[blml] Clarification...

[John Probst]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Steve Willner" <willner at cfa.harvard.edu>
To: <blml at rtflb.org>
Sent: Friday, July 20, 2007 2:31 AM
Subject: Re: [blml] Clarification...


>> From: "John Probst" <john at asimere.com>
>> There is nothing thorny or difficult about psyches. read law 40 until you
>> understand it.
>>
>> When you understand it then read law 75 till you understand it.
>>
>> Where is the friggin problem?
>
> The problem is that many who read these Laws come to different
> conclusions.  Partly that's a result of lack of clarity -- probably the
> result of political compromises in Law writing, so each jurisdiction can
> enforce its own views -- and partly it's a result of deliberate
> obfuscation (referring to Zone 2, as Eric has often pointed out).  No
> doubt the usual problems of sloppiness and fuzzy thinking play their
> roles, too.
>
> Let's see whether we can get any agreement on the principles I wrote
> down earlier.  (I'm sure you, Tim, and Herman all agree on them, but let
> me know if I'm wrong.)

As you can imagine, I get accused of being somewhat gung-ho as a TD. I don't 
really mind since it is well understood by my peers that I'm half-way 
competent. Even Grattan has admitted this (peace Grattan) In particular 
psyches which are recorded in EBU events are looked at by the EBU L&E, and 
I'm delighted to say my reports sometimes cause apoplectic rage in that 
corner.  I rather enjoyed the one where I had to record:

P (P) 1H (1N) 2C and the 2C bidder held an 11-count with 5 clubs.  Now the 
L&E insists that you have to double with this hand, but in practice most 
players are so clueless that they don't know that it's probably good bridge 
to do so, so on the occasions that the 1H bid is psychic the L&E is liable 
to recategorise the psyche as "fielded, red" when the players themselves 
have no idea what they've done "wrong". It tends to demonstrate that the L&E 
is not in touch with what players in general actually do.  So to pass the 
time of day I gave the 2C bidder a hard time for a while asking why they 
hadn't doubled and it was obvious they had no clue how to play bridge. So I 
gave them a warning about how dim a view the L&E takes of this action and 
filled in the psyche form with all the contortions the player had gone 
through, to wriggle out of the possibility they'd fielded the psyche. Be 
assured this player was not trying to field a ferdinand 1H.

Of course it was the 1NT which was psychic, and I marked it as "routine, 
green, not fielded" and left it at that. The L&E has no sense of humour and 
I got the usual snotty letter, but I think I'd successfully made my point 
when.I informed them that I would not be categorising the 2C bid as 
"fielded, red" in future, and that I would cross-refer this report in all 
such instances - and there the matter finally rested.

It amazes me when the EBU reclassifies psyches as red, when all at the 
table, and the TD in particular recognises that the player wouldn't 
recognise a psyche even if partner held up a large placard saying "PSYCHE!". 
Don't they tust their TDs to get into the mind of the player and find out 
what was actually going on?       cheers john

>
> _______________________________________________
> blml mailing list
> blml at amsterdamned.org
> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml