3rd hand 2S

[stevedrew]

In a BBO matchpoint tournament tonight, N ( a "star" player) bid 2S after two passes at favorable vul with

 

S 106432

H 102

D J983

C J10

 

The convention card had std weak 2-bids marked. Bidding with 2 HCP is quite a variation from the convention card, and seems more like a psyche that could be fielded by partner given the position and vulnerability. The director's response was " anything goes third hand at these colors". Is that the correct ruling?

[P_Marlowe]

In a BBO matchpoint tournament tonight, N ( a "star" player) bid 2S after two passes at favorable vul with

 

S 106432

H 102

D J983

C J10

 

The convention card had std weak 2-bids marked. Bidding with 2 HCP is quite a variation from the convention card, and seems more like a psyche that could be fielded by partner given the position and vulnerability. The director's response was " anything goes third hand at these colors". Is that the correct ruling?

I am not sure, I would have made the bid.

I am not arguing with your description of the bid as "Psyche".

The only thing I am wondering: How is Partner going to fieled the Psyche?

He will raise with good spade support, otherwise pass. In short give a auction, a Hand for Partner that

justifies the Claim, that fielding is possible.

 

The only Thing you could have asked for, is a self alert of the bid as "could be anything / random",

which he may have done, playing live Bridge, but did not do playing online, since he though that it was

not unexpected, a view the director shared.

To see if the missed alert hurt you, you would Need to give your Hand / the complete Hand, but it will be a

hard sell.

[Tramticket]

No, I don't think that it is a psyche. What did the convention card actually say? (Point range? Number of cards promised?). If the wording is just "Standard Weak-Two", rather than showing a range, it is a poorly designed convention card but it is normal bridge for preempts to be less disciplined opposite a passed-hand partner (both stronger or weaker than in second seat are possible).

 

I would probably have bid 2♠ in this seat, but would think my opponents a little naïve if they were silenced by this bid.

[FelicityR]

Hello. Welcome to the forum :) And welcome to the world of cutthroat bridge, too.

 

I was a little surprised given your BBO ranking and experience you'd never encountered the 'garbage' weak two at this vulnerability. I'm not a star player, not even an expert, but I would open 2♠ here with any partner who understands the principle of aggressive bidding.

 

https://www.bridgebase.com/myhands/hands.php?traveller=1456-1572318000-40489826&username=stevedrew

 

I personally don't think you have anything to be aggrieved about as the opponents still bid up to the level of the (assumed) fit, even after your partner bid 3NT which your partner could have bid on a strong balanced hand, or a solid minor suited hand with a ♠ stop perhaps.

 

I personally don't think 3NT is the greatest bid in the world, and it's not the worst either. Partner given the pre-empt would have placed you with about 8 points, it's just that your hands fit well for 6♥ to be made.

 

You were well and truly gazumped (in bridge terms) by a world class player. The director was right: in third position, with this vulnerability, anything goes. And, if its any consolation, I doubt whether my regular partner and I would have been able to deal with the aggressive pre-emptive-ness of both opponents any better than you and your tournament partner. When the pre-empt is in ♠s you have less room to manoeuvre.

[wank]

i'm afraid that if you think a weak 2 guarantees 6 and let's say 6 HCP, you need to get out a bit more. Not everyone has to bid like you would yourself. This is just a style thing. Opening a weak 2 on that isn't even an unusual style these days.

[Cyberyeti]

i'm afraid that if you think a weak 2 guarantees 6 and let's say 6 HCP, you need to get out a bit more. Not everyone has to bid like you would yourself. This is just a style thing. Opening a weak 2 on that isn't even an unusual style these days.

 

We might do it in first seat also (properly recorded as 0-10 4+ cards and alerted), but if the convention card says 5-9 or gives that impression it's one of those psyches that is unlikely to be fielded other than by a pusillanimous under raise or pass when it should be raised.

 

Would like to see the other hands.

[pescetom]

Gross is in the eye of the beholder, and depends partly on what he is used to seeing. If that is considered a normal third seat weak two where you play (as seems the case for some) then it can hardly be a psyche.

Here it would be considered a clear psyche (5-card worth 2.35 points and no constructive intent).

[Tramticket]

Here it would be considered a clear psyche (5-card worth 2.35 points and no constructive intent).

 

Why should it imply "Constructive Intent" opposite your passed-hand partner?

[mycroft]

I have a colleague whose weak 2s in 1st and (especially) 2nd are "relatively disciplined" - KT9xxx would be rock-bottom. Third-seat: "Partner has 13 cards, some of which are spades". This hand would be surprising without a stiff, but not out of agreement.

 

Regulations are different in different authorities, but for example the new ACBL Open chart (played in all events with no masterpoint limit, even "the 4 table open side game") says

[Disallowed:] A non-Forcing 2-level opening bid in first or second seat that has a Range of greater than 9 HCP and could show less than Average Strength.

Note the "in first or second seat": in third seat, so long as it's "not Artificial" (by definition, not promising at least 4 cards in the suit bid at the 2-level), there are *no restrictions*. Even in 1st or 2nd, there are *no restrictions* on suit quality. This kind of bidding is common to the point of being expected, in other words.

 

Convention cards on BBO, because they're modelled after the ACBL CC, have the same issues with presenting information that changes when partner is a passed hand (on the weekend I ran into p-1♦; 3♦ "But it says here you play inverted minors" "yes, but they're off by a passed hand, which is totally reasonable given that we can't have a game-force; in many places, it's totally standard"). But third-seat preempts have always been "whatever opener thinks will work best", whether he's pre-empting with this hand, expecting RHO to have a vulnerable 2♣ opener; or he thinks that it's 9-10-AKJTxx and an AQ-7 around the table and is trying to win the part-score battle with the first bid.

 

I don't think it's common enough with the C crowd that I would consider this GBK for ruling purposes - I still think, if asked about style, the opponents have to explain this expectation, see my colleague's line above - but it should be known enough that my reaction boils down to "not everybody bids like you, and now you've learned another place where you may have to ask." Frankly, I believe knowing the opponents' preempt style (and partner's!) is so important that I will always ask (and get very frustrated when they say "Well, it's weak" or "no idea", and in response to the followup "Do you have any agreements as to suit quality or outside strength?" get "No. Well, it'll be 2/top 3, of course...") even when it's not opposite a passed hand.

 

Now, if Expert decided to open that *1*♠ (or *1♥*, for that matter) against known weak players,...

[pescetom]

Why should it imply "Constructive Intent" opposite your passed-hand partner?

 

Almost impossible that it does, of course, but that means the deviation from declared strength/length is not only gross but has no redeeming justification. Opposite a non-passed hand you might get away with an unalerted Jxxxxx x Jxxxx x but not Jxxxx Jxx Jxx xx for instance.

 

 

We might do it in first seat also (properly recorded as 0-10 4+ cards and alerted)

 

You could play that here (at least with me) so long as it's on the card and alerted.

It only risks becoming psychic when announced as "weak", like most people do.

[barmar]

And at the opposite end, you also shouldn't be too surprised to find a 3rd-seat weak 2 with minimum values for an opening 1 bid. If opener feels he wouldn't accept any invitation, there's no reason not to put pressure on the opponents, and also influence them to misplay when they place more high cards in partner's hand.

[Cyberyeti]

 

You could play that here (at least with me) so long as it's on the card and alerted.

It only risks becoming psychic when announced as "weak", like most people do.

 

Here, weak 2s if min length 5 or 6 are announced, 4+ are alerted

[pescetom]

Here, weak 2s if min length 5 or 6 are announced, 4+ are alerted

 

Here the announcement indicates "classic" values which are not directly defined, but commonly interpreted as 6-card and 6(5)-10 HCP.

To be valid but alertable almost anything goes (by the rules), must be 4+cards and include the possibility of less than 10 HCP.

[steve2005]

It depends on what the convention card says whether it is a psyche.

5 is the normal accepted suit length partnership agreement without requiring an alert.

ACBL does require a pre-alert if you have an agreement to routinely open weak 2's with such poor suit quality but I have never seen it enforced if they don't.

[nekthen]

Sorry when did lying by a few points or 1 card length become a psyche?

A psyche is opening 1S in 3rd with xx-xxxx-xxxx-xxx and a few points. A gross mis direction

[mycroft]

Since always (but not necessarily here).

 

If your *agreement* for third-seat weak 2s is that they're still 6-10, 6 cards, and usually 3/top 5, then opening the OP hand is clearly a gross and deliberate deviation from your agreement. If your agreement is "in third seat, we have 13 cards, some of which are spades", then it's not. Depending on where the partnership lies on that spectrum, it may or may not be.

 

But specifically to "a few points or 1 card" - some "few points" and some "1 card"s are more gross than others:

• 15-17 NT. You open a random (not stellar) 13. "Gross"? Probably. "more than an Ace away?" No.
  
• 2♦ stock Flannery with any of the following hands:
  • KJ852 AKJ43 T6 5
  • QT98 AK54 KJ8 43
  • KQT8 AQJ54 AJ4 7
  • KJ87 KQT54 86 94 (this one has an additional problem, at least in the ACBL *)

  are clearly (*) gross deviations, even though they're "1 card" or "a couple points" away from agreement - because the whole point behind Flannery is to handle a very specific hand, and all of these (*) do not have the problem that needs Flannery to solve.

  [*] "Zia cuebids" on xx are only "a King away" from the agreement, but - since the agreement is "it shows the K or A" and in fact, that's the K that it doesn't have - are clearly psychic (although the expert emulating Zia will say it's a "tactical bid" because psychs are only those awful things the opponents do that confuse them, not "good decisions that worked" that they do)

 

"A few points" and "1 card" are shibboleths used by people who think that they should be able to get away with violating their agreements as judgment, when even they know that they're hoping to confuse. I agree, given a 5+card, 11-21 1♥ opener, "a good 9" like 8 AQT865 QJT74 6 or ♥AKQT probably don't qualify as "gross". Given a call that is much more precise than that, however, the amount of variation that doesn't become "gross" gets much smaller as well.

 

But note also my previous response, where I'm suggesting the OP situation is more "something that if you didn't expect it, now you do - and you should", and my history. I do not consider psychic bids to be if not a banning offence, at least a social shunning one, like some do.

 

(*) The issue is that either it is a gross distortion of their agreement (psychic) or it is not, it's part of their implicit agreement, and that agreement is not legal in the game they're playing. This also applied (and still does, on the Basic charts) to things like opening KQxxxx Txxx 98 7 an EHAA 2♠, because while it really is better than most 6 HCP EHAA 2-bids, it made the range (5-12) too large to play conventions over (and now too large to play).

[barmar]

While I agree with mycroft about how it should be, I think many players, directors, and appeals committees have come to rely on that simple definition of "gross deviation". Objective criteria relieves them of having to make judgement calls, which results in inconsistent rulings because different people have different judgement.

[dsLawsd]

Very great discussion. Clearly 3rd seat preempts are wide ranging and unregulated. I find the bidding in BBO to often be out of this world and the matchpoint results amazing.

 

Beware. But the real question is to me whether a top rated (expert or higher) needs to win so bad at these minor events that they would bid against unknown opponents in a gross manner. Knowing how to win is certainly a consideration and perhaps we would bid 2 spades on this hand. But if playing in a regular partnership I would avoid it unless your state of standing needs a top or bottom. Why? To respect the event in question so as not to totally distort the scoring for others.

Ethical situations might call for alerts by partner against less than expert opponents. In rubber bridge, of course, it is a jungle out there. But lets do keep in forefront the need to promote and attract others to our wonderful game and not drive them away.

[stevedrew]

Thank you all for responding. I also direct, and my concern is for less experienced players.They have only the opps' cc for guidance. My suggestion is that bids deviating from the cc be self-alerted. I realize there is no way to get all agreements on the cc.

I carry this to extremes : playing support X, I will self-alert my pass on 1C (p) 1S (2H) pass. Also , all responses to Jacoby 2N ( 1S 2N 4S - I have a minimum with no singleton or void ). My goal is for the opponents to know as much about my bids as my partner does. Newer players don't know which question to ask, especially about negative inferences that my partner will know.

[pescetom]

Very great discussion. Clearly 3rd seat preempts are wide ranging and unregulated. I find the bidding in BBO to often be out of this world and the matchpoint results amazing.

 

Beware. But the real question is to me whether a top rated (expert or higher) needs to win so bad at these minor events that they would bid against unknown opponents in a gross manner. Knowing how to win is certainly a consideration and perhaps we would bid 2 spades on this hand. But if playing in a regular partnership I would avoid it unless your state of standing needs a top or bottom. Why? To respect the event in question so as not to totally distort the scoring for others.

Ethical situations might call for alerts by partner against less than expert opponents. In rubber bridge, of course, it is a jungle out there. But lets do keep in forefront the need to promote and attract others to our wonderful game and not drive them away.

I agree with 90% of that but I'm not sure I understand "ethical situations might call for alerts by partner against less than expert opponents". You alert agreements that regulations say should be alerted - if ethics come into play it is only in evaluating when an agreement is really unexpected even if not automatically alertable. If you know partner's bid could be grossly different from what is promised then you have an effective agreement to that effect and you alert it always as an obligation of the rules, not due to an ethical scruple or to inexpert opponents only. Yes it's useful and honourable to explain to beginners the harsh realities of competitive bridge, but I think that should happen outside of play, not as the result of an Alert.

[nige1]

In an old English Bridge Magazine Bidding quiz, 3rd in hand, holding ♠ x x x ♥ A K Q J ♦ x x x ♣ x x x, almost all competitors opened 1♥,

although an understanding to routinely open such hands and to bid normally thereafter would have been illegal according to EBU rule-of-19, then in force.

 

This high-lights the common problem when system-regulation clashes with common practice and common-sense.

 

Players tend to fudge the issue, appealing to "frequency", psych" "deviation" and other considerations.

Nevertheless, a few conscientious players who try to follow the rules assiduously suffer a significant handicap.

 

Such controversy and contention will persist until the system-regulation Tower-of-Babel is demolished,..

[msjennifer]

Sirs,we shall never open 2S in 3rd seat as the STAR players do against very weak opponents (so to say beginners).It is like Rabada or Cummings bowling bouncers against a team of school children.May be the STAR players enjoy it that way.The beginners DO expect to be taught by STAR players.I have seen quite a few new young ,but enthusiastic,beginners shun the game altogether when such tactics are used against them.The worst part is the STAR players then proceed to ridicule the red faced beginners with sarcastic remarks.NO! we PERSONALLY shall never even think of such tactics.We will never enjoy the game that way.

[helene_t]

A 3rd seat preempt is just to play, it is not particularly descriptive.

 

Of course you still need to disclose your style. But if your CC says (say) 6 cards, 6-10 points, then opps should understand that this applies in 1st/2nd seat only.

[mycroft]

To the OP: this is, like many things (including psychics!), an education issue. And we are awful at education.

 

Really, this is no different from the "less experienced" players learning that not everybody thinks 1NT openers are 15-17, that's a valid way to play, and that you have to think differently about interference when you could easily have game than when you're just disrupting. Or similarly, that not everybody thinks they need to have a solid overcall to "disrupt" their strong NT auctions. Or that some people play 1M-2NT as limit+, and the responses aren't what they'd expect, either. Or that some people play first-and-second cuebids (or first-round-first, if they've been taught first-and-second from the beginning).

 

It seems to hit harder when experienced players bid "aggressively" against newer players (the same aggressively they do against me, and I do against them!) than when it's their constructive auctions that are different. This applies even if the "different information" causes them to misdefend and let the slam through (for a bad score) instead of being talked out of their game (for a bad score). I don't know why, but I know we have to let people know about it.

 

I'd love for the "let people know" to happen before "expert psyched against me! That's not fair!" (even though the one I remember was my partner, and "novice" meant 1600 MPs. Because we protect the novices, then we protect the "less experienced" players, then we protect the "normal club players", ...)

 

When the less experienced players learn that passed hand preempts can be wild to the point of insane (or, also, "not weak"), or that people are allowed to deliberately misbid to confuse, provided they're confusing everyone, not just the opponents, or that people play conventions differently from how they do, so asking for names (or getting just a name) doesn't necessarily tell them what they need to know, they become - more experienced. Odd that.

 

But it has to be done in such a way that it doesn't seem like the world is all against them so they don't come back.

[blackshoe]

Violating an agreement is not an infraction of law. It may be, in an unenlightened jurisdiction, an infraction of (an illegal, IMO) regulation. In general the construction "get away with violating an agreement" does not mean what Mycroft seems to be implying it means. Except, of course, in the afore-mentioned unenlightened jurisdiction where the rule makers assert the right to restrict a player's use of judgement in hand evaluation.