psyching after partner's preempt

[aguahombre]

If you play that "3m preempt means I won't bid again" then alert that and explain, also you should explain what consequences it has (partner might bid on trash to confuse you).

As to the last point, remember that playing a system which makes psyches safe without alerting it is cheating.

 

The principle should be very simple: if you hope to profit from a psych because opponents might not know you could safely psych in this spot then you are hoping for unfair advantage.

The comment I made was in response to a 3NT bid which, on everyone's planet, is not a convention, treatment, method, or anything else. It is to play in 3NT unless alerted and explained as something else. The same would go to any other bid which is a game bid showing a desire to play there.

 

These bids are not partnership participation. 3m doesn't mean "I won't bid again". It should mean "I won't bid again if partner places the contract; and if I do, I am doing so on my own." Agreements involve partnership bidding or defensive carding, and the opps are entitled to know what they are.

 

Agreements about how partner will declare a hand, or how frivolously he/she places contracts have nothing to do with disclosure requirements.

[Cascade]

The comment I made was in response to a 3NT bid which, on everyone's planet, is not a convention, treatment, method, or anything else. It is to play in 3NT unless alerted and explained as something else. The same would go to any other bid which is a game bid showing a desire to play there.

 

These bids are not partnership participation. 3m doesn't mean "I won't bid again". It should mean "I won't bid again if partner places the contract; and if I do, I am doing so on my own." Agreements involve partnership bidding or defensive carding, and the opps are entitled to know what they are.

 

Agreements about how partner will declare a hand, or how frivolously he/she places contracts have nothing to do with disclosure requirements.

 

I am not at all sure this is correct. Especially if there is a question. Then you are obligated to give all the information you have from partnership understanding and experience. To me this would seem to clearly include for example "sometimes partner bids this on no values and a fit" or whatever is relevant.

[bluecalm]

These bids are not partnership participation. 3m doesn't mean "I won't bid again". It should mean "I won't bid again if partner places the contract; and if I do, I am doing so on my own."

 

Are you happy to double them if they compete say to 4S and you hold Kxx of spades ? You should if 3NT is bid to win. You shouldn't if it might be a punt. You know this stuff, they don't, so tell them.

If it's so obvious on "everyone's planet" then it won't hurt to explain anyway.

You should make clear what range of hands partner's bid contain. If they might think 3NT contains only strong hands and you know there are some punts in there and you act accordingly then you are hiding vital piece of information from them.

[aguahombre]

Are you happy to double them if they compete say to 4S and you hold Kxx of spades ? You should if 3NT is bid to win. You shouldn't if it might be a punt. You know this stuff, they don't, so tell them.

As the 3m preemptor, I double righty's 4M bid after:

 

3m (P) 3N (4M)

?..........Of course, with Kxx of righty's suit I would double. I might even double with XXX of the suit, and an outside card somewhere else. That has nothing to do with anything. If partner removes my double, that is his decision. If he psyched 3NT, he knows what he will do if someone doubles something. Whether I will be happy when I double is not disclosable either.

[bluecalm]

?..........Of course, with Kxx of righty's suit I would double. I might even double with XXX of the suit, and an outside card somewhere else. That has nothing to do with anything. If partner removes my double, that is his decision. If he psyched 3NT, he knows what he will do if someone doubles something. Whether I will be happy when I double is not disclosable either.

 

If you are happily doubling that way I think everything is ok. If you are not doubling happily because you adjust for partner possibly having some random punt then it's not ok. I think we agree on that one :)

[Phil]

Plain text is awful; the hand diagrams are clear and easy to read.

 

Somehow we survived about six years on the forums without them.

[nige1]

Declarer claimed that 3S should have been alerted and that it was unethical. We don't have an agreement but this is a regular partnership. Usually against a strong auction and after partner's preempt, our change of suit has been lead-directional, sometimes it's a real suit, and occasionally a psyche. You know, double us and find out. On this auction, I probably have some kind of fit, right? I don't pass and then change suit at the 3-level very often. I guess I might.I thought this was just part of bridge.

It is my understanding that psyches are legal period, it's the fielding of a psyche that is not.

IMO, It is illegal for a partnersip to have a "psych" agreement, even if they never use that knowledge to field it.

The principle should be very simple: if you hope to profit from a psych because opponents might not know you could safely psych in this spot then you are hoping for unfair advantage. They don't know your system, your understanding and what you consider "general bridge knowledge". You should make them aware of those factors. Psyches are fair game only if everybody at the table understand all consequences of given bid and no psyche control mechanism is hidden within your agreements (as it was in OP example and as it is most of the time people claim "general bridge knowledge").

IMO bluecalm, cascade and Co are right. "General Bridge Knowledge" is a popular euphemism for CPU (concealed partnership understanding)

[straube]

If the preemptor held Jxxx of spades, and had the opportunity raise at the 4, or maybe the 5 level, would this be allowable within the partnership?

 

We haven't discussed this, but I wouldn't raise. I also wouldn't raise opposite a brand new partner. For me, this is about recognizing a potential lead-directing or psyche situation.

 

1) both partners are passed hands

2) the opponents are in a strong auction

3) the opponents have not started to find a fit

4) one partner has preempted to the 3-level having declined to preempt previously

5) the other partner has introduced a major

6) the vulnerability was conducive (not unfavorable anyway)

 

Against this, 3D has been doubled (for values? not alerted) and it is possible that 3S is running. Even in this case, how good are these spades likely to be?

 

Some situations have higher reward/risk situations for psyches than others. Third seat openers are typically psyched more often than 2nd seat openers. One spade overcalls of strong club is more typically a psyche than against natural one club openers. I think this is part of "general bridge knowledge".

 

I did have a partner a long time ago who liked to jump to 3N after I opened a weak two bid when he held a fit for me and the opponent doubled. This particular sequence was so peculiar to him and eventually recognizable to me, that I started to alert the opponents to it. After all, he had redouble available if he had points and no fit.

 

I don't feel the same about the auction in question. I also don't feel I should have to give lessons as to why a particular situation is more likely to attract a psyche than a different situation. I mean, what if only 3 of the 6 I listed were true? What if 2? Also, the odds I would place on 3S being a psyche might be influenced by my holding in the suit. If I have short spades, I would think it more likely that partner is running. If I have Jxxx I would think it more likely that partner is lead-directing or trying to steal the opponent's suit. I don't want to give the opponents odds when my calculation of the odds is influenced by my holding.

 

I think this is analagous to dishonest signaling. When asked, we tell opponents that we use upside down count and attitude and obvious shift. We usually signal honestly. Occasionally, it pays to signal dishonestly and that depends on the particular situation. We don't alert the opponents as to why it may pay to signal dishonestly in any give instance. That's part of "general bridge knowledge".

 

In this particular situation, I think 3S is not to be believed. The situation is so psyche-prone as to be practically ineffective as a psyche. As I said, I think I made the wrong bid and would pick 4C if I had a second chance.

[aguahombre]

Somehow we survived about six years on the forums without them.

Yes, it was damned inconsiderate of BBO to make changes which improve the forum environment for people who are using PC's and laptops, yet inconvenient for those who choose to use other devices. I am 100% with Stephanie, this time.

[bluecalm]

I don't feel the same about the auction in question. I also don't feel I should have to give lessons as to why a particular situation is more likely to attract a psyche than a different situation.

 

You should be less arrogant and accept you try for advantage you are not entitled to.

Some players who won everything in bridge never psych in that situation and I am pretty sure would autoraise with nice support including going to 6S over their 6H. Just because your peculiar view of bridge is that it's psych situation and you choose partners from your environment who share the view doesn't mean you can withhold the agreement from your opponents.

Playing 3S in the auction as long spades, possibly to find cheap defense of their slam is very reasonable natural treatment and the one many opponents would expect without your alerting it. It's your responsibility to make sure they are not misled about what you are really playing and what hands this 3S contains.

 

I don't want to give the opponents odds when my calculation of the odds is influenced by my holding.

 

You should at least tell them that psyche is likely enough that with 4 card support the odds sway in psyche direction instead of huge double fit on the hand.

 

In this particular situation, I think 3S is not to be believed. The situation is so psyche-prone as to be practically ineffective as a psyche.

 

This is again your world, your experience and your habits which might be completely alien to your opponents which in turn you hope to profit from.

I for one feel it's ridiculous to psyche here and with 4 card support and say : xxxx x QJTxxxx x I am going in 6S without 2nd thought. This is why I don't alert 3S and if my partner choose to psyche here having full knowledge we might be in 6S for -2300 but lucks out and profit from it it's fair game.

You will never be -2300 in case of psych and your opponent don't know that. You try to profit from that ignorance which is mild form of cheating if you were unaware of mechanism and straight up cheating if you continue to do so.

[straube]

So in your partnership, is 3S a fit-showing bid (spades and diamonds) or is it running from 3D doubled? Is it a forward-going bid? Btw, be careful in your insinuations of cheating. I posted the hand because I'd like to know what the rules say about this sort of thing. I've had my own understanding, and we've had mixed responses so far.

[f0rdy]

Because you can read the forums while on a bus, or waiting for a bus, or any other activity that involves sitting and waiting. If you're at home or work with a real computer, you might have something else to do ;)

 

Quite. I don't quite understand what affects it, but the handviewer seems pretty variable in Opera on an Android phone; sometimes it displays dodgily, sometimes at about 1/100th scale. I generally just read threads and hope I can guess what the hand is from the reply...

[straube]

Fred said I could post his reply to my email question....

 

 

Sorry Straube, but I don't know much about the rules concerning psychs,

alerts, etc.

 

I agree with you that psychs made when facing a preempt by partner are

not rare (at least in the circles that I normally play in).

 

Fred

 

On 1/18/2012 9:41 AM, BBO Discussion Forums wrote:

> fred,

>

> straube has sent you this email from http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/index.php.

>

>

> Hi Fred, would you mind replying to my thread on psyching after a preempt in

the offline forum? I thought this was a pretty common situation to psyche but a

lot of folks say not. Also, if you side against me, under exactly what

circumstances would I alert a potential psyche and how would I go about doing

so? thanks

>

> ---------------------------------------------------

> Please note that BBO Discussion Forums has no control over the

> contents of this message.

> ---------------------------------------------------

>

>

>

[ggwhiz]

I had a BBO speedball hand that I posted some time ago against a VERY good pair.

 

It went 3♣ - p - 3♥ to me and I held a monster with 7 semi-solid ♥.

 

I started with 3nt and lho doubled playing the 3♥ bid as natural and forcing. The auction got convoluted after that but at great risk to both sides and lho's actions were ethically perfect.

 

I play an impossible 3nt bid with a couple of partners. ie. After 3♣ - dbl - 3nt (on nothing) it shows a hand that wants to dive but is in fear of -800 at the 5 level unless the pre-emptor has extra shape. We alert it as such and pass it out for partner to reveal their intentions or play it there.

 

As long as proper disclosure happens (it's either bid to make or inviting a sac), I think it's legal.

[straube]

I think Robson/Segal played that convention/treatment. 3N shows willingness to play there (to make or go down undoubled). If the 3N bidder removes a doubled contract, then it invites a sacrifice at the 5-level. Definitely alertable. OTOH, at the right vulnerability someone may be willing to chance 3N doubled as a save (I think I actually ran into that before) and without an understanding I wouldn't take action to remove 3N or double the opponents off if I were the 3m opener. 3N doesn't promise anything but a willingness to play 3N.

[xcurt]

Yes, it was damned inconsiderate of BBO to make changes which improve the forum environment for people who are using PC's and laptops, yet inconvenient for those who choose to use other devices. I am 100% with Stephanie, this time.

 

I hate to break it to you but mobile devices are the future (nay, the present) of content consumption on the web.

 

Personally I'm done posting in handviewer until it gets fixed.*

 

I'll continue to read content from posters I find interesting and worthwhile.

 

If others don't want to read my posts because they're typically plaintext, that's their choice.

 

The best solution would be some server side code that reads the user agent (or a pref) and converts handviewer into text for mobile users. Fred or Uday, please???

 

* if you don't believe me, get an iPad and head over to bridgewinners. Read any of Kit's excellent columns, which all contain multiple diagrams on one page separated by jumps. Those pages can take over 30 seconds to load. I have FiOs so it isnt bandwidth.

[Phil]

We haven't discussed this, but I wouldn't raise. I also wouldn't raise opposite a brand new partner. For me, this is about recognizing a potential lead-directing or psyche situation.

 

One is OK, the other is an undisclosed agreement.

[CSGibson]

If you have the agreement that 3♠ does not have to have 4 spades because it is frequently lead directional with a fit for the preempt, then you have to alert it. It is not a natural bid as defined by the ACBL, and in my opinion does not fall under general bridge knowledge (like cue-bidding, or probing for 3N would be). If you pulled this bid out of your hat, then it would be a psyche, but it sounds like you and your partner have actually discussed this position at length, so it's actually a partnership understanding that needs to be disclosed.

[Zelandakh]

You should be less arrogant and accept you try for advantage you are not entitled to.

 

<snip>

 

You try to profit from that ignorance which is mild form of cheating if you were unaware of mechanism and straight up cheating if you continue to do so.

 

You are out of order here bluecalm and I hope you can see that when you read your message back. Telling someone not to be arrogant while doing precisely that in your message is perhaps ironic but also not really suitable for these forums imho. Calling someone a cheat without evidence to that effect is one of the more serious actions in the bridge world and you should withdraw the accusation. It is clear to me that straube did not post this hand as a "look at me, didn't I do well"-type of post but rather to ascertain the views of more experienced players on the best way to handle this. In this I stand by my earlier answer - if the new suit were treated as natural even though it may be psyched this is ok. But where the agreement, as here, is that the new suit is often short, in effect a lead director, then this should be alerted and explained as such. Yes, the line is a bit fuzzy and if you have the former explicit agreement but psyche it very often this becomes an implicit agreement too.

[bluecalm]

I am sorry, maybe I got carried away but I got really annoyed about "giving lessons" quote.

Explaining your style which might be completely alien to your opponents is not giving lessons, talking about "general bridge knowledge" in that situation aren't lessons either. I hate this attitude - people who think their intuition and habits are expected to be treated as knowledge and explaining it are "lessons".

 

Also I didn't call him a cheat. I said what he is doing is mild form of cheating and if he continue to do so is straight up cheating. I probably should have used expression: "foul play". Even players who try to be ethical foul from time to time but deliberately doing so is borderline cheating at best. I am sorry for my selection of words though I should've be more careful and less emotional about the issue.

[Vampyr]

3N shows willingness to play there (to make or go down undoubled).

 

This is pretty standard isn't it (I am not suggesting, though, that it is not alertable)?

 

Clearly they can make it a lot harder when they bid a suit instead.

[straube]

Alerting is not the real issue. The laws on psyches are that they must be a surprise

to partner as much as they are to the opponents and that there are no "safe" psyches.

 

In the cases you gave, if for example, the 3S bid may never be raised or passed then

this is a "safe" psyche. It seems that they have discussed when these types of psyches

are going to happen. This violates the part about it surprising partner.

 

Their argument is that the opponents should not be any more surprised than their

partner because of the bridge logic of the situation. While this might be accurate

at the highest levels, not everyone they play against will analyse the situation the

same.

 

If they have an agreement that these are lead directing bids, then they are alertable

because they als show the suit that the preempter bid.

 

----- Original Message -----

From: dastraube@aol.com [mailto:dastraube@aol.com]

To: rulings@acbl.org

Sent: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 22:13:38 -0500 (EST)

Subject: psyching over a preempt

 

Hi, can you explain the rules here?

 

The auction goes...

 

P P P 2C

3D X 3S 6H

 

3S was bid with a stiff spade and a diamond fit

 

This defending partnership has discussed making lead-directing bids.

They play and alert McCabe. They've discussed how to cope with psyches

against their strong club. They have infrequently but occasionally

psyched against strong auctions after a preempt. They have the

agreement that 2H P 3C X is penalty so that opponents cannot steal

clubs. So they have an awareness that this auction is one in which a

psyche might have a good reward/risk ratio.

 

This partnership argues that the opponents should also be aware that

the defenders are not trying to bid constructively, that they are both

passed hands and that both had an opportunity to preempt previously.

They argue that 3S could be running from 3D doubled with length, a lead

directing bid, or a psyche.

 

The opponents argue that 3S is not a natural bid, that the defenders

had a concealed understanding and that 3S should have been alerted as

possibly lead-directional, possibly a psyche. They say that bidding in

this fashion is not common bridge knowledge or practice.

 

How would you rule? Do such bids have to be alerted?

 

Thanks

[blackshoe]

I gather you didn't like whatever answer Flader gave. :ph34r:

[straube]

I am sorry, maybe I got carried away but I got really annoyed about "giving lessons" quote.

Explaining your style which might be completely alien to your opponents is not giving lessons, talking about "general bridge knowledge" in that situation aren't lessons either. I hate this attitude - people who think their intuition and habits are expected to be treated as knowledge and explaining it are "lessons".

 

Also I didn't call him a cheat. I said what he is doing is mild form of cheating and if he continue to do so is straight up cheating. I probably should have used expression: "foul play". Even players who try to be ethical foul from time to time but deliberately doing so is borderline cheating at best. I am sorry for my selection of words though I should've be more careful and less emotional about the issue.

 

I regret the "giving lessons" quote and I didn't mean to offend those who would be surprised that 3S may not be an honest bid. "Giving lessons" however is refering to something real (to me anyway) and something I was trying to convey. This situation is a little bit different than say 3C dbl 3H which is a little bit different from 2H P 2S which is a little bit different from 3C P 3N. Vulnerability matters, how strong the opponent's auction is matters, etc. So it's not clear to me in which situations we ought to alert (if ever) and which we ought not. Flader points out that there should be no "safe psyches" but some are safer than others, right? We also don't have agreements about correcting partner's bid (I feel partner would have passed 3S even doubled) though I'm personally not raising spades myself even if playing with someone I don't know.

 

The other issue is that say we alert this particular auction (and again, how we separate this auction from others I'm not sure) and partner explains that "It could be lead directional with a fit, could be running, could be lead directional with a void, could be a psyche." I'm not at all sure that this will satisfy everyone. I'm concerned partner would be asked how likely any of these things are and that his view of this will be influenced by how well he can recall previous instances, his hand (which is obviously not fair game), the vulnerability (which is known by everyone), the strength of the auction (which is known to everyone), etc.

[the hog]

Also I didn't call him a cheat. I said what he is doing is mild form of cheating

 

Isn't someone who cheats a cheat? Hecertainly was doing NOTHING like cheating.