[captyogi]

Board No. 8
Dealer : West
Vul : None

East Holding

7 6 5 2
9 6 4
4 2
A K 5 3

After 2 Passes
E Opened 1D ( Artificial ) Playing Strong Club System

If this Opening is permitted.

Thanks n Brgds

Yogesh V. Abhyankar

[gordontd]

captyogi, on 2017-November-24, 04:22, said:

Board No. 8
Dealer : West
Vul : None

East Holding

7 6 5 2
9 6 4
4 2
A K 5 3

After 2 Passes
E Opened 1D ( Artificial ) Playing Strong Club System

If this Opening is permitted.

Thanks n Brgds

Yogesh V. Abhyankar

That depends on whether it is by agreement or not, and also on which Regulating Authority's jurisdiction it is in.

[captyogi]

gordontd, on 2017-November-24, 05:00, said:

That depends on whether it is by agreement or not, and also on which Regulating Authority's jurisdiction it is in.

Thx Gordon.

I thought even 3rd Seat Weak 1 level opening with 7 points may not be allowed under any jurisdiction.

[gordontd]

captyogi, on 2017-November-24, 05:09, said:

Thx Gordon.

I thought even 3rd Seat Weak 1 level opening with 7 points may not be allowed under any jurisdiction.

It's not allowed under the WBF or under the EBU but I don't know about other jurisdictions. But the important thing is whether or not it is by agreement (explicit or implicit), since you always have the right to depart from your agreements. If the pair in question had an agreed sound opening style, then opening this 1D would be a clear psyche and permissible. On the other hand if they had the agreement that they open very light, and the partner of this player seemed to consider it within the range of their opening bids, then it would be considered to be by agreement and not permissible under the regs of the WBF, EBU and I suspect most other RAs.

[The_Badger]

It's not a light opening, it's a psyche. I played Precision for many years, and I wouldn't have dreamed of opening 1♦ on a hand like this in 3rd even white/red. Just because 1♦ in Precision can mean a variety of things these days, usually without any reference to actually holding a ♦ suit, doesn't mean you can open a sub-minimum hand with a doubleton in the suit bid and not expect the director to be called.

If you opened the hand in SAYC, 2/1, Acol or other natural based systems, it would be classed as a psyche, so why should Precision be treated any differently just because it has some artificial openings?

If the hand had been ♠xxxx ♥xxx ♦x ♣AKxxx and it had been opened 2♣ in standard Precision showing 5♣ + 4M or 6+♣ then that's a light opening, in my view.

[steve2005]

ACBL your not allowed to psyche conventional openings and 1♦ is conventional here.

[hrothgar]

steve2005, on 2017-November-24, 09:00, said:

ACBL your not allowed to psyche conventional openings and 1♦ is conventional here.

It might be best to tabe the ACBL specific portions of this conversation until we see whether the new Convention Charts get approved in San Diego

[nullve]

So, in the ACBL, opening 1♦ on this hand is legal only if it contains fewer than the promised number of diamonds.

[steve2005]

hrothgar, on 2017-November-24, 11:03, said:

It might be best to tabe the ACBL specific portions of this conversation until we see whether the new Convention Charts get approved in San Diego

This has nothing to do with the new convention charts. Is clearly a psyche of a conventional bid.

The new charts does fix one problem with Precision. Opening light in 3rd was essentially not allowed even though everyone did it without penalty.
Having an agreement to open light will now be allowed if your 1♦ promises 2♦. It is still unfair to people whose 1♦ could be 0 or 1 ♦

[johnu]

nullve, on 2017-November-24, 13:26, said:

So, in the ACBL, opening 1♦ on this hand is legal only if it contains fewer than the promised number of diamonds.

Old rule (and current rule) - If 1♦ could be less than 3 diamonds (0, 1, or 2) (i.e. not natural => artificial => conventional) then you need at least 10 HCP

Proposed new rule - If 1♦ could show as few as 2 diamonds, then you need at least 8 HCP or satisfy rule of 17
If 1♦ could show 0 or 1 diamonds, then you need at least 10 HCP or satisfy rule of 19.

[blackshoe]

The fact that a hand does not contain the values shown by a bid does not mean that the bidder psyched.

It is, I think, "general bridge knowledge" that a third seat opening is likely to be at least somewhat weaker than the same opening in first or second seat.

ACBL regulations do not in general explicitly address third seat openings.

Precision 1♦ is, as has been pointed out, an artificial bid (assuming it could have fewer than three diamonds).

Currently ACBL regulations specify a minimum 10 HCP for the agreement to open 1♦.

Current regulations specific that it is not permitted to agree to open on fewer than 8 HCP (in any seat, since the regulation does not mention seats).

I have recently read a book (Overheard At The Bridge Club: Third And Fourth Seat Openings) in which the author discusses extensively a player's obligations regarding psychs, but also recommends opening 1♦ (in a 2/1 or SA context, not Precision) in third seat on some xxx xxx AKx xxxx "as a lead director". This may or may not be a common approach in some parts of North America. It's not around here. IAC, I don't think it's legal to do this by agreement. If it's a deviation from agreement, I think it's legal until it's done enough that partner may expect it. If it's a psych (which depends on the specific agreement on the opening) then it's not legal playing Precision, but is legal playing 2/1 or SA. I do wonder whether, having discussed "lead directing" openings in third seat without getting specific about distribution or point count, opening the hand above must be considered doing so "by agreement".

I expect the situation is similar in many jurisdictions outside the ACBL, but the specifics will depend on the regulations in force.

[steve2005]

blackshoe, on 2017-November-24, 16:47, said:

I don't think it's legal to do this by agreement. If it's a deviation from agreement, I think it's legal until it's done enough that partner may expect it. If it's a psych (which depends on the specific agreement on the opening) then it's not legal playing Precision, but is legal playing 2/1 or SA. I do wonder whether, having discussed "lead directing" openings in third seat without getting specific about distribution or point count, opening the hand above must be considered doing so "by agreement".

I think your right but I could never get my head around this. No agreement legal. It happens you discuss the hand later. How can you now say you have no agreement. Are you not supposed to discuss hands? How often can this happen before there is an agreement?

[nige1]

gordontd, on 2017-November-24, 05:45, said:

It's not allowed under the WBF or under the EBU but I don't know about other jurisdictions. But the important thing is whether or not it is by agreement (explicit or implicit), since you always have the right to depart from your agreements. If the pair in question had an agreed sound opening style, then opening this 1D would be a clear psyche and permissible. On the other hand if they had the agreement that they open very light, and the partner of this player seemed to consider it within the range of their opening bids, then it would be considered to be by agreement and not permissible under the regs of the WBF, EBU and I suspect most other RAs.

On BBO viewgraph, many world-class players routinely open awful hands, in 3rd seat. In a Bridge-winners thread, a poster said that, as captain, he would bench a player who failed to open some such hands. When there is a regulation against an agreement to open such hands, players claim that they are psychs. When you hold a subminimum hand in 3rd seat, somebody is likely to open the bidding before you get a chance, so opportunities for such tactics are rare. Too rare, such players argue, to create an implicit understanding. They believe it's just Bridge. Anyway, to provide convincing evidence of this implicit understanding, you would need to study many deals. Hence, in practice pairs are not penalised for such understandings.

This is another of those regulations that seem to handicap the few who try to comply with them.

System regulations result in more problems than solutions. Arguably, they should be scrapped.

[johnu]

nige1, on 2017-November-24, 20:22, said:

On BBO viewgraph, many world-class players routinely open awful hands, in 3rd seat. In a Bridge-winners thread, some said that, as captain, they would bench a player who failed to open some such hands. When there is a regulation against an agreement to open such hands, players claim that they are psychs. When you hold a subminimum hand in 3rd seat, somebody is likely to open the bidding before you get a chance, so opportunities for such tactics are rare. Too rare, such players argue, to create an implicit understanding. They believe it's just Bridge. Anyway, to provide convincing evidence of this implicit understanding, you would need to study many deals. Hence, in practice pairs are not penalised for such understandings.

This is another of those regulations that seems to handicap the few who try to comply with them.

http://bridgewinners...sa-spain-match/

Spain decided to take a stand in last year's World Bridge Games.

[The_Badger]

johnu, on 2017-November-24, 23:21, said:

http://bridgewinners...sa-spain-match/

Spain decided to take a stand in last year's World Bridge Games.

That's an interesting thread. Here's another take on this. If a Precision bidder opened the hand in the post 1♣ (16+) third in hand with the intention of passing any bid by partner, it would constitute a psyche. So opening 1♦ (10-15) on the hand given without 10-15 or a suit should be a psyche too.

Given that the 1♦ bid in Precision is quite nebulous these days, ranging from 1+♦, it is conventional too, just in the same way a 1♣ bid is.

There's an easy way to rule this, I feel, that any bid without the requisite point count and a suit of 4+ cards (or 3 cards with possibly two top honours) is psyche territory; anything else is negotiably acceptable.

[bid_em_up]

The_Badger, on 2017-November-25, 04:24, said:

That's an interesting thread. Here's another take on this. If a Precision bidder opened the hand in the post 1♣ (16+) third in hand with the intention of passing any bid by partner, it would constitute a psyche. So opening 1♦ (10-15) on the hand given without 10-15 or a suit should be a psyche too.

Given that the 1♦ bid in Precision is quite nebulous these days, ranging from 1+♦, it is conventional too, just in the same way a 1♣ bid is.

There's an easy way to rule this, I feel, that any bid without the requisite point count and a suit of 4+ cards (or 3 cards with possibly two top honours) is psyche territory; anything else is negotiably acceptable.

The problem with the 1C scenario is that pesky little "not allowed to psyche a conventional bid" part of the laws....

[maartenxq]

The_Badger, on 2017-November-24, 06:30, said:

It's not a light opening, it's a psyche.

Nothing wrong with any psyche in my view, just part of the game. If it is a real psyche anyone can be the victim, including partner. If partner knows 1 ♦ may be psychic it should be alerted..

Regretfully most BBO tournaments forbid psyches. In a way I can understand this, because it takes a good TD and a lot of work to decide if the bid is genuine or if there is some previous understanding.

Still it is a loss for the game.

Maarten Baltussen

[hrothgar]

bid_em_up, on 2017-November-25, 07:41, said:

The problem with the 1C scenario is that pesky little "not allowed to psyche a conventional bid" part of the laws....

It is useful to distinguish between regulations and conditions of contest like the ones the ACBL has in place and the actual laws of the game which do not ban psyching conventional bids.

[steve2005]

johnu, on 2017-November-24, 23:21, said:

http://bridgewinners...sa-spain-match/

Spain decided to take a stand in last year's World Bridge Games.

Whether the Spanish claim had any merit, the claim should have been made long before the match.
Refusing to play until they get their way is ... insert something not too insulting so I don't get thrown off bridgewinners.

[nige1]

steve2005, on 2017-November-25, 08:31, said:

Whether the Spanish claim had any merit, the claim should have been made long before the match. Refusing to play until they get their way is ... insert something not too insulting so I don't get thrown off bridgewinners.

This topic was done to death on Bridge winners. On BBO, Diana_Eva and Barmar seem intolerant, only of posts with which they disagree or which they perceive as racist

As usual in national competition disputes, the Bridgewinners discussion had little to do with Bridge rules or natural justice. For the most part it divided on passionate chauvinistic and patriotic lines.

A team alleged that their opponents flouted system regulations. As soon as they deemed that there was adequate evidence for their suspicions, they asked for a ruling. In such circumstances, it is sensible and ethical to call the director. Even if it annoys opponents. Who were, inevitably, exonerated.