3rd seat at favourable

[shevek]

[hv=pc=n&s=sa76hj93d976cqt32&w=sk543h8652d8ck854&n=sq2haqtdajt42caj9&e=sjt98hk74dkq53c76&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=pp1c1nppp]399|300[/hv]

 

Board-a-match

North had 8 easy tricks on a spade lead and took 7 of them.

(He won ♠Q at trick 2 to play ♦A-another. In dummy with ♠A, he ran ♥J with some confidence but this proved an error.)

 

The auction has shades of Spain vs USA.

Does anyone have issues with the East-West actions?

[FelicityR]

There are third in hand (at favourable vulnerability) openings and there are third in hand (at favourable vulnerability)openings. But it's just part of the modern game these days, I suppose...

 

When North overcalls 1NT with a top-heavy 18 count East isn't obliged to bid. Other partnerships may well have ended up in 3NT on the North-South cards and bemoaned their bad luck

[chrism]

Other partnerships may well have ended up in 3NT on the North-South cards and bemoaned their bad luck

Bad luck? Two spades, at least one heart, three diamonds, at least three clubs.

[barmar]

When North overcalls 1NT with a top-heavy 18 count East isn't obliged to bid. Other partnerships may well have ended up in 3NT on the North-South cards and bemoaned their bad luck

East doesn't know that North is top-heavy. There's certainly something suspicious about not doubling with a decent 9 count.

[ahydra]

Does the RA not stipulate a minimum point count for 1-level opening bids? I think for example the EBU requires 8 HCP.

 

ahydra

[pran]

Does the RA not stipulate a minimum point count for 1-level opening bids? I think for example the EBU requires 8 HCP.

 

ahydra

 

This looks like a psychic bid, not an illegal agreement?

[sanst]

This looks like a psychic bid, not an illegal agreement?

In Holland you’re not allowed to open with less than 7HCP if you’re not playing at a pretty high level. This doesn’t look like a psych, but as an attempt to throw sand in the machine. That’s is not the problem, but that E seems to expect something like that is. It doesn’t look that the bid came as a complete surprise for E.

[pran]

In Holland you’re not allowed to open with less than 7HCP if you’re not playing at a pretty high level. This doesn’t look like a psych, but as an attempt to throw sand in the machine. That’s is not the problem, but that E seems to expect something like that is. It doesn’t look that the bid came as a complete surprise for E.

Well, the Director shall rule concealed partnership understanding rather than psyche if he finds that the partner seems to have more reason than the opponents to be aware of the deviation from disclosed partnership understanding.

 

Seemingly being the case here the Director doesn't even need to involve the 7HCP minimum strength regulation.

[Cascade]

This looks like a psychic bid, not an illegal agreement?

 

You cannot judge this from one instance.

[Cyberyeti]

This looks like a psychic bid, not an illegal agreement?

 

And a potential field with what I think is a very good 9 count opposite (I'm surprised K&R gives it as little as 9.15 with the spade intermediates and KQ),

[weejonnie]

I am certainly recording this as (potentially) a Concealed partnership agreement. Under EBU rules is would almost certainly be regarded as a 'red' psych (automatic AV+, AV- -10%). But the rules do not require proof of fielding, just that the player could have fielded the psych. Not sure how this would be regarded in Australia.

 

From EBU white book

 

"Players are required to disclose their agreements, both explicit and implicit. If a player believes, from partnership experience, that partner may have deviated from the system this must be disclosed to the opponents. If a player properly discloses this possibility, the player will not be penalised for fielding it, although there may be a penalty for playing an illegal method."

 

"The actions of the psycher’s partner following a psyche – and, possibly, further actions by the psycher himself – may provide evidence of an undisclosed, and therefore illegal, understanding. If so, then the partnership is said to have ‘fielded’ the psyche. The TD will judge actions objectively by the standards of a player’s peers; that is to say intent will not be taken into account.

 

As the judgement by the TD will be objective, some players may be understandably upset that their actions are ruled to be fielding. If a player psyches and their partner takes action that appears to allow for it then the TD will treat it as fielding.

 

A partnership’s actions on one board may be sufficient for the TD to find that it has a concealed partnership understanding (CPU) and the score will be adjusted in principle (see §1.4.4). This is classified as a red psyche."

[barmar]

IAs the judgement by the TD will be objective, some players may be understandably upset that their actions are ruled to be fielding. If a player psyches and their partner takes action that appears to allow for it then the TD will treat it as fielding.

This is similar to the way Law 16 talks about actions after receiving UI. It doesn't require reading the player's mind to determine whether they actually the UI and acted on it. Instead, it defines LAs based on what the player's peers would consider, and then prohibits LAs that are demonstrably suggested by the UI.

 

A few weeks ago we had to explain this principle to a novice who made a questionable bid after her partner's hesitation. We weren't accusing her of doing anything wrong intentionally, just applying an objective standard based on what she could have noticed. If you do the same thing that an unethical player would do, you get the same ruling.

[VixTD]

If East had not been a passed hand, I suspect there would be a lot more support for some kind of adjustment for a fielded psyche when a player with a flat, defensive nine-count fails to double a 1NT overcall. I seem to remember this dividing the English directing community some years ago, with some considering it routine for opener to have significantly shaded values for a third-in-hand opener, and others regarding it a cut-and-dried fielded psyche.

 

I don't think it's particularly relevant that opener has less than a regulation opening hand. If West had had the ♣Q as well, it would have been a legitimate (although disclosable) opening bid by agreement, and East still would not want to be doubling.

 

I would want to know what agreements EW have for opening third-in-hand, whether this was typical for their style. (Of course, it would have to be on their convention card.)