Opinions on random choice in the system?

[barmar]

On BLML, a long time ago, I asked about the legality of pseudo-random pseudo-psyches e.g.

• With four deuces, you "psych" 1♣ if you feel like it.
• With four treys, 1♦
• .. And so on, holding any other specified set of cards that you can remember.

Psychs would be infrequent. A benefit would be that partner would be suspicious of your bid, only when lacking all the cards in the appropriate specified set. Hence it would be a kind of controlled-psych. Of course, you would be cheating unless you disclosed this to opponents, so that they could use similar clues. Anyway, such an agreement might flout some anti-encryption rule variants.

It's not encrypted, because that means the key is only available to partner. But both opponents can also see that they're lacking all the cards of the appropriate set, so they have just as much information as partner.

[mycroft]

A "tactical bid" is a psych (that worked) made by an expert against who he considers a less-expert pair.

A "psych" is a tactical bid (that worked) made against that same expert, by who he considers a less-expert pair.

 

A systemic agreement to open random minor when intending to rebid NT is disclosable, but I don't think meets either of the above definitions, provided it is in fact disclosed. If partner starts knowing that the "random" is "weaker about 80%", that's also disclosable, and time to change the frequency :-).

[dburn]

On BLML, a long time ago, I asked about the legality of pseudo-random pseudo-psyches e.g.

• With four deuces, you "psych" 1♣ if you feel like it.
• With four treys, 1♦
• .. And so on, holding any other specified set of cards that you can remember.

Psychs would be infrequent. A benefit would be that partner would be suspicious of your bid, only when lacking all the cards in the appropriate specified set. Hence it would be a kind of controlled-psych. Of course, you would be cheating unless you disclosed this to opponents, so that they could use similar clues. Anyway, such an agreement might flout some anti-encryption rule variants.

 

Would respectfully suggest that psyching 3♥ when holding four aces is unlikely to be a successful strategy in the long (or even the relatively short) run.

[nige1]

Would respectfully suggest that psyching 3♥ when holding four aces is unlikely to be a successful strategy in the long (or even the relatively short) run.

Reminds me of an effective "psychic" misbid with four aces: Playing her first hand In Morocco, my partner didn't realize that a "1" is an "A". She passed as dealer to earn a clear top when all other pairs were defeated in games.

 

The set of cards that allow a particular psych need not be four of a kind. For example, after 1♥ (Double), you might agree that a 1♠ pseudo-psych is permitted only when you hold ♥ 2 3 4.

 

That illustrates why this method may fall foul of some encryption laws: Partner is likely to have more ♥ than either opponent, so may be better placed to determine whether you have your bid.

[wanoff]

You're all welcome to borrow my random number generator which we use to decide how to show our weak 2 over a strong club.

Add the lowest pip in each suit held and if the sum is even bid 'x'. If sum is odd bid 'x-1'.