[blml] Psyches & deviations

[Wayne Burrows]

On 22/01/07, John Probst <john at asimere.com> wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "WILLIAM SCHODER" <schoderb at msn.com>
> To: "blml" <blml at rtflb.org>
> Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2007 2:06 PM
> Subject: Re: [blml] Psyches & deviations
>
>
> > At the risk of antagonizing the community, may I express the following?
> >
> snip some great stuff
>
> > when caught with the goods, Quick thinking, but a hard sell.
> >
> > The reliance on habitual violations creating implicit agreements sounds
> > great, but it doesn't easily work in rectifying the present infraction
> > when this is the first time that THIS TD has had THIS PROBLEM with THIS
> > PAIR. Nor does it do anything to rectify the probable screwing of these
> > opponents. Written records of violations, collated by
> > partnership(s) and fully and readily available to the TD at the table
> > would be great to have, but I ain't seen 'em yet.
>
> Kojak, I am in total agreement with you. If we revisit the hand where the
> auction has gone 1S (3C) etc and where 3C is by agreement the reds, and if
> aspartner of the overcaller we have a hand where it seems right to play at
> the 5-level in the reds then, holding first round control of clubs the call
> a bridge player will make is 5C over 4S. This is what happened on the hand
> in question. It is not relevant (to me at least) whether partner has
> forgotten the system (although as the "pro" I'm pretty sure the idiot will
> have done so from my GKE of punters who play stupid systems).  And I'll be
> pretty relieved that on this occasion at least his likely screw up won't
> cost the usual 1400. Now if he has done so previously I have to tell the
> opponents this before the opening lead - and a TD who is awake will
> certainly be asking "Are you a regular partnership?", "Have you had a
> 2-suited screw-up previously?" etc
>
> If we start from the premise that a player will lie in answer to these
> question then there is no hope left for our game; we should just take up
> internet poker. So we must assume if told that this is a first occurrence.
> If it isn't then we can get the partnership under "playing illegal
> conventions", which to all intent is what a CPU is.  BUT, we have to be SO
> SO careful before we conclude that an illegal agreement exixts, particularly
> so in this auction. It is highly unlikely
>

I agree except that a CPU does not have to be illegal.  Your example
below is if a CPU is in no way illegal if it had been disclosed as the
PU.

> As an aside, I have a UK pair who play a 16+ precision and a 12-14 NT. Twice
> I have seen the husband open 1NT on 15 with bad diamonds, and he has been
> unable satisfactorily to explain to me what he opens with 2 diamonds, a flat
> hand and a 15 count. He is now under no illusions that should he open 1NT on
> this hand again and I'm around, he will get ruled against if I deem damage
> to have been caused by the MI unless he modifies his CC. This pair does
> clearly have a CPU and the hand has high frequency. I consider this example
> to be far more grave than the original one we discussed.
>

To me this is not so clear.  There are other possibilities than CPU.
If their system is not well defined for this hand then perhaps he
might open 1NT sometimes, 1D other times or even 1Major on a four-card
suit sometimes.  They may not have a 'partnership understanding' of
which action to take - he may be inclined to open 1NT while she is
inclined to open 1D having never discussed the issue.  To me their PU
remains 12-14. Of course they have to disclose the in practice
variation - perhaps a note on the CC that says 15 Balanced with weak
diamonds is undefined but also these variations need to told in answer
to a question.  And that answer could easily vary depending on who bid
the 1NT - "12-14 Balanced but 15 with weak diamonds is a problem hand
in our system, I never open 1NT with these hands but from experience
he sometimes does".

> Ghestem screw-ups are always spectacular; but one gets no more than about
> one opportunity a year to overcall 3C showing reds, and much the same to
> overcall 3C natural, so on frequency grounds alone, awarding a CPU to this
> action is bizarre. A pair, unless they have many years of regular
> partnership under their belt will find it impossible to establish a CPU in
> this auction.
>
> I strongly insist that, in this particular case, we are unable to shoot the
> terrorists (much as you and I would like to), that screw ups do sometimes
> get good results, and that it is illegal to remove a fluked good result
> because of prejudice about these stupid methods. I also insist that the TD
> and AC were insane.
>

It is illegal and insane to remove a fluked good result.  Basically if
you do then you are saying that if you make a bad bid then you
automatically deserve a bad result.  There is no law that supports
this approach.

Wayne