Am I forced to psych?

[hrothgar]

The Director tells us to try and play the board, but if the auction is different then the board will be cancelled. I don't know the new pair, which means that they will be considerably weaker than my friends, and they play a penalty double of a strong notrump.

 

Is it acceptable for me to pass this time in third seat, with my 1-point hand, causing the board to be cancelled?

 

I don't think that you get to vary your methods based on the opponent's choice of defense...

[campboy]

Recently on a bridge winners post a Director was called to the table when South opened at North's turn to bid. He rotated the board 180 degrees and left. It was a team match where the board had not been played at the other table yet and everyone laughed and carried on.

I think he should have redealt the board completely instead, to avoid "South could have known" issues.

[pran]

I agree with the first part of this, but that parenthetical is irrelevant, since a psych is not a matter of agreement.

 

Did you happen to read my previous post where I commented a similar assertion:

 

Quite true, but completely irrelevant.

 

A psyche must be alerted and explained according to the agreement/understanding relevant to the psyche as it is made as if it were genuine and not a psyche.

 

(Which of course means that the psyche must be repeated exactly as it was made originally.)

[Vampyr]

(The Laws of Bridge include no provisions for varying your agreements according to who are your opponents unless they have essentially different agreements/understandings.)

 

It seems that this is a matter of regulation; the EBU permits this.

 

The Law says "differs in any way". Either a more specific meaning or a less specific meaning would costitute such a difference. Your suggestion would be better, of course.

 

Very true.

 

No it isn't. The law says you must repeat your calls from the original auction, so failing to do so is an infraction.

 

OK, when I posted I didn't have my Lawbook to hand.

 

There's another law that says you're not allowed to violate a law intentionally, even if you're willing to pay the penalty.

 

Yes, I know, but I thought... well, it's pretty convoluted what I thought, so it is irrelevant.

 

The correct question to ask is not "Are you pair X?" but rather, "What is your pair number?" If you ask "Are you pair X" the opps will almost always say yes even when it is not correct. But if you ask "What is your pair number?" you are much more likely to get the correct answer.

 

This is true. My regular partner always says "yes". He is making progress, though, with answering "I don't know".

 

In my experience TD's exercise discretion in the spirit of the game when needed, even when they shouldn't. Any legitimate reason to throw the board out will be considered and in some events I've had a ruling of "shuffle and deal". It would be nice if that kind of discretion was codified in the laws.

 

Recently on a bridge winners post a Director was called to the table when South opened at North's turn to bid. He rotated the board 180 degrees and left. It was a team match where the board had not been played at the other table yet and everyone laughed and carried on.

 

But this is a pairs game, and there may well be other sections playing, besides the fact that even in just one section it is a bit unfair on all of the other pairs since this one board will not match the hand records.

[szgyula]

I honestly do not see the point. Open 1NT (psych), wait for the bid and claim that it has a different meaning. Board cancelled, end of story.16A2 explicitly states that "Players may also take account of their estimate of their own score, of the traits of their opponents...". Thus, the 1NT itself is different.

 

The TD just made a shortcut, which is de jure wrong but arrives at the same outcome faster.

[pran]

I honestly do not see the point. Open 1NT (psych), wait for the bid and claim that it has a different meaning. Board cancelled, end of story.16A2 explicitly states that "Players may also take account of their estimate of their own score, of the traits of their opponents...". Thus, the 1NT itself is different.

 

The TD just made a shortcut, which is de jure wrong but arrives at the same outcome faster.

A player who deliberately changes his call in the second auction is "at fault" for this auction to be cancelled and TD having to award an artificial adjusted score. So he shall receive A-.

 

The fact that he was not at fault for the incorrectly seated opponents in the first auction is immaterial in this respect.

 

(He will of course be off the hook if his opponents in the second auction do not make exactly the same calls as his opponents in the first auction did.)

[paulg]

I don't think that you get to vary your methods based on the opponent's choice of defense...

True, but of course a psych is not a method. I believe we all vary our psychs based on our opponents and their methods. Why should this be different here (except because the Law says so)?

[pran]

True, but of course a psych is not a method. I believe we all vary our psychs based on our opponents and their methods. Why should this be different here (except because the Law says so)?

The reason why the Laws say so is that the board is considered playable if, and only if the auction is repeated unchanged (to the smallest detail) with the correct players at the table.

 

If a player meets a different (however minute) auction on the second "try" the board is spoiled.

[gnasher]

Taken literally, it's a nonsensical rule. The set of hands on which one player will take a given action is different from the set of hands on which any other player will take the same action. For any sequence containing at least one call from each side, the meaning of the sequence will differ at least slightly. It would be better if the rule said "differs significantly" rather than "differs in any way".

[pran]

Taken literally, it's a nonsensical rule. The set of hands on which one player will take a given action is different from the set of hands on which any other player will take the same action. For any sequence containing at least one call from each side, the meaning of the sequence will differ at least slightly. It would be better if the rule said "differs significantly" rather than "differs in any way".

As it comes to my mind there are two places where the laws use the term "differs". The other one is Law 87 on fouled boards.

 

Neither law offers the director any option to judge if a difference is significant, and that is the way it must be. It is impossible to rule in advance what difference is insignificant.

 

The story told by the three of Clubs in "Right through the pack" shows how 3NT was set because South held ♣A 9 7 2 and West held ♣J 10 6 3, while it would have been won had the ♣2 been in West and ♣3 been in South.

[hrothgar]

True, but of course a psych is not a method. I believe we all vary our psychs based on our opponents and their methods. Why should this be different here (except because the Law says so)?

 

I have long asserted that psyches can and should be described systemically.

 

Bridge players back in the 1930s didn't have concepts like mixed strategies available to them.

The lacked the basic vocabulary to describe what they were doing, so they adopted the construct of a psyche.

 

I see no reason why we should limit ourselves in the same manner.

[blackshoe]

I have enough trouble remembering my systemic agreements as it is. I will not be saddled with remembering and describing all the possible psychs my partnership might make. Not to mention deviations.

[barmar]

I've always interpreted the phrase "If any call differs in any way" to refer just to the calls; i.e. if you see the same bidding cards on the table, the auctions are the same and the hand proceeds.

 

I suppose the qualifier "in any way" is what makes people think this refers to the meanings as well -- they wouldn't need to say that if they just meant the literal calls. But in other laws where the meaning of calls is relevant (e.g. rectifying an insufficient bid) the law is explicit about it.

 

What if a player forgets to use the Stop card in one of the auctions -- would you throw out the board?

[pran]

I've always interpreted the phrase "If any call differs in any way" to refer just to the calls; i.e. if you see the same bidding cards on the table, the auctions are the same and the hand proceeds.

 

I suppose the qualifier "in any way" is what makes people think this refers to the meanings as well -- they wouldn't need to say that if they just meant the literal calls. But in other laws where the meaning of calls is relevant (e.g. rectifying an insufficient bid) the law is explicit about it.

 

What if a player forgets to use the Stop card in one of the auctions -- would you throw out the board?

Probably not.

 

But there might be a more serious situation if his partner alerted one time and not the other.

[mycroft]

I've always interpreted the phrase "If any call differs in any way" to refer just to the calls; i.e. if you see the same bidding cards on the table, the auctions are the same and the hand proceeds.

I disagree.

 

1NT[12-14]-X[penalty]-2♣[random rescue]... the first time.

1NT[14-16]-X[one-suit]-2♣[stayman, ignore the double]... the second time.

 

First, the opponents have a *huge* advantage (how big is opener's hand? how big is doubler's?) Second, this is a totally different auction, never mind that the same cards are on the table.

 

Oh and at the other table, when that comes:

 

1NT[12-14]-X[good one-suiter, will run after we punch out at most one stopper]-2♣[same rescue as before]...

 

First, should that 2♣ rescue be forced after a double that shows a very different hand? But the calls are the same. Second, now it's the declaring side that has an advantage (even though it may be "800 instead of 1400" :-)

 

I suppose the qualifier "in any way" is what makes people think this refers to the meanings as well -- they wouldn't need to say that if they just meant the literal calls. But in other laws where the meaning of calls is relevant (e.g. rectifying an insufficient bid) the law is explicit about it.

I can't read it any other way. Maybe we should be consistent about it ("* a call made with a considerably different meaning is considered a different call" or the like).

 

What if a player forgets to use the Stop card in one of the auctions -- would you throw out the board?

Not if the meaning of the call was the same. I realize that to different people "weak jump overcall" is "at all different" from "someone else's weak jump overcall", but I think we have to be somewhat logical about it.

 

Now if you're asking if "with the Stop card, it's strong, without it it's weak", then :-)

[Trinidad]

I've always interpreted the phrase "If any call differs in any way" to refer just to the calls; i.e. if you see the same bidding cards on the table, the auctions are the same and the hand proceeds.

So, your opponents were the wrong pair. The original pair started the auction: 1♣-1♦. They play Acol.

In comes the correct pair. They have the same auction, except that they play Precision.

 

You know that your opponents have a strong hand with clubs and a 6-7 HCP hand with diamonds, where the opponents have only told each other that they have any 16+ hand opposite any 0-7 hand. How is that fair?

 

I have always interpreted this Law as: "The board gets canceled, unless the auction was not affected in any way."

 

Rik

[jeffford76]

Recently on a bridge winners post a Director was called to the table when South opened at North's turn to bid. He rotated the board 180 degrees and left. It was a team match where the board had not been played at the other table yet and everyone laughed and carried on.

 

This was in a midnight zip knockout, making it quite irrelevant to real bridge.

[blackshoe]

This was in a midnight zip knockout, making it quite irrelevant to real bridge.

Wrong question. The question is whether the laws of bridge are relevant to this event. I can think of no reason to suggest they're not, unless the Conditions of Contest explicitly said so. Did they?

[Vampyr]

I've always interpreted the phrase "If any call differs in any way" to refer just to the calls; i.e. if you see the same bidding cards on the table, the auctions are the same and the hand proceeds.

 

I assume you are joking, suggesting that the Law is poorly written?

[barmar]

Wrong question. The question is whether the laws of bridge are relevant to this event. I can think of no reason to suggest they're not, unless the Conditions of Contest explicitly said so. Did they?

I guess you've never played in a midnight KO. Many of the players, and often the TD, are drunk, and it's treated very informally. Players (mostly juniors) often use whacky systems that don't conform to any convention regulations. I remember a few tournaments where junior pros partnered with caddies, and they played an asymmetric system where the caddy's bids were all transfers, while the pro's were natural, so the pro always declared.

[mycroft]

Yeah, "it's bridge, Jim, but not as we know it." Another standard call in Midnights: "Director, please" "REALLY?" from half the room, "There's no Director Calls in Midnights" from the other half. Expect the TD to be in one of those halves, as he walks over to actually take the call.

 

I brought in a prepared bidding box to the midnights in Penticton. The auction went p-1♣-p-1♠; 1 No Chance. The table stopped for a minute until we could think again. I didn't warn my partner that it was coming, either - and she'd never played with me before, and didn't *really* understand midnights yet...

[blackshoe]

Ah. Well, so be it then.

 

Hm. I see the potential for some very squirrelly rulings. How far dare the director go in these things? :P

[PeterAlan]

I believe we all vary our psychs based on our opponents and their methods.

This of course leads to the interesting topic in the metaphysics of bridge, namely how you disclose such variations. Of course you must, as over time you would otherwise develop a concealed partnership understanding. Isn't the game wonderful? :)

[Finch]

Taken literally, it's a nonsensical rule. The set of hands on which one player will take a given action is different from the set of hands on which any other player will take the same action. For any sequence containing at least one call from each side, the meaning of the sequence will differ at least slightly. It would be better if the rule said "differs significantly" rather than "differs in any way".

 

Yes, I've always thought this rule made no sense, except (possibly) in some very very limited circumstances, such as the problem being discovered before second seat has a chance to act.

Even apart from people having different styles with the same methods (e.g. the intersection of your 3S jump overcall and my 3S jump overcall is more precise than playing against only one of us) you get problems such as

 

try 1: 1NT Pass...

try 2: 1NT Pass...

 

but the first player who passed over 1NT was playing 2C for the majors and everything else natural.

the second player to pass was playing (say) multi-landy. So you know from the first auction that LHO doesn't have a natural 2D overcall; you don't know this the second time.

 

This reminds me of 27b1b, another law that taken literally can never apply.

[jeffford76]

Yeah, "it's bridge, Jim, but not as we know it." Another standard call in Midnights: "Director, please" "REALLY?" from half the room, "There's no Director Calls in Midnights" from the other half. Expect the TD to be in one of those halves, as he walks over to actually take the call.

 

I did have to make one director call in the midnights in Phoenix. LHO was in the tank for a couple minutes, RHO said, "C'mon, it's the midnights", and LHO said, "I play my best on every hand of bridge I play and I will take as long as I need to make the right play no matter what the event."