3S forcing 3NT

[mr1303]

Quick one. EBU land, but if different elsewhere still interested.

 

Is it legal to play something like this by agreement

 

2NT (20-22) 3NT (slam try both minors)

4C 4NT (100% sign off)

[helene_t]

Why not? If 4♣ denies a suitable hand it is sensible. Otherwise it isn't sensible but it is not ilegal to have silly agreement.

 

Maybe the problem is that 4NT means "oops I forgot, I meant 3NT as to play!" ?

[RMB1]

Quick one. EBU land, but if different elsewhere still interested.

 

Is it legal to play something like this by agreement

 

2NT (20-22) 3NT (slam try both minors)

4C 4NT (100% sign off)

 

If that is your agreement about 4NT then 3NT should be more accurately described as "slam try both minors OR to play 4NT (for whatever reason)".

 

I am not sure that having such an agreement will necessarily save you from the constraints of having forgotten that 3NT was artificial and the UI when it is alerted.

[MickyB]

I am not sure that having such an agreement will necessarily save you from the constraints of having forgotten that 3NT was artificial and the UI when it is alerted.

 

This surprises me. If the auction happened behind screens, I'd say it's roughly 100% that you'd realise what had happened when partner bid 4C. Are you really supposed to proceed under the assumption that partner has a 2236 19-count or similar? Or that partner has found another ace and is making a slam-try?

[Cyberyeti]

Also depends what the other bids mean, if 4♣=prefer clubs to diamonds but not wildly enthused but 4♥ is a more enthusiastic version of the same, then it's entirely sensible to play 4N as a signoff.

[gartinmale]

This surprises me. If the auction happened behind screens, I'd say it's roughly 100% that you'd realise what had happened when partner bid 4C. Are you really supposed to proceed under the assumption that partner has a 2236 19-count or similar? Or that partner has found another ace and is making a slam-try?

 

Question along these lines (brought up by Justin Lall in a similar thread): suppose our agreements are that over 1NT, 2♦, 2♥ and 2♠ are natural and non-forcing. I forget this agreement and think we are playing transfers. I pick up a hand with five hearts. Partner opens 1NT, I bid 2♦, and partner passes. Shouldn't my first thought be "Oh, that idiot psyched a 1NT bid with long diamonds", not "Of course, I've forgotten the system"?

 

In this auction maybe it's impossible to believe partner has psyched (he wouldn't run until he was doubled). But how far do we take the 'behind screens' thing? What if partner says "3NT is to play" and then bids 4♣?

 

I guess my point is that I think catering to psyches should be mandated before 'waking up'. The last time partner had a misunderstanding and I thought it was clear from the auction at about the 4-level I drove him all the way to 7♠x anyway. At teams. Solves the misunderstanding problem pretty quick, if not the partnership harmony problem.

[lalldonn]

In this auction maybe it's impossible to believe partner has psyched (he wouldn't run until he was doubled). But how far do we take the 'behind screens' thing? What if partner says "3NT is to play" and then bids 4♣?

You shouldn't think that way since if partner made that comment it would also be UI that you would have to ignore. "Behind screens" is the perfect analogy, since it describes what you would think if you heard nothing.

[Trinidad]

I guess my point is that I think catering to psyches should be mandated before 'waking up'.

I don't know where you play, but where I play and have played real psyches are between extremely rare and non-existent.

 

I have played with one partner for seven years. In these seven years he has never, ever psyched. There have been occasions where he has forgotten a convention. There have been occasions (but much less :) ) when I have forgotten a convention. And there have been occasions where it turned out that we didn't have an agreement.

 

Why should I assume a scenario where partner psyched when I know that this scenario is unrealistic? If we would not have alerts and explanations, I would definitely conclude we have a misunderstanding rather than a psyche.

 

So, my order of priorities is:

Could this strange bid possibly have any meaning that is consistent with the start of the auction?

If so, I will assume partner meant to convey that meaning.

If not, then we have a misunderstanding. Psyches are not in my field of view.

 

Rik

[gartinmale]

You shouldn't think that way since if partner made that comment it would also be UI that you would have to ignore. "Behind screens" is the perfect analogy, since it describes what you would think if you heard nothing.

 

I don't think that way. I try to handle these things as if it were behind screens, but if I perceive I have more than one logical alternative to a call I err heavily on the side of making sure my side gets a ridiculously bad result, because I think that is the most positive EV in the long run with respect to 'number of times my partnerships forget their conventions', and I think when we forget our conventions we should be punished. The game is not fun if you ever have to think to yourself "We have an agreement, but I have forgotten / don't remember what it is", and it's not fun when your opponents have this happen.

 

I don't see why we would allow anyone to wake up in an auction that could be a psych as long as there is a nonzero percent chance his or her partner has psyched.

 

To anyone who says "My partner never psyches, he/she has promised me he won't, etc:" I have it from Mike Flader that that is not a legal agreement or discussion, just like you can't promise you won't psych against beginners.

 

For full disclosure on my part: the number of times my partners have psyched in the last, oh, 300 sessions I've played: 0.

 

(Edit: ACBL-land, not sure about other jurisdictions obviously).

 

(Second edit: read this before your post Rik; no aggression intended towards you and your partner, I'm just trying to play a hard line on this because I'm curious).

[gartinmale]

To give an example hand for the one above: if you pick up

 

x

Jxxxx

QTxxx

xx

 

and partner opens 1NT (15-17), you bid 2♦ (forgetting it is natural), partner passes it, and the opponents come into the auction in spades, I think you should feel ethically compelled to consider sacrificing - and possibly elect to do so, especially if you think it is worse than sitting - over basically any number of spades they bid. After all, partner doesn't have a 15-17 NT, he has a hand that was willing to play 2♦ opposite an unlimited hand. Whether partner has ever psyched before or not, surely it's not 100% that this is NOT a time he has chosen to do so.

[lalldonn]

To anyone who says "My partner never psyches, he/she has promised me he won't, etc:" I have it from Mike Flader that that is not a legal agreement or discussion, just like you can't promise you won't psych against beginners.

That is obviously untrue, whether or not Mike Flader says it is, any more than if your partner has promised they won't open a weak two bid with a side four-card major. I mean I'm just loling at that statement, sorry. It's like saying you can't agree to always have your bid.

 

As for the rest of what you say, only if killing yourself in the auction is logical alternative suggested by the UI, or something close to that. LOGICAL alternative, not BARELY CONCEIVABLE WITHIN THE REALM OF THE UNIVERSE alternative.

[gartinmale]

I mean, I don't care if you're laughing or not. According to the authorities, you can't discuss that psyches are more likely white on red than red on white either, even though we'd probably agree that's GBK. I don't think this hush-hush relationship with the word 'psyche' is any good, I think it's designed for the protection of the majority of the ACBL who don't want to deal with the possibility of someone ever psyching against them, even though it would likely be a compliment. FWIW I'm not trying to invoke Mike Flader as an "I'm right, you're wrong" name, I'm just trying to explain what I know about this in the context of the ACBL.

 

I'll try to put what I'm saying on more personal and less argumentative terms: if I sit down with Stolid McNeverpsyches, who always has his bid, and I'm in an auction where it's totally obvious that either one of us has forgotten our agreements or Stolid has psyched, and I think that assuming he has psyched will get me a worse score, I am going to assume it. And if that gets me a better score and gets adjusted, I'm not going to argue with it. I wouldn't fault anyone for taking a less hard line, the reason I take it is precisely because the ACBL won't discuss anything of this except to say "Oh, no, you can't talk about these things with anyone!" Bull - I try to play ethically at all times, and sometimes that includes taking into account the possibility that partner doesn't in fact have his bid.

 

That is obviously untrue, whether or not Mike Flader says it is, any more than if your partner has promised they won't open a weak two bid with a side four-card major. I mean I'm just loling at that statement, sorry. It's like saying you can't agree to always have your bid.

[gartinmale]

That is obviously untrue, whether or not Mike Flader says it is, any more than if your partner has promised they won't open a weak two bid with a side four-card major. I mean I'm just loling at that statement, sorry. It's like saying you can't agree to always have your bid.

 

As for the rest of what you say, only if killing yourself in the auction is logical alternative suggested by the UI, or something close to that. LOGICAL alternative, not BARELY CONCEIVABLE WITHIN THE REALM OF THE UNIVERSE alternative.

 

I'm pretty sure I wrote 'logical', not something in all caps, but I can check...

 

Edit: although my partners probably would say I am on another planet, so the wording is apt :)

[lalldonn]

If it wasn't too many characters, my next BBO handle would be Stolid McNeverpsyches :)

[PhilKing]

Option 1:

 

Have a secret agreement that over a cue of 4M partner will now bid RKCB ...

 

Option 2:

 

Describe 3NT as either both minors or a balanced 4-10

 

Option 3:

 

Give up playing 3NT for the minors

 

;) :ph34r:

[gartinmale]

FYI, posted a poll on bridgewinners using a hand close to the one in my example. Not trying to make any sort of point by bringing it back here, and certainly don't expect that sacrificing will get much of the vote. Genuinely curious to see what people think.

[JLOGIC]

Surely you are allowed to use brige knowledge to know both which psyches/deviations are more likely, and which forgets are more likely. It is not a secret agreement that if I am down 60 I am more likely to psyche, or if I am in third seat w/r I am more likely to psyche than in first seat r/w, that is general bridge knowledge as well as logic.

 

Likewise, some auctions are surely more accident or forget prone than others. 2N p 3N artificial is a good example.

[gnasher]

Logical alternatives have to be logical in the context of the authorised information. After 2NT-3NT;4♣, it is AI that partner bid 4♣. If your agreed methods are that 2NT-3NT is artificial, and you temporarily forgot, partner's 4♣ bid could be expected to remind you of this agreement without any assistance from UI. In a situation where you would have remembered the system through authorised information, it's not a logical alternative to assume that partner has psyched. The same applies to gartinmale's example.

 

This is different from the situation where you make a bid 3NT which is systemically natural, and partner makes a non-systemic alert before bidding 4♣.

 

I don't think that way. I try to handle these things as if it were behind screens, but if I perceive I have more than one logical alternative to a call I err heavily on the side of making sure my side gets a ridiculously bad result, because I think that is the most positive EV in the long run with respect to 'number of times my partnerships forget their conventions', and I think when we forget our conventions we should be punished.

Arguably that's against the rules of most jurisdictions. In the ACBL, for example, you're "expected to play each hand to win at all times".

[barmar]

You can't have agreements regarding psyches, because the definition of a psyche is that it's a deviation from your agreements.

[aguahombre]

You can't have agreements regarding psyches, because the definition of a psyche is that it's a deviation from your agreements.

Not true. Pard/spouse and I have clear agreements regarding psyches:

 

1--We probably won't recognize it when partner does it.

2--We don't like to do it very much.

3--When we do, it will backfire.

[Finch]

I have it from Mike Flader that that is not a legal agreement or discussion, just like you can't promise you won't psych against beginners.

 

 

That is obviously untrue, whether or not Mike Flader says it is, any more than if your partner has promised they won't open a weak two bid with a side four-card major. I mean I'm just loling at that statement, sorry. It's like saying you can't agree to always have your bid.As for the rest of what you say, only if killing yourself in the auction is logical alternative suggested by the UI, or something close to that. LOGICAL alternative, not BARELY CONCEIVABLE WITHIN THE REALM OF THE UNIVERSE alternative.

 

The point is that a psyche is, by definition, a violation of partnership agreement. So to say you have "an agreement not to psyche" is logically completely meaningless.

You may know from partnership experience that your partnership has never psyched yet, but that's not the same thing. It does however affect your LAs in some of these UI positions.

[gartinmale]

Arguably that's against the rules of most jurisdictions. In the ACBL, for example, you're "expected to play each hand to win at all times".

 

Well, yeah, but only when it doesn't come up against ethics, right? Otherwise, people would just ignore all the ethical trapping and then let the director sort every hand out (I know PPs are supposed to deal with this idea, but I have never seen a PP given out in my district, even though I have seen (different) people swear repeatedly and offensively at their partners and teammates, accuse my teammates of cheating, challenge my teammates to a physical fight, throw a chair, and throw their convention card and pens across the room towards other tables). I have seen them given out at nationals, but sadly nationals are only three times a year.

 

So in the rare but not once-in-a-blue-moon situations where I think ethics comes into it, I move the ethics part above the "play to win" part. My opponents might get a 100% board instead of an 80% board; it's worth it for me to be able to sleep at night and to deter similar situations that keep me from playing to win at all times from happening in the future.

 

I'm willing to talk about this more, because I think there's a fine line. I've also noticed I play better when I concentrate really hard on every hand, but that sometimes leaves me with an unpleasant headache. Actually (not being sarcastic) curious how that goes with "expected to play to win", too. My guess is that I'm supposed to get better enough at bridge that I can do the concentrating without the headache at the end of it.

[aguahombre]

Two points in general, not specific to this case:

 

I find, MartinMale, that the headaches come from concentrating on trying to concentrate.

 

Playing to win is required; it implies playing to win within the rules. If you consider what you are doing while trying to be ethical to be "dumping", you are not complying with the rules. However, if you proceed to a ridiculous result because you are following AI and ignoring UI, that (IMO) is not deliberately dumping.

 

Maybe, just maybe, what you think u have in the form of UI is all wrong ---and following your real agreements to the logical conclusion will turn out to be playing winning Bridge on the given hand.

[JLOGIC]

edit: whatever

[blackshoe]

My guess is that I'm supposed to get better enough at bridge that I can do the concentrating without the headache at the end of it.

If you keep at it, the headaches do eventually go away.