[blml] A Psyche Classification

[John Probst]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David Burn" <dalburn at btopenworld.com>
To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" <blml at amsterdamned.org>
Sent: Friday, September 21, 2007 8:03 PM
Subject: Re: [blml] A Psyche Classification


> -----Original Message-----
> From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org]
> On Behalf Of John Probst
> Sent: 21 September 2007 14:57
> To: Bridge Laws Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [blml] A Psyche Classification
>
> [PL]
>
>> 2H was weak; *alerted, 'likely' to have four spades
>
> [JP]
>
> Why should West, when he knows opponents have game values assist the
> opponents to diagnose a 4-1 spade fit
>
> [DALB]
>
> If one of the opponents has a singleton spade, he will know this without 
> the
> aid of diagnostics. Since you do not propose to deprive the opponents of
> bidding space (recall that at the moment they are in three diamonds, and
> your pass allows each of them to cue-bid a major at the three level or to
> splinter unambiguously at the four level) you can scarcely argue that
> passing will make it more difficult for them to explore their combined
> assets.
>
the diagnosos arrives when the hand holding S Jxxx realises partner has a 
singleton. The man with the singleton thinks the negative doubler has wasted 
values. I deprive them of that, and it will make a difference.  The problem 
on the hand is simply that West knows NS have game values and knows they may 
have difficulty bidding it.. On the subject of the 4-4 fit, of course East 
can hold S Axx (ie he's known to be at least 4-3 in the majors, either way 
round) and then it's not a psyche anyway from general principles of auction 
development.

Even my cat, from general bridge knowledge, knows partner *could* be mucking 
around but that doesn't mean I have to bid like a lunatic. I asked myself 
the question; do I want to be in 5 major against a making 5minor, when if 
it's spades they're likely 4-0 and if it's hearts, we may have only 9. In 
both cases the answer is No, so why should I provide the opps a cast iron 
guarantee that 5 minor is making by raising spades?

CPU's apply to the pair I fined this year for _still_ having 13-15 on their 
card, and opening another 12 count (they're clueless precision players) and 
fielding it. At 30% frequency it may well be worth it.  There's nothing 
CPU-ish about this auction, it's just 4 bridge players getting stuck in, and 
the non-psychers are complaining they had their candy stolen. Serves them 
right for playing methods which allow for exploits.

I really do despair at the L&E sometimes, who see a psyche and immediately 
think "Aha, CPU!" when what's going on is bridge. Take Burn, Probst, 
Casselle and Cearns (the latter 2 being well known operators where David and 
I might play) round a table as an example. Give an extimate of 2S being a 
psyche?  10-20% perhaps; like I said, doesn't anyone play bridge any more? 
But it doesn't pay to field this psyche at that frequency anyway. So why, 
when it IS a psyche, do we suddenly get all uppity?  I really don't se 
evidence of a CPU in this auction. Sorry guys. I just don't.

John


> [JP]
>
> Why should West when he knows his side are seriously outgunned, try a 4-4
> spade fit when he knows spades are breaking badly?
>
> [DALB]
>
> There is a difference between "likely to have" and "certain to have". West
> knows neither that his side has only a 4-4 spade fit (since East may have
> five) nor that the suit is breaking badly (since North may not have four).
>
> [JP]
>
> Pass is obvious
>
> [DALB]
>
> Pass is indeed obvious if you allow for the possibility that your partner,
> who has bid spades, does not have spades. But if you do that, you run some
> risk of having your actions classified as fielding a psyche. Curiously
> enough, that is what the L&E did to those actions.
>
> I am getting really rather tired of the pseudo-expert excuses people make 
> to
> justify abnormal actions (whether their own or those of some unknown
> player). Just because Alain Gottcheiner would always open something with 
> any
> hand containing five spades to two top honours, it does not follow that 
> the
> East of the original hand would. Just because some BLML contributor or 
> other
> thinks that the opponents can't bid the cards in front of their faces if 
> we
> give them a free run, it doesn't follow that these opponents can't.
> Meanwhile, ever more inventive reasons are being concocted to justify ever
> more outlandish actions, but the fact of the matter is that players are
> still trying to steal candy from babies, and then bleating about it when
> they are caught.
>
> David Burn
> London, England
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> blml mailing list
> blml at amsterdamned.org
> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml