Psyche, Deviation or what?

[mrdct]

Ask yourself which hand is more likely give rise to a profitable sacrifice when you hit a fit and less likley to go for a number when you don't:

 

[hv=d=s&v=b&s=sq2hkd65432c65432]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv]

 

or

 

[hv=d=s&v=b&s=sq2hkd65432c65432]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv]

 

If I have 2NT available as "both minors" at all vul in first seat I wouldn't even dream of using it with the first hand in a million years but would seriously consider it with the second hand. Sure, I've added a few extra pips to the OP's hand, but if the decision on whether or not it's a psyche is purely based on hcp, it's essentially the same hand if you aren't allowed to give weight to distribution and suit texture.

 

Are player's allowed to employ hand evaluation skills in the EBU or are the rules there purely based on A=4, K=3, etc?

[awm]

It seems implicit in the "5-9 hcp" description that opener is supposed to have a high card or two and that partner might count him for a trick of defense in some situations. This also makes it harder for the opponents to bid a grand. If the 2nt open often includes zero defense as here, I think that qualifies as a psych (despite the offensive value of the hand).

 

So psych, recorder form and maybe a warning, but no adjustment unless a track record of such actions.

[zenko]

This is all very confusing to me, especially the definition of kamikaze preempt. The way I see it, it is way more kamikaze to open for example 2N for minors with K,Q10,xxxxx,xxxxx than with x,xx,xxxxx,xxxxx because with that first hand you are much more likely to generate a phantom save, or prevent your side from finding heart fit or, end up in minors suit game instead in 3N, etc, etc.

 

Also, how exactly am i supposed to explain that when alert, maybe: "my partner (or I) will preempt only with hands that make sense to bid that way, but those hands might have a wide range of points, depending on their location, suits quality, seat and vulnerability", I mean if thats the way to do it I can say all that every time when we preempt but it surely sounds strange.

[bluejak]

Are player's allowed to employ hand evaluation skills in the EBU or are the rules there purely based on A=4, K=3, etc?

They are allowed to employ hand evaluation skills, of course.

 

Mind you, that does not mean they are forced to misdescribe their hands.

[mycroft]

Heh, at least I gave a reasonable "crappy 5-count"...

 

MrDct: If I had "both minors" available, I'd think about it with your hand and not with your other. If I had "both minors, 5-9, not kamikaze" (or my VUL agreement, which is even stronger), all I'd do is think - or if I bid it, it would be as a psychic. If we did it often enough that partner thinks it could be that hand, we'd have to change our agreement, and then check again if it was legal. (NV, we play 4-8; I think that at green, that hand would be a reasonable *4* count. At amber, not so much).

 

But that's *my* judgement.

 

Again, rather than trying to determine if this is a suitable "deviation", ask it the other way - find out what people think is a vulnerable minimum, with the explanation given. See, from those results, whether there was misinformation, or gross deviation (campboy's relative vs absolute argument aside, if very few would think of that hand as defenders, and there's no misinformation, that's a pretty good description of "gross deviation" to me).

[mycroft]

This is all very confusing to me, especially the definition of kamikaze preempt. The way I see it, it  is way more kamikaze to open for example 2N for minors with K,Q10,xxxxx,xxxxx than with x,xx,xxxxx,xxxxx because with that first hand you are much more likely to generate a phantom save, or prevent your side from finding heart fit or, end up in minors suit game instead in 3N, etc, etc.

Or go for 8+00 into game in 3m - which is, of course, what everybody will think they're worrying about by "not kamikaze"? Both of those hands are kamikaze, and I wouldn't open either of them :-)

Also, how exactly am i supposed to explain that when alert, maybe: "my partner (or I) will preempt only with hands that make sense to bid that way, but those hands might have a wide range of points, depending on their location, suits quality, seat and vulnerability", I mean if thats the way to do it I can say all that every time when we preempt but it surely sounds strange.

I don't know. But the laws say that if you can't, you can't play that agreement. You figure it out for your bids, as I try to figure it out for mine.

[mrdct]

It is sometimes difficult to properly fulfil one's disclosure obligations when "judgement" and "hand evaluation" become intertwined with your "special partnership understandings" that are typically recorded on the convention card in terms of high card points and suit length and described as such when asked but are always subject to judgement which I think goes without saying.

 

With single-suited and two-suited preemptive bids, even a mere novice would know that extra distribution improves the hand and crappy suits and the majority of values out side of the suits devalues the hand. Do I need to explain basic principles of hand evaluation to my opponents everytime my partner preempts?

[bluejak]

It is sometimes difficult to properly fulfil one's disclosure obligations when "judgement" and "hand evaluation" become intertwined with your "special partnership understandings" that are typically recorded on the convention card in terms of high card points and suit length and described as such when asked but are always subject to judgement which I think goes without saying.

I answer Laws Queries for Mr Bridge in a magazine he distributes for free. One of the problems that I face from time to time comes from the people who do not agree with that last view at all. While many people understand judgement is to be taken into account, many people do not. Only recently a player opened a 15 count with a 12-14 1NT because it had no intermediates and was 4333 - and his opponent called the TD and demanded an adjusted score.

 

One of the problems we have is that even amongst people who allow some judgement many of them make further rules which do not help. On RGB, some time ago, it was generally agreed [with me throwing up my hands in despair] that it is not a psyche if you are one card short. They were referring to a five-card 1♥ opening on

 

♠ xxx

♥ KQJT

♦ AKx

♣ QJx

 

Fair enough: that's a judgement. But if you make a rule that one card out is not a psyche what do you call a five-card 1♠ opening on

 

♠ 6xxx

♥ KQJ

♦ AKx

♣ QJx ?

 

Another question is why does it matter?

 

:)

 

Ok, these are my views.

 

First, the difference between a psyche and a deviation [assuming both are intentional] is that a psyche is major ["gross"] while a deviation is minor. The difference between the two is often blurred, but in my examples above the 1♥ opening is a deviation, the 1♠ opening is a psyche. Perhaps a deviation is something that a player who needs to generate a result will call without feeling he has really gone outside his system materially.

 

Second, different people have different ideas as to how much judgement is allowed without it being a deviation. As can be seen from an earlier post, if you have an 11 count which looks and feels like a 12 count, I believe you can open it with a 12-14 1NT without it being a deviation or MI, and most good players would agree: however dburn does not, apparently [to my surprise] being related to Walter the Walrus. Unfortunately, different people often do not know that other people look on it differently.

 

Third, once partner allows for a deviation or psyche he is in the realm of fielding, and in breach of Law 40, perhaps having a concealed partnership understanding. However, using judgement within valuation is permitted, so it is reasonable for partner to allow for it. The EBU has a slightly stronger punishment for a fielded psyche than a fielded deviation but not enough to worry about.

 

Fourth, there are certain regulations which disallow certain calls to be psyched. I have seen no advice on whether a player is assumed to be using an illegal agreement if he deviates form such an agreement even if it is not judged a psyche. I tend to think that such a regulation would be better if it said that both a psyche and a deviation were illegal. For example, at Level 3 in th EBU the minimum permitted count for a Multi opening is 4: it would seem reasonable to stop a pair who opens on 3 and claims it was merely a deviation.

[peachy]

For example, at Level 3 in th EBU the minimum permitted count for a Multi opening is 4: it would seem reasonable to stop a pair who opens on 3 and claims it was merely a deviation.

Here we arrive again at my pet peeve about the laws. The person who says he "miscounted the points" is free to "miscount" while the person who says he upgraded the hand might be subject to penalty or adjustment. *If* there is a penalty for violation of regulation, the miscounter [whether honest or not honest] should get the same consequences as the upgrader or the deviator. None, in the OP case, but in a case where the deviation is greater.

[zenko]

So what happens if somebody opens multi with 7 card suit, or with say 14 count? How about 8 card suit or 16 count? Does she/he gets penalized too?

[campboy]

So what happens if somebody opens multi with 7 card suit, or with say 14 count? How about 8 card suit or 16 count? Does she/he gets penalized too?

For the 14-count, yes: the maximum permitted for the weak option at level 3 is 12 HCP. For the 7-card (or longer) suit, no: "at least six cards" is a permitted agreement (though there may be MI issues if they told oppo it could not be more than six).

[dburn]

Second, different people have different ideas as to how much judgement is allowed without it being a deviation. As can be seen from an earlier post, if you have an 11 count which looks and feels like a 12 count, I believe you can open it with a 12-14 1NT without it being a deviation or MI, and most good players would agree: however dburn does not, apparently [to my surprise] being related to Walter the Walrus.

Oh, you can open what you like with what you like. I don't care how you count your points, but if you count them in some fashion that does not correspond to your disclosure, then you are chea... er, you are failing to follow the rules of the game.

 

I am getting very tired of these references to "Walter the Walrus", invariably used in patronising tones towards those who "lack judgement" (or at any rate, whose judgement is different from the user's). Sure, there are some 14 counts I will treat as 15 and open 1NT, and there are some 18 counts I will treat as 17 and also open 1NT (but 4-3-3-3 is actually a good shape for notrump and not a bad one, so those who devalue a hand because of that shape are... well, they have rather less judgement than Walter the Walrus).

 

But I will also tell my opponents that this is what I do. My convention cards say in effect "15-17, but some 14s and some 18s may also open 1NT". If I didn't do that, I would be unhappy when some earnest opponent who can count out a hand were to misdefend on the basis that I "had to have" or "could not have" such-and-such a card; moreover, I would believe that opponent entitled to redress, not to the kind of sneering that the "Walrus" merchants are all too prone to employ.

[NickRW]

Oh, you can open what you like with what you like. I don't care how you count your points, but if you count them in some fashion that does not correspond to your disclosure, then you are chea... er, you are failing to follow the rules of the game.

Your argument sounds reasonable and logical - except that it genuinely is not practical. I am one of those who do count points differently - in fact in multiple different ways - and I can assure you that a full disclosure of exactly what point ranges are shown by my bids with some partners would take longer than is allocated for the whole hand - and that is not an exaggeration.

 

So we explain with the nearest hcp equivalent - saying things like "probably a reasonable 12 to a bad 15". The response from the average - er - Walr.. - er average player - in trying to interpret even this reduced level of complexity is "12-15". I think, but usually do not say, "No, that isn't what I said" - but we'd be there all night.

 

Complexity is simply too much for some folks - even in matters not related to judgement. For example, the other night I opened 1NT. P announced "14-16...ish" - which wasn't further queried. P responded 2♣. Out came my alert card. RHO didn't bat an eyelid. I pulled out 2♦. My partner's alert card hit the table. LHO didn't want to go quietly and asked me what the 2♣ meant. I said it was all sorts of hand types, could be weak, inv, GF or slammy depending on the rebid. Not satisfied, she wanted to know what all the possibilities were. I suggested she might be better off on the next round asking me what the rebid meant and her partner tried in vain to shut her up - but she persisted, "No, I want to hear him list the possibilities". "OK, fair enough", I said, "it could be weak with diamonds, she'll pass the 2♦ with that - or it could be inv with a major, she'll bid 2M with that - or it could be inv with both majors - but the hearts will be longer in that case - or it could be GF, relatively bal, she'll bid 2NT with that, or it could be inv with a long minor..." About halfway through I hadn't finished my explanation when she interrupted, "Stop, thats enough, I can't take all that in". A guffaw went around the room from the other tables that had been listening. "Well, you did ask" I said.

 

And it is not just the LOLs who get confused or grumpy or somethiong. A year back I sat at the table of a strong county player - passed a red bad 12 count and the board got passed out. Turned out to be a near top. "Why did you pass that 12 count" he said. A limited explanation followed - clearly he wasn't pleased - but he was the director that night and knew he wouldn't get anywhere.

 

Then there was the time I was playing the reasonable 12 to bad 15 1NT thing - and P opened 1NT in a county team of 8 thing and eventually put down something like

 

Q432

KQ

KQ

A8542

 

Moan, moan, moan from RHO after the hand. Eventually I got fed up trying to politely explain and told him to call the director if he didn't like it - he didn't and shut up thank god.

 

So - yeah - your argument makes sense - it isn't practical in the real world - the actual net effect is to either waste the whole time allocated to the board on explanations - or to effectively ban judgement and different point counts. Neither helps us to get on with a game of cards in a reasonable spirit.

 

Nick

[dburn]

As I have remarked before, my belief is that you should be allowed to play what you like provided that you can disclose it properly.

 

Now, "proper disclosure" means at a minimum that the people to whom you are doing the disclosing will understand it. If they will not - either because there is not enough time for you to complete your disclosure or because they are not as clever as you are - then you will fall short of the requirements of Law 40.

 

People who organise tournaments have the right to set, or at any rate to assume, a minimum standard of cleverness among the entrants to those tournaments, so that it will rarely be open to a player to claim redress because he was too stupid to understand what he was being told.

 

But people who organise tournaments also have the right to specify a level of complexity above which a method may simply be disallowed because the time and effort involved in "proper disclosure" is unreasonable.

 

If you seriously mean to tell me that you opened 1NT ("12-15") with ♠Q432 ♥KQ ♦KQ ♣A8542 because you thought it the best available description of your hand according to your methods, then you would indeed have had to spend many hours pre-explaining your methods to me before I could begin to understand that you might have that hand. And although as a veteran of many county teams-of-eight matches I realise that they are to be treated with the utmost seriousness, it is not reasonable for either of us to spend very much of our ever-shortening lives in such a pursuit.

 

If you can't (or won't) disclose it, then you can't play it. That seems both logical and practical to me, and entirely in keeping with the "spirit of the game" (whatever that may be).

[NickRW]

As I have remarked before, my belief is that you should be allowed to play what you like provided that you can disclose it properly.

 

Now, "proper disclosure" means at a minimum that the people to whom you are doing the disclosing will understand it. If they will not - either because there is not enough time for you to complete your disclosure or because they are not as clever as you are - then you will fall short of the requirements of Law 40.

 

People who organise tournaments have the right to set, or at any rate to assume, a minimum standard of cleverness among the entrants to those tournaments, so that it will rarely be open to a player to claim redress because he was too stupid to understand what he was being told.

 

But people who organise tournaments also have the right to specify a level of complexity above which a method may simply be disallowed because the time and effort involved in "proper disclosure" is unreasonable.

 

If you seriously mean to tell me that you opened 1NT ("12-15") with ♠Q432 ♥KQ ♦KQ ♣A8542 because you thought it the best available description of your hand according to your methods, then you would indeed have had to spend many hours pre-explaining your methods to me before I could begin to understand that you might have that hand. And although as a veteran of many county teams-of-eight matches I realise that they are to be treated with the utmost seriousness, it is not reasonable for either of us to spend very much of our ever-shortening lives in such a pursuit.

 

If you can't (or won't) disclose it, then you can't play it. That seems both logical and practical to me, and entirely in keeping with the "spirit of the game" (whatever that may be).

Well, we're going to have one mighty bad natured argument when I come and sit at your table.

[campboy]

Why don't you announce it as "65-73 Ostrich points; that is to say, approximately 12-15"? I imagine most people will decide the last part is good enough to be going on with, but at least this would make it clear that there is a better explanation available if required.

[dburn]

Well, we're going to have one mighty bad natured argument when I come and sit at your table.

Possibly. If you persist in the attitude that "we explain our methods in terms that you walruses might grasp, but we judge our hands in terms of our own God-like standards that are utterly beyond your feeble understanding", then the bottom of my hitherto inexhaustible well of tolerance and bonhomie towards my fellow human might easily be reached.

 

If on the other hand you just tell me what you're actually playing, I expect I will be able to cope. It occurs to me that there ought to be a box on the convention card for "most absurd hand with which we have ever opened 1NT on purpose"; in these days of word processors and the like this ought to be relatively easy to keep up to date, and it would be far more useful than any of the current "may contain a singleton" rubbish.

[cloa513]

As I have remarked before, my belief is that you should be allowed to play what you like provided that you can disclose it properly.

 

Now, "proper disclosure" means at a minimum that the people to whom you are doing the disclosing will understand it. If they will not - either because there is not enough time for you to complete your disclosure or because they are not as clever as you are - then you will fall short of the requirements of Law 40.

 

If you seriously mean to tell me that you opened 1NT ("12-15") with ♠Q432 ♥KQ ♦KQ ♣A8542 because you thought it the best available description of your hand according to your methods, then you would indeed have had to spend many hours pre-explaining your methods to me before I could begin to understand that you might have that hand. And although as a veteran of many county teams-of-eight matches I realise that they are to be treated with the utmost seriousness, it is not reasonable for either of us to spend very much of our ever-shortening lives in such a pursuit.

 

If you can't (or won't) disclose it, then you can't play it. That seems both logical and practical to me, and entirely in keeping with the "spirit of the game" (whatever that may be).

That 1 NT could easily explained as semibalanced allowed, need all-round strength with discounted honour evaluation (12-15 is still a quite a range for opponents to evaluate their hands). Not nearly as complex as 1♦ could be short, 2 ♦ could be either major or flat strong. Complex is each bids needs many lines to explain and defence needs even more lines as its uncertain what shape the bidder has. Some numbers on strength are certainly required but given the general ranges of a lot of bids like 1♣ in ACOL as 11-19, its hardly severe to allow a lot of latitude in that area.

 

I agree complexity should limited for the particular tournament- but real complexity not something easy to defend if you have decent amount of bridge judgement.

[jeremy69]

I find that if you go to a club and you make the slightest attempt to explain your method, whatever it is, clearly and without condescension there is rarely any problem. It is when players start with the "well it is this, this or this but I can't explain it properly to you because we use a complex method of hand evaluation that plonkers like you can't cope with" that people get a bit stroppy. It is not even so much that oppo. wish to understand but simply that they don't want to feel cheated or talked down to. Certainly the lecture on the inadequacy of Milton Work Count is an unwelcome one

[blackshoe]

We have a player here who really hates "lessons" at the table, even when they're directed at his partner rather than himself. We have another player who cannot resist giving lessons. The slightest excuse is enough to set her off. Oil and water, anyone? Whenever they play against each other, I expect about a 95% chance of an altercation and a TD call. Maybe I should go hover over their table whenever they meet. :) :)

[peachy]

We have a player here who really hates "lessons" at the table, even when they're directed at his partner rather than himself. We have another player who cannot resist giving lessons. The slightest excuse is enough to set her off. Oil and water, anyone? Whenever they play against each other, I expect about a 95% chance of an altercation and a TD call. Maybe I should go hover over their table whenever they meet. :) :)

Don't hover, ask the lesson giver to stop :)

[blackshoe]

Done that. Last time, I told her when it happens again, she's gonna get a DP. And I'm confident it will, and she will. Then she'll decide she's not playing at this club anymore — for about two weeks. :)

[NickRW]

Well, we're going to have one mighty bad natured argument when I come and sit at your table.

Possibly. If you persist in the attitude that "we explain our methods in terms that you walruses might grasp, but we judge our hands in terms of our own God-like standards that are utterly beyond your feeble understanding"

Well, if you want to characterise yourself as being in the position of "feeble understanding" despite the fact that I am quite well aware that you are an extremely intelligent person, then we're off to a bad start before we begin.

 

Fundamentally it boils down to the fact things like this hand which I mentioned earlier:

 

Qxxx

KQ

KQ

Axxxx

 

is worse, for the purposes of playing a NT contract than, say this somewhat similar hand:

 

J9xx

KQx

Kx

AQTx

 

The latter is certainly better than a bad 15 and too strong for our "reasonable 12 to bad 15" range. The former, though simplistic counting makes it 16, is, in my view, worse. I would have thought that even the most obtuse of people (which you are not) can understand why some, indeed many folks, downgrade QJ tight by a point. Other doubleton honours tend not to come in for this treatement in common practice - but are arguably worth half a point off - and in the former hand you've got two KQ doubletons - which to my mind makes the former hand a 15 count. Then, on top of that, you have no intermediates at all and both long suits are headed by just one honour - which makes them poor - hence this hand is, IMO, (it doesn't matter whether you actually agree or not) a bad 15. The fact that I arrived at this right or wrong conclusion by what is, in fact, a completely different point count, is not relevant, other than the fact that you want to make it an issue.

 

All I can say that this reasoning can be taught to beginners (I have), beginners play against it without complaint, old ladies play against it without too much complaint and better players all the way to international standard have played against it without so much annoyance as to actually think they will have a leg to stand on if they call the director. You, on the other hand, claim to be tolerant of different methods of point count, but when I tell you that to explain this fully will take longer than we have to play the hand, want to effectively ban me from playing - because I am certainly NOT going to stop using my methods of hand valuation - I'd most certainly would rather walk out first regardless of any consequence.

 

I suspect (indeed you've said as much) that you're used to a "12 to 14" NT being exactly and only that - thus you can use this fact in defense against declarer - fair enough - I do too - though I suspect not in such a facile manner as you do. And you're not used to people who up and downgrade freely - which I am sorry for you - I am perfectly entitled to do. You are just going to have to get used to retraining your mental circuitry that pictures or counts opposing hands to include a few (actually relatively unlikely) other possibilities.

 

(I say relatively unlikely - actually the above hand is the *only* 16 count that I or partner have downgraded in this manner in all the time we've been playing - so it is actually pretty rare. If I claimed that I was as much in the dark that partner might have done this as the opps, then, for practical purposes, I'd be pretty darned close to being 100% right - especially, for example, I have had people who do not alert/announce opening 1NT with a singleton actually do so having a single A or K with about treble the frequency).

 

Nick

[TMorris]

Playing a 12-14 NT I open a good 11 about once every 18 months and a bad 15 about once in three years (maybe less). I have no agreement with partner about this who always takes me for 12-14. I pass bad 12 counts about twice a year at pairs and a little more often at teams.

 

I consider it more misleading to say 12-14 but occasional good 11s and bad 15s than just 12-14 but I state on my card that I might pass bad 12s.

 

To me it's frequency that's the issue.

[olegru]

My partner likes to give explanation like this:

"15-17 balanced all deviations you could imagine are possible."

Is it a full disclosure? :(