BBO Discussion Forums: Elementary, Watson - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

  • 5 Pages +
  • « First
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Elementary, Watson a CPU or not?

#81 User is offline   gnasher 

  • Andy Bowles
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 11,993
  • Joined: 2007-May-03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 2011-October-14, 16:12

View Postbluejak, on 2011-October-14, 11:17, said:

A psychic control is a call by a player which allows for partner having psyched and therefore seeks to minimise the effect of a such a psyche.

By that definition, a Watson Double isn't a psychic control, because the double doesn't allow for partner's having psyched.
... that would still not be conclusive proof, before someone wants to explain that to me as well as if I was a 5 year-old. - gwnn
0

#82 User is offline   mrdct 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,448
  • Joined: 2003-October-27
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Moama, NSW

Posted 2011-October-14, 17:34

View Postbluejak, on 2011-October-14, 11:17, said:

A psychic control is a call by a player which allows for partner having psyched and therefore seeks to minimise the effect of a such a psyche.

Is there an authoritative source for that definition as it doesn't seem to fit the EBU interpretation?
Disclaimer: The above post may be a half-baked sarcastic rant intended to stimulate discussion and it does not necessarily coincide with my own views on this topic.
I ♦ bidding the suit below the suit I'm actually showing not to be described as a "transfer" for the benefit of people unfamiliar with the concept of a transfer
0

#83 User is offline   blackshoe 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 18,025
  • Joined: 2006-April-17
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 2011-October-14, 18:41

View Postbluejak, on 2011-October-14, 11:17, said:

A psychic control is a call by a player which allows for partner having psyched and therefore seeks to minimise the effect of a such a psyche.

For example, if a 2♠ response to a 1♥ is forcing on a psyche and has a rebid that shows a psyche it is a psychic control.

But a 2♦ response to a 2♣ opening which shows a negative - or is a waiting bid - is not a psychic control.


So a Watson double by a player who has psyched a weak 2♥ opening is not a psychic control, since it's not made by psycher's partner.

Heh. I see I missed a couple similar replies. :P
--------------------
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
Our ultimate goal on defense is to know by trick two or three everyone's hand at the table. -- Mike777
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
0

#84 User is offline   bluejak 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,686
  • Joined: 2007-August-23
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Liverpool, UK
  • Interests:Bridge Laws, Cats, Railways, Transport timetables

Posted 2011-October-15, 08:27

No. Players can always find some psyches that are safer than others because of their system. That does not make such parts of system psychic controls.
David Stevenson

Merseyside England UK
EBL TD
Currently at home
Visiting IBLF from time to time
<webjak666@gmail.com>
0

#85 User is offline   aguahombre 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 12,029
  • Joined: 2009-February-21
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:St. George, UT

Posted 2011-October-15, 08:55

Post #84 seems to fit as an answer to the question in Post #80. Whether that was the intent, or not, it works for me.
"Bidding Spades to show spades can work well." (Kenberg)
0

#86 User is offline   Trinidad 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,531
  • Joined: 2005-October-09
  • Location:Netherlands

Posted 2011-October-15, 09:01

I am getting a headache. There is a rule about psychic controls. It uses a Watson double as an example. But, a Watson double is not a psychic control, by the definition.
On the other hand, a lot of people have the agreement that a 2♦ response to a 2♣ opening is mandatory. But the fact that this makes it possible to psyche a 2♣ opening with a weak two in diamonds in a controlled way, does not make it a psychic control.
The reason for the latter is, it seems, that the aim behind the mandatory 2♦ response is for constructive bidding: It allows opener to describe his hand, etc.... It is not devised to control a psyche. That's a valid reasoning.

But then... Is a Watson double devised to control a psyche? No, it isn't.

Why is this reasoning valid for the 2♦ agreement and not for the Watson double agreement?

Rik
I want my opponents to leave my table with a smile on their face and without matchpoints on their score card - in that order.
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds the new discoveries, is not “Eureka!” (I found it!), but “That’s funny…” – Isaac Asimov
The only reason God did not put "Thou shalt mind thine own business" in the Ten Commandments was that He thought that it was too obvious to need stating. - Kenberg
0

#87 User is offline   Trinidad 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,531
  • Joined: 2005-October-09
  • Location:Netherlands

Posted 2011-October-15, 09:02

I find it really odd to speak of implicit agreements with a player that you have never met before. You can have 'general bridge experience' and this may even be similar for both players. But the fact that two payers have similar 'general bridge experience' doesn't give them an agreement. After all, how is one supposed to know that partner has the same 'general bridge experience'.

I once played with somebody that I had never played with before or against. We had about 30 seconds to agree on a system. He asked: "What do you think of Marty Bergen?". I replied that I thought he was a fine player and teacher. He said: "Let's play that we act as if we play with Marty Bergen as a partner." In that special case, we had a pile of explicit and implicit agreements in 30 seconds. But I think it is an exception, rather than the rule.

Rik
I want my opponents to leave my table with a smile on their face and without matchpoints on their score card - in that order.
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds the new discoveries, is not “Eureka!” (I found it!), but “That’s funny…” – Isaac Asimov
The only reason God did not put "Thou shalt mind thine own business" in the Ten Commandments was that He thought that it was too obvious to need stating. - Kenberg
0
  • 5 Pages +
  • « First
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users