1NT

[dcohio]

Is it legal to psych a 1NT opening? LHO opened 3rd seat 1NT on 0 HCP. I thought 2C and 1NT weren't allowed to be psyched. Is it just 2C?

 

Thanks

[blackshoe]

Item #2 under "Disallowed" on the General Convention Chart says "Psyching of artificial or conventional opening bids and/or conventional responses thereto. Psyching conventional suit responses, which are less than 2NT, to natural openings." No other prohibition against psyching exists. So psyching a 1NT opening is legal, but psyching a conventional response which is less than 2NT (e.g., Stayman, or Jacoby Transfers) is not.

 

The Convention Charts are available on the ACBL website. While some parts of them can be confusing, players would do well to read them, IMO.

[mfa1010]

[P]syching a conventional response which is less than 2NT (e.g., Stayman [...]) is not [legal].

That raises the philosophical question, how it is possible to psych an asking bid!? :D

[barmar]

That raises the philosophical question, how it is possible to psych an asking bid!? :D

An asking bid implies you have a hand for which the answer is relevant. E.g. if you bid Stayman you presumably have one of the following hands:

 

1. Invitational or game-forcing hand with at least one 4-card major

2. Weak 3-suited hand with short clubs (planning to pass any response)

3. Weak hand with both majors, planning on bidding a major over 2♦ (if you play creeping Stayman)

4. Invitational hand with no major, planning on bidding 2NT (if you play 4-way transfers and use Stayman as a temporizing bid).

 

If you bid Stayman, then jump to 3NT over the response, and don't have 4 cards in an unbid major, and there are no alerts, I'd consider this a psyche.

 

What's interesting is that the regulation only prohibits psyching suit responses and responses below 2NT. So you can't psyche a Jacoby transfer, but if you play 4-way transfers you CAN psyche a 2NT transfer to ♣ or ♦. You're also allowed to psyche a forcing 1NT response to a major. Maybe the regulators figured that these types of psyches are more likely to backfire than get in the way of the opponents, so there's little point in prohibiting them.

[hrothgar]

Item #2 under "Disallowed" on the General Convention Chart says "Psyching of artificial or conventional opening bids and/or conventional responses thereto. Psyching conventional suit responses, which are less than 2NT, to natural openings." No other prohibition against psyching exists. So psyching a 1NT opening is legal, but psyching a conventional response which is less than 2NT (e.g., Stayman, or Jacoby Transfers) is not.

 

The Convention Charts are available on the ACBL website. While some parts of them can be confusing, players would do well to read them, IMO.

 

Silly question:

 

I thought that the whole notion of "Conventions" had been done away with in new versions of the Laws...

 

Is this clause actually operational?

[mfa1010]

An asking bid implies you have a hand for which the answer is relevant. E.g. if you bid Stayman you presumably have one of the following hands:

 

1. Invitational or game-forcing hand with at least one 4-card major

2. Weak 3-suited hand with short clubs (planning to pass any response)

3. Weak hand with both majors, planning on bidding a major over 2♦ (if you play creeping Stayman)

4. Invitational hand with no major, planning on bidding 2NT (if you play 4-way transfers and use Stayman as a temporizing bid).

 

If you bid Stayman, then jump to 3NT over the response, and don't have 4 cards in an unbid major, and there are no alerts, I'd consider this a psyche.

Actually all this is your own interpretation. If responder chooses to bid stayman for some other reason that would not automatically constitute a psych. A few examples:

 

5. With a strong 3154 planning to play a 4-3 spades.

6. With a weak 2443 hoping to catch a 2♦/2♥ reply but having to live with 2♠. Yes a bad gamble but not a psych.

7. With a weak 3415 planning to bid 2♥ over 2♦ and then 3♣ over 2♠.

[barmar]

Silly question:

 

I thought that the whole notion of "Conventions" had been done away with in new versions of the Laws...

 

Is this clause actually operational?

What changed was that the old Laws said that RAs could only regulate conventions, the new Laws say that RAs can regulate any agreements they deem "special partnership understandings." Also, the new Laws say that RAs can restrict psychic artificial calls (40B2d).

 

And while the new Laws no longer define the term "convention", it's still used; it's in the title to Section 6 (Conventions and Agreements), and in the text of Law 40B1b, which says that conventions are included among special partnership understandings unless the RA says otherwise.

 

What this essentially means is that wherever you see the word "convention" in the ACBL convention charts, you can substitute "special partnership understanding". ACBL simply hasn't gotten around to rewriting them to use the new terminology.

[pran]

What changed was that the old Laws said that RAs could only regulate conventions, the new Laws say that RAs can regulate any agreements they deem "special partnership understandings." Also, the new Laws say that RAs can restrict psychic artificial calls (40B2d).

 

And while the new Laws no longer define the term "convention", it's still used; it's in the title to Section 6 (Conventions and Agreements), and in the text of Law 40B1b, which says that conventions are included among special partnership understandings unless the RA says otherwise.

 

What this essentially means is that wherever you see the word "convention" in the ACBL convention charts, you can substitute "special partnership understanding". ACBL simply hasn't gotten around to rewriting them to use the new terminology.

 

The word "convention" was intentially included here in order to secure "backward compatibility" for old regulations still in force.

[bluejak]

Silly question:

 

I thought that the whole notion of "Conventions" had been done away with in new versions of the Laws...

 

Is this clause actually operational?

Yes. It is part of the ACBL regulations, which use the notion of conventions.

[blackshoe]

Silly question:

 

I thought that the whole notion of "Conventions" had been done away with in new versions of the Laws...

 

Is this clause actually operational?

 

The definition of convention was removed from the new laws, as were, I think, some references to them. However, other references to "convention(s)" remain in the laws. The Convention Charts have not, to my knowledge, been updated since the new laws were promulgated. I believe the ACBL would say they're still in effect, though I haven't seen anything in writing.

[mgoetze]

The Convention Charts are available on the ACBL website. While some parts of them can be confusing, players would do well to read them, IMO.

 

Yes, in fact every ACBL member should read them. That way enough people might notice that they are complete **** in order for something to get changed...

[blackshoe]

I wouldn't hold my breath...