stuffed up by psyche

[Zelandakh]

It's time to close this thread Barry.

[Vampyr]

thepossum showing his true colors again. Someone needs a forum timeout.

 

I wouldn’t worry. These posts are, for virtually everyone TL:DR. And don’t care.

[Vampyr]

 

This is not surprising because the training to become a Teacher of Bridge is that you put your hand in the air and say "I'm a Bridge teacher" plus, you can play Bridge and you are over the age of 15. At least to become a real Teacher, apart from actual training in teaching, you also need to have a criminal record check and a working with children check.

 

To be a certified EBU bridge teacher you need to take a training course. If I am not mistaken, you also need a criminal record check.

 

You seem happy with your online teacher. How did you find him or her?

[pilowsky]

To be a certified EBU bridge teacher you need to take a training course. If I am not mistaken, you also need a criminal record check.

 

You seem happy with your online teacher. How did you find him or her?

 

online

[haka9]

I'd be surprised at that. Most beginners I know were taught the rule of 19.

 

I know an experienced player at the club that doesn't like people upgrading any balanced 11 count to a weak NT (e.g. one with working honors and several tens and nines). He thinks if they do that their card should say 11-14 1NT.

 

Off-topic: I started playing bridge with a strong club system (now I know that it isn't the best system to start with). Then we could open with 11 hcp and a decent 5 card suit. After that I changed my residence and joined another bridge club. At that time 4 card openings were standard. I never heard of the rule of 19. Instead most players in the new club followed the rule of 15 when opening with slight points: If hcp + number of ♠ is at least 15, open.

 

More off-topic: I know an experienced player who said in an interview that he can upgrade a "good" 14 hcp to 15-17 1 NT. I think his system description should say: 1 NT (14)15-17 hcp, but no.

 

In-topic: I can think three bids to 1 ♥ opening: I can bid 1 ♠ to tell 5 cards. I can double with a mighty hand, now with ♠. I can bid brutally 4 ♠. In most cases I would double. However, after double my partner should not pass to 1 ♠.

[nudnikbp]

North shouldn't bid one spade with a regular partner.

In addition, it is ethically questionable to make psychic bids against weaker players.

[hrothgar]

In addition, it is ethically questionable to make psychic bids against weaker players.

 

Fortunately, the game governed by the laws rather than rando's personal aesthetics.

[DavidKok]

More off-topic: I know an experienced player who said in an interview that he can upgrade a "good" 14 hcp to 15-17 1 NT. I think his system description should say: 1 NT (14)15-17 hcp, but no.

This is common to the point of being universal at higher level these days. In fact, there are some heated ongoing debates if this should be marked on a CC, or needs a pre-alert, or where to draw the lines. Some people have taken to writing "14⁺-17^-".

[mycroft]

In addition, it is ethically questionable to make psychic bids against weaker players.

So, when's a good time? When they're not a weaker player? What if I'm also a weaker player? What if they have twice as many attendance points as I do because they push cards 5 times a week? Are they still weaker?

 

The first time you are psyched against is a rite of passage, and I try to explain it that way when I'm directing and it happens. If this attitude (*), which frankly has been common for as long as I've been playing bridge, applies all the time, all it does is jump up the time, and jump up the outrage, when finally someone decides they're no longer a "weaker player" and psyches against them. That actually makes it *harder* for us directors to deal with.

 

And what are you going to say if North responded "Oops, I meant to bid 1NT, didn't notice?" What if it's true? Is it ethically questionable to misbid or misclick against weaker players? What about playing a weak NT (okay, strong NT in AL's land)? Or a 1♣ opener that is 0-7 clubs, but a king over a normal opener? What about a - totally non-psychic, systemic - 1♠ opener on AKJxxx, a stiff and another J?

 

It's *bad bridge* to psych against weaker players - psychs are -EV to begin with (but being known as someone who psychs may not be), and you should expect to be >50% against "weaker players" playing straight up. But it's legal, and legal is ethical in Bridge (seriously. That's why the Proprieties are Laws).

 

We should be teaching players in introductory lessons that "there's more than one way to do it", and that applies to "some people don't play 15-17 NT, and it's a valid way to play", "some people's strong bid is 1♣, not 2♣, and that's fine", and it also applies to "it is legal to misbid, it is in fact legal, but very uncommon, to deliberately lie. Here's why you don't want to do it now, or often, ever - [elided] - but it does happen, just so you're not surprised when in a couple of years, it happens to you." But we don't, and this is what happens.

 

(*) I'm reminded of another thread recently, which I won't link to, where some (few) were questioning the ethics of a player whose *partner* psyched, in a high-level match, against "weaker" players. For being willing to play with him? I don't know.

[Finch]

I see. It seems that my information was out of date. This is good.

 

It's been alertable since 1998. Possibly earlier, but my bookshelf doesn't go back any further.

[nige1]

Welcome back, Frances :)

[miamijd]

This is common to the point of being universal at higher level these days. In fact, there are some heated ongoing debates if this should be marked on a CC, or needs a pre-alert, or where to draw the lines. Some people have taken to writing "14⁺-17^-".

 

If you occasionally upgrade a good 14 to 15 and open 1NT (for example, a hand with three Aces, or hand with lots of 10s and 9s or maybe a hand with a good five-card minor), then you absolutely SHOULD put 14+ - 17 on your cc.

 

Cheers,

Mike

[miamijd]

North shouldn't bid one spade with a regular partner.

In addition, it is ethically questionable to make psychic bids against weaker players.

 

It's not ethically questionable, in that nothing in the Laws prohibits it. On the other hand, it's not very nice and can serve to discourage beginners from wanting to play competitive bridge. I recall that in my mother's very first session of duplicate (back in 1985, with me), we faced an auction that went:

 

(2H) X (2S) pass

(3H) all pass

 

I was the doubler. Mom had spades, but she didn't realize the 2 spade bidder was psyching; he had 7 HCP or so, a stiff spade and 4-card H support. After the auction, he said something to the effect of "Well, isn't that basically just a free psyche? After all, it's forcing, so I'll show heart support on the next round, at the four level if I have to." He wasn't playing with a regular partner, so they probably had no agreement here; thus, no alert.

 

I wasn't very happy and told him so after the game. What he did was perfectly legal, but does he really think my mom is going to want to come back to play again if people do those sorts of things against duplicate newbies in a Saturday afternoon club game?

 

So I would never question the ethics of someone who did it. I would, however, question their wisdom in terms of their commitment to promoting and expanding the game.

 

Cheers,

Mike

[pescetom]

If you occasionally upgrade a good 14 to 15 and open 1NT (for example, a hand with three Aces, or hand with lots of 10s and 9s or maybe a hand with a good five-card minor), then you absolutely SHOULD put 14+ - 17 on your cc.

 

I'm all in favour of disclosure, but I don't fully understand this.

If instead I put 15-17 then I should always have 15-17 independent of how good/bad the hand is, in other words be what on BBO is called 'idiot' (or 'GIB')?

And if I occasionally devalue a quacky 18 do I have to write 14+ 18-?

And if my partner knows I only occasionally do so, is he bound to alert to explain that 18-?

Probably it's a fault of the card format, "NT upgrade(downgrade) style = never/moderate/radical" might be a good start.

In any case it's not (IMHO) a big deal.

[Vampyr]

He wasn't playing with a regular partner, so they probably had no agreement here; thus, no alert.

There would probably not been an alert anyway; the most common meaning is still probably natural.

I wasn't very happy and told him so after the game. What he did was perfectly legal, but does he really think my mom is going to want to come back to play again if people do those sorts of things against duplicate newbies in a Saturday afternoon club game?

 

Hopefully your mother learned how to deal with baby psychs and continued to play. But since psychs can backfire, why do it against beginners? Beat them by being stronger players than they are.

 

I'm all in favour of disclosure, but I don't fully understand this.

If instead I put 15-17 then I should always have 15-17 independent of how good/bad the hand is, in other words be what on BBO is called 'idiot' (or 'GIB')?

And if I occasionally devalue a quacky 18 do I have to write 14+ 18-?

And if my partner knows I only occasionally do so, is he bound to alert to explain that 18-?

Probably it's a fault of the card format, "NT upgrade(downgrade) style = never/moderate/radical" might be a good start.

In any case it's not (IMHO) a big deal.

 

Well, it is not a matter of opinion, and it is a big deal.

[haka9]

North shouldn't bid one spade with a regular partner.

In addition, it is ethically questionable to make psychic bids against weaker players.

 

I remember a deal kibitzing in BBO. NS, very good players but not a constant pair. EW was an intermediate couple with a long mutual history. S opened 1 ♣ (at least 3).

W bid 1 ♦ and then it started. N doubled and E bid 2 ♠. S passed (forcing) and so W. N doubled, and E bid 3 ♥. p-p-D (in rage)-4♦-D-passout. Home, sweet home. E had anything but majors.

[pescetom]

Well, it is not a matter of opinion, and it is a big deal.

 

The need to disclose is not a matter of opinion, I agree.

Nor are RA rules, even if they differ.

If you think that it is a big deal to know whether or not opponent occasionally upgrades a hand then we have different opinions.

[Vampyr]

The need to disclose is not a matter of opinion, I agree.

Nor are RA rules, even if they differ.

If you think that it is a big deal to know whether or not opponent occasionally upgrades a hand then we have different opinions.

 

It really depends upon what “occasionally” means. If it is once in a blue moon, then your low standards of disclosure will be fine. I think that when it approaches the level of approximately one session in ten, then it is something that needs to be disclosed.

[pescetom]

It really depends upon what “occasionally” means. If it is once in a blue moon, then your low standards of disclosure will be fine. I think that when it approaches the level of approximately one session in ten, then it is something that needs to be disclosed.

 

My threshold would be a bit higher, say 1 in 8, but yes there is a point at which I would expect to be warned 'frequent upgrades'. But even without such warning this is not on my list of big deals, despite a high standard of disclosure. Nor do I think that attaching +/- to ranges is a good way of communicating such tendencies as it is highly ambiguous about the frequency which as you say is the key.

[nige1]

The need to disclose is not a matter of opinion, I agree. Nor are RA rules, even if they differ. If you think that it is a big deal to know whether or not opponent occasionally upgrades a hand then we have different opinions.

I agree with Vampyr that pairs should truthfully disclose their HCP ranges. For example, many top players, who declare a 15-17 1N opener, open most 14 HCP hands -- "upgrading" them unless the shape is (4333).

 

Pescetom has a point, however. Such practices are rife and usually condoned. Experienced players get into bad habits. They practice and expect such dissimulation. So where's damage? Well...

 

Occasionally, naïve club-players are hoodwinked and misdefend, If they call the director, he usually rules in favour of the misinformer. Not just at club-level. In a European Championship, Charles Outred's opponents opened 1NT "light" on 3 consecutive hands but the director wouldn't rule against them.

 

HCP are a simple well-defined objective measure. Honour quality, honour distribution, shape, and intermediates are separate factors that you should declare as well. Vampyr points out that you can employ a concise notation. For example 14+ - 17- (or whatever is the truth, for your partnership).

 

IMO, the lax attitude to disclosure by rule-makers, directors, and players is symptomatic of the current malaise infecting the probity of Bridge.

[mycroft]

Without some guidance from the Regulatory authorities, it's hard to explain how much people upgrade.

 

"Everybody" (but Walruses) upgrades the odd hand. Almost nobody downgrades anything but the quackiest, flattest dreck.

 

Many players upgrade "good" hands, not just "not-Walrus" hands.

 

Some players upgrade good hands - i.e. anything but "bad" hands.

 

Most people are of the opinion their style is "obviously" right, and "normal", and will tell you that when you ask. Even those that aren't, will have a different idea what "good, great, excellent,..." mean.

 

Many pairs don't discuss this at all, and don't pay any attention to their partner judgement. So there's that, too.

 

With one partner, it was 'AAK or connected honours in long suits' to upgrade 11 into a 12-14 (and we announced 'good 11 to 14', and gave that explanation when they asked what a "good 11" was). With my current partner, it's 'really, it's a 12-count' (with me upgrading maybe twice as often as partner), maybe half as often? (and we Announce '12-14')

 

My strong NT pair is 'any 14 that isn't 13', so we do in fact Announce "14-17".

 

I wish we did have this guidance, because I'd like to be saying The Right Thing, and have my opponents know what I mean (or, at least, they can be pointed to the guidance so they will know in future).

[pilowsky]

Without some guidance from the Regulatory authorities, it's hard to explain how much people upgrade.

 

"Everybody" (but Walruses) upgrades the odd hand. Almost nobody downgrades anything but the quackiest, flattest dreck.

 

Many players upgrade "good" hands, not just "not-Walrus" hands.

 

Some players upgrade good hands - i.e. anything but "bad" hands.

 

Most people are of the opinion their style is "obviously" right, and "normal", and will tell you that when you ask. Even those that aren't, will have a different idea what "good, great, excellent,..." mean.

 

Many pairs don't discuss this at all, and don't pay any attention to their partner judgement. So there's that, too.

 

With one partner, it was 'AAK or connected honours in long suits' to upgrade 11 into a 12-14 (and we announced 'good 11 to 14', and gave that explanation when they asked what a "good 11" was). With my current partner, it's 'really, it's a 12-count' (with me upgrading maybe twice as often as partner), maybe half as often? (and we Announce '12-14')

 

My strong NT pair is 'any 14 that isn't 13', so we do in fact Announce "14-17".

 

I wish we did have this guidance, because I'd like to be saying The Right Thing, and have my opponents know what I mean (or, at least, they can be pointed to the guidance so they will know in future).

 

Finally! I learned to upgrade from John Newman (zenbiddist), who when challenged by his opponents at the end of hand - I was his partner at the time- laid down his cards and quietly appointed to the doubleton as his extra point.

On that Tuesday evening at the Sydney Bridge Centre, I was a walk-in and he was the playing Director. So no, he didn't rule against himself.

 

I think most new players stick to the 'right thing' ie do exactly what they're told, better players do what's right for them, and some people just feel that they have the 'right stuff' as Tom Wolfe put it - until they don't then the two men in black visit their significant other

 

Where do you buy guidance in Bridgeworld? The guidance shop?.

[Zelandakh]

I wish we did have this guidance, because I'd like to be saying The Right Thing, and have my opponents know what I mean (or, at least, they can be pointed to the guidance so they will know in future).

It is actually even more complicated than this because the rules say both partners have to play the same system but they do not have to agree on what constitutes an upgrade and what does not, nor even on which 4441, 5M332 or 4M5m22 hands qualify. Just today I opened a 2=2=3=6 hand 1NT in third seat and partner was very clear that they would never do that (or indeed the 2=4=3=4 4 count I opened 1NT in third a few days ago). These individual interpretations of the agreed system can be even more problematic to explain than the system itself.

[pescetom]

I agree with Vampyr that pairs should truthfully disclose their HCP ranges. For example, many top players, who declare a 15-17 1N opener, open most 14 HCP hands -- "upgrading" them unless the shape is (4333).

 

Pescetom has a point, however. Such practices are rife and usually condoned. Experienced players get into bad habits. They practice and expect such dissimulation. So where's damage? Well...

 

Occasionally, naïve club-players are hoodwinked and misdefend, If they call the director, he usually rules in favour of the misinformer. Not just at club-level. In a European Championship, Charles Outred's opponents opened 1NT "light" on 3 consecutive hands but the director wouldn't rule against them.

 

HCP are a simple well-defined objective measure. Honour quality, honour distribution, shape, and intermediates are separate factors that you should declare as well. Vampyr points out that you can employ a concise notation. For example 14+ - 17- (or whatever is the truth, for your partnership).

 

IMO, the lax attitude to disclosure by rule-makers, directors, and players is symptomatic of the current malaise infecting the probity of Bridge.

I'm with you on the principles and the bottom line, as usual.

My point however was not that opening 1NT most (i.e. >50%, not 10% or 12%) 14 HCP hands is rife and usually condoned.

If that is really so in USA or UK then I understand why people might consider NT disclosure a significant (if not big) problem.

A 5332 with no other redeeming features can hardly be worth a whole point upgrade.

But even then 14+ does not solve the problem, unless it is agreed that this means that around 50% of 14 HCP hands will open 1NT.

Vampyr was worrying about how to differentiate 0% from 10% and even I would call foul if not advised about 15%, which is presumably below your 14+ radar.

Perhaps "Percentage of 1NT hands upgraded:" on the system card would content all.

[pilowsky]

Isn't the real question: what is it that your opponents would be able to do if that extra information was available to them?

It's similar to the problem I struggled with concerning short club (could be 2) versus better minor (at least 3).

 

What I would like to know - as a Beginner-Intermediate is: what additional action would I be able to take as the next bidder if the opener has exactly 14 HCP rather than 15HCP as promised.

 

To put it another way, when does it matter when doesn't it? How serious an infraction is it?

Playing in many clubs, I cannot recollect a penalty being applied for failure to alert an artificial call. Non-alerted transfers, Non-alerted Bergen bids etc etc.

Except perhaps once. My partner bid 2D over 1NT. I alerted Cappelletti (both majors) and because my partner had forgotten the system and actually had 6 diamonds, and the opps took advantage of the error, Ms Director awarded the Opps 60%.

I still don't understand that ruling, but it was presumably reasonable.

 

To be fair, my experience is limited to coffee club competitions and community clubs with a bit of online Bridge thrown in. Perhaps in real Bridge it's different.