Understanding the rules of this wonderful game

[sceptic]

this may seem a dumb question or two to some , but I will ask it anyway.

 

why does some one not alert their card play i.e.

 

1/. This may be a false card

 

why do people not alert every bid as

 

2/. This could be a pshyce ( there are conventions out there that must come up less regularly than a Pshcye so if you know your pard Pshcyes occasionally (then it is accepted as part of your system) I bet it is more frequent than some weird gadgets) so surely this must be alertable.

 

3/. if you provide (and I say if) a detailed cc , why do you have to alert anything? it would be simple to post a detailed cc from geocities (free) msm messenger (free)

 

4/. why are 2!C artificail bids not acceptable as Pshyces, when a Pshyce can be a gross misrepresentation of the facts anyway?

 

 

5/. why are brown sticker bid not accepted by some governing bodies, when that is no more disruptive than a Pshyce

[pigpenz]

this may seem a dumb question or two to some , but I will ask it anyway.

 

why does some one not alert their card play i.e.

 

1/. This may be a false card

 

why do people not alert every bid as

 

2/. This could be a pshyce ( there are conventions out there that must come up less regularly than a Pshcye so if you know your pard Pshcyes occasionally (then it is accepted as part of your system) I bet it is more frequent than some weird gadgets) so surely this must be alertable.

 

3/. if you provide (and I say if) a detailed cc , why do you have to alert anything? it would be simple to post a detailed cc from geocities (free) msm messenger (free)

 

4/. why are 2!C artificail bids not acceptable as Pshyces, when a Pshyce can be a gross misrepresentation of the facts anyway?

 

 

5/. why are brown sticker bid not accepted by some governing bodies, when that is no more disruptive than a Pshyce

1. you take a risk with a false card, not giving count is false carding, playing q or j form qj..alot of false card are small things.

 

2. your partner is likely to be mislead by a psyche as well as opps.

 

3. a convention card is a map but it is not the opps responsiblity to read in detail. the alert takes care of artificial alerts.

 

4. you could conceivably psyche a 2club bid, but again it is an artificial bid that is pretty standard.

 

5.have no idea what brown card or brown bag is.

[Finch]

They aren't dumb questions, because there is no simple, logical reply.

 

1/. This may be a false card

 

For the same reason you don't alert psyches. See next question!

 

2. This could be a psyche

Because you are not supposed to have agreements about when you psyche and when you don't. The purpose of an alert is to alert your opponents to an agreement, not an unusual bid. A psyche is supposed to be as much a surprise to partner as it is to the opponents.

 

If this isn't the case, then you are coming close to having an agreement about when to psyche, and that is (in most jurisdictions) illegal. If you play somewhere where it is legal to have such an agreement, then it is certainly alertable.

 

if you provide (and I say if) a detailed cc , why do you have to alert anything? it would be simple to post a detailed cc from geocities (free) msm messenger (free)

 

Two answers.

i) Because not everything fits on a convention card; or if you did fit everything on the opponents would never be able to find it quickly enough.

 

ii) In theory, you are correct that once your card says "strong 1C opener" there shouldn't be any need to alert the strong 1C opener.

 

However, no-one has yet written an alerting regulation that says "if it's on the card, don't alert it". I think this is because it's easy to alert things, and it saves the opponents having to study the card after every call to find out if it's natural or not.

 

why are 2!C artificail bids not acceptable as Psyches, when a Psyche can be a gross misrepresentation of the facts anyway?

 

This varies by where you play, it's not a general international rule. In some places you are allowed to psyche an artificial 2C opener (e.g. you will be able to in England soon, the rule is changing).

 

But anyway, I think there is no good reason. The only reason I know of is that it becomes very easy to have (illegal) concealed understandings about psyching strong calls, as once responder always bids 2D waiting (say) it gives opener free rein to do what he wants. But I think a more likely reason is that the people who write the regulations don't like them, so they aren't allowed.

 

why are brown sticker bid not accepted by some governing bodies, when that is no more disruptive than a Psyche?

 

BS bids can be more disruptive, because they come up more frequently. A psyche by Law has to surprise partner as much as opponents, so you can't psyche too often or too reliably. It makes life difficult for everybody. A BS convention can be very difficult to defend against but easier to play, and it may come up a lot.

 

(this is a different debate to whether BS conventions should be allowed at all)

 

Also, governing bodies cannot legally ban all psyches. And they can legally ban most BS conventions. Maybe some would ban psyches as well if they could...

[scoob]

this may seem a dumb question or two to some , but I will ask it anyway.

 

why does some one not alert their card play i.e.

 

1/. This may be a false card

 

why do people not alert every bid as

 

2/. This could be a pshyce ( there are conventions out there that must come up less regularly than a Pshcye so if you know your pard Pshcyes occasionally (then it is accepted as part of your system) I bet it is more frequent than some weird gadgets) so surely this must be alertable.

 

3/. if you provide (and I say if) a detailed cc , why do you have to alert anything? it would be simple to post a detailed cc from geocities (free) msm messenger (free)

 

4/. why are 2!C artificail bids not acceptable as Pshyces, when a Pshyce can be a gross misrepresentation of the facts anyway?

 

 

5/. why are brown sticker bid not accepted by some governing bodies, when that is no more disruptive than a Pshyce

1. any card may be a false card

 

2. if your partner psyches a certain bid (or bids) often enough that you consider that it may be a psyche when he bids it, that's alertable. if your partner tends to psyche alot, but with no real pattern, that should be pre-alerted to your opponents. any psyche that fools you as much as it does the opponents is not alertable.

 

3. a cc is a reference, and only a summary at that. an alert draws attention to a specific bid. when you say 'alert' the opponents are more than welcome to then eyeball your convention card and/or ask you for an explanation - or neither.

 

4. this is a decision made by the governing body (acbl, in this particular case) that is not specifically against the Laws.

 

5. again, the governing body has -some- latitude on these things - to know why, you'd have to ask the governing body themselves, or refer to their website/documentation, for an explanation.

[inquiry]

1/. This may be a false card

You are required to provide your agreed carding. You are not required to follow it at all times.

 

Why dont people alert every call as... 2/. This could be a pshyce ( there are conventions out there that must come up less regularly than a Pshcye so if you know your pard Pshcyes occasionally (then it is accepted as part of your system) I bet it is more frequent than some weird gadgets) so surely this must be alertable.

 

In fact virtually every call maybe a psyche (some are outlawed of course), so such an alert is redudant and unnecessary. Havign said that, my profile on line says "I psyche occ.", which I do. I guess I psyche about once every 50 boards or so. It is not unheard of for me to psyche two boards in a row, nor to not psyche 200 hands in a row.

 

There are some auctions that I actually alert my parnters bid... I have a partner who if the bidding goes 1m-(DBL)-1S will bid 1S with or without spades. I send private message to opponents that he "FREQUENTLY" psyches that bid (and I have asked him to stop doing it....but he continues). I respond as if he really has spades.

 

3/. if you provide (and I say if) a detailed cc , why do you have to alert anything? it would be simple to post a detailed cc from geocities (free)  msm messenger (free)

 

Why should I have to be REQUIRED to go look up you DETAILED convention card on the web or elsewhere to try to figure out what the heck your bids mean. Richard wanted us all to look at his beautiful HTML convention card to follow his moscito auctions. Dont' want too.. you just alert what needs to be alerted. That is what alerts are for. I assure you that you don't want to have to wade through my system notes to discover what my bids means.

 

4/.  why are 2!C artificail bids not acceptable as Pshyces, when a Pshyce can be a gross misrepresentation of the facts anyway?

 

Because the laws of bridge do not allow the regulation of psyches, but do allow the regulation of conventions. If you are going to play a convention, the laws allow the organizing body to regulate the convention. Thus, they can outlaw the a pscyhe of a strong artificial bid as an effect of allowing the bid. They can outlaw a conventional response to a 1NT overcall to catch the psyche 1NT overcall, but can not outlaw the psyche 1NT overcall.

 

5/. why are brown sticker bid not accepted by some governing bodies, when that is no more disruptive than a Pshyce

 

Becuase brown sticker conventions are just that conventions. They catch the unprepared opponent unawared and without fair opporutnity to have a treatment to deal with the highly unusual method while you and yoru partner have pages of notes on how to continue. On the other hand, a psyche, while catching the opponent unware that you don't have your bid, also catches your partner with the same problem.

[P_Marlowe]

1) Law and a false card is a psych, you do not need to alert a psych,

declarer has an advantage, having the knowlede that partner false

cards in certain situation, may set you on equal footing with declarere,

which may explain the difference to 2)

If someones asks, you should tell the opponents, if relevant, about

those situations

 

2) If you have the knowlede, that your partner makes a psych bid

in certain situation, you have information, you have to share with

the opponents.

The reason: Even if you detest the psych bid, you will sometimes make

bids, catering for the psych bid, i.e. your partner will land on his feets.

 

3) Because time is short, and it may be difficullt to find the special bid on

the convention card, there are also meanings, which follow from your

agreements, because bridge logic says, you have to play it that way,

... well it wouldnt be the first time, that different people come to different

conclusion, even if the starting place would be the same.

 

4) Law, contrary to what people would like to whis, law does not need to

be logical, somebody said, the rule is this, and that's it

 

5) Law

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[ArcLight]

Ask yourself this question:

 

Why do you play Bridge, as opposed to another game?

 

For me, the answer is "I find the deductive reasoning aspect facinating". I think all the bissing systems are quite interesting and can certainly undersatnd why many people are facinated by them and want to develop their own. For me the destructive bidding systems (which seem popular in some areas) take away from the reason I enjoy the game - the deductive reasoning.

The Brown Sticker conventions are surely far more effective than psychic bids.

Psychic bids are disruptive to both sides, as your partner will be fooled as well and you will generally not do well over the log run if you have a high frequency of psych bids.

 

As for alerting - you should also alert negative inferences you have, baded on your agreements.

Ex: a double of a splinter bidcalls for leading the lowest unbid suit. Pard didnt make that bid so I have a negative inference not to lead it. The opps should know this too. I think these types of inferences are almost never alerted, but the partnership is passing unannounced information.

[hotShot]

There is not much to add to 1-4, so i'll commend just 5/:

Brown sticker conventions are just conventions, but complicated ones. Nobody is able to think of a good defence, and agree with partner about it between change of round and start of play.

This gives one side a huge advantage. This is why those conventions are usually banned on low level events.

At high level events they are allowed, if a system description is published early enough. Strong players are expected to prepare a defence prior to a tourney.

[hrothgar]

Couple comments:

 

As I recall, the prohibition regarding psyching strong, artificial, and foricng openings was due to a specific incident involving Paul Marston. I'll see if I can get the details when I'm in Sydney next week. Its important to recognize that many of these issues are "political" decisions rather than logical one. If the wrong person gets a bad board against you, your methods are going to be banned. Conversely, if you have lots of money to throw arround exceptions get written into the rules for you.

 

>why are brown sticker bid not accepted by some governing bodies,

>when that is no more disruptive than a psyche

 

There are quite a few regulatory authorities who set fit to abuse their authority to ban psyches, so I'm not sure if your analogy is quite valid. With this said and done... My impression is that most regulators are desperately trying to preserve their existing membership base against anything that might make them uncomfortable... In some cases this means preserving the right to play BSCs. In others it means protecting them against BSCs. There's no rhyme or reason, just coservative old farts...

[the hog]

There is not much to add to 1-4, so i'll commend just 5/:

Brown sticker conventions are just conventions, but complicated ones. Nobody is able to think of a good defence, and agree with partner about it between change of round and start of play.

This gives one side a huge advantage. This is why those conventions are usually banned on low level events.

At high level events they are allowed, if a system description is published early enough. Strong players are expected to prepare a defence prior to a tourney.

No one? Speak for yourself Hotshot. Any serious parnership will have generic defences.

[zasanya]

Here is a concrete example.

My friend's hand had five cards of Hearts headed by Q.Other cards immaterial.His LHO opened a precision diamond which meant 11-15 and Diamond could be singleton.RHO bid 1 Heart (natural) LHO bid 2Hearts.RHO jumped to 3 NT.LHO passed. My friend didnt lead a Heart.Dummy came down with 1-4-4-4 shape (Spade singleton).Declarer had dbltn rags in Heart.Heart lead beats 3 nt.Contract makes on any other lead.My friend protested.TD ruled in declarers favour.

Aftermath: My friend told me the story.I contacted the RHO the one who passed 3 nt with singleton spade and expressed my displeasure.He kept defending himself that he had already showed his hand and if his partner for 'some reason' wanted to play 3 nt why shud he he not pass?He agreed that he thought his P had psyched and therefore passed but wasn't absolutely sure so in fact was running a risk.4 hearts might have been making if declarer really had 4 carder heart and 3 nt might have gone down.The same evidence was available to defenders too so defender could have lead heart.Afterall his P the 3 nt declarer is a known psycher.

Is the pass of 3 nt alertable?

[helene_t]

The pass of 3NT is acceptable. The only reason it might not be accpetable is if it was done on the basis of some UI, such as his partner looking nervous after hearts was raised.

 

But some Precision players bid 1♥ systematically (or at least quite frequently) on a 3-card, which may have been opener's reason for passing 3NT. So the problem was the non-alert of 1♥, not the pass on 3NT. Also, if 1♥ is frequently a psyche it must be alerted. If any adjustment is called for, it is 3NT with a hearts lead, not 4♥.

[hotShot]

There is not much to add to 1-4, so i'll commend just 5/:

Brown sticker conventions are just conventions, but complicated ones. Nobody is able to think of a good defence, and agree with partner about it between change of round and start of play.

This gives one side a huge advantage. This is why those conventions are usually banned on low level events.

At high level events they are allowed, if a system description is published early enough. Strong players are expected to prepare a defence prior to a tourney.

No one? Speak for yourself Hotshot. Any serious parnership will have generic defences.

Dear Hog!

 

A convention that does not specify a suit and does not specify, if the hand shown is weak or strong, is not so easy to defend against.

If you and your partner can invent and agree on a good defence to a complicated convention, during the seconds you have between getting to a new table, and start playing the round, i'll accept you as bridge gods.

 

Us mortals, will just use some general agreements, which will not restore the equality of opportunity.

 

Allowing one side to gain an advantage by suprising opps with an unusual method, is unfair.

[mycroft]

TheHog comes from a world where BSCs are common. He plays them, he plays against them, they come up as often as a bid that shows "spades, or hearts, or diamonds, or clubs, or any of the six combinations of two of those suits, the four three-suited possibilities and even a balanced hand." with strength specified as "'strong'" does in North America.

 

For him, defences against Myxomatosis 2 bids (originally named because they "kill rabbits", but now it's the rabbits that play them!) are as necessary a part of bridge life as defences to a Precision club are in Hong Kong.

 

If you need them, you get experience with them, you build generic defences to styles of them, both players can (independently) come up with the variation required for *this* particular version very quickly.

 

If you don't, you don't. And then they're "hard".

 

USA pros by and large want "perfect defences" to things; it's part of their style to have "complete agreements" against everything. That means to cover the 27 BSCs they're going to come up against, they have 450 pages of notes, 445 of which they're not going to play in any one round. These same players are the ones who regulate conventions in the ACBL, and have a strong voice in the WBF as well; so that's the style of defence you need to play anything "weird" in North America, and so it doesn't get done.

 

So they don't get practice, they don't find the usefulness of "generic defences" that the Australians, the Poles, and the Dutch do, and they stay locked in their view of the world. The Australians can't understand the American "we're going to lose something if we don't have a perfect defence" view, because they know that they're going to lose more from memory fatigue than they do with generic defences at their state tournaments, never mind top-tier. And so the debate rages eternal.

 

The quote in the top paragraph is from David Burn's "A Modest Proposal", from the 2000 Bermuda Bowl bulletins. This is available at the bottom of http://www.greatbridgelinks.com/gblPRESS/Orbis00/bul_07.txt, and it's in response to Alan Truscott's "Systemic Germs", about in the middle of http://www.greatbridgelinks.com/gblPRESS/Orbis00/bul_06.txt.

 

Those two articles do this perennial argument the best justice of any I have found.

 

Michael.