on the third board of the day?

Has any done a study linking women's psychic bidding with their menstrual cycle?

 

Following a repeating pattern is definition #1 in my dictionary. But definition #2 is "done or happening frequently". Which do you think is more likely to have been intended in this context?

[blackshoe]

People — well, except maybe David Burn — tend to use words interchangeably even when they don't mean precisely the same thing.The law doesn't use either "frequently" or "regularly", it speaks of "repeated deviations". ABF regulations on psyching speak of the frequency of doing it. The EBU White Book (2013 edition) speaks of frequency, but it also says that a partnership's actions one instance of a psych may be considered evidence of a CPU. I suspect they intend something more than just "one psych = CPU", that some other evidence is involved, but they don't clarify. If they do mean one psych is alone sufficient, I think they're overlooking the law's reference to "repeated deviations". The ACBL (see Duplicate Decisions) speaks of "frequent, random psychs" and "excessive psychic bidding". So regulators don't use "regularly".

[campboy]

The EBU White Book (2013 edition) speaks of frequency, but it also says that a partnership's actions one instance of a psych may be considered evidence of a CPU. I suspect they intend something more than just "one psych = CPU", that some other evidence is involved, but they don't clarify.

I believe what is meant is that, while it isn't a CPU unless something similar has happened before (or unless the pair have explicitly discussed it), a partnership's combined actions on one board may be sufficient to conclude that it is very probable that something similar has happened before.

[nige1]

Drury was invented as a "psych"-control

No it wasn't

Drury was developed because people properly noted that

1. Third and fourth seat openings have a wider ranger than first and second seat opening

2. Traditional response structures for sound first and second seat openings didn't work well opposition wide ranging third seat openings

Eric Murray says that Douglas Drury invented his eponymous 2♣ convention

"for the express purpose of mitigating the losses suffered by my partners because of my uncontrollable mania for opening balanced Yarboroughs in third or fourth position with one spade."

[gnasher]

Following a repeating pattern is definition #1 in my dictionary. But definition #2 is "done or happening frequently". Which do you think is more likely to have been intended in this context?

The second definition is one that I'm unfamiliar with. Perhaps it depends on your dictionary.

[barmar]

The second definition is one that I'm unfamiliar with. Perhaps it depends on your dictionary.

The examples it gives are "regular border clashes", "parties were a fairly regular occurrence", and "a regular visitor". If you go to the theater at least once a month you might be considered a regular moviegoer, even if you don't space them out evenly.

[blackshoe]

I believe what is meant is that, while it isn't a CPU unless something similar has happened before (or unless the pair have explicitly discussed it), a partnership's combined actions on one board may be sufficient to conclude that it is very probable that something similar has happened before.

Probably. It would be nice to have an example or two showing where the line is drawn, though. Of course, if they did that, somebody would probably argue the line is in the wrong place, or something.