Psychic call - or carelessness

[schulken]

Club game.

 

[hv=pc=n&s=sj43haj8dk987cj72&w=st987hqda432cak85&n=sa65h65432d6cqt93&e=skq2hkt97dqjt5c64&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=p1cp1h1npp2np3nppp]399|300|1NT alerted as sandwich, showing the unbid suits.[/hv]

 

Declarer called me after the hand to complain that he had expected more length in ♠ and ♦ to his left. As played at the table, declarer was off 1, for 2- match points from a top of 8. Dealmaster Pro hand analysis shows 3NT going down 1. On inquiry, I determined that declarer had received an accurate description of defenders' agreement. S sheepishly admitted that he had gotten some of his suits confused in arranging his cards. I ruled that the hand should be scored as played at the table, citing L75C. On further questioning by declarer, he asked if this was a psychic bid. I told him that even if it was, there was no violation of L40C.1. and 2. since he had received an accurate description and offender's partner had no more reason to be aware of the deviation than declarer. Declarer then pointed out a recent ruling he was involved with when an opponent psyched a Flannery opener which was disallowed under item 2 of the ACBL General Convention Chart. That made me pause as the Chart disallows "psyching conventional suit responses, which are less than 2NT, to natural openings." I have not adjusted the score yet, partly as I didn't have much sympathy for W raising to game given the auction but I am willing to reconsider.

 

First, is a sandwich NT a "conventional SUIT response"? Second, is a player allowed to make an honest mistake in arranging his cards and bidding based on what he believes he holds? I suspect that the answer lies with the player, i.e., level of accomplishment, history of psychic calls, age and physical condition, etc. I would appreciate the thoughts of the group.

[Benoit35]

The South hand is one badly placed black card away from 4-4 in the suits promised, and has just the right HCP strength for a Sandwich NT. Hardly a "gross mischaracterization" (isn't that the official definition of a psyche?).

[campboy]

First, is a sandwich NT a "conventional SUIT response"?

It's conventional, but neither a response nor a suit bid.

 

Second, is a player allowed to make an honest mistake in arranging his cards and bidding based on what he believes he holds?

Yes.

[bixby]

I agree with your initial ruling of no adjustment, as the case appears to be a misbid, not a misexplanation. Technically, I would say that the bid was not "sandwich" as South was a passed hand. To me, 1NT by a passed hand is simply "unusual notrump." Obviously South, as a passed hand, could not have had a real 1NT overcall. It is highly likely that the N/S agreement is that this bid shows length in the unbid suits, as was explained. So it is a case of misbid and the result stands.

 

As to whether South has violated the ACBL prohibition on "Psyching conventional suit responses, which are less than 2NT, to natural openings," the answer is no for several reasons:

 

* South's call was not a psych. A psych is a "deliberate and gross misstatement of honor strength and/or suit length." Assuming you believe South's statement that he missorted his hand, his misstatement was not deliberate.

 

* South's call was not in a suit.

 

* South's call was not a response (it was an overcall).

 

So the results stands.

[aguahombre]

I can't remember when so many wrong things have happened on the same hand.

 

1NT was in the sandwich position and bid by a passed hand. OP is in the U.S. 1NT should not have been alerted. If, it showed the hand South actually held, then it would be alertable.

 

1NT was not "just one card" off the expected array for the bid, it was 3+ cards off; I would not believe South's missorting story. If he thought he had one more spade than he had, he would have doubled 1H. He misbid, intending it to be natural.

 

If North believed his own gratuitous explanation, then something South did must have caused North to pass with one whole trick in the opponents' suits and an expected 8-card spade fit.

 

West's opening bid with 4-1-4-4 isn't "wrong", so that one doesn't count...It is just wierd.

 

East's decision to bid 2NT rather than defend 1NX is the strangest of the lawful actions at the table.

 

The only thing I agree with is no adjustment. Would need more evidence to go punitive, but I would certainly be wary of whatever North/South said in the future.

[blackshoe]

Agree with Campboy. Also, this was not a psych. A psych is a deliberate action, and this player did not deliberately misdescribe his hand; he misbid.

[bluejak]

Someone should teach East what the double card in his box is for.

[mycroft]

Well, I've had auctions that have gone 1NT-2♣; 4♥. "what's that?" "I'm guessing he just realized his diamonds are also hearts." Yep - the player was 3=7=0=3, sorted as 3=4=3♣=3♦.

 

I'd bid (and several others would) with 5-4 (either way) in the pointeds, and if he did missort his hand to the point where that's what he had, then I'd probably believe him. I'd ask enough questions to make me feel comfortable about the story, but I'm assuming the director did too.

 

North's pass seems a bit odd, though. Even on the trump lead, 2♠ should play better on the "known" crossruff than 1NT. So maybe I'd investigate that, too. Maybe South has "missorted" before?

 

Finally, I agree with bluejak :-)

[barmar]

West's opening bid with 4-1-4-4 isn't "wrong", so that one doesn't count...It is just wierd.

Doesn't seem that weird to me. Many (incl. my regular pd) open 1♣ with 4-4 minors, or they open the suit with better honor texture.

[aguahombre]

Doesn't seem that weird to me. Many (incl. my regular pd) open 1♣ with 4-4 minors, or they open the suit with better honor texture.

So do we ---but that is with balanced hands, not with 4-1-4-4. But, as I said..not relevant here.

[bluejak]

With my regular partner, as can be demonstrated by reading our notes, the correct opening with 4=1=4=4 is either 1 ♣ or 1♦. Why not? I do not see what is weird about West's opening, unless you mean that any agreement that is different from yours is weird.

[aguahombre]

With my regular partner, as can be demonstrated by reading our notes, the correct opening with 4=1=4=4 is either 1 ♣ or 1♦. Why not? I do not see what is weird about West's opening, unless you mean that any agreement that is different from yours is weird.

The one bid out of everthing else which had nothing to do with what happened at the table shouldn't be the focus. Sorry I mentioned it.

 

Edit: actually that isn't true. If 1D had been opened, South would have to claim even worse sorting than he did claim. But, still some would probably buy it.

[billw55]

More support for four color cards IMO. Then we wouldn't have to wonder about mis-sort stories.

[ColdCrayon]

With my regular partner, as can be demonstrated by reading our notes, the correct opening with 4=1=4=4 is either 1 ♣ or 1♦. Why not? I do not see what is weird about West's opening, unless you mean that any agreement that is different from yours is weird.

 

What's weird about it is this: if 1S is reached by the time the bidding returns to you, you're either going to have to reverse with equal length suits and insufficient values, bid NT with a singleton, or repeat a 4-card suit. Each one of those would have to find their way onto your CC somewhere.

 

I'm not an expert on the rules, but if I were your opponent or your partner in a pickup game, any second bid you made other than 'pass' or 'double' would give me a completely wrong picture of your hand.

[barmar]

If you have a minimum hand, so you're not planning on bidding over the opponent's 1♠ opposite a silent partner, then you might choose to make a lead-directional opening bid.

 

If partner bids ♥, you might be willing to bid 1NT with a singleton in his suit. Or maybe only if it's a singleton honor.

 

Expectations about rebids like these can inform your choice of which minor to open.

[bluejak]

What's weird about it is this: if 1S is reached by the time the bidding returns to you, you're either going to have to reverse with equal length suits and insufficient values, bid NT with a singleton, or repeat a 4-card suit. Each one of those would have to find their way onto your CC somewhere.

 

I'm not an expert on the rules, but if I were your opponent or your partner in a pickup game, any second bid you made other than 'pass' or 'double' would give me a completely wrong picture of your hand.

I have no idea to what problem you refer. If partner bids 1♠ I raise. If the opponents bid 1♠ I pass. Why on earth would I have to reverse?

 

Perhaps if you gave me an example auction I might understand, but as far as I am concerned there are no rebid difficulties whether you open 1♣ or 1♦, so why should I do one rather than the other? And which one, anyway?

[Zelandakh]

I have no idea to what problem you refer. If partner bids 1♠ I raise. If the opponents bid 1♠ I pass. Why on earth would I have to reverse?

 

Perhaps if you gave me an example auction I might understand, but as far as I am concerned there are no rebid difficulties whether you open 1♣ or 1♦, so why should I do one rather than the other? And which one, anyway?

The example (problem) auction with, say, QJxx/x/KJxx/AJxx is 1♣ - (1♠) - X - (P) when playing a weak NT, or change a ♣x to the king playing a strong NT. Hands where your natural 1♠ rebid has been taken away but you are neither happy passing 1♠X for penalties nor rebidding 1NT.

[bluejak]

I rebid 1NT with both hands. WTP?

[Zelandakh]

I rebid 1NT with both hands. WTP?

The problem is that you are either selling a 12hcp hand as 15-17 or a 15hcp hand as 12-14. Naturally you can get around this by playing a 1NT rebid here as 12-17 instead but that creates its own problems.

[bluejak]

If you check back in the thread this portion of it there was criticism of my methods, not the general methods, and saying what I had to do. I play a 1NT rebid as 13-17, thanks very much, and I see no reason to be criticised for it. I do not criticise other people's choice of system here on this forum.

 

To remind you:

 

 

With my regular partner, as can be demonstrated by reading our notes, the correct opening with 4=1=4=4 is either 1 ♣ or 1♦. Why not? I do not see what is weird about West's opening, unless you mean that any agreement that is different from yours is weird.

 

 

What's weird about it is this: if 1S is reached by the time the bidding returns to you, you're either going to have to reverse with equal length suits and insufficient values, bid NT with a singleton, or repeat a 4-card suit. Each one of those would have to find their way onto your CC somewhere.

 

I'm not an expert on the rules, but if I were your opponent or your partner in a pickup game, any second bid you made other than 'pass' or 'double' would give me a completely wrong picture of your hand.

[Zelandakh]

If you check back in the thread this portion of it there was criticism of my methods, not the general methods, and saying what I had to do. I play a 1NT rebid as 13-17, thanks very much, and I see no reason to be criticised for it. I do not criticise other people's choice of system here on this forum.

I have no issue with your methods. You stated that you had no idea what problem CC was referring to; I tried to describe it to you. Your response mentioned nothing about a wide-ranging 1NT rebid which I also gave as a potential solution, saying only that it created a different set of problems, not that these problems were intractable. Anyway, I hope you can now see why CC regards this as a problem that makes it worth opening 1♦ on this shape. In that case you have a possible 2♣ rebid available instead. As always, what works best might be dependant on other parts of your bidding system so it is probably not helpful to consider the options in isolation (especially in the IBLF section!).

[ColdCrayon]

The more I talk about bridge, the more I learn; I wouldn't take what I said as a criticism of your bidding, let alone your person. But all of the systems loosely grouped under "Standard American" or "2/1" assume the following things: if you reverse, you're promising about an ace worth's greater values than a minimum opening and a longer first suit than second, and that if you bid NT naturally, you're promising a hand no more unbalanced than 5422. A lot of people won't even bid a NT with that.

 

A bid of 1♦ allows you to make a rebid of 2♣: a bid of 1♣ may force you to either reverse or bid no trump when neither describes your hand at all. If you take away the constraints I mentioned above then you have no problem, but you'll be playing an unusual system, and you'll have to alert all over the place.

[barmar]

and that if you bid NT naturally, you're promising a hand no more unbalanced than 5422. A lot of people won't even bid a NT with that.

Lots of players are willing to make an exception if the singleton is in partner's suit, even if partner has only promised 4, especially if the singleton is an honor.

[bluejak]

The more I talk about bridge, the more I learn; I wouldn't take what I said as a criticism of your bidding, let alone your person. But all of the systems loosely grouped under "Standard American" or "2/1" assume the following things: if you reverse, you're promising about an ace worth's greater values than a minimum opening and a longer first suit than second, and that if you bid NT naturally, you're promising a hand no more unbalanced than 5422. A lot of people won't even bid a NT with that.

 

A bid of 1♦ allows you to make a rebid of 2♣: a bid of 1♣ may force you to either reverse or bid no trump when neither describes your hand at all. If you take away the constraints I mentioned above then you have no problem, but you'll be playing an unusual system, and you'll have to alert all over the place.

First of all, I never said anything [and nor did you, earlier] about Standard American or 2/1: I play a perfectly normal system that is neither.

 

Second, I believe your presumption as to what is normal and what is weird is just wrong.

 

Third, I do not agree that I have to reverse with insufficient values: in fact I never reverse with 4-4, since a reverse guarantees five in the first suit.

 

Fourth, when I rebid no-trumps it is usually a suitable hand: exceptions are very rare and not based on a 4-4 in the minors problem, more likely to be when opponents bid one of my suits, which does tend to complicate rebids.

 

Fifth, none of my normal rebids are alertable, so sue me.

 

Sixth, when you make a system decision it is based on a number of relevant factors: the biggest mistake that people make is to assume one factor is paramount and ignore the rest. With respect that is what you have done with 4-4 in the minors. There are some hands on which a 1♣ opening is preferable, and it is not weird, just an informed decision.