What is fielding?

[helene_t]

Suppose opps have "we never psych" on their CC while we have "we frequently psych". This means that whenever there are 60 HCPs and 17 spades in the deck, everyone will assume that either I or my p has psyched, right?

 

I don't see problem with that. Of course it may be appropriate to specify which particular calls we are more likely to psych, and maybe alert those.

[Hanoi5]

I think that's precisely the problem. A psych can't be alerted. Or can it?

[blackshoe]

I think that's precisely the problem. A psych can't be alerted. Or can it?

Terminology. A call which deviates grossly and deliberately from a partnership's agreed meaning is a psych. A call which has a meaning the partnership understands which includes such gross deviations from the stated agreement is a CPU if the deviant meanings are not disclosed IAW the regulations of the RA. If you include the "deviation(s)" in the agreed meaning(s), it's an explicit agreement.

 

One is entitled to ask questions of an opponent about agreements and understandings as to meanings of calls (see Law 20). Custom has extended this to, for example, psyching tendencies, but the law does not require explanation of those.

 

The purpose of an alert is to suggest that an opponent ask questions about the meaning of a call. One should not alert in situations where the response would be a matter of "general bridge knowledge" (such as "in this position psychs are quite common"). The ACBL regulation tells you to alert agreements. It (quite properly) says nothing about alerting psychs.

 

I think that if you are alerting particular calls with the intent of explaining them as "possibly a psych", then either you are attempting to "teach bridge", or they are not psychs at all - you have a partnership understanding to deviate grossly from your nominal "agreement". If the latter is the case, not only can you alert it, you should alert it. You should also put the full agreement, including deviations, on your CC.

[Hanoi5]

I had some students bid this way:

 

1♣ Pass 1♥ Pass

1♠ 1NT!

 

Opener and responder asked the 1nt bidder partner for the meaning of such bid. In the end my student said it was a psych but this sort of bid isn't in the system at all, what should she have said when asked? What should the Director have done?

[helene_t]

The 1NT bidders partner should be taught only to explain special partnership understanding. She should not try to use her imagination or general bridge knowledge to explain partner's call. "No agreement" is a perfectly valid explanation, if there is in fact no special agreement covering this 1NT call.

 

Opps should be taught not to insist on getting explanations for obscure calls. If it appears that there is no agreement they should just say "thank you".

[kenrexford]

The 1NT bidders partner should be taught only to explain special partnership understanding. She should not try to use her imagination or general bridge knowledge to explain partner's call. "No agreement" is a perfectly valid explanation, if there is in fact no special agreement covering this 1NT call.

 

Opps should be taught not to insist on getting explanations for obscure calls. If it appears that there is no agreement they should just say "thank you".

My wife alerts this 1NT call when I make it. The explanation is simple -- "1NT has not been bid yet." This is the old "grabbit 1NT" call, eh? LOL

[dake50]

Taking a sideline, isn't a player's STYLE also UNAUTHORIZED INFORMATION? I refer to an article comparing partnering Rash with partner Steady alters my bids.

 

I KNOW partner's STYLE; opponents do not. Ethics? Regular partnerships develop STYLE understandings. So should be / not challenged for their STYLE understandings? Do I 'field' a style bid? Frequent WOTSY(We're-out-to-screw-you) bids -- fielded psych or just WOTSY deviations?

 

Not just sanctioning body's rules, but I seek ethics opinions.

[kenrexford]

This could be a funny pre-alert, Dake:

 

"Pre-alert! My partner is a very poor bidder, as a result of which I often have no idea what he is doing and act accordingly."

 

"Pre-alert! My partner is an idiot, and I am a pompous ass. As a result, my 3NT bids are often attempts to play the hand."

 

"Pre-alert! My partner was drinking heavily last night, as a result of which I will know that his carding is often just plain stupid."

 

"Pre-alert! My partner is better at bridge than you and may make calls based upon an assumption that you do not have a clue how to defend."

[nige1]

Taking a sideline, isn't a player's STYLE  also UNAUTHORIZED INFORMATION?  I refer to an article comparing partnering Rash with partner Steady alters my bids. 

 

I KNOW partner's STYLE; opponents do not.  Ethics?  Regular partnerships develop STYLE understandings. So should be / not   challenged for their STYLE understandings?  Do I  'field' a style bid?  Frequent WOTSY(We're-out-to-screw-you) bids -- fielded psych or just WOTSY deviations?

 

Not just sanctioning body's rules, but I seek ethics opinions.

I agree with dake50.

• Morally I'm sure he's right.
  
• Legally, I believe that your habits and idiosyncrasies in the bidding and play are either disclosable or unauthorised informatiion. Since there is often no obvious method of disclosure, I think they are UI to partner.
  

[mycroft]

2D(11-15)-2NT-X and you hold 18? Okay, that's rich, but if you held 10-14 or so, P(opener psyched) << P(partner psyched 2NT) (in most partnerships, at least) << P(opener forgot 2D was [flannery|intermediate] and has 6+6).

 

If you cater for "partner's playing games" over "opener forgot", two things happen:

- you'll probably get the score adjusted if partner did psych.

- you'll probably lose your partner if he didn't.

 

The third is that if you know the probabilities aren't as I wrote above, unless partner's Zia (whose tendencies are not exactly a well-kept secret), you're probably in concealed partnership understanding territory.

 

Now, if it's a question of "I know there's a psychic here, and it's 10-1 it's partner" that's iffy, but probably legal. But the example I modified is not at all clear, and really, am I not right about the forget?

[cherdano]

2D(11-15)-2NT-X and you hold 18? Okay, that's rich, but if you held 10-14 or so, P(opener psyched) << P(partner psyched 2NT) (in most partnerships, at least) << P(opener forgot 2D was [flannery|intermediate] and has 6+6).

 

If you cater for "partner's playing games" over "opener forgot", two things happen:

- you'll probably get the score adjusted if partner did psych.

- you'll probably lose your partner if he didn't.

 

The third is that if you know the probabilities aren't as I wrote above, unless partner's Zia (whose tendencies are not exactly a well-kept secret), you're probably in concealed partnership understanding territory.

 

Now, if it's a question of "I know there's a psychic here, and it's 10-1 it's partner" that's iffy, but probably legal. But the example I modified is not at all clear, and really, am I not right about the forget?

Let's say this happened on BBO while I am playing with Zia. For the first time. I suspect it was Zia. You think that's evidence of a concealed partnership understanding???

Just knowing that partner psyches is different from knowing he tends to psych on certain specific auctions.

(The example is a bad one anyway. What do you bid if LHO forgot? Pass, if LHO doesn't wakeup we will score 2NX+several. What do you do if partner psyched? You pass so he can run.)

[Echognome]

Arend - The answer is that it will obviously depend upon your agreements. Why wouldn't you, for example, redouble?

[nige1]

Let's say this happened on BBO while I am playing with Zia. For the first time. I suspect it was Zia. You think that's evidence of a concealed partnership understanding???

If you suspect a psych and cater for it because your partner is Zia, I think you are guilty of using unauthorised information unless you are certain that opponents are equally aware of Zia's proclivities.

[kenrexford]

Let's say this happened on BBO while I am playing with Zia. For the first time. I suspect it was Zia. You think that's evidence of a concealed partnership understanding???

If you suspect a psych and cater for it because your partner is Zia, I think you are guilty of using unauthorised information unless you are certain that opponents are equally aware of Zia's proclivities.

Huh?

 

That's a stretch. I'm not sure curriculum vitae are required, just convention cards.

[barmar]

I think that's precisely the problem. A psych can't be alerted. Or can it?

Terminology. A call which deviates grossly and deliberately from a partnership's agreed meaning is a psych. A call which has a meaning the partnership understands which includes such gross deviations from the stated agreement is a CPU if the deviant meanings are not disclosed IAW the regulations of the RA. If you include the "deviation(s)" in the agreed meaning(s), it's an explicit agreement.

 

One is entitled to ask questions of an opponent about agreements and understandings as to meanings of calls (see Law 20). Custom has extended this to, for example, psyching tendencies, but the law does not require explanation of those.

 

The purpose of an alert is to suggest that an opponent ask questions about the meaning of a call. One should not alert in situations where the response would be a matter of "general bridge knowledge" (such as "in this position psychs are quite common"). The ACBL regulation tells you to alert agreements. It (quite properly) says nothing about alerting psychs.

 

I think that if you are alerting particular calls with the intent of explaining them as "possibly a psych", then either you are attempting to "teach bridge", or they are not psychs at all - you have a partnership understanding to deviate grossly from your nominal "agreement". If the latter is the case, not only can you alert it, you should alert it. You should also put the full agreement, including deviations, on your CC.

But what do say in the explanation, or put on the CC, regarding psyches? Unless there are very specific hand types he usually has when he psyches, what kind of meaningful disclosure can you provide?

 

Suppose you have a partner who psyches frequently, but you always try to respond as if he has the nominal meaning of the bid, until the rest of the auction makes it clear that it's unlikely. How much do you have to disclose if you always assume he's not psyching?

[gnasher]

Suppose you have a partner who psyches frequently, but you always try to respond as if he has the nominal meaning of the bid, until the rest of the auction makes it clear that it's unlikely.  How much do you have to disclose if you always assume he's not psyching?

You have to disclose what you know about partner's possible hands, including any knowledge gained through experience of playing with this partner. That responsibility exists regardless of what methods you play following partner's bid.

 

I sometimes agree that a 1NT opening includes all 4441 shapes that are in the right range. Opposite this, we play Stayman and transfers, and bid as though opener had promised a balanced hand. Should I tell the opponents that he might be 4441? Yes, of course I should. The answer to your question is the same.

[blackshoe]

I would not write the word "psych" on an ACBL convention card. If I did, I would expect to be drawn, quartered, and ridden out of town on a rail.

 

I would put "the bid shows X, but experience has shown that partner may well have Y". Of course, I'd want to be sure that "Y" is not an illegal agreement. :P

[MFA]

I would not write the word "psych" on an ACBL convention card. If I did, I would expect to be drawn, quartered, and ridden out of town on a rail.

 

I would put "the bid shows X, but experience has shown that partner may well have Y". Of course, I'd want to be sure that "Y" is not an illegal agreement. :P

It's also necessary to be sure that "X or Y" is not an illegal agreement.

2♥ = ♥ is ok, 2♥ = ♠ is ok, but 2♥ = ♥ or ♠ is not.

[jdonn]

I would not write the word "psych" on an ACBL convention card. If I did, I would expect to be drawn, quartered, and ridden out of town on a rail.

 

I would put "the bid shows X, but experience has shown that partner may well have Y". Of course, I'd want to be sure that "Y" is not an illegal agreement. :P

Of course it wasn't more than 15 years ago that I saw people at bridge clubs using the old fashioned convention cards with an area where you check if Psychics are never, rare, occasional, or frequent (something like that). I remember specifically that everyone I know would check the 'rare' box even if they never psyched, because it covers your bases nicely. It's not like someone will complain that you don't psych often enough to constitute 'rare'. :(

[mycroft]

they used to check the "rare" box because they never psyched, but wanted an out when they misbid. Not really understanding the "deliberate" part of the term - but since when has actually knowing what a term means stop bridge players (cue my "it's just a bid that asks me to describe my hand, it's NOT A RELAY" story)?

 

Of course, back then, with one partner, we used to check the "Frequent" box, and circle it a couple of times just so people knew we meant it.

[gwnn]

What happens if you write in "always" in the frequency of psyching box?

[kenrexford]

What happens if you write in "always" in the frequency of psyching box?

I write that on some of my partner's convention cards.