"psychic inquiry" strikes again

[mycroft]

So, as I'm sure everyone is tired of hearing, I don't post on That Other Site for Reasons.

 

But I am quietly laughing my head off over this OMGPsych post.

 

Short recap for those who haven't read it and don't want to go hunting:

 

[hv=pc=n&n=s95hq864dj853ck92&d=s&v=e&b=11&a=2c(Alerted%2C%20Precision%20%5Bnot%20asked%5D)p2d(Alerted%2C%20see%20comment)p3h(5%2F6%20round%20suits)p4hppp]133|200|"When we asked about the 2♦ bid, we were told that it was the standard Precision inquiry with no mention of strength."[/hv]

 

And of course, OMGWTFBBQ, "deliberately deceptive explanation" and "potential psych, depending on explanation" (note, not *agreement*. Interesting that), how dare they, ...

 

With some "well, we explain better, because" and "maybe they don't know what standard Precision is".

 

And yet - and *yet* - I bet if I went hunting, I'd find a lot of the people who have lost their minds over this one:

• have posts explaining that "We didn't say anything about the strength of our Ogust inquiry, because we don't have one. Of course it doesn't guarantee strength, why would anyone think that?", or
  
• have posts defending the MWLite bidders when they "of course it's obvious to not pass in third seat with a 3 count. What for you say HUM (and undisclosed agreement), it's Just Bridge?"

 

I also note there's another thread there, where a number of the same Usual Suspects are saying things like "I never respond to a 1-bid with less than 0 points". I wonder if they'd describe their responses as "standard", too? But of course, "everybody knows that's standard, we're not hiding information that's beneficial to our side if you don't realize".

 

I guess I don't really have a point. I just find it "interesting"</s>. Of course, I'm sure it's just confirmation bias on my part...

 

[Edit in the vulnerability]

[mycroft]

I will also state that there are several (DBurn comes to mind, and our own blackshoe, but I know there are others) who are consistent in their criticism. But boy are there a lot that aren't...

[LBengtsson]

Perhaps the partnership forgot they were using Precision :rolleyes:

[blackshoe]

LOL!

[pescetom]

The mere fact that the proposed alternative explanation "Artificial, asking for a further description, doesn't promise any strength" was ignored says it all, unfortunately.

But I find Chris Compton's "nonsense" reply to David Burn disconcerting, to say the least.

[mycroft]

1. But why does it have to say "doesn't promise any strength?" Why can't it be "Artificial inquiry, asking me to describe my hand"?
   
2. Okay, yes, I know the answer. Now, what's different about Ogust, or "we'll respond on anything to 1m under these circumstances", or 3m-p-3NT NV with 4 card support and a 3 count?
   
3. In a GNT qualifier, our opponents bid 2♠-p-4NT-x; (response)-p-5♠. Does that promise any strength? Do people who play this as "sometimes a preemptive raise to 5" have to say it? If not, why not? (yes, partner with the moose bid 6♥ and made it).

[mycroft]

I am also concerned that what we are told the response to the question was, isn't necessarily either:

• A shortcut of what was actually said, or
  
• author's memory of what he translated what was said into.

I know for ruling purposes we take as a first assumption that the facts in the OP are correct (and as complete as they think is necessary), but here, especially given the alt-reading of that site's title, I have my doubts.

 

Re: CC. I have my issues with his biases as well; but his comment does stand on the merits. It *could be* that they're new players who don't realize that "in standard Precision", it shows invitational values (yes, not likely, but still); it *could be* that they're new-to-Precision players who were taught by someone who didn't know that "standard Precision" wants invitational values (likely because he was taught by somebody who doesn't... turtles all the way down. This certainly happens a lot with C players playing Standard!) That doesn't mean that DBurn isn't right - just another case where people playing a standard system "get away with" lack of full disclosure in ways that lead to shouts of C-word for non-"Natural" systems.

 

Given the hand and the vulnerability, I'm quite certain that either it was a psych (in which case, yeah, it's not legal ACBL), or their agreement is the Psychic Ogust agreement - "even if we've never mentioned it, if it goes 2♣-2♦; any response-3♣, opener doesn't double a partscore". Which, of course, *is* a legal agreement [*] - so I'd strongly recommend the bidders own up to it, and when the director explains that "this isn't standard, you need to mention it every time", again ape the Psychic Ogust people and say "oh, doesn't everybody play it that way? It's obvious!" (and then, like the psychic Ogust pairs tend not to do, actually follow the TD's instructions going forward). Even if it was a psych :-)

 

[*]Okay, the "2♦ Artificial inquiry, doesn't promise any values, could just be a preemptive raise to 3♣" is a legal agreement, and "because of that, opener doesn't double when they could easily have game values" is not a Psychic Control, it's just Valid Judgement. Yeah, what I actually wrote could be illegal :-).

[pescetom]

Re: CC. I have my issues with his biases as well; but his comment does stand on the merits. It *could be* that they're new players who don't realize that "in standard Precision", it shows invitational values (yes, not likely, but still); it *could be* that they're new-to-Precision players who were taught by someone who didn't know that "standard Precision" wants invitational values (likely because he was taught by somebody who doesn't... turtles all the way down. This certainly happens a lot with C players playing Standard!) That doesn't mean that DBurn isn't right - just another case where people playing a standard system "get away with lack of full disclosure in ways that lead to shouts of C-word for non-"Natural" systems.

Maybe it's just that Precision only briefly and a long time ago qualified as a standard system in this part of the world, but I can't see why the opponents should have to realize anything about the system that is not explained to them on a clear system card, or before playing or on request after alert.

 

Having said that, I love the fact that Ed considers the Laws of Duplicate Bridge a superior authority to a condensed OED :)

[pescetom]

And if anyone lacks access or antibodies to that site (remembering a recent post here reverently quoting the nth overbid of KW) see the previous thread:

 

https://bridgewinners.com/article/view/ui-conundrum/

 

"Partner's alert and explanation is UI. But partner's 2♠ call is AI that he thinks your bid is a transfer."

[blackshoe]

Having said that, I love the fact that Ed considers the Laws of Duplicate Bridge a superior authority to a condensed OED :)

Where the subject is duplicate bridge, yes. :-)

[pescetom]

everyone happy

Hey yeah, of course "negative" is ok as an explanation of ♠3 ♥KQT876, what gives?

[blackshoe]

My first CO in the Navy used to regularly complain “I am surrounded by incompetents.” Imagine how he’d feel about BBO’s TDs. :-)

[mycroft]

And in today's "I don't care what the regs say, this isn't What I Would Play, so They have to Do Something or it's not Fair" (with, to add to the fun, lots of options about what "something" should be, and people advocating each of them. Great, so they do what one person thinks is right, and get caught by one of the others who will still feel aggrieved (and will still explain their "normal" bridge the same half-hearted way).)

 

Very Weak Preemptive

 

RTFR(egulations), folks. If you don't like them, don't yell at the players following them, or the directors enforcing them, and don't go the the Virtual Bar to complain about how hard done by you were. Tell the people who can actually do something about it.

 

Do I think there should be a better way to explain preempt style than we currently have? Well, check my history. But given that when we did, it was never done; and when called on it, the Players "just Bridge"'d their way out of following the rules and then ignored them next time; I have no issues with a C&C Committee that went with "almost always, unusual(ly light) strength agreements do not make Natural bids (Pre-)Alertable. It's your job to find out their style if you care."

[Cyberyeti]

I had an interesting one at the weekend, didn't bother with a director call (EBU)

 

RHO opens a 2+ card club in a 5M approach forcing context, LHO responds 1♥, can't remember what RHO ended up declaring.

 

I lead, dummy decks with a flat Yarborough with 4♣/4♥.

 

Is that routine I ask opener, yes he replies, if you're going to agree to respond with zero isn't that alertable ? No.

 

Now it appears to me either 1♣ is forcing and thus alertable, or the response is on less values than we might expect if not bereft of clubs and thus alertable

 

We have an enquiry we have to explain carefully, we play a weird 2♠ opener that includes a bad 3♥ bid, 5-5 minors or 5-5 reds weak. 2N over this shows all the strong hands plus a hand of any strength that wants to play in diamonds opposite the minors, but hearts opposite the reds. What's usually asked of the 2N is "Is it strong ?".

[jillybean]

I had an interesting one at the weekend, didn't bother with a director call (EBU)

I have to ask, why didn't you call the Director?

 

The games are being run by the players. How much longer are we going to carry on with the charade that Bridge is played in accordance to the Laws Of Duplicate Bridge?

It seems futile discussing the laws of the game and what should have happened if a Director, who knew what they were doing, was called.

[Cyberyeti]

I have to ask, why didn't you call the Director?

 

The games are being run by the players. How much longer are we going to carry on with the charade that Bridge is played in accordance to the Laws Of Duplicate Bridge?

It seems futile discussing the laws of the game and what should have happened if a Director, who knew what they were doing, was called.

 

The director was already fed up with me for my two other calls he was dealing with from the previous round :) There was no damage from it, and it wasn't in any way fielded 1♣-1♥-2N on a flat 19 -2NV for a little above average for us.

[barmar]

Rather than "just bridge", it could be "just bad bridge".

 

I can't count the number of times a poor player has said they need 5-card support to raise their partner's minor in a competitive auction because the opening bid could be only 3 cards. While that's possible, the probability is low enough that we raise with 4 anyway. I've never played short minor, so I don't know how much the probabilities change.

 

So in this case, LHO may just feel that even though 1♣ isn't technically forcing, they're too scared of ending up in a 4-2 fit to pass it.

[pescetom]

And in today's "I don't care what the regs say, this isn't What I Would Play, so They have to Do Something or it's not Fair" (with, to add to the fun, lots of options about what "something" should be, and people advocating each of them. Great, so they do what one person thinks is right, and get caught by one of the others who will still feel aggrieved (and will still explain their "normal" bridge the same half-hearted way).)

 

Very Weak Preemptive

 

RTFR(egulations), folks. If you don't like them, don't yell at the players following them, or the directors enforcing them, and don't go the the Virtual Bar to complain about how hard done by you were. Tell the people who can actually do something about it.

 

Do I think there should be a better way to explain preempt style than we currently have? Well, check my history. But given that when we did, it was never done; and when called on it, the Players "just Bridge"'d their way out of following the rules and then ignored them next time; I have no issues with a C&C Committee that went with "almost always, unusual(ly light) strength agreements do not make Natural bids (Pre-)Alertable. It's your job to find out their style if you care."

 

I more or less agree, although like the late nige1 I would prefer such matters to be above RA regulation.

 

 

The WBF card has a generic SYSTEM SUMMARY where players should "note your tendencies to open, respond and compete on light or substandard hands" and "Describe your pre-empting style". The WBF policy (as I read it) is no alert.

 

It was said in that discussion that the ACBL card has a section called "Preempts" which has open-ended lines to disclose "3-Level Style" and "4-Level Style". The ACBL policy I gather is no alert.

 

It was also said that EBU would require alert as "a potentially unexpected meaning".

 

Even FIGB differs from WBF (for once) in this respect. The FIGB card has a generic SPECIAL OPENINGS section where players can describe unusual agreements about preempts. The FIGB policy requires alert for "natural bids which define strength... different from normal usage".

[pescetom]

I had an interesting one at the weekend, didn't bother with a director call (EBU)

 

RHO opens a 2+ card club in a 5M approach forcing context, LHO responds 1♥, can't remember what RHO ended up declaring.

 

I lead, dummy decks with a flat Yarborough with 4♣/4♥.

 

Is that routine I ask opener, yes he replies, if you're going to agree to respond with zero isn't that alertable ? No.

 

Now it appears to me either 1♣ is forcing and thus alertable, or the response is on less values than we might expect if not bereft of clubs and thus alertable

 

We have an enquiry we have to explain carefully, we play a weird 2♠ opener that includes a bad 3♥ bid, 5-5 minors or 5-5 reds weak. 2N over this shows all the strong hands plus a hand of any strength that wants to play in diamonds opposite the minors, but hearts opposite the reds. What's usually asked of the 2N is "Is it strong ?".

 

As a side note, I think it's better to open a new thread for a new problem.

 

I have met some people that imagine responding to a NF 1♣ with any Yarborough is "just bridge", their results match their logic.

Of course 1♣ should be alerted in such a partnership, above all it should be on the card too.

[Cyberyeti]

As a side note, I think it's better to open a new thread for a new problem.

 

I have met some people that imagine responding to a NF 1♣ with any Yarborough is "just bridge", their results match their logic.

Of course 1♣ should be alerted in such a partnership, above all it should be on the card too.

 

This was a player who's either close to or in in the national U-26 women's team playing with a good player.

[pescetom]

This was a player who's either close to or in in the national U-26 women's team playing with a good player.

 

In which case I would inspect their card and then give them a hard time (whatever it says, at least under Italian or English regulations).

[mycroft]

As I said, "normal" things they do are "not Alertable, why would we have to, it's expected", and "odd" things their opponents do need to be explained down to every possible option, or they're "trying to win by confusion".

 

That vs. "what the regulators think needs to be Alerted" is yet another question.

 

Of course, "not forcing, but we 'never' pass", or "not forcing, but there are zero-counts we will bid on, they look like <this>" is a valid agreement, and if it's legal and only "forcing" bids are Alertable, then we're here again.

 

Edit: checked the Blue Book. "natural, but potentially unexpected meaning" is Alertable, this particular one isn't in the list of examples of "PU Meaning", so they may be right (they may be crazy). Downside of "fuzzy" language such as "potentially unexpected". Send it to the committee - unlike others, the EBU is known to be responsive in periods short of "years".

[Cyberyeti]

As I said, "normal" things they do are "not Alertable, why would we have to, it's expected", and "odd" things their opponents do need to be explained down to every possible option, or they're "trying to win by confusion".

 

That vs. "what the regulators think needs to be Alerted" is yet another question.

 

Of course, "not forcing, but we 'never' pass", or "not forcing, but there are zero-counts we will bid on, they look like <this>" is a valid agreement, and if it's legal and only "forcing" bids are Alertable, then we're here again.

 

Edit: checked the Blue Book. "natural, but potentially unexpected meaning" is Alertable, this particular one isn't in the list of examples of "PU Meaning", so they may be right (they may be crazy). Downside of "fuzzy" language such as "potentially unexpected". Send it to the committee - unlike others, the EBU is known to be responsive in periods short of "years".

 

I emailed it to a friend who's on the L&E to see what his opinion was. The reason for doing this is that the pair was playing the system that is taught to most of the English juniors so if they're all playing it I'd like to know if it's legal.

[mycroft]

Oh, I'm sure it's legal: Level 2 (where the 2+ club isn't legal): "Any natural call is permitted, subject to the restrictions on the strength of opening bids in 6C1" (my emphasis). Level 4: "From responder’s first call onwards all partnership understandings are permitted." The question is whether it is "potentially unexpected" enough to be Alertable.

[Cyberyeti]

Oh, I'm sure it's legal: Level 2 (where the 2+ club isn't legal): "Any natural call is permitted, subject to the restrictions on the strength of opening bids in 6C1" (my emphasis). Level 4: "From responder’s first call onwards all partnership understandings are permitted." The question is whether it is "potentially unexpected" enough to be Alertable.

 

Which was exactly the question I asked, along with "is the club effectively forcing and thus alertable"