Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Art Korth
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would check the backs of the cards. Then I would assume that partner has a hand worth almost a strong forcing 2 opening and make a call that makes some sense - 3 not being one of the choices. Drury is not appropriate. I would bid 2 as the least of evils.
April 11, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am more interested in the word “sanctity,” especially when accompanied by “of the law.” Since when did this regulation (not a law) become divinely inspired?

I play with one partner who frequently opens 2NT with a singleton. I never play him for that, and we have no conventional methods for finding out about the singleton. I contend that there is absolutely nothing wrong with that (I am sure that Jerry Seinfeld would agree).
April 11, 2016
Art Korth edited this comment April 11, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Since I treat the double as the equivalent of a 1 bid, I “raise” to 2 to show 4 and a minimum hand. A 1 bid is the equivalent of a preference, knowing that partner has only 4 spades - i.e., 3 cards support and no other suitable bid.
April 11, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
…and marked with signs like “Only one psych per session.”
April 11, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Of course partner can deem his hand is worth a game bid even opposite a subminimal opening. But that has nothing to do with Drury.

Besides, the jump raise is always available. It cannot be preemptive once both opponents have passed. It has to show some kind of distributional strong passed-hand raise.

But if you decide to use Drury, you have to stop when partner makes the negative response. If you want to bid again, you probably should not have bid Drury to begin with (maybe you should have opened the bidding).
April 11, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If expulsion was a penalty that was available, there is no excuse for not applying it under these facts. Otherwise, I suppose the maximum penalty of a 3 year suspension is the best that was available.

However, other organizations should not be restricted to meting out a 3 year suspension just because that was all that was available domestically.
April 11, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have a hard and fast rule when it comes to psyches. No matter how irrational the bidding may be after the psych, the player who psyched is responsible for the disaster that ensues.
April 11, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I decided that opening 2 red against white on this hand was just too much at IMPs.
April 11, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I believe that you are 100% incorrect on this. The whole purpose of Drury is to stay at a low level when third-seat opener has a “light” opening and first seat passed-hand responder has a near opening. The Drury bidder is not permitted to act over the negative response.
April 11, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The initial discussion pre-dated the use of player memos. It was 1974.
April 11, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Many years ago, I was playing in my first North American Championship (they were called ACBL Nationals back then). The hotel room in which I was staying usually had between 5 and 10 players in it after hours. I remember having a long talk with a fairly strong player who expounded his theory that it made sense in any team match to psych on one of the first few boards. This would plant the seed of doubt in the opponents' minds for the rest of the match, and this would work to your advantage.

I noted that whenever I played in a match against this player he always psyched early in the match. This was true even in short matches! I considered this grossly unethical, as his partner must have known that he would do this. At least I knew about it so we were on a relatively equal footing.
April 11, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“So it would seem that ACBL concludes that drury is not such an agreement, at least not inherently. And that's correct provided the partnership merely shades its third-seat openings, but does not “psych” them. As a psych is defined as a gross deviation from expected shape or strength, that would mean that such gross deviations (whatever exactly that means) wouldn't be permitted in spots in which drury was on, so psyching a 1H or 1S opening in third seat would be problematic for a pair playing drury. I admit I have never seen this come up.”

There is no doubt that Drury is a psychic control. It was invented to function as a psychic control. The fact that it is still allowed while other psychic controls are disallowed is a function of history not logic.

Yesterday, playing in the last round of a Sectional Swiss Team, I picked up in third seat at unfavorable:

AKTxx xx xxx xxx

After two passes, I opened 1 knowing that partner could not do me in since we played Drury (I am going to ignore what might happen should a competitive auction ensue). Sure enough, it went pass on my left, 2 Drury by partner, pass on my right, 2 by me (negative), pass on my left. Partner is not allowed to do anything here. But partner had other ideas. He bid 2NT. This is a complete break of partnership discipline. I passed this, and we went down one, while 2 was cold.

So, is my 1 bid a “mere shading” of a normal 1 opening bid? By the way, my opponent at the other table also opened 1.
April 11, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“The defendant after being convicted of killing his parents pleaded for mercy because both of this parents had recently died.”

That is the classic definition of Chutzpah, although it is usually stated by saying that the defendant was an orphan.
April 7, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Exactly. XYZ allows you to show a solid suit of 6+ cards by responder's jump rebid and demands a cue bid from opener. I know of no other method that specifically shows this.

However, by agreement, the jump rebid specifies that responder's suit is the trump suit. Interestingly, playing with a partner that just learned XYZ, we had this exact auction and wound up in 3NT for a push at IMPs - 690 vs. 680. My partner did not remember that the 3M rebid asked for cue bids and when the auction continued 3S - 3NT he passed. At least he remembered that 3H was forcing!

There is something to be said for a 4M rebid in XYZ to show a solid 7 card suit. But I can't convince my partner to do that, as there are many hands on which responder knows that 4M is the correct final contract after the first 3 bids, and one wants to get to game directly without showing anything else to the opps.
April 7, 2016
Art Korth edited this comment April 7, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A psych is a deliberate misrepresentation of the values or distribution represented by a call. It is not a system forget. The explanation provided by the partner of the psych bidder should be accurate as to what the bid shows in the partnership methods. Therefore, the explanation is not misleading - the bid made and intended to be made by the bidder is misleading.

A system forget is an unintentional misrepresentation of the values or distribution represented by a call according to the partnership methods. Now the explanation of the correct meaning of the call is misleading.

The laws allow for a player to deliberately misrepresent his holdings. And, currently, there is nothing in the laws that sanctions a system forget, except for the mention above that a partnership is required to know its own methods. If the laws are expanded to sanction a failure to know one's own methods, then a system forget will be subject to penalty. But a psych will still be permitted.
April 7, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That is one of the problems with a discussion of cheating. So many players have the wrong idea what constitutes cheating at bridge. Some believe that a psych is cheating when it is clearly not.

Perhaps it would be better if various violations of the laws were referred to as infractions to differentiate them from what we commonly refer to as cheating - collusive agreements to gain an advantage by using methods of communication which violate the laws.
April 6, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Nor have I. Perhaps this is limited to the National Appeals committee members.
April 6, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am curious. Does the doubleton spade holding cause any concern from those who bid slam, and is it a reason (or the reason) others do not bid slam?
April 6, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Phil, I believe that you are not correct. I believe that the new director panels do replace committees.
April 5, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The issue in this thread arose in a 3-way KO match. Suppose it arose in a pair event? Is a pair obligated to pursue an appeal which will not materially affect its own score if it affects the score of other pairs in the event? If one follows the argument of many of the posters above, the answer is yes, but I am sure that is not a common practice.
April 5, 2016
.

Bottom Home Top