[Zmey]

Sorry Rolland, i'm in "typing" mistake

Let "But IF you like to open 1NT with single, it's OK, " to be read as "But IF you HAVE AN AGREEMENT to open 1NT with single, it's OK, "

It's typing mistake, of course, if someone make psyche and NOT send illegal information to his partner, no need to alert it

[Walddk]

Zmey, on Aug 12 2005, 12:18 PM, said:

It's typing mistake, of course, if someone make psyche and NOT send illegal information to his partner, no need to alert it 

You are wrong again I'm afraid. Opening 1NT on say

K
A1054
KJ5
AJ742

is not a psyche! It's off-shape, but there is nothing psychic about it.

Roland

[Gerben42]

Exactly. A psyche is a gross misdescription of your hand. If you open 1NT on:

xxx
xx
x
QJTxxxx

that is a psyche.

And you shouldn't alert this.

[helene_t]

Walddk, on Aug 12 2005, 12:04 PM, said:

Zmey, on Aug 12 2005, 11:43 AM, said:

But IF you like to open 1NT with single, it's OK, but you need to alert it - after all, it's self-alerting in BBO

You are wrong! I don't have to self-alert anything if I open 1NT with a singleton. I am not supposed to tell my opponents what my holding actually is. I can open 1NT on a 7600 shape if I want, as long as this is not based upon a partnership understanding.

Zmey apparently suspects such deviations may be based on partnership understanding and will not give Candybar the benefit of the doubt. I don't think this is reasonable but since Zmey is not alone (many Dutch TDs have similar attitudes towards people who open Muiderberg on a six-card) I assume the Sky-Club rules are legal.

For what it's worth, I will not participate in Sky-Club tournaments now that I know of this practice. Of course, if I have the partnership understanding that my 1NT openings are less disciplined than opps might expect, I should alert them. However, I refuse to let my bidding restrict by the fear of a TD suspecting me of having concealed agreements.

Example: When playing 5-card majors I have never opened 1M on a 4-card in 1st or 2nd seat, nor have I discussed that possibility with any partner. However, if one day I get a hand that begs for an opening of 1M on a 4-card, I will do so. Should I alert it? If so, I would literally have to alert all my calls simply because I might one day get a hand that begs for making that call with an unusual holding.

This post has been edited by helene_t: 2005-August-12, 04:43

[Zmey]

Agree, but there's 2 reasons to not allow this 1NT open bid in SKY:

1st - as i wrote, it's very complicated how will you explain this issue to Advanced players, feelings as Experts, when in this bid (because it's highest level bid and looks like only STARS in BBO and few really good players will use it), and their opponents "blame" you, that only because they're STARS, you didn't penalty them?

2nd - there's no 100% agreement even at experts level, that this hands suppose to be treated as 15p NT opener

That's why we use our right to disallow this kind of bids in SKY tournaments

Regards

[Walddk]

Zmey, on Aug 12 2005, 12:35 PM, said:

Agree, but there's 2 reasons to not allow this 1NT open bid in SKY:

1st - as i wrote, it's very complicated how will you explain this issue to Advanced players, feelings as Experts, when in this bid (because it's highest level bid and looks like only STARS in BBO and few really good players will use it), and their opponents "blame" you, that only because they're STARS, you didn't penalty them?

2nd - there's no 100% agreement even at experts level, that this hands suppose to be treated as 15p NT opener

That's why we use our right to disallow this kind of bids in SKY tournaments

Regards

Your post makes little sense to me. Why on earth would you penalise anybody when they don't violate any law? Secondly, feel free to state anything you like in your Tournament Rules, but please bear in mind that you just changed the game from bridge to something similar.

And lastly: it is plain wrong not to follow the Laws of Duplicate Bridge in (especially) a pay tourney!

Roland

[helene_t]

Now I'm confused. If I open 1NT with an unbalanced hand, and I don't alert, and I say that I have no agreement with my partner about this - will you believe me or not? If not, do you understand that I will be somewhat nervous about what other calls I can't make because the TD might say they are non-standard, say overcall with a 4-card?

Once I opened 1NT with 14 points and a 6-card. The TD adjusted my result to ave-. I posted this here and everybody agreed that the ruling was ridiculous, not only because I had no agreement about this but also because such an opening is standard and does not need to be alerted anyway.

DO you understand that I will be somewhat nervous about how the TD defines "unbalanced"?

[Zmey]

i don't get it - am i wrong to use:

"LAW 40 PARTNERSHIP UNDERSTANDINGS

D. Regulation of Conventions

The sponsoring organization may regulate the use of bidding or play conventions..."

if, YES, so, why this rule exists?

to Helene - please, imagine the level of cheating in paid tournaments - every week we found new players, lay unfairly, it's more than normal, that we're suspicious. In BBO players are hiding behind Nicks, some of them have more than 1 username. Of course, we believe to our players, but, because of these unfair players, we're more cautious to their reasons to use psyche or off-shape bids.

[Walddk]

Zmey, on Aug 12 2005, 12:47 PM, said:

i don't get it - am i wrong to use:

"LAW 40 PARTNERSHIP UNDERSTANDINGS

D. Regulation of Conventions

The sponsoring organization may regulate the use of bidding or play conventions..."

if, YES, so, why this rule exists?

Yes, you are wrong. There is no reason to believe that a certain bid is based upon a partnership understanding. I think your problem is that you can't distinguish between agreement and understanding.

That may very well be a language problem on your part, so it's quite useful that we got it sorted out right here.

Roland

[helene_t]

Zmey, on Aug 12 2005, 12:47 PM, said:

i don't get it - am i wrong to use:

"LAW 40 PARTNERSHIP UNDERSTANDINGS

D. Regulation of Conventions

The sponsoring organization may regulate the use of bidding or play conventions..."

if, YES, so, why this rule exists?

This is a completely different issue. It has nothing say nothing to do with this disussion.

Art. 40 gives you the right to state that it's illegal to have the agreement to open 1NT with a singleton. You can also state that it's illegal to ask aces or that it's illegal to play SAYC or whatever you like.

But even then, players are still allowed to deviate from the agreement and open 1NT with a 4441 if they like.

[helene_t]

Zmey, on Aug 12 2005, 12:47 PM, said:

to Helene - please, imagine the level of cheating in paid tournaments - every week we found new players, lay unfairly, it's more than normal, that we're suspicious. In BBO players are hiding behind Nicks, some of them have more than 1 username. Of course, we believe to our players, but, because of these unfair players, we're more cautious to their reasons to use psyche or off-shape bids.

Sorry but I have no sympathy for this policy.

First, while I can imagine some other sorts of cheating (say using a phone line to tell partner their holding), I find it difficult to imagine pairs cheating in this way.

Second, even if concealed agreements about such minor bidding nuances existed, it would be a minor problem compared to, say, pairs playing signals while saying that they just discard randomly, no agreed signals.

Third, if I were that afraid of cheating I would not organize tournaments, let alone pay tournaments.

[luke warm]

Zmey, on Aug 12 2005, 05:35 AM, said:

Agree, but there's 2 reasons to not allow this 1NT open bid in SKY:

1st - as i wrote, it's very complicated how will you explain this issue to Advanced players, feelings as Experts, when in this bid (because it's highest level bid and looks like only STARS in BBO and few really good players will use it), and their opponents "blame" you, that only because they're STARS, you didn't penalty them?

2nd - there's no 100% agreement even at experts level, that this hands suppose to be treated as 15p NT opener

That's why we use our right to disallow this kind of bids in SKY tournaments

Regards

sorry but i don't understand this post... why the need to explain anything to advanced players? i don't know *any* advanced players who haven't, on occasion, opened 4441 or even 1435 hands with a 1nt bid... let me put it another way, i don't know of any advanced player who would be shocked (much less outraged) if an opp opened 1nt with such a hand

as for #2, who cares? judgment is king in bridge... there isn't 100% agreement by experts on nearly 100% of bridge topics

[Walddk]

Zmey, your basis seems to be that people cheat in your tourneys. May I kindly suggest that you turn this basis around? People do not cheat until proven guilty.

Imposing all kinds of restrictions is bad for the game, and it won't help your cause one bit. Long time ago, you and I had a chat about disallowing spectators in your tourneys for example. We did not agree then, and we do not agree now it appears.

Fair enough, but don't be surprised if your tourneys don't get a big turnout if you implement all kinds of restrictions.

Roland

[Brandal]

Zmey, on Aug 12 2005, 05:35 AM, said:

Agree, but there's 2 reasons to not allow this 1NT open bid in SKY:

1st - as i wrote, it's very complicated how will you explain this issue to Advanced players, feelings as Experts, when in this bid (because it's highest level bid and looks like only STARS in BBO and few really good players will use it), and their opponents "blame" you, that only because they're STARS, you didn't penalty them?

2nd - there's no 100% agreement even at experts level, that this hands suppose to be treated as 15p NT opener

That's why we use our right to disallow this kind of bids in SKY tournaments

Regards

Wasn't the whole issue about "alerting won't help,
I will assign Ave- ?"

Personally this is what I think is completely off
the wall,not whether to alert when having partnership
agreement to open 1NT with a singleton.

[Zmey]

I'm agree with all of you, that player are fair until there's prove, that they are not.

i'm also agree with Helena, that this is minor problem, i think, that we'll reconsider our position about 1 and 2NT open bids

Roland also is right, that it's language problem of reading the Laws.

Thanks a lot for your help for reaching the solution of the problem.

Regards

[Brandal]

Zmey, on Aug 12 2005, 06:26 AM, said:

i think, that we'll reconsider our position about 1 and 2NT open bids

Thanks a lot for your help for reaching the solution of the problem.

You just earned yourself about 1 Ton of respect,
from me anyway.

I don't see many people reconsidering anything here,
including myself.

[helene_t]

Brandal, on Aug 12 2005, 01:38 PM, said:

You just earned yourself about 1 Ton of respect,
from me anyway.

I don't see many people reconsidering anything here,
including myself.

Ditto. I'm impressed.

Let's all stop the discussion and go have a beer together.

[barmar]

One of the things I don't think has been mentioned is that it's often not necessary to penalize psyches and other deviations from agreements. Unless the pair employs "psychic controls" (which I think most SOs prohibit), the partner of the psycher will usually be fooled just as much as the opponents, and this can result in them ending up in the wrong contract.

At the Atlanta NABC, I held something like AQ9x A AKJx AQxx. Partner put me in a heart slam when he held KJ9xxxx in that suit and a side Jack, and later reprimanded me for opening 2C and rebidding 2NT with this hand (even if I held the hand he expected, I'm still not sure where he expected all the tricks to come from). I showed the hand to several friends whose bridge expertise I respect; not all of them would have done the same as I (one of them said it was actually too good for my 2NT rebid), none felt it was a gross misbid.

But my point is still that if you don't have what your partner expects, it can just as easily backfire on you as damage the opponents.

[candybar]

Zmey, on Aug 12 2005, 04:43 AM, said:

And, last of all - seems, candybar, love very much to use psyche, opening 1NT with singleton - why you, after your previous knowledge about 1NT restrictions and disagreement with it, continue to play in same tournaments and have same problems again?

Zmey, I have not played in any tournament run by that TD since I started this thread. I observed the same thing happening again, and checked the posted rules, etc, to be sure of my facts before I posted the second day. As for psyches and opening NT with singletons, I psyche about twice a year, and I open 1N with a singleton less often than that. However, when I believe that it is right to do so, I don't want some TD adjusting my score because he disapproves.

[candybar]

Zmey, on Aug 12 2005, 06:26 AM, said:

i think, that we'll reconsider our position about 1 and 2NT open bids

Thank you for taking this discussion seriously!

Now if we could only convince the ACBL that Multi 2D is not a bugaboo and the rest of the anti-psyche crowd that psyches aren't the nightmare they seem to fear, we'd be back to playing real bridge!