[Cascade]

Hi

I was playing 10-12 NT in an ACBL tourney today and I opened 1NT in 3rd seat at favourable vulnerability with three high card points.

I am not sure that this is a good psyche and it might even be a silly one. That is not my problem.

The director told me that I was not allowed to psyche a mini-NT.

acbl->Tournament: psyches are legal - however when playing 10-12 nt should not psyche that
->acbl: what ? is there a rule that says that?
acbl: when you are already playing a range that low - it is like a no risk psyche to bid 1nt with fewer than that amount of hcp
->acbl: it seemed pretty risky to me. No risk psyches are legal surely
acbl: no they are not - psyches are to fool the opps if you make a psyche that is of no risk to you it is not allowed
acbl: if you were playing strong nts would be no problem u psyche 1nt
->acbl: I don't think there is a rule that says that - can you point me in the right direction

This doesn't seem correct to me.

Is there really a regulation that disallows psychic bids of a mini-NT?

The director did send me some information about risk free psyches but I am not at all convinced that this psyche is risk free. I was certainly trying to imagine the number when my partner competed to 3♠ and earlier where I was going if 1NT X came back to me.

TIA

[hrothgar]

This is another perfect example why some kind of rating system is require by which players can rate the competancy of tournment directors...

The director is in error (and rather egregiously I might add)

The best course of action is to contact the ACBL and ask that they provide appropriate instruction to the director in question. I'd be interested in seeing the information about risk free pysches.

More importantly, its critical to know where this information came from. The ACBL has a rather bad habit of publishing unofficial "opinions" on a variety of topics that hold no legal or regulatory standing. My guess is that any such information regarding risk free psyches falls into this category.

[epeeist]

There was a lengthy discussion on psyches, which included uday inquiring directly of the ACBL, in August. You can find page 4 of that discussion at:

http://bridgebase.lunarpages.com/~bridge2/...opic=4315&st=45

Maybe the TD considered your psyche "frivolous"?

The ACBL policy on psyches is in Chapter XII Section A, "Bidding, Skip Bidding and Alerts" at:

http://www.acbl.org/...dification.html

I found it interesting that you CAN'T psyche a forcing artificial bid. So IF a "mini NT" is a forcing artificial bid then I guess you can't psyche it. Just like you are not permitted to psyche an artificial forcing strong 2♣ opening.

[jtfanclub]

Sorry, just thought it was an interesting coinkidink.

http://www.blakjak.d...o.uk/lille7.htm


Techincally the director was wrong...
http://web2.acbl.org/codification/CHAPTER%...Section%20A.pdf

1NT is not artificial. But in fact, because opening 1NT with fewer than 10 hcp by agreement is illegal when playing GCC, I suspect the director isn't alone when ruling against you.

[Gerardo]

BUT, your AGREEMENT says 10-12, so you are GCC legal.

Director seemed to rely on this Lille issue (or a very similar thinking). However, there is nothing in the Laws to support this, AFAIK.

I don't care about "no risk" either, and usually there is a risk if you misdescribe your hand. It could be small, but it is still there. And even if not, you are still legal! (assuming no agreement, explicit or implicit)

If TD doesn't like the fact you are legal, should lobby to change the Laws/regulations. Meanwhile, should TD based on current Laws, no pensonal wishes.

Good catch Matthew! Exactly the point

BTW, what was the hand?

[epeeist]

jtfanclub, on Oct 1 2004, 01:44 AM, said:

Sorry, just thought it was an interesting coinkidink.

http://www.blakjak.d...o.uk/lille7.htm


Techincally the director was wrong...
http://web2.acbl.org/codification/CHAPTER%...Section%20A.pdf

1NT is not artificial.  But in fact, because opening 1NT with fewer than 10 hcp by agreement is illegal when playing GCC, I suspect the director isn't alone when ruling against you.

Thanks for posting this, very interesting.

It seemed to me, though, from reading it the real issue was not whether 1NT was a psychic, or a "safe" psychic, but whether N/S had a system (not agreed upon in advance, but in effect) which _disclosed_ to N that the 1NT by S was a psychic bid.

The 2♣ rebid being "impossible" in their system, the partner of the 1NT psycher stated that he knew something was odd or unusual about the 1NT bid (not necessarily a psychic, just something odd). The alert of the 2♣ bid, however, was not that it showed something odd or unusual about the 1NT bid, but just that it "did not exist" in their system. Since the 2♣ bid was alerted, wasn't N obligated to say more than it "did not exist", when N _knew_ it meant something?

Also, would this in effect make the original 1NT bid a "Psychic bid protected by system" (i.e. 2♣ rebid alerted partner original 1NT bid "weird") which according to the WBF is brown sticker?

EDIT: I thought there was some convention like "Gehestam" (??) or something, intended to reveal an earlier bid was psychic, and thought there'd been some discussion on these boards about some federations not permitting it? Unfortunately since I can't even remember the name, I can't really search for it...

[inquiry]

epeeist, on Oct 1 2004, 03:14 PM, said:

[EDIT: I thought there was some convention like "Gehestam" (??) or something, intended to reveal an earlier bid was psychic, and thought there'd been some discussion on these boards about some federations not permitting it? Unfortunately since I can't even remember the name, I can't really search for it...

What you are probably thinking of is "comic 1NT" overcall where 1NT overcall is either a normal 1NT overcall, or a very weak hand with some long suit. Playing this, 2C response was a checkback, often used before a leap to 3NT. IF partner had the weak hand with a suit, he bid his suit (or passed two clubs), if not made a forward going bid. The comic 1NT is legal (the 1NT on junik), but the checkback (2C bid) is not.

Now it is perfectly legal to dexcribe a 1NT overcall as always weak one suiter, and use 2C as checkback.. this way you can use a jump to 3C and 3D as somehting else (since weak hands begin 1NT).

And what you are reaching for is this, Comic 1NT is also known as Gardener.

Ben

[jtfanclub]

inquiry, on Oct 1 2004, 02:44 PM, said:

What you are probably thinking of is "comic 1NT" overcall where 1NT overcall is either a normal 1NT overcall, or a very weak hand with some long suit. Playing this, 2C response was a checkback, often used before a leap to 3NT. IF partner had the weak hand with a suit, he bid his suit (or passed two clubs), if not made a forward going bid. The comic 1NT is legal (the 1NT on junik), but the checkback (2C bid) is not.

Now it is perfectly legal to dexcribe a 1NT overcall as always weak one suiter, and use 2C as checkback.. this way you can use a jump to 3C and 3D as somehting else (since weak hands begin 1NT).

And what you are reaching for is this, Comic 1NT is also known as Gardener.

Ben

Which is fine in the ACBL as an overcall, but illegal as an opening. If you used 'comic 1NT' as an opener, you'll be lucky if all you get is an adjustment.

It seems like Bobby Wolff was claiming that's exactly what the partnership in question was doing.

[keylime]

Psyching a natural 1NT is perfectly legal. Once again, somebody that is supposed to know got it wrong - AGAIN. <shakes head>

Does anyone know the GCC andLaw 40 that direct ACBL events?

[jtfanclub]

keylime, on Oct 2 2004, 01:04 AM, said:

Psyching a natural 1NT is perfectly legal. Once again, somebody that is supposed to know got it wrong - AGAIN. <shakes head>

Does anyone know the GCC andLaw 40 that direct ACBL events?

Amazing how so many people think if they make a misleading description of an illegal bid, they can call it a psyche and get away with it.

If you have a method for fielding a psyche, such as checkback, it is no longer a psyche. It is part of the system. An illegal part of the system in this case. I'm a little tired of watching people psyche a weak NT and having their partner field it. Calling it a psyche isn't fooling anybody except maybe the opponents.

Is that what happened here, or was this a case of the baby being thrown out with the bathwater? Damned if I know, I haven't seen the bidding after all. But I'm reasonably certain that's what the Lille case came down to.

[Cascade]

Scoring: IMP

---

West North East South

 Pass  Pass  1NT!  Dbl!
 2♠    Pass  Pass  3♦
 3♠    3NT   Pass  Pass
 Pass  

This is the full hand.

I am not sure what could be classed as fielding?

Perhaps you want to force my partner to double.

There is no question of a concealed partnership understanding here. I have not played a mini-NT for many years and not ever before with this partner and I did not think of this psychic bid until the hand turned up. As I said before I do not even think that it is a particularly clever bid. Nevertheless I defend my right to make this psychic.

[paulg]

I have no problem with the 1NT opening.

However looking at West's hand there appears to be the possibility of fielding here. Firstly, why does West wish to try and play in a potential 5-2 spade fit when he holds the majority of points, and why does West not double the final contract when the opponents are so light?

West would have to provide a convincing argument for these actions to allay my fears of fielding.

If West was unable to convince me then the action would depend on the sponsoring authority. In the UK this may well be a Red psyche (http://www.math.aau....gebook/s06.html) for a regular partnership (which would mean 30-60 split score) but may well be Amber in this instance (so no adjustment).

In this fairly harsh judgement I've assumed Wayne's partner is a reasonable player. It would be easier for a lesser player to convince me that there was no fielding.

[luke warm]

maybe i misread the original post, but where does 'fielding' the psych even come into play? the director adjusted the score simply because "it's illegal to psych a mini nt"... this is not true, and if this is the reason for the adjustment something is wrong

as for fielding the psych, i have a question... is the partner of a psychic bidder *ever* barred from becoming aware of the nature of the bid? for example, can wayne not become aware of the psych and change his bidding accordingly, *if* there is no p'ship agreements in place to determine whether or not a bid is psychic?

[inquiry]

luke warm, on Oct 2 2004, 11:27 AM, said:

maybe i misread the original post, but where does 'fielding' the psych even come into play? the director adjusted the score simply because "it's illegal to psych a mini nt"... this is not true, and if this is the reason for the adjustment something is wrong

as for fielding the psych, i have a question... is the partner of a psychic bidder *ever* barred from becoming aware of the nature of the bid? for example, can wayne not become aware of the psych and change his bidding accordingly, *if* there is no p'ship agreements in place to determine whether or not a bid is psychic?

It is not at all clear that the score was adjusted. The opponents got to 3NT which has to be top spot, and scored more than plus 3 imps. Looks like this is more of a general discussion. It is clear, that west fielded the psyche or he/she would have doubled 3NT.

[paulg]

luke warm, on Oct 2 2004, 04:27 PM, said:

maybe i misread the original post, but where does 'fielding' the psych even come into play? the director adjusted the score simply because "it's illegal to psych a mini nt"... this is not true, and if this is the reason for the adjustment something is wrong

I agree, but did not address this in my post as I thought others had already made good comments about this point

luke warm, on Oct 2 2004, 04:27 PM, said:

as for fielding the psych, i have a question... is the partner of a psychic bidder *ever* barred from becoming aware of the nature of the bid? for example, can wayne not become aware of the psych and change his bidding accordingly, *if* there is no p'ship agreements in place to determine whether or not a bid is psychic?

There are certainly auctions where a psyche can become "exposed" and the partner can bid accordingly.

However the concern is always about a concealed partnership understanding and the UK rules seem to provide a reasonable guide -

6.2.1 The actions of you and your partner following a psyche may provide evidence of an unauthorised - and therefore illegal - understanding. If so, then your partnership is said to have "fielded" the psyche. The TD will find that you have such an unauthorised understanding if, for example, you take any abnormal action, before the psyche has been exposed, to protect your side from its effect. The TD will judge your actions objectively: that is to say your intent will not be taken into account.

In this case I agree with Ben that West has fielding the psyche, that is he has taken an action (2♠, no final double) that allows for a very weak 1NT bid from partner.

p

[Maaa]

As long as West was TWO times in the bidding.
West took as actions 2♠ and 3♠, I guess over opponents 3NT and partners PASS even my cat would feel the psyche ;-) I do not understand why someone "misses the final double".

Greetings, M.

[Cascade]

luke warm, on Oct 3 2004, 03:27 AM, said:

maybe i misread the original post, but where does 'fielding' the psych even come into play? the director adjusted the score simply because "it's illegal to psych a mini nt"... this is not true, and if this is the reason for the adjustment something is wrong

There was no adjustment.

Simply after I made the psyche the tournament (not sure if that was intended for everyone) was told that psyching a mini-NT was not allowed. I clarified that with the director and he told me this was a no-risk psyche and such psyches were not allowed.

[Cascade]

cardsharp, on Oct 3 2004, 03:39 AM, said:

In this case I agree with Ben that West has fielding the psyche, that is he has taken an action (2♠, no final double) that allows for a very weak 1NT bid from partner.

... and then an action 3♠ that seems to be based on partner having the full values for his bid.

This fielding concept is seriously flawed IMO.

How can partner field something that even I did not know I was going to do until moments before it happened?

[paulg]

Cascade, on Oct 2 2004, 08:20 PM, said:

cardsharp, on Oct 3 2004, 03:39 AM, said:

In this case I agree with Ben that West has fielding the psyche, that is he has taken an action (2♠, no final double) that allows for a very weak 1NT bid from partner.

... and then an action 3♠ that seems to be based on partner having the full values for his bid.

This fielding concept is seriously flawed IMO.

When players take "non-standard" actions opposite a psyche that prove successful there is often a concern about concealed partnership understandings. These can sometimes be a subconcious effort, for example people taking weaker options because of partner's tendency to not have his bid in certain situations.

This is why I would expect a Director to ask West about the reasoning for his bids. (Given the ruling you received is clearly poor, it is unlikely that the TD would have had the time to do this properly in this case).

Cascade, on Oct 2 2004, 08:20 PM, said:

How can partner field something that even I did not know I was going to do until moments before it happened?

I naively hope that all fielding situations are like this.

Finally, in a slight contradiction of my own position, I will propose a defence. Many people open light in third seat. Is this general bridge knowledge or a partnership understanding? Deciding to only bid 2♠ is reasonable as there is little chance of game, however this defence falls down when 3NT is not doubled. It would appear that I may be playing partner to have a 0-12 1NT opener in 3rd position, and the opposition should have been told that.

p

[jtfanclub]

Cascade, on Oct 2 2004, 05:02 AM, said:

Scoring: IMP

---

West North East South

 Pass  Pass  1NT!  Dbl!
 2♠    Pass  Pass  3♦
 3♠    3NT   Pass  Pass
 Pass  

This is the full hand.

I am not sure what could be classed as fielding?

Perhaps you want to force my partner to double.

There is no question of a concealed partnership understanding here. I have not played a mini-NT for many years and not ever before with this partner and I did not think of this psychic bid until the hand turned up. As I said before I do not even think that it is a particularly clever bid. Nevertheless I defend my right to make this psychic.

Interesting. In the precision system I play, 2♠ as signoff there.

What does it mean in yours?