Bobby Wolff

RESPONDING TO LINDA …

Hi Linda,

Thank you for your response to my blog about fair play.

While you make several thought provoking good points about your version of destructive defensive conventions, you miss the overall theme.  The necessary strictures which stand out are that, if playing destructive methods against opponents, the disclosure should require a higher degree of accuracy and the execution should be beyond suspicion.  If playing 10-12 HCP mini-NT, the hand must contain at least 10 HCP’s or, if two suited weak bids are played, both suits must have at least 5 cards in them and have at least the minimum high cards described on the convention card.

Why, you may ask, should these specific strictures apply regarding destructive conventions and not be necessary on other "normal" conventional treatments?  Very simply, because without these strictures, those conventions lend themselves to hanky panky (involving private understandings) which are (because of our scoring system involving non-vulnerable penalties plus the direction which our standard defenses have developed) virtually impossible to overcome and unlikely to be proven to be a special private understanding.

When the above is added to confusing description (such as non-forcing rather than just shutout or "very weak") it likens itself to defending oneself against suicide bombers. 

Please do not confuse what I am saying with the person who accused you of cheating for playing 12-14 no trump or the difficulty of coming into the auction when the opponents are using Bergen raises.  Both of the above treatments have easy defenses to them as well as familiarity among a majority of tournament players.

There is one long-time bridge caveat which, at least to me, will always represent what is necessary.  A partnership, in order to be considered eligible to compete alongside all others in the pursuit of winning results, MUST comply with living up to the spirit of bridge competition.  That spirit should include not throwing heretofore unknown questionable obstacles in front of any pair, much less an inexperienced one, leaving them to confront problems never presented to them before. 

Early on and in the tradition of 75 years of contract bridge experience, normal preempts have existed, most of the time (but not always) showing a weak hand with a long suit, so that difficulty (confused with destruction) has long since been overcome.  Psychic bidding is still very much a part of our great bridge tradition and should continue to be, but every partnership (both great or wannabe-great) must realize that carrying along with the freedom of psyching a bid goes with the risk that partner may be fooled into doing something normal which may turn out terrible.  It is only when devious partnerships try and prevent that risk from happening which should warn (but unfortunately sometimes does not) our bridge administration to try and prevent that from occurring by considering and then instituting necessary solutions.

In all competitive sports, including bridge, the administrative wing is charged with making sure fairness is present by doing whatever is necessary to so insure.  Since bridge is cerebral rather than physical  this necessity requires different types of adjustments, but without it, sadly, our game would not be worth playing. 

Bobby


2 Comments

Cam FrenchApril 13th, 2008 at 3:43 pm

Bobby is so right about psychic bids. When I was young and first learned of them, they were a toy we employed with indiscretion.

One day a senior member (George Holland) of the club asked me to play.

He said he had but one “rule”. That was we were never to psyche against emerging players. The thought had never crossed my mind. His reasoning was sound, a) we don’t need to do so and b) it turns them off the game. It was a life lesson that I have never forgotten.

A couple years later a novice friend came to me with a hand where her much more forbidable opponents had psyched against her. It was a badge of honour. Why?

“Well, we all know you never psych against weak players, therefore, I must be advanced”. She was beaming.

Pyches have a place in our game. But like any tool or weapon, it must be used with discretion.

I laugh because in the last 6 years of playing on-line I psyched exactly once. it was a tactical bid (blame Zia and his book) and I scored a great result. My opponents were not upset. We all understood it was a neat time and place.

Let’s teach our new players how to play the game with integrity and empathy. Lest we forget, once upon a time we were all novices.

C

Cam FrenchApril 13th, 2008 at 3:44 pm

Bobby is so right about psychic bids. When I was young and first learned of them, they were a toy we employed with indiscretion.

One day a senior member (George Holland) of the club asked me to play.

He said he had but one “rule”. That was we were never to psyche against emerging players. The thought had never crossed my mind. His reasoning was sound, a) we don’t need to do so and b) it turns them off the game. It was a life lesson that I have never forgotten.

A couple years later a novice friend came to me with a hand where her much more forbidable opponents had psyched against her. It was a badge of honour. Why?

“Well, we all know you never psych against weak players, therefore, I must be advanced”. She was beaming.

Pyches have a place in our game. But like any tool or weapon, it must be used with discretion.

I laugh because in the last 6 years of playing on-line I psyched exactly once. it was a tactical bid (blame Zia and his book) and I scored a great result. My opponents were not upset. We all understood it was a neat time and place.

Let’s teach our new players how to play the game with integrity and empathy. Lest we forget, once upon a time we were all novices.

C

Leave a comment

Your comment