3rd Pos Psyche in NT

[Ayjay]

[hv=d=s&v=e&n=sk42hkxxxdqjxcxxx&w=saq3h9xxdxxxcaj9x&e=sj97haq10xda109xcqx&s=s10865hjxdkxxck10xx]399|300|Scoring: MP[/hv]

 

The bidding goes...

 

..S..........W..........N..........E

 

Pass.....Pass......1NT......2♣

Pass.....2♦.....Pass.....Pass

Pass

 

1NT is alerted as a balanced 10-13 HCP

 

2♣ is alerted as one of (a ♦ suit/♥ and a minor/equal strength or better)

 

2♦ made 9 tricks giving EW a bad score of +110 as they are better off in NT

 

EW requested that an adjusted score be given since N did not have the required values for his bid. The director ruled that no adjusted score would be given, North's opening bid being too minor a deviation to be considered a system violation/psyche.

 

Any thoughts about this?

[helene_t]

I suppose psyches are allowed? Anyway, this probably doesn't qualify as a psyche.

 

Maybe the disclosure was inadequate. A 10-13 balanced opposite a p that presumably has denies the same values is not interested in game, i.e. the 1NT opening is purely destructive. So the temptation to open 1NT with less than 10 points must be big.

 

Maybe the TD should have a talk with NS about this. But no adjustment. EW were not damaged.

 

Btw, when posting an ethical issue, make sure it is clear to the readers if it concerned a BBO tournament or an IRL event, (and what the conditions of contest were).

[hrothgar]

As always, its crucial to kow what regulatory structure was being used.

 

For example, the ACBL explicitly forbids players to use judgment to upgrade an exception 9 count and treat it as a 10-12 HCP 1NT opening. If this happened in an ACBL event you might be able to get some satisfaction. (Personally, I think that a split score would be reasonable)

 

In most jurisdictions the complaint seems laughable. I might want to look at a history of all white on red third seat 1NT openings made by the partnership in question. It would be interesting to see whether this is a one time deviation or whether there might be a disclosure issues arising from habitually upgrading 9 counts.

 

Personally, I'd be far more interested in understand what West's 2♦ advance shows... (Not to mention East's pass of 2♦).

 

If 2♦ is pass or correct, then West psyched his pass. Using to 2♦ to ask West to pass with Either Diamonds or Hearts and Diamonds doesn't seem playable.

 

It almost looks like East got burned by psyching a pass over 2♦

[awm]

One has to talk to the players further to really know, but my feeling is that this is a psych. Basically, if north opened 1NT because he thought his hand is worth ten points it's not a psych; if he opened 1NT because he wanted to mess with the opponents opposite a passed partner by opening a hand not in his 1NT range, it is a psych. Looking at the north hand, it's a really awful nine points (aceless, 4333, etc) and so it seems unlikely that "this is worth 10 hcp" was his honest evaluation.

 

Of course, just because north psyched doesn't entitle E/W to any adjusted score. Psyching is legal. There is no evidence of any undisclosed agreement. Of course, it may be worth making a note of this board in case N/S seem to psych their 1NT openings frequently.

[blackshoe]

or example, the ACBL explicitly forbids players to use judgment to upgrade an exception 9 count and treat it as a 10-12 HCP 1NT opening.

I keep hearing this. I'm pretty sure it used to be true, but I am told (by Rick Beye iirc) that it is no longer the case.

[hrothgar]

or example, the ACBL explicitly forbids players to use judgment to upgrade an exception 9 count and treat it as a 10-12 HCP 1NT opening.

I keep hearing this. I'm pretty sure it used to be true, but I am told (by Rick Beye iirc) that it is no longer the case.

 

beye is welcome to claim whatever he wants; however, the GCC still includes the following

 

CONVENTIONAL RESPONSES, REBIDS AND A CONVENTIONAL

DEFENSE TO AN OPPONENT’S CONVENTIONAL DEFENSE after

natural notrump opening bids or overcalls with a lower limit of fewer than

10 HCP or with a range of greater than 5 HCP (including those that have

two non-consecutive ranges) and weak two-bids which by partnership

agreement are not within a range of 7 HCP and do not show at least five

cards in the suit.

 

Historically the ACBL used this type of clause to ban natural openings

 

I'd be interested to understand

 

1. When this policy changed

2. How it was communicated to the membership at large

[PassedOut]

I'd be interested to understand

 

1. When this policy changes

2. How it was communicated to the membership at large

Me too.

 

It's really irritating to hear that ACBL officials might be telling players privately that what's plainly stated in the GCC does not actually apply. What kind of outfit is this?

[TimG]

CONVENTIONAL RESPONSES, REBIDS AND A CONVENTIONAL

DEFENSE TO AN OPPONENT’S CONVENTIONAL DEFENSE after

natural notrump opening bids or overcalls with a lower limit of fewer than

10 HCP or with a range of greater than 5 HCP (including those that have

two non-consecutive ranges) and weak two-bids which by partnership

agreement are not within a range of 7 HCP and do not show at least five

cards in the suit.

 

Historically the ACBL used this type of clause to ban natural openings

 

I'd be interested to understand

 

1. When this policy changed

2. How it was communicated to the membership at large

There's a difference between regulating the conventional call over a NT range that by agreement may contain fewer that 10 HCP and deeming that a single "upgrade" of a 9 HCP hand constitutes an agreement. The latter used to be the policy of ACBL, written or unwritten. If they have softened this position, I don't think we should be complaining about the wording of the GCC. As Richard says, maybe we should be annoyed that they did not publicize the policy change. But,

It's really irritating to hear that ACBL officials might be telling players privately that what's plainly stated in the GCC does not actually apply.

what they seem to now be telling players is not in contradiction to the GCC wording.

[Ayjay]

Btw, when posting an ethical issue, make sure it is clear to the readers if it concerned a BBO tournament or an IRL event, (and what the conditions of contest were).

I do apologise for my omission. This sequence of bidding actually took place at a local club tournament, not on BBO.

[hrothgar]

Btw, when posting an ethical issue, make sure it is clear to the readers if it concerned a BBO tournament or an IRL event, (and what the conditions of contest were).

I do apologise for my omission. This sequence of bidding actually took place at a local club tournament, not on BBO.

Local club tournament still doesn't help much...

 

Do you live in the US? Poland? China?

 

Very different rules

 

Regretfully, I don't know anything about the regulatory structures used in Sri Lanka

[jmc]

Upgrading 9s.

 

I have twice in the last 7 years bid 1NT 10-13 w/vs red in 3rd seat with a 9 count. The director was not called in either case. Was this really illegal? What are the penalties.

 

jmc

[1eyedjack]

Basically, if north opened 1NT because he thought his hand is worth ten points it's not a psych; if he opened 1NT because he wanted to mess with the opponents opposite a passed partner by opening a hand not in his 1NT range, it is a psych.

For better or for worse, a psych is a term defined within the laws, as a "deliberate and gross misstatement of honour strength or suit length".

 

Thus, as awm points out, motive is important ("deliberate"). However the logical connector "and" is used rather than "or", so the qualifier "gross" is also important. I would not regard a departure of 1 point from the agreed system as "gross", even if the motive test is satisfied (which is uncertain, in my view, although likely).

 

As others have pointed out, there may well be disclosure issues at stake here, particularly as a 1 point departure in this position contains a certain degree of safety.

 

But E/W certainly contributed to their own demise. Had North actually held one of South's points, there would have been no suggestion of complaint, and yet the same outcome would have resulted.