What would qualify as psyching a 1N overcall?

[PrecisionL]

Technically not quite a psyche, but I would bid it the same way playing a strong club system. 2 and 3 suiters are difficult to show after opening 1♣.

[pilowsky]

So, can I ask then if we can compare it say to opening 1NT with 14 HCP and a roughly balanced hand or 18 HCP when your system says 15-17 using 2/1 or similar?

How is that different?

This seems to be very much more of a deviation.

What are the 'other facts' that you feel that you need to enhance your decision-making process?

[mycroft]

Technically not quite a psyche, but I would bid it the same way playing a strong club system. 2 and 3 suiters are difficult to show after opening 1♣.

As I implied in the previous - if you don't think this is a gross deviation of your system (or a "deviation required by system as three-suiters are hard to describe"), then no, it's not a psychic. If the explanation was "10-15, 5+♠" (or "Precision"), then the opponents have a case for misinformation (which frankly is more likely to get them a good result than if it was ruled a psychic).

 

Not that I necessarily disagree with you about your judgement being correct. If it is, however, it falls under the "everyone is required to explain at a level that the opponents can understand what's going on. Sometimes, the kind of 'almost enough' answer that the standard players get away with because the opponents have the experience to fill in the blanks, while still wrong, doesn't cause damage the way it does when non-Standard players do it." life. Sometimes that feels like "we are held to a higher standard of 'full disclosure' then the normals, this is intended to push us into ditching the system" - and maybe it's true that players playing uncommon methods are held to a higher standard (but I'd prefer to think of it as "we're all held to the higher standard, but the standard players are more likely to get away with failing to do so". Of course, to be cynical, I'd continue with "and that trains the standard players to be even worse than before.")

 

Because players who have never played a strong club will not see why "oh, I have to bid 1♠ with this, 10-15 be damned" in ways that they might see "oh, I had to reverse into the 3-card suit, it was the only way to describe my hand" in standard.

[pescetom]

Because players who have never played a strong club will not see why "oh, I have to bid 1♠ with this, 10-15 be damned" in ways that they might see "oh, I had to reverse into the 3-card suit, it was the only way to describe my hand" in standard.

 

Agree with much of what you say before, but I think such players have a point (besides the 'onus on those who play something unusual' argument).

Fooling the opponents about the length of a second minor suit is hardly the same as fooling them that you have max 14-15 with a hand worth 20.

[pilowsky]

There is a concept known as the "fully imagined audience".

Lawyers (in the UK) might understand it as "the man on the Clapham omnibus".

Expressions such as "I know that you know...", and "Every experienced player ought to know..." and "here's my system card look it up..."

All fall well short of this critical and important concept. Why? Because they assume the person has special knowledge that they may not have.

 

It is one of the reasons why many Bridge teachers are not good at teaching and many Bridge writers are bad at writing.

Even when they are excellent at playing.

 

Pran's explanation falls well short of an explanation that a high-school educated 16-year-old could understand. I don't understand it. terms such as 'may probably' and 'must judge' are imprecise and meaningless.

 

So, to put the question another way. A player rocks up to the table and tells me he has 14HCP or less with 5+ spades and then turns out to have a butt-load more, should I be annoyed?

[mycroft]

No, you should not be annoyed. However, to protect yourself and others, you should call the director, explain the situation, assist with the investigation as the TD requires, and accept their decision.

 

I remember the person who was so busy rehashing the last hand that he passed as dealer with a great 16 count. It went all pass (of course). It turned out that his side all were positive, so the passout was a zero for him, and he was aggrieved that I as TD wouldn't let him take back his "not thinking to thinking" pass - in particular, which he only noticed after the hand was all passed out. But if it turned out that it was an around-the-room 4♠ contract that happened to go down on a bad trump break, so he got a clear top for his passout, should the opponents be annoyed?

 

You hit the pair playing the Cloister Club (0-40 pass, "not allowed to speak by rule" is the joke), and they (to system and properly explained) pass throughout the round. First hand everyone their way is going overboard and you get a bad score. Second hand, they don't give you the information that allows the other declarers to make the overtrick in 3NT, and another bad score. Third board is a passout into a bunch of -620s and -630s, and you're almost top. You have a 5 minute sitout while everyone finishes their round. Do you get to be annoyed by any of that?

 

Whether you were misinformed or psyched against or braino'ed or misclicked or can't count today'ed or bid a 12-card hand'ed actually matters, and you can't (legally) determine that. Some of those things are legal and just a good tactic, some are legal and you got fished (which I have sympathy for), some are legal unless partner "isn't as surprised as opponents", and some are infractions that can be rectified if they caused you damage. But nowhere does it say you get to be annoyed.

[pilowsky]

fair suck of the sav cobber. I'm just trying to get a straight answer in a language any simple Aussie can understand.

[blackshoe]

If someone is "getting way with" not adhering to some standard, "higher" or not, then they are most emphatically not being held to that standard. So if the "standard" players are supposed to be held to the same disclosure standards as the "non-standard" players (and they are) then there should be no different ruling on the basis of the disclosure standard whatever system is being played.

[mycroft]

Pilowsky: then call your TD and have her work it out and explain it to you. Added benefit: unlike me, who speaks Albertan pretty good and a few other languages horribly, she probably speaks Aussie.

 

Blackshoe: I agree with you, as you know. And in my utopia, I'd be about two steps more aggressive with PPs for disclosure issues (lazy or "careful", don't care) even when they don't cause damage. But legally, the misinformation has to cause damage to be rectifiable, and the actual situation on the ground is that it's possible to be lazier with your explanations playing "the normal stuff that everybody knows" without causing damage (unless you're one of those who would like the rules to be that players are entitled to shut their brains off and completely trust their opponents' explanations).

 

Which, looked at the other way, means "if you're playing something weird, you're required to be less lazy than the people not playing something weird can get away with".

[blackshoe]

You can still give procedural penalties, at least f2f, to the lazy folks. I would be tempted (yeah, I know it won't fly) to keep track of accumulated PPs that I can't issue online until the software allows PPs and then give them to the pair all at once. :-)