Passing with opening hand values

[sachin273]

Hi all,

Is it ok (technically correct/allowed) if someone passes his first turn with 16 hcps and then bids 3nt if his partner bids?

[1eyedjack]

Hi and welcome to the forums.

 

BTW we have a sub-forum dedicated to laws issues, where this thread more properly resides.

 

There is first a question to resolve:

 

1) Do the partnership have an agreement to bid this way? It could be part of their system. There are some rare systems out there which require a pass in first or second seat with a strong hand. But even without it being part of their system it may be something that they do with sufficient frequency/regularity that it becomes an implicit agreement. There is no legal distinction between them.

 

If they have an agreement to bid this way, then you have to ask

 

1.1) Is the agreement permitted under the conditions of contest? There is nothing in the primary laws to prohibit that agreement, but the laws do delegate to those responsible for running competitions the authority to regulate agreements that may be permitted. So if they have this agreement and it is a prohibited agreement under the conditions, then it probably does not need stating, but no, it is not permitted.

 

1.2) If they have an agreement and the agreement is permitted, then the only remaining question is whether there has been adequate disclosure of methods. Almost certainly such an agreement would be "alertable" in some way (specific regulations again under control of the organisers of the event). if there is an agreement, the agreement is permitted, and it was properly disclosed, then yes it is all legal. Whether it is sensible is another question but not one that you have asked.

 

If they do not have an agreement of any form, including a habitual expectation, then the activity is classed as a "psych"

 

Pure psychs are perfectly legal ploys under the laws. There are some events that restrict the use of psychic artificial bids or "controlled" psychs. The latter are psychs that allow for artificial continuations to expose them and limit their danger. Some of the supposed legal authority for some of the restrictions are suspect, but let's not go there. The fact is that the community tolerates these interpretations so it is sensible to accept that this is a valid interpretation.

 

There are some events particularly on BBO that expressly forbid the use of psychs, full stop. That prohibition is flat out illegal under the laws, so those events are strictly not "Bridge". But if you take part in those events with your eyes open, hopefully with the conditions of contest properly advertised up front, then I suggest that those conditions should be honoured. In that case I suggest that this auction would not be permitted.

 

So all that said, if they have no agreement, explicit or implicit or habitual, to bid this way, and there is nothing express in the conditions of contest that bar it, then yes it is perfectly legal to bid this way. As I said earlier, sensible or not is another question altogether.

[sachin273]

Hi and welcome to the forums.

 

BTW we have a sub-forum dedicated to laws issues, where this thread more properly resides.

 

There is first a question to resolve:

 

1) Do the partnership have an agreement to bid this way? It could be part of their system. There are some rare systems out there which require a pass in first or second seat with a strong hand. But even without it being part of their system it may be something that they do with sufficient frequency/regularity that it becomes an implicit agreement. There is no legal distinction between them.

 

If they have an agreement to bid this way, then you have to ask

 

1.1) Is the agreement permitted under the conditions of contest? There is nothing in the primary laws to prohibit that agreement, but the laws do delegate to those responsible for running competitions the authority to regulate agreements that may be permitted. So if they have this agreement and it is a prohibited agreement under the conditions, then it probably does not need stating, but now, it is not permitted.

 

1.2) If they have an agreement and the agreement is permitted, then the only remaining question is whether there has been adequate disclosure of methods. Almost certainly such an agreement would be "alertable" in some way (specific regulations again under control of the organisers of the event). if there is an agreement, the agreement is permitted, and it was properly disclosed, then yes it is all legal. Whether it is sensible is another question but not one that you have asked.

 

If they do not have an agreement of any form, including a habitual expectation, then the activity is classed as a "psych"

 

Pure psychs are perfectly legal ploys under the laws. There are some events that restrict the use of psychic artificial bids or "controlled" psychs. The latter are psychs that allow for artificial continuations to expose them and limit their danger. Some of the supposed legal authority for some of the restrictions are suspect, but let's not go there. The fact is that the community tolerates these interpretations so it is sensible to accept that this is a valid interpretation.

 

There are some events particularly on BBO that expressly forbid the use of psychs, full stop. That prohibition is flat out illegal under the laws, so those events are strictly not "Bridge". But if you take part in those events with your eyes open, hopefully with the conditions of contest properly advertised up front, then I suggest that those conditions should be honoured. In that case I suggest that this auction would not be permitted.

 

So all that said, if they have no agreement, explicit or implicit or habitual, to bid this way, and there is nothing express in the conditions of contest that bar it, then yes it is perfectly legal to bid this way. As I said earlier, sensible or not is another question altogether.

 

Thank you very much for the prompt & detailed reply and also for pointing out the right place to post the question. I was lazy :)

However, now that it HAS been posted here, may i continue and ask for a small detail? we were playing a friendly game at home with no laws/agreements etc. Under these conditions would you call it correct/incorrect? Thanks again.

[1eyedjack]

Thank you very much for the prompt & detailed reply and also for pointing out the right place to post the question. I was lazy :)

However, now that it HAS been posted here, may i continue and ask for a small detail? we were playing a friendly game at home with no laws/agreements etc. Under these conditions would you call it correct/incorrect? Thanks again.

Then yes it is perfectly legal ploy,

 

The point about any psychic tactic is that it is legal provided that it holds as much surprise for partner as it does for opponents. You only start running into problems if the particular partnership does it with sufficient frequency that this surprise element is unequal. Even then, the use of the call may be legal, with the only breach being inadequate disclosure.

[ggwhiz]

If it is done by accident or even on purpose it's ok as long as partner isn't in on the joke (no grimacing or sending clues).

 

A famous hand in a similar vein by one of the old greats playing rubber bridge saw him pass in 2nd seat with 10 solid spades and 3 singletons. When it was passed out he asked his partner what he had and he said "nothing much, just 3 bald aces".

 

It's called Walking the Dog, hoping to get doubled later but carries a big risk.

[sachin273]

Thanks all for your replies.

I was trying to vote up but it said "action failed: you have reached your quota of positive votes" surprisingly this is my first post here and i havent used a single positive vote so far :P

[Vampyr]

Thanks all for your replies.

I was trying to vote up but it said "action failed: you have reached your quota of positive votes" surprisingly this is my first post here and i havent used a single positive vote so far :P

 

You have to have a certain number of posts before you can vote. I don't know what the number is.

[MrAce]

Hi all,

Is it ok (technically correct/allowed) if someone passes his first turn with 16 hcps and then bids 3nt if his partner bids?

 

Yes

 

But I do not know what you mean by 'technically correct'