[gnasher]

 StevenG, on 2014-June-16, 02:16, said:

Yet to me it seems perverse that, in the EBU, were I to play Precision, I could not upgrade an excellent 15-count and open 1♣, whereas I can open 1♠ on nothing and call it a psych.

That would indeed by perverse, if it were true, but it's not.

In the EBU it is legal to open a strong club on a 15-count, and it is legal to open 1♠ on a 3-count. It is illegal to agree to open a strong club on a 15-count*, and it's illegal to agree to open 1♠ on a 3-count. What's perverse about that?

* Unless it meets ER25 (whatever that is).

[StevenG]

 gnasher, on 2014-June-16, 06:10, said:

That would indeed by perverse, if it were true, but it's not.

In the EBU it is legal to open a strong club on a 15-count, and it is legal to open 1♠ on a 3-count. It is illegal to agree to open a strong club on a 15-count*, and it's illegal to agree to open 1♠ on a 3-count. What's perverse about that?

* Unless it meets ER25 (whatever that is).

So both I and my partner could open 1 with as many 15-counts as we like as long as we don't discuss it? Or, even better, as long as each remembers to say "You shouldn't do that partner, that's not our agreement" after each instance?

[helene_t]

 StevenG, on 2014-June-16, 06:21, said:

So both I and my partner could open 1 with as many 15-counts as we like as long as we don't discuss it? Or, even better, as long as each remembers to say "You shouldn't do that partner, that's not our agreement" after each instance?

If it happens so often that it becomes an implicit agreement then it is treated as an agreement. Same with opening 1♠ with a 5-count and three spades.

[blackshoe]

I haven't done the math, but it seems to me that an upgradeable 15 count occurs far too often not to be considered part of your agreed methods. IAC, it wouldn't be a psych, because it's not a gross deviation.

[barmar]

 hotShot, on 2014-June-16, 02:56, said:

I always wonder why the ACBL is banning psyches, since psyches are common practice in poker.

Why do you think ACBL bans psychs?

[LghtnngRod]

Wow, I go away for a day, and find that I have kicked a hornet's nest.

I regret that this has descended into a bit of name calling, and offence taken as a result. That is a shame. I don't regret that the thread has life in it.

I have a personal opinion about banning psyches. I think that we should not. Not because they are lawful under the laws (which they are). Not because the game is richer for their inclusion (I think it is), but because of the overriding desire to play on a level playing field, which in turn requires not only that whatever local rule is in force is consistently applied, but also that all players themselves know where the borderline falls, in the eyes of the director. That is never going to happen. If two contestants with the same hand form differing opinions of whether a bid is permitted, it does not matter that the director may always consistently rule one way; the playing field is already uneven.

There is a coterie of players who hate them, that is true. But that is down to education. They can be trained out of hating them, but instead we reinforce them.

But my personal preference for allowing them is irrelevant to the thread and risks obscuring my point. I absolutely accept that I enter these tourneys with my eyes open, in full knowledge of the ban. Caveat emptor. If I were that averse I would not. It is not as if I even have to pay to play.

And I take my hat off to directors who give up their time to run these things, and I don't think it right to criticise them or question their competence or impartiality. If they have to run a tourney that includes a ban on psyches they are already in a bad place from the word go.

[mr1303]

I agree with jandrew - I don't want to hear people described as tossers, nor read about it.

Clive Anderson called the BeeGees a bunch of tossers, and they walked off his program. They were right to do so IMO.

[blackshoe]

 Cyberyeti, on 2014-June-16, 05:48, said:

While the word used may well have started out as a sexual reference, it's lost that in the UK and means something along the lines of an irritating idiot. It's less strong than the W equivalent. I'm surprised to see you say that given your location.

To give you the idea that this is not really rude here http://www.beeradvoc...ile/8515/14997/ , I recall somebody wearing a T-shirt emblazoned with this and the brewery logo at a bridge event, which chatting to him was actually due to the fact that he played petanque for which it was even more appropriate.

If it's not really rude in England, it's really not rude here in the States, since we don't ascribe to that particular meaning of the word. I suppose that's why it didn't bother me when I first saw it.