3 little pigs

[jillybean]

[hv=pc=n&e=s654ht7dk75ckq743&d=w&v=n&b=12&a=1dp]133|200[/hv]

 

MP's, 2/1 2♣ and 2♦ would be GF

 

What! do you bid?

[pilowsky]

1NT not forcing over an opening of 1 minor using 2/1

[Douglas43]

1NT. Even if not playing 2/1 this wouldn't qualify for a two-level response in a new suit.

[mycroft]

What's my NT range?

 

If it's 12-14 (and it likely is given previous threads), then you have the K/S problem of what to do with hands that would invite opposite the strong NT[1]. K/S solves this by making 1m-1NT 5-7 (KSU - balanced 8). They overload the 2♣ call with hands like this (if you think it's too strong for "balanced 8"), and have a whole big pattern to resolve it (B-18 through B20 in K/S Updated. Note the header to B-19: 1♦-2♣ "shows exactly the same hands as" 1♣-1♦).

 

If it's 15-17, 1NT. No thought required.

 

[1] And yet again, I get trapped wishing for a single-character-width ten. 3=3=3=5 felt wrong, but I couldn't figure out why for a bit.

[Cyberyeti]

1N almost whatever I'm playing, VERY old style Acol would 2/1 on this but gave up on it a long time ago.

[jillybean]

I did not think this would be a good hand to play in 1nt and I didn't want to end the auction, so I chose 1♠.

I'm comfortable if partner raises ♠, I'm delighted if he rebids a minor and I think he is better positioned to play in 1nt.

 

 

[hv=pc=n&s=saqj9732hk832d8c9&w=stha5dajt94cajt85&n=sk8hqj964dq632c62&e=s654ht7dk75ckq743&d=w&v=n&b=12&a=1dp1sp2cppd3c3h4cp5cppp]399|300[/hv]

 

Needless to say, the director was called when dummy came down.

I'm not sure if I have the auction 100%, north bid ♥ after the X, south never mentioned ♠

[AL78]

Why did you make a decision that the final contract was going to end up in a doomed NT level? I don't think it is a good idea to warp your hand so early in the auction when you know little of what partner has. I'm a believer in bidding according to what you have in your hand with few exceptions.

 

As for the director call, I assume the verdict was hard luck, you got stuffed by a psyche.

[AL78]

Nice hand to have at IMPs, a double game swing potentially.

[TylerE]

Sorry, but bidding 1S is just a horrible bid. Stop trying to overthink everything. You should DELIGHT at bidding 1N. You want the lead coming to your hand.

[apollo1201]

As for the director call, I assume the verdict was hard luck, you got stuffed by a psyche.

Or a lesson for S that 2S « cue-bid » over 1S is (most often played as) natural, good opening hand with a 6-cd suit. Here the extra length compensates.

 

And E probably owes W a raise to 3C.

[mycroft]

I'm just having a discussion with my partner about 1♣-p-1♠-2♠ is natural. Because people will do this. Much better than a director call, for all sides.

 

Also, why pass 2♣? You have an "almost invite" hand, you have a double fit and a source of tricks in NT, partner could be 17 here. I know, you're concerned you've shown a spade stopper and if partner bids 3NT you'll lose the first 5 (or 7) spades.

[jillybean]

Why did you make a decision that the final contract was going to end up in a doomed NT level? I don't think it is a good idea to warp your hand so early in the auction when you know little of what partner has. I'm a believer in bidding according to what you have in your hand with few exceptions.

 

As for the director call, I assume the verdict was hard luck, you got stuffed by a psyche.

I did not make any decision the final contract was going to end in a doomed nt, I didn't like the idea of bidding 1nt when I have 8 cards in the minors and no major cards. I want to the keep the auction alive, I think partner is more likely to bid again over 1♠ with a misfit than he is over 1nt, if he bids nt we have a ♥ stopper and will play there. (edited)

 

I'm happy for you to call the 1♠ bid bad, terrible, ghastly but it is not a psyche.

[jillybean]

I'm just having a discussion with my partner about 1♣-p-1♠-2♠ is natural. Because people will do this. Much better than a director call, for all sides.

 

Also, why pass 2♣? You have an "almost invite" hand, you have a double fit and a source of tricks in NT, partner could be 17 here. I know, you're concerned you've shown a spade stopper and if partner bids 3NT you'll lose the first 5 (or 7) spades.

I think I have the auction wrong, I did raise clubs and then partner passed the double. If partner bids 3nt we will play in a minor.

[TylerE]

I'm happy for you to call the 1♠ bid bad, terrible, ghastly but it is not a psyche.

 

If that isn't a psyche, I don't know what is. You don't want to play in spades, you don't want a spade lead.

[Winstonm]

This is how partnerships end. It is impossible to know where this hand belongs after 1 bid so for partnership unity and trust bid your hand normally, I.e., 1nt

[jillybean]

If that isn't a psyche, I don't know what is. You don't want to play in spades, you don't want a spade lead.

Psyche "A deliberate and gross misstatement of honor strength or suit length."

I would be surprised if 3 card ♠ when 4 cards are expected would be considered a gross missstement of suit length.

[AL78]

I did not make any decision the final contract was going to end in a doomed nt, I didn't like the idea of bidding 1nt when I have 8 cards in the minors and no major cards. I want to the keep the auction alive, I think partner is more likely to bid again over 1♠ with a misfit than he is over 1nt, if he bids nt we have a ♥ stopper and will play there. (edited)

 

I'm happy for you to call the 1♠ bid bad, terrible, ghastly but it is not a psyche.

 

From the perspective of the opponents it is a psyche, and on this board had the same effect as a successful psyche, whatever you want to call it.

[AL78]

Psyche "A deliberate and gross misstatement of honor strength or suit length."

I would be surprised if 3 card ♠ when 4 cards are expected would be considered a gross missstement of suit length.

 

Yes it is when you are bidding the suit naturally to suggest it as a possible strain to play in. It makes a big difference when the opponents want to get into the auction. The competitive part of the system over 1S natural is going to be different to over 1S could be three.

[mikeh]

1S on this hand is a psyche.

 

It’s also a dangerous psyche in that in most standard based methods opener is permitted to raise with a shapely minimum and 3 card support. He’s also going to jump raise, to 3 or 4S, or splinter on hands on which you’re going to deeply regret your call. Or he bids 3N and your LHO doubles for the lead, and you’re cold for a minor contract, down in 3N off the top.

 

Meanwhile, 1N does an admirable job of telling partner that you have no 4 card major, no diamond raise, and roughly your actual hcp.

 

Is it ideal? Well, you may wrongside notrump on occasion but right-siding is, imo, a seriously overrated concern when the opps are passing. It’s a legitimate concern in constructive auctions, but distorting one’s hand to avoid a normal, descriptive call out of a fear of having the wrong hand declare is way too much.

 

Obviously south has a trivial 2S overcall....nobody should play this as anything but natural...not to cater to xxx but because often 2S plays just fine when you know about the break, and most partnerships struggle against 2S here. What, for example, does double show?

 

It’s important to stay within your methods. When your methods say to bid 1N, bid 1N.

 

The allure of masterminding, which is what 1S is, can be pernicious. Masterminding is choosing actions based upon your personal belief, on a given hand, that you know the layout of the hand even when you don’t. Here, you’ve convinced yourself that notrump will play poorly from your side.

 

It’s refusing to abide by your chosen methods out of a conviction that one knows better. It’s a slippery slope, made all the worse by the occasional triumph. Meanwhile, you’re damaging your partnership.

[mycroft]

if you don't think it's a psychic, then you think it's a reasonable deviation from your system. If your partner also thinks so, then it's part of your actual, if implied agreement. If it is your agreement, then it has to be legal in the game you're playing. From what I can read of the NZB systems regulations, that's not an issue, but don't trust me for that. And the opponents have to be as aware as you are about it.

 

It's much better for you that a "deliberate, gross" deviation from your methods be considered a psychic. And a "four card suit" on 654 and a doubleton - yeah, to me that's gross. You've already volunteered deliberate.

 

You're not the first to want to bid a 3-card major on the odd hand that is unsuitable for anything else in your system. My experience with pairs who do this (not exclusively, but pretty much) is that:

• "It's normal, everybody would do it, why do we have to tell the opponents?", or
  
• "It's very rare, and everybody has some hands that system doesn't have a bid for, why do we have to say anything?" (or better yet, "it's just bridge"); and
  
• "But of course it's not psychic, I don't psych!"

Now, I am 100% biased; in the ACBL, an agreement to respond in a 3-card major was not legal in 95% of events until 2017 (and still isn't, on the Basic charts). And we have the "Thanks for the Bulletin's clever" attitude to psychic bidding by most players. So the people who would do this (or designed their system to require this) were in a bind, where what they wanted to play wasn't legal, but they couldn't claim it was a psychic (even if it was), because then they'd be tarred and feathered. More enlightened places in the world might see different patterns.

 

If I did this (and partner wouldn't expect it!), partner's response would be 4♣ splinter. But that never seems to happen to anyone else.

 

As far as the opponents are concerned, if they can't resolve a psychic 1M response either immediately or later, maybe they should look into fixing that, or paying off to it when it happens, depending on the relative EV.

[jillybean]

I accept that my 1♠ bid was "gross", as in "terrible" and that I should not be masterminding these hands, but please explain how this is a psyche?

2♥ would be a psyche.

 

 

The key word is "gross." If you forget the meaning of a call, that is not a psyche. If you make a call with 12 points when your partnership agreement calls for a maximum of 11, that is not a psyche -- it is not a gross misstatement. If you are playing five-card majors and open the bidding with one spade on a four-card holding, that is not a psyche. In general your call is a gross misstatement, and therefore is considered a psyche, if the call varies by at least two points in strength or two cards in length from your agreement.

[TylerE]

It has already been explained in quite some detail. You've been led to water. Up to you to drink, now.

[Cyberyeti]

1S on this hand is a psyche.

 

 

Is it really, you are 1 card away from a fairly routine 1♠, xxxx, xx, Kx, KQxxx/Qxxx, xx, Kxx, Kxxx are routine 1♠ and you're 1 card of shape and no points off that. To me it's a bent bid that doesn't qualify as a psyche, I also think it's a bad bid that deserves partner to bid 4♠. It's on a level with opening a 12-14 1N on a 4225 11 count when you only theoretically open them on 4333/4432/5332.

 

I would have expected S to bid a natural 2♠ most of the time.

.

[mikeh]

I accept that my 1♠ bid was "gross", as in "terrible" and that I should not be masterminding these hands, but please explain how this is a psyche?

2♥ would be a psyche.

 

 

The key word is "gross." If you forget the meaning of a call, that is not a psyche. If you make a call with 12 points when your partnership agreement calls for a maximum of 11, that is not a psyche -- it is not a gross misstatement. If you are playing five-card majors and open the bidding with one spade on a four-card holding, that is not a psyche. In general your call is a gross misstatement, and therefore is considered a psyche, if the call varies by at least two points in strength or two cards in length from your agreement.

It’s normal to dig into a position one has taken. However, nobody here is your enemy and you may want to consider why we think this is a psyche, rather than to quote definitions and argue that your call doesn’t fit those definitions. Imo, it does. You can differ, but perhaps consider that you may be incorrect

[jillybean]

I am considering that I could be incorrect, hence my questions. But I should know better than to debate this with you. :)

I don't consider 3 cards when partner expects 4 as a gross deviation from our agreements. Partner expects 4 cards.

If psyches include ill-conceived deviations then I am incorrect in my understanding of the definition.

 

The definition I gave above came from my search for ACBL definitions of a psyche, I never find it easy to find details on the ACBL Website.

 

 

This is from Duplicate Decisions.

 

A deviation was defined by Don Oakie (Feb., 1978, ACBL Bridge Bulletin) as a bid in

which the strength of the hand is within a queen of the agreed or announced strength, and

the bid is of a suit of ample length or of notrump. He also defined a deviation as a bid of a

suit in which the length of the suit varies by no more than one card from the agreed or

announced length and the hand contains ample high-card values for the bid in the system

being played. If either of these situations occurs, it is easy to see by repeating the

definition of a psych (a deliberate and gross misstatement of honor strength or suit

length) that a deviation is NOT a PSYCH.

However, frequent deviations may indicate that the pair has an undisclosed implied

agreement acquired through experience. This situation should be dealt with firmly.