Your opponents are psyching.

[the hog]

I started playing bridge in the late 50's and didn't play from 2000-2010. There was a section on the card that mentioned pysch frequency . I see that is no longer there. If the psycher's partner knows that his partner psyches regularly, shouldn't the opponents have that information?

 

"Excessive Psychic Bidding —

 

When three or more psychic When three or more psychic initial actions by members of a partnership have been reported in any one session and are called to the attention of the Director, the Director should investigate the possibility that excessive psyching is taking place. A presumption of inappropriate behavior exists, and it is up to the players to demonstrate that they were not just horsing around. It is up to them to show that they happened, this once, to pick up a string of hands unusually appropriate for psychs.

 

The continued use of undisciplined psychic bids tends to create partnership understandings that are implied from partnership experience."

 

If a player psychs, the opponents should report the psych. It's then the director's decision.

 

Silly comment. Psyching is part of the game. "A presumption of inappropriate behavior exists." Codswallop! Who says they psyche regularly?

Anyway, I pass. I would suggest 4S is not natural.

[PhilKing]

I double 3♦.

[Lord Molyb]

I double 3♦.

Then they will call the director on you.

[PhilKing]

Then they will call the director on you.

 

And now I bid 4♠. ;) :ph34r:

[glen]

Then they will call the director on you.

... Calling director on the middle of this board ... I have no words.

this double could produce words

[PetteriLem]

"After a player makes an insufficient bid (law 27) (of lesser rank than the last bid at the table), his LHO first receives the option to accept it, in which case no penalty is assessed. If rejected, the offender may replace the bid with a higher legal and natural bid in the same denomination without penalty..." from wikipedia Bridge law. I am very curious about the natural part, which seems to imply that if I bid 1♠ now, I can possibly replace it with another spade call with natural meaning guaranteed by the law. Have I misunderstood something?

[Rossoneri]

"After a player makes an insufficient bid (law 27) (of lesser rank than the last bid at the table), his LHO first receives the option to accept it, in which case no penalty is assessed. If rejected, the offender may replace the bid with a higher legal and natural bid in the same denomination without penalty..." from wikipedia Bridge law. I am very curious about the natural part, which seems to imply that if I bid 1♠ now, I can possibly replace it with another spade call with natural meaning guaranteed by the law. Have I misunderstood something?

 

Sounds like Law 23 will come out now.

[blackshoe]

Law 27:

A. Insufficient Bid Accepted

1. Any insufficient bid may be accepted (treated as legal) at the option of offender’s LHO. It is accepted if that player calls.

2. If a player makes an insufficient bid out of rotation, Law 31 applies.

B. Insufficient Bid Not Accepted

If an insufficient bid in rotation is not accepted (see A above), it must be corrected by the substitution of a legal call (but see B3 below). Then:

1. (a) if the insufficient bid is corrected by the lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination and in the Director’s opinion both the insufficient bid and the substituted bid are incontrovertibly not artificial, the auction proceeds without further rectification. Law 16D does not apply, but see D below.

(b) if, except as in (a) above, the insufficient bid is corrected with a legal call that in the Director’s opinion has the same meaning* as or a more precise meaning* than the insufficient bid (such meaning being fully contained within the possible meanings of the insufficient bid), the auction proceeds without further rectification, but see D below.

 

2. Except as provided in B1 above, if the insufficient bid is corrected by a sufficient bid or by a pass, the offender’s partner must pass whenever it is his turn to call. The lead restrictions in Law 26 may apply, and see Law 23.

3. Except as provided in B1(b) above, if the offender attempts to substitute a double or a redouble for his insufficient bid, the attempted call is canceled. The offender must replace it as the foregoing allows and his partner must then pass whenever it is his turn to call. The lead restrictions in Law 26 may apply, and see Law 23.

4. If the offender attempts to replace the one insufficient bid with another insufficient bid, the Director rules as in B3 above if the LHO does not accept the substituted insufficient bid as A above allows.

C. Premature Replacement

If the offender replaces his insufficient bid before the Director has ruled on rectification, unless the insufficient bid is accepted as A above allows, the substitution stands. The Director applies the relevant foregoing section to the substitution.

D. Non-offending Side Damaged

If following the application of B1 above, the Director judges at the end of the play that without assistance gained through the infraction the outcome of the board could well have been different and in consequence the non-offending side is damaged (see Law 12B1), he shall award an adjusted score. In his adjustment he should seek to recover as nearly as possible the probable outcome of the board had the insufficient bid not occurred.

 

* The meaning of (information available from) a call is the knowledge of what it shows and what it excludes.

Law 23: Whenever, in the opinion of the Director, an offender could have been aware at the time of his irregularity that this could well damage the non-offending side, the Director shall require the auction and play to continue (if not completed). When the play has been completed, the Director awards an adjusted score if he considers the offending side has gained an advantage through the irregularity*.

 

* As, for example, by partner’s enforced pass.

Wikipedia got it wrong: in order for there to be no further rectification, the insufficient bid must be replaced by the minimum sufficient bid in the same denomination, and both must be "incontrovertibly not artificial" (Law 27B1(a)). I do not think Law 23 would apply in such case. If, however, offender substitutes a higher bid in the same denomination (e.g., 3 or 4♠ for an insufficient 1♠), offender's partner will have to pass for the rest of the auction (Law 27B2), so Law 23 might well apply.

[PhilKing]

zzzzzzzzzzz

[blackshoe]

Quit snoring! You woke me up!

[Zelandakh]

First of all, the topic said the opponents were psyching. You shouldn't be penalized for their actions.

This and the other posts in the series represents one of the worst attitudes towards bridge I have heard in a long time. If I make a good (or lucky) call or play, why should you not be "penalised" for it? Say I open 4♠ on a hand where everyone else is passing and you misguess for a bottom. Are you going to go cryinf to the TD there too? How about if I falsecard and you go wrong? Awwwww, poor poor you, being penalised for the horrible actions of your opponents. *sob* Grow up and try to find a pair. Psyching is part of the game. If you get fixed, congratulate them. Perhaps they will try it again and next time it will go badly for them. If you think the TD will award you an Ave+ then you are either sadly mistaken, or playing in some very bad games.