[TimG]

Well, Justin says:

Quote

Partner is third seat white. ... It is just bridge that partner can open light here.

Notice that he didn't say "very light".

Quote

I specified "pickup game" because I expected this to remove any special agreements about 3rd seat openings.

I think I would be more likely to pass opposite a pickup partner for two reasons: 1) I think it is just bridge that lots of players open a little light in 3rd seat; and 2) doubling adds an extra complexity to the auction that isn't needed in a pickup partnership (for instance, if I double and advancer bids a suit, partner's pass is probably forcing through some level, but I don't know what level).

[phil_20686]

I think this kind of question cannot be assessed accurately without some feeling for the standard of the players involved. At club level even reasonable club players will never occur to them to double here. Certainly when I play with my Father, it never occurs to him to make a penalty double in almost every situation. At tournament level I would expect 90+% of the field to dble here, but certainly at MP there are a sizeable minority of extremely strong players who prefer to mess around in 3rd to the extent that they would not dble with these hands. I know at least one extremely strong junior pair who has the agreement that they never invite 2N after 1m-1x-2m from a 3rd seat opener.

If this happened in a club it is definitely amber at worst, and possibly green. In a tournament amber seems a more likely ruling, but I really cannot imagine ruling it red. Besides, surely on this thread west has a pretty good hand, and just took the room action that you would take after a 1N opener? Since west passed, and 1N overcallers are normally significantly stronger (as values better placed/worst 1N openers are not overcalls). Surely 1N passed out is the room result?

[FrancesHinden]

nige1, on 2011-January-02, 15:56, said:

It would be interesting to learn the annual tally of such cases; and how many there are of each colour.

If you are specifically talking about the auction P P 1x 1NT pass then the annual tally is tiny, because third seat 1-level suit opening psyches reported to the L&E are extremely rare. People generally don't do them any more; they are out of fashion.
The case referred to by jallerton was from a club event and so wasn't sent to the L&E.

Psychic 1NT openings and overcalls are much more common (to the extent that a few players have been warned to stop doing them, as otherwise they will be deemed to have a concealed partnership agreement to make them).

The reason that this might not be red is described in Phil_20686's post. The reason that so many psychic 1NT overcalls get recorded is that poor players simply don't know what to do on hands that better players know are an obvious penalty double, because it simply doesn't occur to them to double. I've even come across people who play double as artificial. So if a discussion with South went along the genuine lines of "why didn't you double?" "double? what would that have meant?" it's not red.

[Free]

A psych is deliberate and gross deviation of length and/or strength.

This is a clear psych (deliberate gross deviation of strength), and imo South has a clear Dbl. So I'd classify it as Red given the definitions above.

No idea what South's problem is, if he Doubles then North will just run to 2♣ and they play a 9-card fit!
No idea what West's problem is either. He should have a 5 card Major, so why did he pass?

[mjj29]

FrancesHinden, on 2011-January-04, 16:15, said:

Psychic 1NT openings and overcalls are much more common (to the extent that a few players have been warned to stop doing them, as otherwise they will be deemed to have a concealed partnership agreement to make them).

Ah, I had someone like that. At the point everyone assumed he was psyching rather than actually had his opening and one partner announced 1NT as "7 to 17. We've agreed 15-17, but it was 7 last time he opened it" I suggested that maybe he should do it somewhat less. To his credit he did then stop.

[nige1]

nige1, on 2011-January-01, 11:46, said:

My criticism is directed at rules rather than directors. Criticising a profession is less libellous than repeatedly branding named individuals as liars or worse. Should moderators condone the latter? I write from my own bridge-experience and from what I read in fora like this. Presumably, Bluejak has forgotten endless threads in previous fora, where directors defended light third-in-hand openers that other directors considered to be patently illegal. (David Burn categorised the practice in stronger terms). Bluejak has access to EBU/WBU records. If I'm mistaken about current practice, then Bluejak can tell us how many such red-psychs were recorded and what the sanctions were.

bluejak, on 2011-January-01, 13:03, said:

Of course I cannot quote figures. But talking about threads on these forums is just a complete red herring: judging by the threads here you would think that there is a dispute about nearly every claims, when about one claim in a few hundred actually gets challenged. It is perfectly normal for a complete psyche third in hand to be treated as Red when partner with a maximum pass does not treat it as such and a few odd threads does not mean that is not true.

Making a libelous criticism of TDs in general based on this sort of lack of evidence is not acceptable.

nige1, on 2011-January-01, 13:30, said:

Spuriously accusing an individual of libel is libellous. When Bridge legislatures start collecting, collating, and publishing statistics, Bluejak's and my views will be based on more than our experience. In spite of Bluejak's contentions:

• Here, many posters classify this psych as amber at worst (not red).
• Players regard many claims as faulty but few challenge or appeal them. Again a problem with the laws rather than directors.

mjj29, on 2011-January-02, 05:45, said:

Yes, but the only ones which get posted here are the ones where it is unclear whether it was fielded or not - ergo likely to be judged amber. If it were clearly red or clearly green, noone would bother asking this forum, so there's an in built bias to be expected.

FrancesHinden, on 2011-January-04, 16:15, said:

If you are specifically talking about the auction P P 1x 1NT pass then the annual tally is tiny, because third seat 1-level suit opening psyches reported to the L&E are extremely rare. People generally don't do them any more; they are out of fashion. The case referred to by jallerton was from a club event and so wasn't sent to the L&E.Psychic 1NT openings and overcalls are much more common (to the extent that a few players have been warned to stop doing them, as otherwise they will be deemed to have a concealed partnership agreement to make them). The reason that this might not be red is described in Phil_20686's post. The reason that so many psychic 1NT overcalls get recorded is that poor players simply don't know what to do on hands that better players know are an obvious penalty double, because it simply doesn't occur to them to double. I've even come across people who play double as artificial. So if a discussion with South went along the genuine lines of "why didn't you double?" "double? what would that have meant?" it's not red.

Thank you Frances. (Again FWIW) my experience is that many players make routine "psychs" in third seat; but attention isn't drawn to them, fielding isn't blatant, damage hard to prove, and they're rarely reported. A few cases do attract rulings. Some basic cases are reported in BBO and other fora -- the rulings recommended by directors tend to be fairly evenly split. Commentators discuss similar psyching habits by internationals on BBO. IMO, bluffing is part of Bridge. The answer is to scrap restrictions on systemic-agreements and to allow players to admit to the nature and frequency of "random" deviations. This would encourage disclosure.

[lamford]

FrancesHinden, on 2011-January-04, 16:15, said:

Psychic 1NT openings and overcalls are much more common (to the extent that a few players have been warned to stop doing them, as otherwise they will be deemed to have a concealed partnership agreement to make them).

Is the infraction not the failure to disclose rather than the making of the bid? 40A3 states "A player may make any call or play without prior announcement provided that such call or play is not based on an undisclosed partnership understanding". I don't think therefore it is correct to stop players from making such calls; would it not be better to require that they put such a practice on the front of the convention card, and possibly alert a 1NT overcall? Also 40B2d indicates that "The Regulating Authority may restrict the use of psychic artificial calls." This wording suggests that they are not at liberty generally to restrict the use of psychic natural calls. The RA can, of course, disallow any partnership understanding under 40B2a, so something like a Raptor 1NT overcall could be disallowed. The actual agreement is usually 15-17 (but of course is often weak with long clubs, and when Stayman gets passed, less experienced players feel stolen from).

[bluejak]

Certainly a player who overcalls 1NT on 15-17 per disclosed agreement but frequently on weak hands with a long minor can escape the fielding regulations and Laws by disclosing it. Then it is a question of whether it is legal. Such an overcall is permitted by agreement in England/Wales at Level 4 but not Level 3.

So, in England you can psyche a 1NT overcall on such a hand rarely enough that you have no agreement. When it becomes more frequent than this you can disclose it and play it at Level 4 but not Level 3.

Despite the apparent logic from the statement that artificial psychic calls may be regulated in practice it seems all psychic calls may be regulated. So the RA/TO can ban them. But few jurisdictions [apart from online, which do not always follow the Laws anyway] try to ban natural bids, apart from some clubs.

[blackshoe]

bluejak, on 2011-January-10, 07:23, said:

Certainly a player who overcalls 1NT on 15-17 per disclosed agreement but frequently on weak hands with a long minor can escape the fielding regulations and Laws by disclosing it. Then it is a question of whether it is legal. Such an overcall is permitted by agreement in England/Wales at Level 4 but not Level 3.

So, in England you can psyche a 1NT overcall on such a hand rarely enough that you have no agreement. When it becomes more frequent than this you can disclose it and play it at Level 4 but not Level 3.

Despite the apparent logic from the statement that artificial psychic calls may be regulated in practice it seems all psychic calls may be regulated. So the RA/TO can ban them. But few jurisdictions [apart from online, which do not always follow the Laws anyway] try to ban natural bids, apart from some clubs.

I disagree, David. A ruling that there appears to be a CPU is one thing, an outright ban on psychs is another kettle of fish entirely. Such a ban is directly in contravention of the first sentence of Law 40C1, and therefore, IMO, illegal. If a pair are, in practice, playing a "dual meaning" method such as you describe, then yes, the RA can ban such a method — but the mere fact that a player deviates from his announced system is not in itself sufficient evidence to conclude that they are playing such a method.

Someone is likely to take your "So the RA/TO can ban them" out of context and claim that, for example, banning psychs online (or offline) is perfectly legal. After all, David Stevenson said so.

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2011-January-10, 09:20, said:

I disagree, David. A ruling that there appears to be a CPU is one thing, an outright ban on psychs is another kettle of fish entirely. Such a ban is directly in contravention of the first sentence of Law 40C1, and therefore, IMO, illegal.

I think, at level three, any ban would be against the disclosed agreement that the pair frequently overcall 1NT or open 1NT with a hand that is weak and unbalanced. I think the RA are using the first sentence of 40B2a in allowing frequent psyches, provided they are disclosed on the CC, only in certain events.

Actually, these are not psyches at all. If the partnership methods are that 1NT is systemically 12-14, but has occasionally been 0-3 with a six-card minor, then it should be described as such on the CC, and alerted. And I think we all agree that this would not be welcome in the "Really Easy Congress" or the US equivalent of such an event.

[mgoetze]

lamford, on 2011-January-09, 14:51, said:

The RA can, of course, disallow any partnership understanding under 40B2a, so something like a Raptor 1NT overcall could be disallowed. The actual agreement is usually 15-17 (but of course is often weak with long clubs, and when Stayman gets passed, less experienced players feel stolen from).

Was the first sentence I quoted meant to have any relationship to the sentence immediately following it? If so: Are you sure you know what a "Raptor 1NT overcall" is?

[blackshoe]

lamford, on 2011-January-10, 15:38, said:

Actually, these are not psyches at all.

That's precisely the point, isn't it?

[lamford]

mgoetze, on 2011-January-10, 16:38, said:

Was the first sentence I quoted meant to have any relationship to the sentence immediately following it? If so: Are you sure you know what a "Raptor 1NT overcall" is?

Yes and yes. I recall an article in a Swedish bridge magazine - which was being sent to me when I was editing Batsford bridge books, by, I believe, Magnus Lindkvist, who I think was the inventor. I am also indebted to Mr Burn for his account of the semi-finals of the Rosenblum, where Raptor was played but not alerted or announced. Somewhere on here, but also, among other places, on http://www.gamesforu...d.php?t=242735.

The Raptor convention would have been legal in the Rosenblum with full disclosure, as would an agreement that a 1NT overcall is ostensibly 15-17 balanced but may be weak with clubs. Provided the CC gives full details; and partner not raising the latter type to 3NT with a hand that merits it would no longer be fielding. There is no essential difference; the RA can also ban either method under 40B2a, in selected or all events.

But I see what you mean - there is something of a non sequitur between the two sentences. "actual agreement" refers to the normal 1NT overcall, not to Raptor. Researching a bit more finds that the ruling on Raptor in the above event was that

"(a) the use of Raptor by this partnership was illegal, because it had not been properly disclosed"

And FrancesHinden, who speaks with authority as a member (and blogger) of the L&E in England indicates that "a few players have been warned to stop doing them (psychic 1NT overcalls), as otherwise they will be deemed to have a concealed partnership agreement".

[bluejak]

blackshoe, on 2011-January-10, 09:20, said:

I disagree, David. A ruling that there appears to be a CPU is one thing, an outright ban on psychs is another kettle of fish entirely. Such a ban is directly in contravention of the first sentence of Law 40C1, and therefore, IMO, illegal. If a pair are, in practice, playing a "dual meaning" method such as you describe, then yes, the RA can ban such a method — but the mere fact that a player deviates from his announced system is not in itself sufficient evidence to conclude that they are playing such a method.

Someone is likely to take your "So the RA/TO can ban them" out of context and claim that, for example, banning psychs online (or offline) is perfectly legal. After all, David Stevenson said so.

I do not like it any more than you do, but given earlier decisions by the WBFLC I think you would find that the following has force:

Under an earlier Law book the WBFLC commented that it was legal to ban psyches of conventional calls because the SO had an unrestricted right to apply rules to conventional bids.

Now suppose the RA decide to ban psyches of an opening natural 1♠. So under Law 40B1A the RA decides that a 1♠ opening which may be psyched is an SPU. Under Law 40B2A they allow a 1♠ opening 'conditionally', the condition being that it is not psyched.

Why is this wrong?

[blackshoe]

Take it a step further. If the RA can designate a 1♠ opening which may be psyched as an SPU, then they can designate all natural opening bids which may be psyched as SPUs. Now they can ban psychs of all natural opening bids. But this directly contravenes the first sentence of Law 40C1, and per Law 80B2{f}, the RA (or TO) cannot do this (regulations must be "not in conflict with these laws").

If the WBFLC intends that RAs and TOs can make regulations that conflict with the laws, they should have left 80B2{f} on the cutting room floor.

[pran]

bluejak, on 2011-January-10, 20:04, said:

I do not like it any more than you do, but given earlier decisions by the WBFLC I think you would find that the following has force:

Under an earlier Law book the WBFLC commented that it was legal to ban psyches of conventional calls because the SO had an unrestricted right to apply rules to conventional bids.

Now suppose the RA decide to ban psyches of an opening natural 1♠. So under Law 40B1A the RA decides that a 1♠ opening which may be psyched is an SPU. Under Law 40B2A they allow a 1♠ opening 'conditionally', the condition being that it is not psyched.

Why is this wrong?

I hold this to be true:

A psyche is a deliberate (and gross) deviation from partnership understandings and agreements, consequently any partnership understanding or agreement that a particular call can be psyched with some probability is a self-contradiction.

It is a privilege for a player to have a misbid accepted as a psyche (rather than a CPU), and the Director should only accept such call as a psyche (and thereby being legal under Law 40C1 if he finds that the specific condition in this law ('always provided that his partner has no more reason to be aware of the deviation than have the opponents') is satisfied.

If the Director finds any cause for the offender's partner to be more aware of a possible psyche than are the opponents he should deny this privilege of having the call ruled a psyche and instead rule it a partnership understanding (concealed or disclosed as the case might be).

(This leaves for the RA to ban the psyching of particular types of calls if they see cause.)

[Cascade]

bluejak, on 2011-January-10, 20:04, said:

I do not like it any more than you do, but given earlier decisions by the WBFLC I think you would find that the following has force:

Under an earlier Law book the WBFLC commented that it was legal to ban psyches of conventional calls because the SO had an unrestricted right to apply rules to conventional bids.

Now suppose the RA decide to ban psyches of an opening natural 1♠. So under Law 40B1A the RA decides that a 1♠ opening which may be psyched is an SPU. Under Law 40B2A they allow a 1♠ opening 'conditionally', the condition being that it is not psyched.

Why is this wrong?

Psyching is not a partnership understanding therefore it cannot be a special partnership understanding.

[mgoetze]

lamford, on 2011-January-10, 17:47, said:

But I see what you mean - there is something of a non sequitur between the two sentences. "actual agreement" refers to the normal 1NT overcall, not to Raptor. Researching a bit more finds that the ruling on Raptor in the above event was that

Indeed it sounded like you were implying either (a) the normal range for a Raptor 1NT is 15-17 or ( a Raptor 1NT overcall is one which could be either strong and balanced or weak with clubs; neither of which is correct, AFAIK. So I was just making sure that you actually meant something else than what I understood.

[bluejak]

I do not like this any more than anyone else, but none of the answers have really shown my logic to be wrong so far. An RA can make a regulation, which is legal per Law 40B2A, that you may play a 1♠ opening as natural, any range you like, subject to the condition that it is not psyched. While notionally if they psyche it Law 40C1 allows it, they have now played an illegal agreement.

Note that the logic that this cannot be right as otherwise Law 40C1 is meaningless fails anyway because of Law 40B2D which clashes similarly with Law 40C1.

Presumably the WBFLC does not envisage an RA making every agreement an SPU. Accordingly, Law 40C1 will always have value. Also, of course, it covers misbids and the like.

There is, of course, the logical approach that a natural 1♠ opening cannot be an SPU because it is illogical to assume it "may not be readily understood and anticipated by a significant number of players in the tournament". However, the wording "in the opinion of the Regulating Authority" means that this decision is clearly one for the RA to take.

I tend to treat the RA and TO much the same, but perhaps this is a case where this is wrong. The decision about SPUs is definitely one for the RA and not the TO. Aha! you say: that means that a club cannot ban psyches: it is only the RA that can. Well, maybe, outside England. But if you read Law 80A3 it depends on whether the National Authority has delegated or assigned its powers. My understanding is that the EBU has assigned its powers to its clubs for their competitions, so English clubs could ban psyches under this argument, but perhaps not clubs in other countries unless either the National Authority permits it, or it has delegated or assigned its powers. Anyone know whether the ACBL has delegated or assigned its powers?



We try not to have too many abbreviations in this forum because of new readers. However considerations of SPUs tend to be technical and the full wording is very long so, unless I hear objections, I intend to add SPU to the standard forum abbreviations.

[blackshoe]

From the ACBL General Convention Chart:

Quote

Clubs have full authority to regulate conventions in games conducted solely at their clubs.

Quote

Law 80A3: The Regulating Authority may delegate its powers (retaining ultimate responsibility for their exercise) or it may assign them (in which case it has no further responsibility for their exercise).

I am not certain there's ever been an official statement from the ACBL as to whether the regulation above is a delegation or an assignment, but from the way the ACBL has treated problems in clubs, basically saying to clubs "you deal with it", I suspect their intention is that it is an assignment.

Usually, David, when you and I disagree, on reflection I come around to your view. This time I'm not convinced.