Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Art Korth
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I apologize in advance if my response to David's post is considered heavy handed, but I just could not let this go.

David: I apologize to you in advance as you advertise yourself as “the least experienced C player on this site.”

“Someone is called unethical for upgrading the strongest balanced 18 HCP hand in history (4 A's and a 5 card suit headed by the AQ10) to 19, someone else is ruled against because they made a weak raise with 7 HCP, but psyching every time you are favorable in 3rd seat and having your partner field it is ”real bridge“.”

(1) Anyone who believes that upgrading the hand in the OP is “unethical at best” is, to put it mildly, misinformed at best. There is absolutely nothing wrong with considering the hand in the OP to be worth at least 19, if not 20, if one is judging by HCP. I doubt that you would find many truly experienced players who have any problem with a significant upgrade of the hand in the OP.

(2) I am sure that the ruling in the “7 HCP” weak raise hand had nothing to do with the content of the hand which made the weak raise. Anyone can bid whatever they want if they believe it fits within their agreements (and otherwise as long as partner is not aware of a deviation and full disclosure of methods is provided). The problem is not the content of the hand - the problem is whether full disclosure was made and whether there was any unauthorized information at the table. As I recall, the partner of the “weak raise” passed and the problem was whether to balance. It is always embarrassing when a player balances their opponents into a game that they were willing to pass out in a partial. The issue then becomes whether either player had any unauthorized information which could have led them to bid the game after the balance. If neither player had any UI, then the balancer is just unlucky. The fact that the “weak raise” may not comport to your or my definition of a weak raise is not the issue as long as proper disclosure is made. But given that the opener passed, it appears that the opener believed that game was remote at best opposite the “weak raise.” As long as neither opener or the “weak raiser” had any UI and full disclosure of the agreements of the partnership is provided, there is no grounds for any ruling against the opening side.

(3) As for psyching, especially in third seat at favorable, please show me where anyone says that this is “real bridge.” I recently posted about a psych that I perpetrated at matchpoints in exactly this situation. As I stated in my initial post, I can count the number of times that I have psyched over my 45 year playing career on 2 hands. Apparently, I don't play real bridge. And I doubt that anyone else on this site plays real bridge.

“A ”weak“ raise is 6 to 9 HCPs. (0 to 4 is not weak, that would be called ”suicidal“). If on that hand S bid 2♣ then N bid 5♣, E would have asked what 2♣ meant. When told ”limit raise“ E would have gone berserk when the dummy hit the table. ”Director! He made a limit raise with only 7 HCP!“ S would be chastised and the contract rolled back to 1♥ by E. Since NS had been warned they need to change their description to something so wide ranging that it is meaningless (”less than an opening hand“).”

East would have gone beserk when the dummy hit the table? Why? Because responder's hand does not match the explanation? As long as opener has no unauthorized information concerning responder's hand, opener can make any bid he wants to make. It is not up to you or me to impose our judgment on opener and how he uses the information that he gets from his partner during the bidding in deciding on the final contract. Again, assuming that there is no unauthorized information and full disclosure of the partnership's methods is made, there is absolutely no basis on which the final contract can be rolled back. And again, as long as full disclosure is made to the opponents and the opponents have the opportunity to base their actions on the actual agreements of opener's side, the fact that the actions taken by the opponents don't work out to their best advantage is just unlucky.

I really do not understand the complaints made in your post, David. It seems that you have some complaints about the manner in which decisions are made by TDs and appeals committees and, on a more basic level, you have complaints about how experienced players manipulate the system to achieve their objectives. All that I can say to this last point is that the rules are supposed to be the same for everyone.
Jan. 9
Art Korth edited this comment Jan. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Craig:

You and I disagree on the value of the 2 under game invitation.

There are many game invitational sequences in various bidding systems that require the invite occur one level below game. That is, in most instances, unavoidable.

XYZ offers the opportunity in many instances of issuing the game invite 2 levels below game. In my opinion, this is a significant benefit - one that should not be dispensed with lightly.

Whatever added precision that may be gained by the invite on top of invite sequences that you proposed comes with it the added risk that the additional precision will turn a plus score into a minus score.

(By the way, this last comment reminds me of one of my favorite distinctions - precision vs. accuracy. For example, 1 + 1 = 1.999999. Very precise, but not accurate.)
Jan. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“I managed to persuade a medical doctor and his wife to play and he was accused of being unethical –I managed to defuse the issue but it was not helpful.”

Reminded me of an incident I heard about second hand.

A friend of mine (now deceased) was playing in a Washington DC Regional. He got annoyed at one of his opponents and accused the opponent of unethical conduct. My friend's partner immediately took my friend away from the table and informed him that he had just accused Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens of behaving unethically.
Jan. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree with Kit. Regardless of what the FAQ says, when I play limited openings I alert the raise to 4 of a major.
Jan. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I use the 2NT bid after “Z” as a puppet to 3. It is either to play 3 or:

(1) To show a game forcing 4441 (bid the short suit or known suit with club shortness); or
(2) A balanced strong NT (rebid 3NT).
Jan. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, but a very multi-layered one. The BW bidding problem posts are fine for single answer problems. This one is much more involved.
Jan. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
And exactly how would that differ from how I presented this? Except that one cannot post a bidding poll that requires two bids.
Jan. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It does the way I play XYZ. But apparently some play it differently.
Jan. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Strictly speaking, 2-way NMF differs from XYZ in that “Z” does not have to be 1NT. I don't know if that accounts for the difference in treatment.
Jan. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That is the point of my posting this hand. I wanted to find out how XYZ players play this sequence.

As is often the case, one has the choice of showing strength and 5+ cards of one suit or strength and 9+ cards of two suits. At the (virtual) table, I chose to bid 3. It turns out that all roads led to 3NT, but that is not the point.

It seems that quite a few players do not follow your view that the 3 bid shows 4 spades and longer clubs.
Jan. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That is not what I know to be “standard” XYZ. As I understand it, the standard XYZ meaning of 1-1-1NT-3 is game forcing with the black suits. In fact, all second round jumps in a suit (whether a new suit or an old suit) are natural and forcing to game.

All invitational sequences go through 2.

A weak hand which wants to sign off in 3 bids 2NT over the “Z” bid. 2NT is a puppet to 3.
Jan. 7
Art Korth edited this comment Jan. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Bilal:

I think you are confusing terms.

1 - 1 - 1NT - 3 is game forcing. It should set spades as trump and start a slam exploration sequence.

1 - 1 - 1NT - 2 - 2 - 2 shows 5+ spades and an invitational strength hand. It is not forcing.

1 - 1 - 1NT - 2 - 2 - 3 may be what you are referring to. In my opinion, this sequence does not exist, as it prevents the partnership from stopping at the 2 level. If a partnership chooses to define this sequence, it should be a strongly invitational hand with 6+ spades. While technically not forcing, the bid would hardly ever be passed.

This last sequence could be used in the same manner as the Granovetters used forcing “limit” raises. Bids that showed limit raise strength but were forcing to game. In other words, you can show minimum (even sub-minimum) game forcing strength but still force to game. That way you can get the distribution off your chest without fearing that partner will get overly excited. It is similar to the type of hand one might show by means of a Bergen limit raise which you intend to raise to game if partner signs off, without the fear of being accused of using UI if partner takes a while to consider whether to bid game or not.
Jan. 7
Art Korth edited this comment Jan. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not if one doesn't want to run afoul of the LOTT police.
Jan. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Kit's explanation of the 4 bid is accurate and does not use jargon.

In my opinion, the description “Precision” means exactly that - to play, no slam interest. It is not the preferred way to describe the 4 bid, but it does mean exactly the same thing.

Assuming that the description “Precision” was understood by East and is an accurate description of the NS agreement, I would expect that an appeal would have ZERO chance of succeeding.
Jan. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The only reason I can come up with for not bidding 7 with the West hand is that you fear that you cannot beat 7.
Jan. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
One of the advantages of XYZ is the ability to make game invitations while at the same time keeping the bidding level low.

So, making the 2 bid forcing would eliminate one of the advantages of using XYZ.
Jan. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My partner is not supposed to field my psychs (and using the plural of psych may be an overbid). But turning off all brain functions is too much of a swing in the other direction.
Jan. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“The point is LoTT is actually easier to know than XYZ. To understand it is a different matter (not saying I do). But people who play XYZ don't understand it either beyond robotically bidding 2♣ and 2♦.”

Mike:

Are you saying that SOME people who play XYZ don't understand it or are you saying that ALL people who play XYZ don't understand it? I can disprove the latter point as I play it and understand it. And there is a lot more to XYZ than just the 2 and 2 bids.
Jan. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My playing lifetime overlapped Norman Kay's playing lifetime by quite a few years, but I played against Norman only on a few occasions, including one Spingold match where my partner and I played against Norman and Edgar for one quarter. I declared a hand on which my partner was his usual overaggressive self and was astonished to find out that Norman had not doubled me on a hand that I think most players would have done so (If I remember correctly, I actually outplayed my counterpart in the same strain by 2 tricks, down 2 in my contract while he was down 3 a level lower). I learned later that Norman was very conservative in his penalty doubles. Or, as a friend put it, “if Norman doubles you, you are not making it!”

My point is that I find it hard to believe that any TD or committee would find that you had committed some breach of ethics if you did not make a penalty double against an opponent which just happens to coincide with your partner's psych.
Jan. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
How do you define “bridge players?” Do you mean a person who plays the game bridge? Or do you mean someone who is recognized by other players as a worthy adversary?

Law 40B5(a) may be referring to anyone who plays the game bridge. That is much too low of a bar as far as I am concerned.
Jan. 6
.

Bottom Home Top