An unusual auction (ACBL)

[barmar]

If it occurs fairly frequently, doesn't that make it an implicit agreement, and therefore disclosable?

I think he meant frequently in general, not frequently in any particular partnership.

[barmar]

Right, I agree that they were trying to say the agreement was destructive. It was just weird to talk about psyches.

My impression is that 99% of bridge players don't really understand the technical definition of psyches. This includes most TDs, even the ones who respond to questions like this at ACBL HQ.

 

Despite the definition in the Laws, it's almost universally understood to mean a bid that deviates significantly from what the opponents are likely to expect, rather than deviating from the the pair's agreements.

[jeffford76]

... this problem as "can one in admittedly desperate circumstances bid stayman without a 4cM or inv values, or anything a LOL would consider a good reason to bid stayman?", given the ACBL's regulatory morass.

 

This was indeed my reason for posting. I didn't and don't have any issue with the pass of 2♣ as I had previously told Brian in private correspondence.

 

In the ACBL I don't think it's legal to have the agreement that asking bids can be made with any hand. In particular, I don't think it's legal to have the agreement to use an asking bid to try to sow confusion in an auction where you know the hand belongs to the opponents. This is because of the prohibition on "destructive" conventions, which admittedly isn't a very clear description of what is and isn't allowed. All I can go by is previous conversations and correspondence with ACBL tournament directors.

 

If this conclusion is true, then bidding 2♣ with the hand in the OP is either using an illegal convention if it is part of the partnership agreements, or it is an illegal psyche if it is not.

 

It is a completely separate question whether these regulations are sensible. I don't think they are. I also think they are obscure enough that it is very easy to run afoul of them without realizing it or intending to.

[mycroft]

I disagree that this meets the limits for "agreements whose primary purpose is to destroy the opponents' methods" - the longhand for "illegally destructive convention" (and much more accurate and limiting). Any of these calls. If I can (and I can) play Psycho-Suction over a strong club at all levels (I either have the suit I bid, or the two above it), without it being considered "primarily designed to destroy" the strong club, I think that trying to play a suit that may, or may not, go for 4 digits over letting 1NT get doubled which *will* go for 4 digits, and will also guarantee that our runout gets doubled for > game as well is not only destructive, but highly constructive.

 

Confusing? yes. Potentially a disclosure issue? Certainly. If it were a "standard" auction, people would be bringing up "it's just bridge" that doing something rather than meekly handing out 1100+ is a good idea, and "why should we have to teach the opponents basic bridge?" Because it is basic bridge - if you play a weak NT, it's elementary that when you know you're going for your life, and there's a possibility of saving something, you take that possibility. Note that in this case, as in the other case, I don't think that that's an appropriate way of avoiding disclosure.

[blackshoe]

"Conventions and/or agreements..." What's the difference between a convention and an agreement?

 

"whose primary purpose…" The primary purpose of Stayman is to find a possible major suit contract.

 

"is to destroy the opponents' methods." I have no idea what this means. If I'm supposed to take it literally, why aren't all preempts illegal? If I'm not supposed to take it literally, how am I supposed to take it?

 

I would be tempted to quit bridge altogether until the ACBL gets its act together on laws and regulations, except that I'm about 99% sure it'll never happen. :angry: :( :(

[jeffford76]

If I'm supposed to take it literally, why aren't all preempts illegal?

 

This was one of the questions I asked in my previous correspondence with Rick Beye about playing Ogust as systemically on both good and bad hands. Essentially I was told that I was good enough to know the difference (actually, amusingly, that I "had enough masterpoints" to know the difference), and since I was just trying to cause trouble he was done answering my questions.

[blackshoe]

<Carefully moves the "Rick Beye" token into the Idiot category>

[jeffford76]

<Carefully moves the "Rick Beye" token into the Idiot category>

 

Just for the record, I don't think this is true. If you are answering emails with the expectation that you know the right answers and that people are asking for your advice, it's hard to get into the mindset necessary for a more prolonged conversation. That doesn't mean it's not frustrating from the other end.

[GreenMan]

FWIW I've been to many tournaments where Rick Beye was directing, and he generally impressed me as one of the sharper tools in the drawer.

[blackshoe]

Okay, he's not an idiot. But he was definitely too dismissive of player concerns in the case cited.

[barmar]

"is to destroy the opponents' methods." I have no idea what this means. If I'm supposed to take it literally, why aren't all preempts illegal? If I'm not supposed to take it literally, how am I supposed to take it?

Normal preempts are not primarily destructive, they are mostly descriptive of the player's hand. They often allow your side to find profitable sacrifices. Yes, they make things more difficult for the opponents, but so does most competitive bidding.

 

Very aggressive preempts, like weak 2 with 4-card suits, might be considered primarily destructive.

[mycroft]

I continue to say that it has been ruled that both Psycho Suction and Wonder bids ("this suit or takeout of this suit") are *not considered* to have a "primary purpose to destroy the opponents' methods" over a strong club.

 

Apples and Oranges, of course, and we have to deal with the "this is okay and this isn't" worldview, but until explained to me otherwise, that's the benchmark I'm going to use when determining DISALLOWED, 1 (note that the aggressive preempts, at least at the 2 level, are covered in a specific other rule; so they don't consider them "DISALLOWED, 1" territory).

[jeffford76]

I continue to say that it has been ruled that both Psycho Suction and Wonder bids ("this suit or takeout of this suit") are *not considered* to have a "primary purpose to destroy the opponents' methods" over a strong club.

 

Ruled by who? That is my primary frustration with the ACBL rules as they stand. It is impossible for an ordinary player to get an official answer on whether something is legal or not. And it is impossible for a club-level director too. I don't know whether there's an official process for those who work at tournaments.

[aguahombre]

Normal preempts are not primarily destructive, they are mostly descriptive of the player's hand. They often allow your side to find profitable sacrifices. Yes, they make things more difficult for the opponents, but so does most competitive bidding.

I agree with those who won't go anywhere near calling natural preemptive bids a destructive method subject to prohibition. But, I doubt we can define "normal preempts" either. A significant number of experts and/or forum members ---in their style and in their comments --- clearly believe their preempts are primarily designed to destroy. Partner's participation in further competition is not very high on the priorities of these undisciplined preemptors. In fact, it seems just as likely they will be taking further action themselves as that they welcome partner into it.

[bixby]

This was indeed my reason for posting. I didn't and don't have any issue with the pass of 2♣ as I had previously told Brian in private correspondence.

 

In the ACBL I don't think it's legal to have the agreement that asking bids can be made with any hand. In particular, I don't think it's legal to have the agreement to use an asking bid to try to sow confusion in an auction where you know the hand belongs to the opponents.

 

What is the rationale for this? Opposite a 1NT opener, everyone accepts that a 2♦ or 2♥ transfer can be made with a hand of any strength -- weak hands make those bids all the time. I think just about everyone accepts that 2♣ Stayman might be bid on a very weak 4-4-4-1 hand, although it doesn't come up as often. So what would be the rationale for not allowing an asking 2NT response to a weak two bid to be made with a hand of any strength?

[blackshoe]

Ruled by who? That is my primary frustration with the ACBL rules as they stand. It is impossible for an ordinary player to get an official answer on whether something is legal or not. And it is impossible for a club-level director too. I don't know whether there's an official process for those who work at tournaments.

I do know that the ACBL publishes, or at least used to publish, a newsletter for their employee TDs in which such things are (were?) discussed. When I asked if I could get access to this newsletter, for purposes of seeing these discussions I was told no, because there are other things in there that the ACBL considers proprietary.

[GreenMan]

What is the rationale for this? Opposite a 1NT opener, everyone accepts that a 2♦ or 2♥ transfer can be made with a hand of any strength -- weak hands make those bids all the time. I think just about everyone accepts that 2♣ Stayman might be bid on a very weak 4-4-4-1 hand, although it doesn't come up as often. So what would be the rationale for not allowing an asking 2NT response to a weak two bid to be made with a hand of any strength?

 

The first two involve attempts to improve the contract (by changing the strain). Psych-Ogust does not.

[GreenMan]

Also, pre-empts are obstructive, not destructive.

[jeffford76]

Also, pre-empts are obstructive, not destructive.

 

I'm pretty sure the main difference between whether a convention is obstructive or destructive is whether you ask the person who wants to play it, or the person who doesn't want it played against them.

[trevahound]

The first two involve attempts to improve the contract (by changing the strain). Psych-Ogust does not.

 

Both are attempts to improve the contract. You're not bidding psyche-ogust hoping to worsen the final contract. And psyche-3nt is perfectly legal (3m - (p) - 3nt - (fidget, fidget, start asking questions about the 3nt call)).

 

I agree with Jeff on the primary difference (below) (above).

[campboy]

Both are attempts to improve the contract. You're not bidding psyche-ogust hoping to worsen the final contract. And psyche-3nt is perfectly legal (3m - (p) - 3nt - (fidget, fidget, start asking questions about the 3nt call)).

Well, in some sense you are. When you transfer to hearts, you're doing it because you'd rather play in 2♥ than 1NT; it's constructive. When you raise a pre-empt (by whatever method) you're not doing it because you'd rather play in 3♠ than 2♠, you're doing it because you doubt you'll be allowed to play in 2♠, so you might as well take some space away from the opponents. It's primarily obstructive.

 

Psyche-Ogust is different from a normal raise because it works a lot better if opponents aren't expecting that you might have a weak hand. "Our chief weapon is surprise... surprise and fear... Our two weapons are fear and surprise... and ruthless efficiency..."

[blackshoe]

Psychs always work better if the opponents don't expect you to hold the hand you have. Isn't that the whole point to psyching?

[RMB1]

Psychs always work better if the opponents don't expect you to hold the hand you have. Isn't that the whole point to psyching?

 

Our experience is that pairs who bid 2NT-with-less-than-game-invitational-values have an understanding that they may do so, so it is not a psyche, it is an agreement. If it is not disclosed properly, it is a concealled agreement. If opponents expect 2NT to be game-invitational-values, then alerting/explanation should dispel this expectation.

[campboy]

Psychs always work better if the opponents don't expect you to hold the hand you have. Isn't that the whole point to psyching?

I was using "psyche-ogust" in the same way as previous posters: shorthand for the agreement that you can bid Ogust with a very weak hand. If it was an actual psyche then it wouldn't matter how destructive it was.

[blackshoe]

If it's an agreement, and not a psych, then yeah it should be disclosed IAW RA procedures. What it's not is an illegal psych, because it's not a psych. But I guess I'm late to the party, so I'll just shut up now. B-)