Illegal psyche

[bluejak]

I am not 100% sure of the actual hand, but it was something like

 

[hv=d=s&v=n&s=sxxxhkt8xxxdxcxxx]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

The player bid 2♦, Multi, and his opponent asked the TD whether this was legal, because he understood it was illegal to psyche the Multi.

 

The answer was simple enough: this was a Level 4 event, and the restriction on psyching the Multi only applies at Level 3. But it got me thinking. Suppose this had been a Level 3 event: what would we have done?

 

The actual regulation reads:

 

Allowed at Level 3

 

11 G 6 Multi 2♦

The Multi 2♦ must contain a weak option and one or two strong options.

 

{a} Weak option

 

Permitted strength:

A defined range of no more than 5 HCP, a minimum strength of 4 HCP and a maximum of 12 HCP.

 

The agreed strength may differ according to position and/or vulnerability, but only one range is allowed at any combination of position and vulnerability.

 

Permitted distribution:

Suit: the suit may be played as either

(1) Hearts; or

(2) Hearts or Spades

 

Length of suit: the length of the suit may be played as any one of

(1) 6+ cards

(2) 5+ cards

(3) 5+ cards, denying a 5332 shape

 

The minimum length of suit may differ according to position and/or vulnerability, but only one length of suit is allowed at any combination of position and vulnerability.

 

{b} Strong options

Permitted strength:

Minimum ‘Extended Rule of 25’ (see 10 B 4).

 

Permitted distribution:

One or two of the following may be played:

(1) an Acol Two: the suit need not be specified.

(2) a 4-4-4-1 (or 5-4-4-0) hand, with a defined range: the singleton/void

need not be specified.

(3) a balanced or semi-balanced hand with a defined range; alternatively

may be played so that on occasion it may contain a singleton.

(4) a game forcing hand.

 

Note: Since the Multi 2♦ has only continued to be allowed at Level 3 because it was a popular agreement long before the present approach to permitted agreements was adopted, the following restrictions have been imposed upon its use:

(i) The weak option may be played to show Hearts, or either major; it may not be played just to show Spades.

(ii) At least one strong option must be of reasonable frequency.

(iii) The provisions set out here must be adhered to strictly – variations are not permitted.

(iv) It is not permitted to psyche a Multi 2♦ in a Level 3 event.

(v) Responder is expected to explore game possibilities if his hand justifies it opposite the stronger options of opener’s Multi 2♦.

(vi) It is only permitted to pass a Multi 2♦ if responder has good reason to believe that 2♦ is the partnership’s best contract.

How should we have ruled if it had been a Level 3 tournament?

[Vampyr]

I find that players, well, at any rate I, often stretch the weak-two range in the lower direction when shape-suitable and non-vulnerable. Is this permitted? And is it permitted when the opening is, instead, a Multi?

[blackshoe]

It is legal to have a lower end of 4 points. The example hand has 3 points, and a six card suit. I would call this a deviation, not a psych, if the agreement was 4-8 and 6 cards, or similar.

[NickRW]

(iii) The provisions set out here must be adhered to strictly – variations are not permitted.

 

As for what you can do about the offender - iirc I don't think David's little yellow book covers this

[blackshoe]

I'm not at all sure that "variations are not permitted" is a reasonable regulation, although it might be legal.

[PeterE]

(iii) The provisions set out here must be adhered to strictly – variations are not permitted.

This rule reflects my personal view.

 

In times where players tend to "underbid" their own agreements, there has to be (a) bound(s) they are not allowed to pass. These bounds have to be clear and understandable and passing them shall make the bid illegal.

Those bounds may be the upthread mentioned or the rules of ... (18/20/25 or whatever).

[Lanor Fow]

IN leve three, if they open this by agreement, then it's an illigal agreement and thus the adjustment should be Ave+, Ave-.

 

If this is a deviation from their agreement I'm ruling it an illigal psych, and again giving Ave+, Ave- (i think this is correct but am less confident than on the first one).

[Cascade]

If it is not a psyche then then it cannot be an illegal psyche.

 

Depending on their actual agreement it could easily be that 3 hcp is not a gross deviation from their agreement. If it is not a gross deviation then it is not a psyche.

[Cascade]

(iii) The provisions set out here must be adhered to strictly – variations are not permitted.

 

As for what you can do about the offender - iirc I don't think David's little yellow book covers this

I dont think a variation in ones agreement is synonymous with a deviation in a bid.

 

I can have no variation from the announced regulation and I am still entitled to deviate from my agreement.

[hrothgar]

I agree with Blackshoe. The bid in question is not a psyche; rather it is a deviation.

 

Consequently, the distinction between Level 3 and Level 4 events is meaningless. Equally significant, since this isn't a psyche the following clause becomes operational:

 

(iii) The provisions set out here must be adhered to strictly – variations are not permitted.

 

Therefore, the partnership in question are using an illegal convention.

 

As an aside: Lets assume that folks do consider the bid in question to be a psyche (which completely guts clause (iii). A large number of jurisdictions have regulations that explicitly ban psyches of either

 

1. Convention opening bids

2. Strong, artificial, and forcing openings

 

Is it even legal to psyche a multi in the UK (you certainly can't in in the Land of the Free / Home of the Brave)

[campboy]

If it is not a psyche then then it cannot be an illegal psyche.

But it can be an illegal deviation. The law does not distinguish between psyches and deviations so it is just as legal to prohibit deviations here as it is to prohibit psyches. It sounds to me like the regulation quoted does so.

[Cascade]

Where does it say in the regulation that deviations from a partnership's agreement are not permitted?

 

Without having looked up the context the regulation seems to me to be stating what is the permitted agreement.

 

Therefore a plain language interpretation of the statement referred to about variations would seem to refer to variations in the agreement. There is no reference to deviations from the unvarying permitted agreement.

 

Further the laws of bridge permit deviations "A player may deviate from his side’s announced understandings..." (Yes I know there are conditions.) Therefore a regulation that did not permit deviations would be contrary to the laws of bridge.

[dburn]

If it is not a psyche then then it cannot be an illegal psyche.

But it can be an illegal deviation. The law does not distinguish between psyches and deviations so it is just as legal to prohibit deviations here as it is to prohibit psyches. It sounds to me like the regulation quoted does so.

It is not legal to prohibit either deviations or psyches per se. But Law 40B2d says that:

 

The Regulating Authority may restrict the use of psychic artificial calls.

which it ought not to say - instead, the word "psychic" should appear before the word "use. If it is held, as it might well be, that opening with a three count when your methods mandate a five count is "a deliberate and gross misstatement of honour strength", then the Regulating Authority may forbid you to do it, and award an artificial adjusted score if you disobey.

[hrothgar]

Further the laws of bridge permit deviations "A player may deviate from his side’s announced understandings..." (Yes I know there are conditions.) Therefore a regulation that did not permit deviations would be contrary to the laws of bridge.

The ACBL bans players from exercising any judgment regarding mini NT openers. You get to use Milton Work style HCPs. No ifs, ands, or buts. Lord help you if you think that

 

KT9

QT9

AT987

T9

 

is worth 10 points

[blackshoe]

A local club owner here once told me, somewhat indignantly "I can make any ruling I want!" I replied "yes, you can, but that won't necessarily make it legal." <_<

[mycroft]

Again, and again, I point out that judgement is allowed in deciding whether a bid matches the description using vague, easy-to-understand criteria like HCP. However, regulators who wish to put a floor, or a range, on calls have to do something. Regulators have been slippery-sloped to death - if you don't have a problem with a 4-8 Multi on KTxxxx and a stiff, then someone will want K9xxxx or K8xxxx, then well, the doubleton's almost as good as the stiff in a 6322, and of course QJTxxx is better than K-empty-sixth...

 

And suddenly the TD has people saying that -- xx Jxxxx JTxxxx is just a "deviation" from an agreement of 5-9, 5-5 minors. It's only 3 points out, and look at that extra shape! And now, *the TD* has to apply judgement, and because "those who can, do; those who can't, teach; those who can't teach, admininstrate", "TDs have no idea how to play bridge. Their judgement is horrible, and we need to get 'expert' analysis..."

 

So the regulations are hard-sided. Richard, you either get "minimum 11, counting reasonable judgement" (and grumbles about how the TDs judgement is totally unreasonable) or you get "1NT with <10HCP is not allowed" (yes, I know that's not how it's written, but with the new Laws, it will be sooner or later. Please search the site for my opinions on that, those who care). The same hands are being regulated, but if they allow great 9s (say, your example, or KQTx KJTx Tx T9x), *somebody* will play unannounced 9-12 NT and scream "judgement!" when called on it. We're not restricting your judgement, we're restricting what agreements you can make - and if, in your opinion, your agreement means that you can open 1NT with your hand or mine, whether it's *called* a 10-12 NT or whatever, the minimum is too weak. Sorry, make another agreement.

 

Same here. If they say "minimum 4HCP, range no more than 5HCP, *because we're making an exception* we're not going to allow deviations we would with non-exception agreements", then figure out what your agreement is in such a way that KTxxxx and a stiff is too weak. Does that mean that A8xxxx in 6322 is too weak? Yep, probably. Is that a problem? No, not really - it's where the regulation wants you to be. Will people still play games with the agreement and consider Kx Jxxxxx Txx 8xx to be part of it? Sure. Oh well, some things are Just Too Bad. Same with "rule of X", "Extended rule of X", and all the other defined ways of defining a hand's strength.

 

If you want to play "ordinary" bridge, you have lots of opportunites to "use judgement", "deviate", or what have you. There's cliffs on the side of the road, but don't worry, you have lots of shoulder to play with. If you want to play close to the regulatory edge, you're using the shoulder already; it behooves to notice the cliffs.

 

Caveat: while I haven't for a few years, I play EHAA, which is designed explicitly to push the limits of what the ACBL allows (in the case of weak 2s, on both ends); and I play a 10-12 NT currently. I know I do so on the sufferance of the regulators, and ensure that in return for letting me open 2H on AQ 8xxxx 6xx 9xxx and on -- KQJxxx KQJxxx x, I don't open KQxxxx and a stiff.

[Vampyr]

"minimum 4HCP, range no more than 5HCP"

Interesting -- I just checked the Orange Book, and found that this regulation applies only to the Multi, not to natural weak 2's.

 

But it also seemed not to apply to other "Multi"-type 2Y openers. Is this because, in these cases, the suit of the weak option is usually known?

 

Anyway, back to the discussion at hand, in particular the points made in the previous post --even at level 4, this bid could be a disallowed deviation. The trouble is that records are not kept of how frequently the partnership have "stretched a point" (or three) in this situation.

[bluejak]

It cannot be a disallowed deviation at Level 4 because there is no rule against deviating at Level 4.

 

It is a specific regulation for the Multi at Level 3, so of course it does not apply to natural weak twos, general Multis at Level 4, or 5♠ openers at Level 5. :D

 

Or, to put it another way, there are no other Multi 2Y openers at Level 3, so I do not see how you can say it does not apply to them!

 

:lol:

 

Further the laws of bridge permit deviations "A player may deviate from his side’s announced understandings..." (Yes I know there are conditions.)  Therefore a regulation that did not permit deviations would be contrary to the laws of bridge.

Not as simple as that, I think.

 

The Regulating Authority is empowered without restriction to allow, disallow, or allow conditionally, any special partnership understanding.

In my opinion, "without restriction" means that it is legal to allow conditionally depending on a regulation that bars deviating.

[Vampyr]

It cannot be a disallowed deviation at Level 4 because there is no rule against deviating at Level 4.

If it happens frequently, the "deviation" may be an illegal agreement.

[bluejak]

How can it be an illegal agreement?

[Vampyr]

How can it be an illegal agreement?

Maybe I have been misled by the Orange Book, and the 4HCP etc rule does not apply at Level 4. I have reread the regulation, but have not been able to work it out.

 

Or, to put it another way, there are no other Multi 2Y openers at Level 3, so I do not see how you can say it does not apply to them!

 

Naturally I meant at Level 4, but as I said, there is no clear indication that the Multi regulation for Level 3 does not apply to Level 4. The heading in the book suggests that it applies to both.

[bluejak]

Anything under "Allowed at Level 3 and 4" may be played at Level 4. But so may anything that is "Allowed at Level 4", and thus a Multi is legal without any of the special requirements.

[Vampyr]

Anything under "Allowed at Level 3 and 4" may be played at Level 4.  But so may anything that is "Allowed at Level 4", and thus a Multi is legal without any of the special requirements.

Then the Multi with restrictions should be listed under "allowed at Level 3".

[nige1]

[hv=d=s&v=n&s=sxxxhkt8xxxdxcxxx]133|100|Scoring: IMP

I am not 100% sure of the actual hand, but it was something like. The player bid 2♦, Multi, and his opponent asked the TD whether this was legal, because he understood it was illegal to psyche the Multi. [sNIP] How should we have ruled if it had been a Level 3 tournament?[/hv]

Allowed at Level 3

11 G 6 Multi 2♦

[sNIP] Permitted strength:

A defined range of no more than 5 HCP, a minimum strength of 4 HCP and a maximum of 12 HCP.

[sNIP] (iii) The provisions set out here must be adhered to strictly – variations are not permitted.

(iv) It is not permitted to psyche a Multi 2♦ in a Level 3 event.

There have been similar debates in the context of 10-12 notrump openers, 3rd hand openers and so on (when these are subject to system-restriction). Are you allowed to deviate with certain hands? If you regularly deviate with those hands, is that the basis of an implicit agreement? I hate system restrictions but if we must have them then IMO...

• The rules should be easy to understood by the players, who are expected to comply with them.
  
• Hence such rules should be phrased in simple objective terms, like suit-lengths and Milton Work HCP (as these are).
  
• The rules should depend as little as possible on the director's subjective judgement (and the rule-books should make that clear).
  

Normally, a 1 HCP deviation wouldn't be a psych. Here, however, the range-restriction is explicit and "variations are not permitted". Hence I think Bluejak should rule against a 2♦ multi with 3HCP at level three. But, he should also

• Campaign to scrap such regulations, in the long term.
  
• In the short-term, rewrite the regulations with greater clarity and more illustrative examples (like this hand); frustrating posters to endless topics like this one; but making it easier for players to understand and comply with the rules and directors to enforce them.
  

[bluejak]

Anything under "Allowed at Level 3 and 4" may be played at Level 4.  But so may anything that is "Allowed at Level 4", and thus a Multi is legal without any of the special requirements.

Then the Multi with restrictions should be listed under "allowed at Level 3".

As often the case, that might solve this particular problem, but would create a myriad of other problems. If you put allowed at Level 3 separately from allowed at Level 4, you get the previous Orange book, and we are back to an Orange book that people had a lot of trouble with. People say this form is far superior. I do not wish to spoil the strides forward we have taken in the change to the current style.