[BLML] Jeeves the Butler

Herman De Wael hermandw at skynet.be
Fri Jul 28 07:47:25 CEST 2017


The word "mandatory" shuld of course be in quotes.

But this raises the ever-important question.

How can you ever say that a bid is mandatory? The same cards never came 
up before - so doing the bid now does not prove that you would always do it.
Soevery single call can be called systemic - and none can be so.

The fact that a call is made cannot be enough to prove the systemics of 
it. Not even coupled with the fact that the player says he would do so 
again ifhe was ever presented with the same situation. Because if you go 
on that assertion, he will never assert the same thing agsain, and you 
have no way of calling him a liar if he doesn't say it.

No, the systemic nature of a bid must be deduced from the actions of the 
partner. If he bids 4He over a 1He opening, then the system is that this 
shows a five-card suit. (which is precisely why I don't like Drury).

Nor can the frequency of a psyche determine its systemic nature. 
Whatever the frequency of a psyche, the partner has a better chance of 
estimating it than the opponent. That is something the laws on full 
discolsure should try to remedy, and if that remedy is not present, the 
Director should adjust for it - but the mere fact that the partner knows 
the frequency of psyching is not zero should not be enough to call the 
psyche systemic. After all, you will never be able to prove that you 
have absolutely no knowledge of partner ever having psyched before. So 
any ruling that relies solely on partner's knwoledge of the possibility 
of a psyche is tantamount to the rule "you are allowed to psyche, 
provided you do it only once in your life".

And remember this: the fact that a player will open 1He in a certain 
situation is not the same as saying that 1He promises that situation. 
The hand above occurs once every six months. Meanwhile, there have been 
thousands of normal 1He openings. A call with a very low frequency must 
not be called psychic.
And yes, the hand containint 28 points is also very infrequnet, yet the 
2Di opening contains that possibility. But in contract to the H1H, there 
is a way of showing that infrequent hand (2Di-2He-3NT should do it). Of 
course, if there is a systemic way of showing the psychic H1H, then that 
too becomes systemic. But there isn't. OK?

Herman.

Richard Hills wrote:
> Yes, a mandatory psyche is indeed an oxymoron. Law 40C1: "... Repeated
> deviations lead to implicit understandings which then form part of the
> partnership's methods ..."
>
> And also Law 40B4: "When a side is damaged by an opponent's use of a
> special partnership understanding that does not comply with the
> regulations governing the tournament the score shall be adjusted. A side
> in breach of those regulations may be subject to a procedural penalty."
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Richard Hills
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On 26 Jul 2017, at 5:10 PM, Gordon Rainsford <gordonr60 at gmail.com
> <mailto:gordonr60 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>> “Mandatory psych”. Oxymoron?
>>
>>
>>
>> Sent from Mail <https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for
>> Windows 10
>>
>>
>>
>> *From: *Robert Frick <mailto:rfrick at rfrick.info>
>> *Sent: *26 July 2017 07:48
>> *To: *Bridge Laws Mailing List <mailto:blml at rtflb.org>
>> *Subject: *Re: [BLML] Jeeves the Butler
>>
>>
>>
>> Interesting question. At matchpoints, this is a mandatory psych. We
>> can't open 2C in ACBL land, and 1NT could get out of hand, so I will
>> open 1D. At IMPs, I will pass. If partner agonized before passing,
>> then I open 1D.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 25 Jul 2017 03:26:21 -0400, Richard Hills
>> <hildalirsch at gmail.com <mailto:hildalirsch at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > Swiss Butler Pairs
>>
>> > Dlr: West
>>
>> > Vul: North-South
>>
>> >
>>
>> > The bidding has gone: Pass - (Pass) - ?
>>
>> >
>>
>> > You, East, hold:
>>
>> >
>>
>> > T96
>>
>> > QT6
>>
>> > T973
>>
>> > 876
>>
>> >
>>
>> > What call do you make?
>>
>> >
>>
>> > Best wishes,
>>
>> >
>>
>> > Richard Hills
>>
>> >
>>
>> > Sent from my iPad
>>
>> > _______________________________________________
>>
>> > Blml mailing list
>>
>> > Blml at rtflb.org <mailto:Blml at rtflb.org>
>>
>> > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>> Blml mailing list
>>
>> Blml at rtflb.org <mailto:Blml at rtflb.org>
>>
>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Blml mailing list
>> Blml at rtflb.org <mailto:Blml at rtflb.org>
>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>
> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
> 	Virus-free. www.avg.com
> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
>
>
> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Blml mailing list
> Blml at rtflb.org
> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>


More information about the Blml mailing list