Alleged psyche in a club

[ggwhiz]

A possible source seems vaguely familiar in the ACBL actions taken regarding Marty Bergens mayhem with weak 2's.

 

If I remember right, the regulation on the legality of weak 2's was written as within 1 card of length AND 2 HCP's for strength.

 

This is certainly a psyche by any authority I am aware of and fielded unless N/S can prove otherwise.

[bluejak]

Of course I cannot quote figures. But talking about threads on these forums is just a complete red herring: judging by the threads here you would think that there is a dispute about nearly every claims, when about one claim in a few hundred actually gets challenged.

 

It is perfectly normal for a complete psyche third in hand to be treated as Red when partner with a maximum pass does not treat it as such and a few odd threads does not mean that is not true.

 

Making a libelous criticism of TDs in general based on this sort of lack of evidence is not acceptable.

[nige1]

Of course I cannot quote figures. But talking about threads on these forums is just a complete red herring: judging by the threads here you would think that there is a dispute about nearly every claims, when about one claim in a few hundred actually gets challenged. It is perfectly normal for a complete psyche third in hand to be treated as Red when partner with a maximum pass does not treat it as such and a few odd threads does not mean that is not true. Making a libelous criticism of TDs in general based on this sort of lack of evidence is not acceptable.

Spuriously accusing an individual of libel is libellous. When Bridge legislatures start collecting, collating, and publishing statistics, Bluejak's and my views will be based on more than our experience.

 

In spite of Bluejak's contentions:

1. Here, many posters classify this psych as amber at worst (not red).
2. Players regard many claims as faulty but few challenge or appeal them. Again a problem with the laws rather than directors.

[jallerton]

My advice was that it was clearly a psyche, since they cannot have an agreement to open lighter than 8 HCP, and that it was Red. I did ask whether they had any disclosed agreement to open light in third and the answer seemed to be No. If so, then it becomes even more clearly a psyche.

 

The person who asked me was more worried about the arguments as to whether it was a psyche. He felt it was Amber.

 

There have been a few instances of this type of auction recently and I am a little concerned that there is no consensus view on where the line is drawn. Why would you have classified this as 'red' rather than 'amber'? Do you agree with the wording of the White Book paragraph quoted by Campboy, or would it be better/clearer if this said 10HCP (or 9HCP) rather than 11HCP?

[RMB1]

Do you agree with the wording of the White Book paragraph quoted by Campboy, or would it be better/clearer if this said 10HCP (or 9HCP) rather than 11HCP?

 

Surely this White Book paragraph should be part of the permitted opening bid regulations, added to EBU Orange Book 11C10 (quoted up-thread): "Whatever strength is agreed for an opening bid, it is not permitted to agree that responder may Pass a 1NT overcall with 11HCP or more."

[TimG]

I still wonder how 11 HCP (let alone the 10 in the opening post) can be a mandatory double opposite a 3rd seat opening. Even if you don't have an agreement to open "extremely" light in 3rd seat, there is no assurance that the deck isn't split pretty evenly.

[pooltuna]

He seems to be on a campaign for "proper English" in online forums. He also blasted someone last night on r.g.b. for the contraction "y'all", which is common synonym for "you" (usually in the plural sense) in the American south.

 

y'all better simma down now or y'all gonna be retagged blak&blujak :lol:

[barmar]

No, I did not.

 

For a start, I do not blast people: I make occasional fairly humorous comments about such things. Blasting sounds malicious: my efforts are meant to be humorous.

 

Secondly I am not aware of any such post about y'all.

Sorry, it wasn't you, it was someone named Derek. You were in the thread (it's in "Comment on ruling"), and his reaction to "y'all" was very similar to your reaction here to "gonna", so I assumed it was you over there without checking.

[barmar]

Possible misbid thought process:

 

"Both minors, weak hand. Have a bid for that; should I use it? ...[some thoughts later]... OK, I'll bid."

1D, then:

"Oh no, I meant to bid [relevant call showing weak hand with both minors]! Too late now."

 

Stranger things have happened.

"I had a deuce mixed in with my Aces." :)

[campboy]

I still wonder how 11 HCP (let alone the 10 in the opening post) can be a mandatory double opposite a 3rd seat opening. Even if you don't have an agreement to open "extremely" light in 3rd seat, there is no assurance that the deck isn't split pretty evenly.

If defending them in 1NTx with half the deck between you is a worst case scenario, it's a pretty good one. I would think the fact that your side's points are more evenly split than theirs makes 1NT favourite to go down even then. The fact that doubler is a passed hand also makes it easy for partner to pull if he has a light distributional opening. Obviously the gains from doubling when partner doesn't have a minimum hand can be very significant. It would be much more dangerous to double a 12-14 opening 1NT with 16 points, but most people would consider that auto.

[StevenG]

If defending them in 1NTx with half the deck between you is a worst case scenario, it's a pretty good one. I would think the fact that your side's points are more evenly split than theirs makes 1NT favourite to go down even then. The fact that doubler is a passed hand also makes it easy for partner to pull if he has a light distributional opening. Obviously the gains from doubling when partner doesn't have a minimum hand can be very significant. It would be much more dangerous to double a 12-14 opening 1NT with 16 points, but most people would consider that auto.

 

It seems to me that it's also risky, as it gives opponents the chance to escape from a bad contract (or to get a huge score if a running suit allows them to sneak home). Certainly, if opponents are vulnerable, my preference is to pass (which I can do quite ethically, as my partners never psych) and take my +200, which is often the best score available and rarely a disaster.

 

I too find the EBU position seriously flawed.

[mjj29]

Here, many posters classify this psych as amber at worst (not red).

Yes, but the only ones which get posted here are the ones where it is unclear whether it was fielded or not - ergo likely to be judged amber. If it were clearly red or clearly green, noone would bother asking this forum, so there's an in built bias to be expected.

[bluejak]

One thing I never understand is why, if you have ten points after pass pass 1X 1NT, people assume the points are split 20-20. Someone actually said so in this thread. If th points are split 10-0-15-15 around the table pass is going to get a seriously bad result. Of course pass may be right if partner is guaranteed never to have extras. This guarantee appears [strangely] to be implicit in many people's thinking both here and elsewhere this matter is discussed.

 

People also seem to assume that everyone opens very light third in hand. Fine: such an agreement is disclosable. If someone writes on their SC "We open every eight point hand third in hand" [a perfectly legal agreement in the EBU] then no doubt passing on this hand is not Red. The pair concerned did not. If players do not bother to write their agreements on their SC why should we not rule against them?

 

As a player I think passing with 10 HCP very poor bridge: I do not do it nor expect my partners to do so. So if I psyche and partner passes with 10 HCP there is strong evidence that this is Red. If players are playing a system whereby this is not the case why on earth do they not disclose it? Simple: they are not playing such a system: they are just fielding a psyche.

 

Please let me remind you which often seems forgotten [much more so in posts on RGB, to be fair]: a psyche is a deliberate major deviation from a pair's agreed methods. Furthermore, a pair's agreed methods are required to be fully and freely disclosed. So presuming they are playing something that they have not disclosed for whatever reason, even utter laziness, is not the way to rule.

 

As to the EBU wording, if you like to read it again, it does not say 10 HCP is not Red, despite people assuming it does.

[TimG]

One thing I never understand is why, if you have ten points after pass pass 1X 1NT, people assume the points are split 20-20. Someone actually said so in this thread.

I thought maybe I has been sloppy in my wording and you were referring to me, but I said:

Even if you don't have an agreement to open "extremely" light in 3rd seat, there is no assurance that the deck isn't split pretty evenly.

which seems far from assuming such a split, rather it is just allowing for the possibility. Those people who open light in 3rd seat and then pass a balanced 10 count when 4th hand overcalls 1N must think they gain more from the pesky 3rd hand openings than they lose from them. Or, perhaps they just play bad bridge. There's nothing in the rules against playing bad bridge, is there?

 

I think it is common for people to open light in 3rd seat and don't think it is unusual enough that special disclosure must be made, it is simply general bridge knowledge. If asked about style, of course, full disclosure should be practiced, I'm not suggesting hiding agreements or tendencies. Just that a tendency to open a bit light in 3rd seat is just bridge in many people's opinion.

 

I wonder if someone would often open 1♠ in third seat holding ♠KQTx ♥xx ♦Axx ♣xxxx, must they alert? (Or, make special note on the SC?)

[campboy]

I think it is common for people to open light in 3rd seat and don't think it is unusual enough that special disclosure must be made, it is simply general bridge knowledge. If asked about style, of course, full disclosure should be practiced, I'm not suggesting hiding agreements or tendencies. Just that a tendency to open a bit light in 3rd seat is just bridge in many people's opinion.

 

I wonder if someone would often open 1♠ in third seat holding ♠KQTx ♥xx ♦Axx ♣xxxx, must they alert? (Or, make special note on the SC?)

Light openings are not alertable (at least, not for that reason), but in the EBU, where this was, special mention must be made on the CC. The CC says, by the space for 1suit openings, "Please enter your normal HCP range in the HCP column. Please tick box if you have any special agreements involving different values in particular positions (e.g. light openings in third seat) and include further details under Supplementary Details."

[TimG]

The ACBL card has a tick box for "VERY LIGHT: 3rd Hand". I do not know what "very light" is.

[blackshoe]

I think that, in the ACBL, 10 is "light" and 8 is "very light". Or thereabouts. But I could be wrong. There is a series of Bulletin articles, available on the ACBL website, that attempts to explain how to fill out the System Card, but it is very vague in this area. It seems more concerned with whether you open "very light" occasionally (no big deal, it says) or routinely (in which case it should be on the card) than with how light is "very light".

[TimG]

♠KQTx ♥xx ♦Axx ♣xxxx

Is this very light? Only 9 HCP. But, 2 QT. A good suit, but 4432 isn't exactly shapely.

[bluejak]

If you open balanced 9 counts by agreement then Yes, it should be on the SC.

[nige1]

Yes, but the only ones which get posted here are the ones where it is unclear whether it was fielded or not - ergo likely to be judged amber. If it were clearly red or clearly green, noone would bother asking this forum, so there's an in built bias to be expected.

It would be interesting to learn the annual tally of such cases; and how many there are of each colour.

[jallerton]

As to the EBU wording, if you like to read it again, it does not say 10 HCP is not Red, despite people assuming it does.

 

Indeed it does not. Unfortunately, it does not say that 10HCP is "red" either, which is why I would like clarification. I was asked to act as a referee on this exact situation (P P 1suit 1NT P on a 10-count) a year or so ago. The TD had ruled it as "amber". My initial thought that the psyche ought to be "red", but the person whom I consulted thought it ought to be "amber". Then I recalled reading something about this in the new White Book and located the aforementioned White Book reference re 11HCP. In the end, I left the TD's "amber" classification to stand [not least because the TD's ruling should be assumed to be correct unless the AC can demonstrate why it was wrong], but I'm still not sure whether or not this was the correct ruling.

[bluejak]

Matters of judgement will always be matters of judgement, I fear, despite what certain people want.

 

Suppose I said that it is incredible that a person would not double with an 11 count without it being fielded.

 

Suppose I said that it is unusual that a person would not double with an 10 count without it being fielded.

 

Suppose I said that it is debatable that a person would not double with a 9 count without it being fielded.

 

Suppose I said that it is common that a person would not double with an 8 count without it being fielded.

 

This assumes normal opening bids, of course, as discussed previously, ie ones where the players have got no indication on their SCs that they open particularly light in third.

 

The above would fit in with the EBU wording as previously stated, yes?

[nige1]

Matters of judgement will always be matters of judgement, I fear, despite what certain people want.

Suppose I said that it is incredible that a person would not double with an 11 count without it being fielded.

Suppose I said that it is unusual that a person would not double with an 10 count without it being fielded.

Suppose I said that it is debatable that a person would not double with a 9 count without it being fielded.

Suppose I said that it is common that a person would not double with an 8 count without it being fielded.

This assumes normal opening bids, of course, as discussed previously, ie ones where the players have got no indication on their SCs that they open particularly light in third.

The above would fit in with the EBU wording as previously stated, yes?

It may well fit in with previous EBU wording but would be clearer with fewer negatives :)

[barmar]

One thing I never understand is why, if you have ten points after pass pass 1X 1NT, people assume the points are split 20-20. Someone actually said so in this thread. If th points are split 10-0-15-15 around the table pass is going to get a seriously bad result. Of course pass may be right if partner is guaranteed never to have extras. This guarantee appears [strangely] to be implicit in many people's thinking both here and elsewhere this matter is discussed.

I think they may just be playing the odds. If partner is in 3rd seat, there's a decent chance that he opened light. And when there are 25-28 HCP between you and RHO, it increases those odds, so they're allowing for it.

 

Myself, I prefer not to play pessimistic bridge. Most of the time, partner will have something close to a normal opener, and the double will work. If we occasionally give away 1NTX, it should be more than made up for all the times that we set them.

[Gerben42]

I think calling this psyche red is too harsh.

 

Surely he wasn't playing partner for a psych but for a light opening hand (rule-of-18 or whatever minimum is allowed), which, given that I already see so many HCP, isn't all that unlikely. Given the tough opening lead against 1NTx this player is facing, Pass is a convenient bid, but not a specifically fielding bid. So it's clear amber for me, and I can understand a "red" ruling might be seen as a cheating accusation.

 

I would have doubled though. I don't play such pessimistic bridge. The cost of a rogue -180 is probably less than the +500 that might result from this.

 

Also I might want to know what opponents were thinking with 25 HCP and 9 Hearts. Sounds extremely self-inflicted to me.