Is sandbagging a psyche bid?

[palmergnaw]

As first bidder my partner occasionally passes when it's his turn to bid even when holding up to 15 points or so. Our card says that we open suits 12+ points. I know that sometimes he passes with more than 12 so do I need to alert his passes?

 

Thanks,

Paul

[FelicityR]

As first bidder my partner occasionally passes when it's his turn to bid even when holding up to 15 points or so. Our card says that we open suits 12+ points. I know that sometimes he passes with more than 12 so do I need to alert his passes?

 

Thanks,

Paul

 

Best to let a tournament director give a definite answer as I not one, but knowing something that the opponents don't about your partner's 'pre-arranged' actions with a certain hand in a certain position would be in my book Unauthorised Information.

 

Whilst it is common to open at favourable (and sometimes at unfavourable vulnerability) third in hand with a poorer hand than usual, it is extremely uncommon, virtually unheard of, not to open first in hand (or any other position) with 12+ points.

[Cyberyeti]

I did it looking at something like void, Ax, x, 10 solid - I felt I would get more info by passing than bidding, the auction went 4♠-P-P-6♣ partner had a useful ♥K and this made, we lost IMPs because they doubled at the other table.

 

A psyche is a gross misstatement of values and/or shape, so yes, passing a 14 or 15 count might be viewed as that. The problem is if a pair have the agreement to do it and don't disclose it. Also if they take account that it might have happened later in the auction.

[pescetom]

As first bidder my partner occasionally passes when it's his turn to bid even when holding up to 15 points or so. Our card says that we open suits 12+ points. I know that sometimes he passes with more than 12 so do I need to alert his passes?

You need to alert his passes and to update your card, otherwise you have an undisclosed agreement which is a serious business. If you did not have this agreement then I would consider it a psyche, but some other TD might not.

[Vampyr]

A psyche is a gross misstatement of values and/or shape, so yes, passing a 14 or 15 count might be viewed as that. The problem is if a pair have the agreement to do it and don't disclose it. Also if they take account that it might have happened later in the auction.

Important to note that an agreement may be implicit, based on partnership experience.

[wank]

given that this is entirely illogical and pointless, are you sure it’s intentional? if your partner is just incapable of adding upto 15, whatever he’s doing can’t be considered a psyche.

[hrothgar]

FWIW, a player at MIT 20 odd years ago was notorious for balancing on most anything....

 

You could get some great results against him by passing strong hands that lacked a fit

 

We once had an auction that went something like

 

1♦ - (P) - 1♠ - (P)

2♣ - (P) - ???

 

I was sitting on a nice balanced 20 count and Binkley was in the PO seat...

So, of course, I made the obvious pass

[blackshoe]

Sandbagging like that was a psych the first few times he did it, but now that you expect that he might do it, it's a partnership understanding. You should put it on your card. As for alerting it, well, that depends on the alerting regulations in your jurisdiction. I can't think of one that directly says that certain passes should be alerted (unless it's a jurisdiction where forcing pass systems are allowed) but most alert regs have (usually vague) provisions for alerting very unusual agreements. And then there's the "alert it even if the reg doesn't say you should" school.

[Vampyr]

Sandbagging like that was a psych the first few times he did it, but now that you expect that he might do it, it's a partnership understanding. You should put it on your card. As for alerting it, well, that depends on the alerting regulations in your jurisdiction. I can't think of one that directly says that certain passes should be alerted (unless it's a jurisdiction where forcing pass systems are allowed) but most alert regs have (usually vague) provisions for alerting very unusual agreements. And then there's the "alert it even if the reg doesn't say you should" school.

 

The problem with putting this on the card is that it is illegal to have a system where you can pass a hand when you would open with a weaker hand. So then is it legal to psyche an illegal call?

[TylerE]

The problem with putting this on the card is that it is illegal to have a system where you can pass a hand when you would open with a weaker hand. So then is it legal to psyche an illegal call?

 

That isn't true at all.

 

*Forcing* pass is illegal most everywhere,but nobody says your pass has to always be weak. For instance, in old school Std. American your weak 2s are something like 6-10 and 1 bids are 13+. Most 10-11s get passed.

[blackshoe]

The problem with putting this on the card is that it is illegal to have a system where you can pass a hand when you would open with a weaker hand. So then is it legal to psyche an illegal call?

Well, in that case, rather than put it on the card, he has to stop doing it. And then once it is established that he doesn't do it, he can do it again, once or twice. Then it becomes an understanding again and he has to stop. B-)

 

It's not the call that's illegal, it's the agreement. Psychs, which are departures from agreement, are legal.

[pescetom]

As for alerting it, well, that depends on the alerting regulations in your jurisdiction. I can't think of one that directly says that certain passes should be alerted (unless it's a jurisdiction where forcing pass systems are allowed) but most alert regs have (usually vague) provisions for alerting very unusual agreements.

"Certain passes" may be an overbid, many systems regs (like ours) quote the WBF HUM definition in which case a pass showing opening level values is restricted to high level competition and would require pre-alert or alert. In this specific and rather bizarre case of passes that are normally weak but may exceed opening level values then I imagine most regs do not specifically discuss this, but in my jurisdiction the players are explicitly invited to alert unusual agreements.

[mikestar13]

In ACBL it is illegal to agree to pass X HCP if your partnership would agree to open a hand with fewer HCP but the exact same shape.

 

[steve2005]

A psyche is a gross misstatement of values and/or shape, so yes, passing a 14 or 15 count might be viewed as that. The problem is if a pair have the agreement to do it and don't disclose it. Also if they take account that it might have happened later in the auction.

 

In ACBL (I dont know about others) it would be illegal to pass a hand that with the same shape but take away some honours would open.

This is to stop people playing forcing pass but i think it applies to this pair if they do it enough times.

[dsLawsd]

About 1 time every 6 to 12 months would be OK. More and the partnership could be in for formal sanctions. Reputation is everything in this game. The action must be totally unexpected. Occasionally a hand might be much worse than their point count and that is Bridge judgment not a psyche. Every now and again I find myself forced to make a disgusting bid so as to maintain partnership harmony in accord with our agreements....Glad you are asking about this issue!

[DaveRolyat]

Imagine he passes, it's your bid next, and his partner alerts "could have 15pts, but who knows?" - it would freak me out - that'not really a convention

[pescetom]

Imagine he passes, it's your bid next, and his partner alerts "could have 15pts, but who knows?" - it would freak me out - that'not really a convention

 

I guess one could argue that for it to be a convention partner must have some understanding of which 15 point hands would be passed and which not. It's an agreement in any case.

 

My partner alerts my interference of 1M because he it has occasionally been 4-card. I don't think he (or even I really) could explain the criteria for this.

[bluenikki]

Putting it on the card is problematic unless BOTH partners have the same practice.

 

Carl

[pescetom]

Putting it on the card is problematic unless BOTH partners have the same practice.

Why? You both have names that can be used in explanation of any differences ("Carl occasionally passes with 15 HCP here").

[bluenikki]

Why? You both have names that can be used in explanation of any differences ("Carl occasionally passes with 15 HCP here").

I used to put on the card that I pre-empted light but my partner did not.

 

A sectional acbl tournament director said this was illegal because the partners were required to play the same system.

 

By the way, I personally believe it is correct to pass as dealer with

 

QJ2

QJ2

QJ2

KQJ2

 

As do all followers of Edgar Kaplan's CCCC point count.

 

Carl

[pescetom]

I used to put on the card that I pre-empted light but my partner did not.

A sectional acbl tournament director said this was illegal because the partners were required to play the same system.

The law says that "agreed meaning of a call or play shall not alter by reference to the member of the partnership by whom it is made (this requirement does not restrict style and judgement, only method)." A variance from agreed call based upon judgement or style does not imply or constitute a different method, IMO - assuming that by "light" you intend willingness to open hands that are downright ugly but exceed the agreed HCP requirements or to open most hands that reach the lower limit of HCP. If you intend consistently violating the agreed HCP limits then that is another matter of course.

[hrothgar]

 

By the way, I personally believe it is correct to pass as dealer with

 

QJ2

QJ2

QJ2

KQJ2

 

As do all followers of Edgar Kaplan's CCCC point count.

 

Al Roth would have opened that (As would Kaplan)

[aleaxit]

In ACBL (I dont know about others) it would be illegal to pass a hand that with the same shape but take away some honours would open.

This is to stop people playing forcing pass but i think it applies to this pair if they do it enough times.

 

I checked with my inexperienced-Director wife, specifically about the practice advocated in many (if perhaps a bit old-fashioned) books and intermediate courses, that there are hands that are too strong to open a pre-empt, but not strong enough to open a 1-bid (not my style, but still quite a popular one).

 

For example, per http://www.pittsburghbridge.org/JimmySez/JRKLess05.pdf , a weak two guarantees at least 2 of the top 4 honors in the opened suit, and is never opened with two outside Aces or Kings; so, QJTxxx-Kx-Kx-xxx cannot be opened 2♠ because of the two outside Kings... while QJTxxx-Kx-xx-xxx, weaker by 1 King, can be opened 2♠. But that does not mean that in the first hand you have to open 1♠ -- a pass is of course perfectly OK... even though if you "take away some honors" you would open.

 

She believes this style is perfectly OK in the ACBL; I've asked her to check with more experienced Directors.

 

So, the statement that in the ACBL "would be illegal to pass a hand that with the same shape but take away some honours would open" is simply false, unless my wife the inexperienced Director is badly mistaken.

[Stephen Tu]

That acbl restriction of not passing with hand of same shape but fewer points only applies to opening one level bids.

[bluenikki]

In ACBL it is illegal to agree to pass X HCP if your partnership would agree to open a hand with fewer HCP but the exact same shape.

 

acbl has always been braindead where pointcount is concerned. So if you open

 

AQxxx

AJxx

xx

xx

 

it becomes illegal to pass

 

Qxxxx

Qxxx

KQ

QJ

 

Carl