Unintended splinter

[blackshoe]

On second thought, it’s illegal, at least over here, since it’s a protected psych. Partner is forced to answer, but you have ruled out hearts.

Is it? Was East aware that his bid of 3NT would be characterized as a psych? Because if he wasn't aware, it's not a psych.

[mycroft]

In the case being discussed, yes we do - it was stated in #44 that the bid was deliberate, intending to pass any response.

 

In the general, of course the issue I raise in #49 applies: if they tell the TD "it was a psych, I was just going to pass anything he bid", what is needed for the TD to consider that clearly self-serving testimony correct on the balance of probabilities? Surely not just the statement.

[pran]

In the case being discussed, yes we do - it was stated in #44 that the bid was deliberate, intending to pass any response.

 

In the general, of course the issue I raise in #49 applies: if they tell the TD "it was a psych, I was just going to pass anything he bid", what is needed for the TD to consider that clearly self-serving testimony correct on the balance of probabilities? Surely not just the statement.

As the contributor of #44 I must object.

My example was an extract from what we discuss, namely to show a particular situation which demonstrates the failure of many of the arguments in this discussion.

[mycroft]

I didn't mean that your #44 was what happened; just that sanst's response was in the context of "this is what East did, intentionally and knowing the system". Blackshoe's "do we know East knew it was a psych?" in general is a very good question, but in the context of that subthread, we do - it was stated by you as part of the scenario.

 

What sanst concluded is interesting, and I don't know how that argument would be applied in the ACBL - which also has a "psych protected by system" carveout, although reading the new charts, it is very arguable that it doesn't technically apply to this case (the old GCC defined psychic control as "Includes ANY partnership agreement which, if used in conjunction with a psychic call, makes allowance for that psych." The new one states: "Any Bid that conveys that a prior Bid was a Psych." and pass, as we all know, is not a Bid.)

[sanst]

I didn't mean that your #44 was what happened; just that sanst's response was in the context of "this is what East did, intentionally and knowing the system". Blackshoe's "do we know East knew it was a psych?" in general is a very good question, but in the context of that subthread, we do - it was stated by you as part of the scenario.

Thanks. I did use pran’s example, which is as clear as can be, although he doesn’t seem to think so. In that example, not in the OP, E deliberately made an alertable call with a intention that contradicts it’s systematic meaning. He was going to pass whatever W bid and has excluded a hearts answer from W by systematically stating that he had a singleton or void in that suit. It’s a psych, since it is a deliberate and gross deviation of the system, and it’s protected by the system since W has to call and won’t bid hearts. FWIIW, I think that the ACBL ‘clarification’ is obscuring the issue instead of clarifying it.

[barmar]

This is just the wrong question pran and surprising to me from such an experienced TD. I have played in partnerships where my partner insisted that "4NT is always Blackwood". For such a pair West has not made a quantitative raise. The fact that you would play it that way, or me, or indeed every other BBF poster, is neither here nor there. The right question is whether this pair plays a 4NT raise of a natural 3NT call quantitatively. If not then a key card or ace-showing response has to be a LA.

I've also encountered players who believe that if they're not passing a quantitative 4NT, they might as well show something. This could be aces, or it could be a suit to offer a choice of slams.

[mycroft]

Well, we don't want to go as far as the GCC did, which basically would have made classic "baby psychs" (2♥-X-2♠ with a doubleton spade and three hearts, intending to go back to hearts, or my psych elsewhere knowing I could pass Drury) illegal uses of Psychic controls. I don't think the current definition is sufficient, but "passing a forcing bid shows you psyched" is just logic, not a psychic control. I think the EBU has it closest to right I've seen, where things like "Watson double: double of 3NT saying 'don't lead my suit'" is a legal agreement, but if used in conjunction with a psych is an illegal psychic control.

 

I'm not sure whether I would like to go down the path as far as you with this one - "oh, I found a bid that partner will make a bid I can pass, and it won't be the one suit I don't really want to play" (although I might want to play it opposite a decent 5=4, with AQ5, and ♠xx as entries for finesses and pitches) - you could correct 4♥ to 4♠ to play a contract you were willing to play, Shirley? I can see the argument, though, and for some RAs it might be a valid one. I don't believe, given the text of our regulations, that the ACBL is one of them.

 

I'm not as certain as you, also, that a pair that plays 1♠-3NT as "heart splinter", doesn't have a meaning for 4♥.

[blackshoe]

When I made my last post, I was thinking in terms of the original problem, not some hypothetical situation that came along later.

[pescetom]

I'm not as certain as you, also, that a pair that plays 1♠-3NT as "heart splinter", doesn't have a meaning for 4♥.

They play 1♠-4♥ as natural interdictive, says the card.

 

Thanks all for the interesting twist the thread has taken, even though I hope we all agree that "but explain as if you had never forgotten" is also worthy of discussion. As mycroft pointed out, this is partly solved in modern self-alert bridge, but still significant nonetheless.

[mycroft]

Sorry, I was unclear. Sanst was saying that 1♠-3NT if psyched ("I'm going to pass any response") is a psychic control because the one rebid partner won't make is 4♥, the suit I don't want to play in, because I've "shown" shortness. I was saying that I wouldn't bet that 1♠-3NT; 4♥ doesn't have a meaning and could easily be bid.