Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Art Korth
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“24.“Psychic Control”: Any Bid that conveys that a prior Bid was a Psych.”

I have not reviewed the definition section of the new charts, but if the foregoing definition is included in the new charts, it reflects a common misconception on the true definition of a psychic control.

It is my understanding that the term “psychic control” originated from the original KS system, which employed systemic psychs. The systemic psychs were defined as opening one bids with hands of 3-5 HCP (or thereabout). The system employed psychic controls - responses such as 2NT to an opening 1 bid with hands of about 22 HCP so that if opener had one of the psych openings (quite likely given the strength of the responding hand) the partnership could avoid a disaster.

My point is that the psychic control is not a bid that discloses that a prior bid was a psych - it is the response to an opening bid with a very strong hand that systemically gives the opener an opportunity to show that his opening bid was a psych without getting the partnership overboard.
Jan. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That has got to be one of the strangest statements I have ever seen.
Jan. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If anyone is interested in a great story about such a race, see the Bridge World article “The Bet.” It was actually a series of articles over several months. It was also released in a pamphlet.
Jan. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Gay” is not a gender. It is an orientation.
Jan. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I was being somewhat facetious when I commented “Optional Blackwood.” We don't have to get into a serious discussion of responses to 4NT quantitative, do we?
Jan. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No. What is the UI? The transfer advance was properly alerted and properly explained in accordance with the partnership agreement. Pass is a legal call. What the pass means is for everyone at the table to work out. Clearly, there can be no agreement as to the meaning of a pass of a forcing call. Equally as clearly, any experienced player should know what the pass of a forcing call should mean.
Jan. 3
Art Korth edited this comment Jan. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Michael: I don't know who you were addressing by the first sentence of your post.

I do not play 1NT-4NT as Optional Blackwood. But if someone were to answer aces when otherwise accepting, it would not be the worst use of a bid that I have ever seen. At least it would avoid a slam off two aces.
Jan. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Because no one cared?
Jan. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Optional Blackwood? Pass is a decline of the invitation, but to accept you have to show aces.
Jan. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ed:

Unless I am mistaken, the court case you are referring to was for the plaintiffs representing women as a class to get into the Men's events, which resulted in the elimination of Men's events (replaced by Open events) but not the elimination of Women's events.
Jan. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Look at tournament schedules at ACBL Sectionals and Regionals.

Open Pairs
Open Pairs
Open Pairs
Open Pairs
Swiss Teams.

Yawn.

As David said above, there used to be variety in the events at these tournaments.

Men's/Women's Pairs
Men's/Women's Teams
Mixed Pairs
Mixed Teams
Masters/Nonmasters Pairs
The occasional barometer pairs or event with other wrinkles.
(anyone remember the Triple Hex Pairs at the Lancaster Regional?)

At the District 4 Regionals, we even had an event where Strat A pairs would be matched with Strat D pairs (and Strat B Pairs with Strat C Pairs) in an event scored as pairs and teams simultaneously. You played in a pair movement and competed in a pair event in your Strat. In addition, you were paired with the pair in the corresponding Strat playing in the other direction and your scores were matched and scored at IMPs or Board-A-Match. It created a lot of interest, especially for the Strat D pairs (who were often novices) being paired with Strat A pairs (who were often top players).

There is very little imagination in the type of events at ACBL tournaments today. And when imagination is employed (Soloway-type Swiss to KO events) there is often resistance or other criticism.
Jan. 3
Art Korth edited this comment Jan. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Maybe I am mistaken, but I thought that a holding of 4 aces was worth an extra high card point in the strict MW scheme of high card points. That stems from the fact that Aces are undervalued in the 4321 point count system.

So the hand given in the OP was worth 19 HCP (aside from the fact that AQTxx is worth an upgrade).
Jan. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Psyching is permitted under the laws of bridge.

And players may decide to psych on particular types of hands. If those hands happen to come up within an unusually short timespan, it may appear that the player is psyching too frequently. But frequent psyching (or what appears to be frequent psyching) is not the same thing as frivolous psyching. Frivolous psyching would be psyching with no rhyme nor reason other than to randomize results or for the entertainment of the player making the psychs.

The sponsoring organization has the right to restrict frivolous psychs in order to preserve the decorum of the event.

By the way, if the partner of the psycher detects a pattern in the types of hands that are psyched, he must disclose his knowledge of his partner's psyches if and when it is appropriate to do so.
Jan. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
(MOVED FROM EDIT TO PREVIOUS COMMENT TO HERE, FOR CLARITY)

FOLLOW UP COMMENT: So, the distinction between playing behind screens and not playing behind screens should not be the point here. In non-screen play, you will hear partner's alert of your transfer advance and, if the opponents as for an explanation, you will hear that as well. As long as the alert and the explanation are consistent with your understanding of the partnership agreement, there is no UI - the alert and the explanation are required by the sponsoring organization. If the alert and the explanation are not consistent with your understanding of the partnership agreement (whether your understanding is accurate or not), there is UI.

I understand that your subsequent 3 call on this hand on the assumption that partner forgot your agreement can be influenced by his correct alert and correct explanation. But that is, for the lack of saying this any other way, a “you” problem. You are still allowed to conclude that partner forgot your agreement (I don't know why you would do so). But your ability to confirm that partner did not forget the partnership agreement is a consequence of the alert system promulgated by the sponsoring organization. If that serves to confirm that partner has not forgotten the partnership agreement, it is not your problem.
Jan. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Richard is correct.

And I did not make this post to hold my partner to ridicule. He is a big boy, and he can take criticism. Quite frankly, I think that the most insulting thing that can be said about his actions on this hand is -1700.

I thought that this made a great story. And it has certainly provoked a lot of spirited discussion.
Jan. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Philip, I respectfully disagree.

There is nothing in the laws of bridge or any regulations that require you to assume that your partner has forgotten your agreements just because he makes a bid that appears to be inconsistent with your agreements.

So your argument that, if you were playing behind screens, and you saw that your partner passed your transfer response of 2, you are now required to bid 3 because you have concluded that partner forgot your agreement just does not follow. You have bid your hand correctly to this point in accordance with your agreements. In the absence of UI, you are permitted to conclude that partner has forgotten your agreements. And, in the absence of UI, you are permitted to bid 3. But you are not required to bid 3. And the failure to bid 3 is not fielding a psych. You do not have to bid your cards twice.
Jan. 2
Art Korth edited this comment Jan. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@John: There is a difference between “I have spades” and “I HAVE SPADES.”
Jan. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
And I take offense to the “honest trustworthy” characterization. I am a lawyer, after all.

:)
Jan. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
David:

Permit me to revise my statement.

The 2H call was alerted and, when the opponents asked, it was explained.
Jan. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I had a friend named Al Terior. He was always looking for reasons people did things.
Dec. 31, 2019
.

Bottom Home Top