Sike?

[Phil]

Five card majors framework and weak 2's.

 

A player opens 2♣ with AKQJxx Tx Tx Axx.

 

Partner bids 3♣ (showing 10-12) with xxx K9xx AKQ9 KQ claiming "I don't know how to show such a strong hand opposite 2♣". They subside in 6♠.

 

Psyche?

Adjustment?

PP?

Slap on the wrist?

Recorder?

 

Oh what shall I do...

[jallerton]

Five card majors framework and weak 2's.

 

A player opens 2♣ with AKQJxx Tx Tx Axx.

 

Partner bids 3♣ (showing 10-12) with xxx K9xx AKQ9 KQ claiming "I don't know how to show such a strong hand opposite 2♣". They subside in 6♠.

 

Psyche?

Adjustment?

PP?

Slap on the wrist?

Recorder?

 

Oh what shall I do...

 

The first thing to so is to find out the rest of the auction. Did someone use Blackwood and find out that the partnership was missing an ace/key card?

 

The second thing to do is Opener why he opened 2♣ and to ask Reponder what he would have opened on Opener's hand.

[Phil]

The first thing to so is to find out the rest of the auction. Did someone use Blackwood and find out that the partnership was missing an ace/key card?

 

The second thing to do is Opener why he opened 2♣ and to ask Reponder what he would have opened on Opener's hand.

 

You must be channeling her opponent that said the same thing.

 

2♣ - 3♣

3♠ - 4♣*

4♠** - 5♣***

5♥**** - 6♠

Pass

 

* / *** - Gerber obv

** - 2 aces

**** - 1 king

 

So staying out of 7 is pretty easy.

[jallerton]

Is Gerber being used as a pyschic control?

 

If AKQJxxxxx x x Ax is a permitted as a 2♣ opener then perhaps not.

[bluejak]

I bet they are pretty poor players. Tell their opponents to get a life.

[Bbradley62]

I bet they are pretty poor players.

That would make this a teachable moment. Explain to opener that his bid was not correct, and explain to responder that he needs to know how his partnership shows more than 12 opposite a 2♣ opening.

[Phil]

I bet they are pretty poor players. Tell their opponents to get a life.

 

Its a club game. Nearly everyone is a poor player.

 

I don't see 'get a life' in the rules anywhere.

 

I wouldn't have posted this if I thought I would get flippant remarks.

[the hog]

I bet they are pretty poor players. Tell their opponents to get a life.

Good post. If anyone wanted an adjustment on this hand, then I would laugh at them.

[barmar]

ACBL's position is that "strong" is whatever the player thinks it is -- we don't have anything like the Rule of 25 as a guideline for strong 2 openings. Which takes away most of the teeth of their long-standing prohibition against psyching strong 2♣.

 

But this is certainly the most extreme example I've seen. Many players include something like "8.5 tricks" in their description of 2♣, so they'll bid it with AKQJxxx AQx x xx. I think you need to ask your opener what criteria he used to decide that his hand was worth opening 2♣.

[jillybean]

From the sounds of it, this was poor bidding rather than a psyche and suggesting they may have used a psychic control is stretching it even further.

 

Your job is to enforce the laws, not offer bidding advice so please DO NOT turn this into an opportunity to "teach bidding".

 

Tell their opponents there has been no infraction of the laws and move on, these weird things happen all the time.

Next board they could easily have another strange auction and give their opps a top, you won't get another call.

[blackshoe]

I agree that this is a misbid rather than a psych, but that's only because a psych is deliberate, and it appears this player wasn't aware what he was doing. So while I would not rule that an infraction of law (via regulation in this case) has occurred, but I would endeavor to ensure that this player doesn't make this great a deviation when he bids 2♣ in future, the ACBL "definition" of "strong" notwithstanding*. I don't consider that "teaching bidding", but rather teaching how not to run afoul of the regulation against psyching a 2♣ opening.

 

*I once held, at teams, ♠AKQJxxxx ♥Jxx ♦- ♣Jx. My opponent at the other table opened this 2♣, and our teammates miss-defended because they expect more high card strength. The director ruled "not a psych, but it's close". I submit that if 8 playing tricks is "close", then 7 playing tricks is a psych, if it were done deliberately.

[bluejak]

Its a club game. Nearly everyone is a poor player.

 

I don't see 'get a life' in the rules anywhere.

 

I wouldn't have posted this if I thought I would get flippant remarks.

Obviously I mean poor players by club standards. This was a serious post as to the correct response. You do not want players calling the TD every time a strange auction gets a good result.

[Vampyr]

I would endeavor to ensure that this player doesn't make this great a deviation when he bids 2♣ in future, the ACBL "definition" of "strong" notwithstanding*. I don't consider that "teaching bidding", but rather teaching how not to run afoul of the regulation against psyching a 2♣ opening.

 

 

I don't understand how this can be a "deviation" when there is no regulation defining what is "strong". A pair might consider a hand better than a minimum opening to be "strong", and this seems to be their right, though it might be alertable.

 

Is the regulation against psyching a 2♣ opening legal?

[Cascade]

Is the regulation against psyching a 2♣ opening legal?

 

It appears to be directly contrary to Law 40A3 and Law 40C1 that give a player the right to make any call not based on a partnership understanding.

[blackshoe]

I don't understand how this can be a "deviation" when there is no regulation defining what is "strong". A pair might consider a hand better than a minimum opening to be "strong", and this seems to be their right, though it might be alertable.

 

Is the regulation against psyching a 2♣ opening legal?

 

It appears to be directly contrary to Law 40A3 and Law 40C1 that give a player the right to make any call not based on a partnership understanding.

 

Law 40B2{d}: The Regulating Authority may restrict the use of psychic artificial calls.

General Convention Chart, Item 2 under 'Disallowed': Psyching of artificial or conventional opening bids and/or conventional responses thereto. Psyching conventional suit responses, which are less than 2NT, to natural openings.

 

It's legal.

 

As to "there can't be a psych because 'strong' is not defined," I would suggest it's folly to attempt to apply logic to ACBL regulations. However, the fact that the TD at the table in the case I mentioned upthread called it "not a psych, but close" nonetheless implies that it is possible to psych a 2♣ opening. The table TD's opinion here, btw, was substantiated in later email correspondence by the then Chief TD of the ACBL.

[Vampyr]

... it is possible to psych a 2♣ opening.

 

 

Clearly. If the requirement is that it be "strong", then opening a hand that cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be called strong would be a psych. However, there needs to be considerable leeway since "strong" is not defined. My guess is that the line realistically has to be drawn at just above a sound opening bid.

[helene_t]

Of course 2♣ can be psyched, no matter how ill-defined the meaning of "strong" is.

 

A psyche is a gross, deliberate deviation from partnership agreements. Not a gross, deliberate deviation from the ACBL minimum requirements for a strong 2♣.

 

So if this pair has the agreement that 2♣ shows a hand expecting to make at least 7 tricks then it is not psyche. If the pair has the agreement that 2♣ shows at least 23 HCPs then it is either a psyche or a misbid.

 

Anyway, agree with Bluejak and Jilly. I don't see a problem here at all. It is hard enough to get noobs to join bridge clubs as their bidding mistakes elicit bad results as well as insulting remarks from the local wannabees. If their mistakes also elicit issues with the TD then we can forget about the future of bridge.

[barmar]

A psyche is a gross, deliberate deviation from partnership agreements. Not a gross, deliberate deviation from the ACBL minimum requirements for a strong 2♣.

The problem is that many poor pairs don't have detailed agreements about their strong 2♣ openings, they just agree "strong", and use their judgement to decide if a particular hand fits.

 

Which technically means they can't psyche this bid -- without an agreement, there's nothing to deviate from. That doesn't seem right, though. Perhaps it doesn't violate the psyche regulation, but it does seem like it violates full disclosure. If "strong" is whatever the player feels like at the time, how are the opponents supposed to know what to expect? On the other hand, the partner is just as much in the dark, so it's fair in that regard.

[blackshoe]

"Fair in that regard"? No. Partner will have some experience of what "strong" means to opener, if it's ever come up before — and it will have. And it does violate full disclosure, so even in the unlikely event that partner is completely in the dark there is still an unfair advantage to their side.

[JoAnneM]

Start requiring opponents to call the director for an adjustment when they get good results from bad bidding. Maybe all the calls re new players learning how to bid will stop and the club will grow. :P

[barmar]

JoAnne understands. Players who bid like this are generally poor players, and their partners are usually pretty clueless, too.

 

It's like players who make minimum, off-shape takeout doubles, because they think "I have opening-bid strength, I have to show it". The ACBL CC has a check-box for this, but no one ever checks it. Not because they're trying to hide something, but because they don't know any better. Any time I've asked "Does your partner usually make unusual takeout doubles like that?", I get blank stares because they don't understand what's unusual about it.

 

Since many of the alert rules are based on what's considered "proper" bidding, it's hard to correct these players' alerting without giving them bridge lessons.

[mtvesuvius]

The ACBL could fix that problem easily, Barry.

 

There should be a small checkbox in the "General Approach" black box, players should be able to place a small checkmark in the box stating "Clueless".

 

... After all, it is full disclosure, right?

[helene_t]

players should be able to place a small checkmark in the box stating "Clueless".

Seriously, I wonder if it is something I should disclose if I play with a clueless partner.

 

I don't do it because it would be insulting to partner (and because nobody else do it) but obviously if I know that partner's vulnerable two-level overcalls could be Jxxxx then I will be inclined to raise them a little more cautiously than otherwise. Even if I "in principle" try to trust partner for didactic reasons. And then opps are entitled to know as well.

 

I do pre-alert when playing with a real noob. I don't think it's insulting to tell opps that my p just started playing duplicate last week if that is the case. But if playing with someone who has played at the club every week for a couple of decade it seems odd to tell opps that p is a beginner.

[bluejak]

I play with a client. He is reasonable enough, but he has one or two strange ideas, one of which is to overcall with a five card suit. What is wrong with that, do I hear you ask?

 

[hv=pc=n&n=sak85hkqj9d75432c&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=1c1d]133|200[/hv]

 

Double would not occur to him.

 

:ph34r:

 

I wonder about the checkbox on the ACBL card. Psychologically they have it wrong: how about:

 

Double shows any opening [check here]

[mycroft]

JoAnne understands, sure. But whether we rule against them or not, we as club owners and TDs need to talk to them, away from the table, either after the game or the next time before the game, and tell them two things:

 

- this is not the standard set of a "strong" 2C opener; it implies defence by default (you're not going to be uncomfortable when partner doubles a game "sacrifice" with nothing)

- while you can play what you like as "strong", if it's not standard, you have the same enhanced obligations to disclose that those "evil complicated" Precision (replace with whatever super-science or foreign standard system is played by "that pair" in your club) players do. Therefore, you have to mark your card <this way> and explain it <this way>.

 

Yeah, 90% of the time, their "odd approach to bidding" will bite them, either in the game or in their inability to declare or defend. The 10% of the time that the opponents get fixed with these weirdies, well, fixes happen; but agreements have obligations, in other words. Don't tell them "they can't do that" or "we're going to punish you for doing that", but "because it's a different agreement, you have to be careful - it's fair to win by playing something different; it's not fair to hide, even without trying, what you're playing."

 

If I catch them away from the table, and spend time explaining the issues, I almost never have a problem from the "weaker pairs" - it's the experienced, but non-expert Flight A players who vehemently can't believe that "yes, sometimes you are required to hang yourself", or "if you play X, but if you do Y after it means Z, then you're playing 'X or Z', and that agreement is illegal. That's even though it's obvious to everybody after Y."