[Vampyr]

 chasetb, on 2013-February-05, 16:17, said:

That along with the definition of "Conventional", which is what the double of 2♣ is (as Stayman), says you don't have to Alert it. After all, Stayman hasn't been Alertable for years in the ACBL, so why would a double of 2♣ showing the same thing be?

LOL! Good one.

[Mbodell]

 ArtK78, on 2013-February-05, 15:13, said:

Even if this person psyched his 2♦ opening, it is not illegal. In the ACBL, the only illegal psyches are psyches of strong, forcing and artificial opening bids. This 2♦ opening doesn't fall into that category, so there is nothing illegal about it.

Are you sure about that? The GCC says (under disallowed 2):

Quote

Psyching of artificial or conventional opening bids and/or conventional
responses thereto. Psyching conventional suit responses, which are less than
2NT, to natural openings.

which suggests it is illegal to psych Flannery or a 1 minor bid that can be less than 2 cards or many other artificial or conventional calls. Heck, for that matter it would be illegal to psych a transfer over 1nt.

[Elianna]

 Mbodell, on 2013-February-06, 00:05, said:

Are you sure about that? The GCC says (under disallowed 2):

Quote

Psyching of artificial or conventional opening bids and/or conventional
responses thereto. Psyching conventional suit responses, which are less than
2NT, to natural openings.

which suggests it is illegal to psych Flannery or a 1 minor bid that can be less than 2 cards or many other artificial or conventional calls. Heck, for that matter it would be illegal to psych a transfer over 1nt.

This sounds like they are institutionalizing the "convention disruption" idea discussed in Jillybean's thread.

Anyway, I believe that I heard someone else calling out this pair about their convention card, which may have actually said 9-14. I remember the director talking to them saying it's not legal to play it as low as nine, but not sure that they actually bid it. I don't remember what they alerted against us. (It was definitely after we played them, btw.)

[aguahombre]

Am not sure which artificial bids are not allowed to be psyched. We are in a good position to be on the NOS side, though. We tend not to forget our agreements and don't screw around. Am willing to let the Td show his exasperation with pairs who do it.

[Mbodell]

 Elianna, on 2013-February-06, 00:34, said:

Anyway, I believe that I heard someone else calling out this pair about their convention card, which may have actually said 9-14. I remember the director talking to them saying it's not legal to play it as low as nine, but not sure that they actually bid it. I don't remember what they alerted against us. (It was definitely after we played them, btw.)

When I asked he said 10-14 at our table and when I looked at her card I could see the 10-14 written in, I just couldn't see the rest of the writing. But there other 2 bids might have been weird too.

[barmar]

 ArtK78, on 2013-February-05, 15:13, said:

And why would it be "illegal?" The opps agreement is that the bid shows 10-14 and 45/54 in the majors. So he actually had 9. Or maybe he had 5-5 in the majors. Or something else that doesn't quite fit the bid. Does his partner know that? If his partner is not aware of any deviation from the agreement (either explicitly or by a history of such occurrences), then there is no concealed partnership agreement, and thus nothing illegal.

Even if this person psyched his 2♦ opening, it is not illegal. In the ACBL, the only illegal psyches are psyches of strong, forcing and artificial opening bids. This 2♦ opening doesn't fall into that category, so there is nothing illegal about it.

And we are talking about the ACBL here, since this occurred in an NAP game.

ACBL has long maintained that you can't get around the GCC prohibition of opening 1NT with 9 HCP by claiming that you upgraded the hand. (I know, it's not actually a prohibition of the bid, just a prohibition of conventional followups, but the intent and usual effect is the same.) So the question is whether the same logic applies to Flannery-like 2♦ and GCC's rule allowing "OPENING BID AT THE TWO LEVEL OR HIGHER indicating two known suits, a minimum of 10 HCP and at least 5–4 distribution in the suits" -- will they throw the book at you if you upgrade a 9 count?

[hrothgar]

 Elianna, on 2013-February-06, 00:34, said:

This sounds like they are institutionalizing the "convention disruption" idea discussed in Jillybean's thread.

FWIW, the two topics bear quite different antecedents.

The Convention Disruption thingee is an idea that's been festering in Wolff's head for close to two decades. As I understand matters, this particular crusade is his...

The way I heard things, the "no psyching conventional openings" was due to one of Marston's shenanigans in which he psyched a strong club opening versus an ACBL official.

[barmar]

 hrothgar, on 2013-February-06, 10:53, said:

The way I heard things, the "no psyching conventional openings" was due to one of Marston's shenanigans in which he psyched a strong club opening versus an ACBL official.

But it seems like ACBL has expanded this one. It used to be just strong, artificial openings that you couldn't psyche, now it's all artificial or conventional openings.

BTW, the way they restricted opening 1NT with less than 10 HCP, by prohibiting conventional followups, was due to the old Laws' statement that RAs could only regulate conventions. The 2007 Laws say that RAs can regulate any "special partnership agreements", and RAs get to decide themselves what they consider "special". This opens the door to ACBL changing this rule to prohibit nano-NT entirely.

[mycroft]

1) Yes, psyching micro-Flannery is illegal on the GCC, as several have said upthread.
2) If it's a "9-that-looks-like-10", then it's an upgrade and should be fine (I have issues with the "KQJx QJT9 T9 T98 isn't a 10-count" crowd for Kamikaze NT, as well; what's been *said* and what's been written in the Bulletin, and what's in the actual regulations are two different things, and it would be interesting to get actual case law. But even that is a pogrom by a few people against the 10-12ers who, back in the day, did have a lot of interesting agreements, including effectively opening "any" 9 count and claiming it was an upgrade, and psyching the "bailout" responses, with undisclosed agreements that opener, even with KQJx in the suit, couldn't raise it, even in competition. I don't see the fanaticism on upgrade judgement on any other conventional call - certainly people are happy with my 15-that-looks-like-16 Precision openers, for instance), as I said above.
3) if it's not, if it's a "9-that-looks-like-a-third-seat-opener", then either:
- they expect it, in which case it's an illegal, and concealed, conventional agreement;
- they don't expect it, and it was deliberate, in which case, it's a psych of a conventional opening, and illegal;
- they don't expect it, and they didn't realize 2♦ was regulated differently than a natural 1♥ call, in which case we handle that as we do any other similar situation;
- they don't expect it, opener really did think it was a 10-count, and we believe that his judgement is really that bad and he's not trying one on, in which case we deal with that.

Frankly, it is highly likely that they know they can't agree to open crappy 9-counts, but don't realize that the relaxation on (natural) third-seat openings doesn't apply to conventional calls. They do expect this, in third seat, and they do have an implied SPU, and they don't think there's anything wrong with it. Less likely is that they're trying on the innocent look; less likely they are just hoping nobody's going to notice; less likely they don't realize that there's a hard limit of 10 HCP on these calls; less likely yet they're being deliberately malfeasant.

But I certainly can't determine what, if any, of these cases apply from here; nor can anyone else. That's why we call the TD; not because we want to punish the offenders, but because only she can determine what, if anything, is problematic, without the bias of being one of the table pairs. Were I at the table, I would be content if the TD said there wasn't an issue after doing the research; I would be content if the TD said there was; I'd only be frustrated if I let it slide, but was still fed up enough with it to raise it the next day somewhere else. So that's why I started with "yeah, call."

[Mbodell]

 mycroft, on 2013-February-06, 15:13, said:

But I certainly can't determine what, if any, of these cases apply from here; nor can anyone else. That's why we call the TD; not because we want to punish the offenders, but because only she can determine what, if anything, is problematic, without the bias of being one of the table pairs. Were I at the table, I would be content if the TD said there wasn't an issue after doing the research; I would be content if the TD said there was; I'd only be frustrated if I let it slide, but was still fed up enough with it to raise it the next day somewhere else. So that's why I started with "yeah, call."

FWIW, to the degree that I'm at all frustrated about this (which is only extremely minimally), it is over the ACBL policy being difficult to understand and not necessarily consistent. So it was more the policy and its enforcement that I'm questioning than the hand in general.

I'm also certain that if the pair in question is playing an illegal agreement (or a legal agreement illegally?) it would be though ignorance and not malfeasance. Reasonable people could disagree about if this was an upgradable 9 count: with 5-5 being a plus instead of 5-4 but a with wasted J (KT752 AJ654 T J3). And they certainly didn't cater to being weak when the passed hand 10 count drove to 4♥ (which is actually a pretty good contract, that only went down one at our table when declarer didn't follow the "nine never" rule for finding the trump Q).

[mycroft]

Para. 1: Welcome to the club :-)

Para. 2: It certainly does look like a 10 to me (even with the wasted J). Mostly, as you say, because it's 5=5 treated as 5=4 (but the three controls don't hurt). However, that is also an issue: is 5=5 or longer an option systemically? Is it disclosed? Do they upgrade 5=5s into "stronger" 5=4s regularly enough that the opponents should know about it anyway, whether or not it's an agreement? But I agree with you on the 'it's really borderline, and they need to know what the GCC actually says and what it means when they decide to "upgrade" these "on the legal edge" conventional agreements' front (and, as above, on the 'wish we had more concrete and consistent information about what "it" means' front).

[rduran1216]

against phil and i yday it goes

4c 4s
5c 5h
6s


with a chuckle phil who can hardly contain himself goes...gerber? hahaha

[ggwhiz]

 aguahombre, on 2013-February-04, 13:01, said:

And in Ireland, it is an English cue-bid.

And in France where a monkey wrench is a cle Anglais

[Gerardo]

 ggwhiz, on 2013-February-07, 15:46, said:

And in France where a monkey wrench is a cle Anglais

Also in spanish, llave inglesa.

[TylerE]

Worst I can remember is probably the pair playing a "Mexican"/Romex 2♦ (18-19 balanced(ish)) while playing an otherwise standard system.

A few 4♣ is always Gerber pairs (even on suit auctions, and even when clubs shown, and even when opened)

[ArtK78]

 TylerE, on 2013-February-08, 12:01, said:

Worst I can remember is probably the pair playing a "Mexican"/Romex 2♦ (18-19 balanced(ish)) while playing an otherwise standard system.

A few 4♣ is always Gerber pairs (even on suit auctions, and even when clubs shown, and even when opened)

What's wrong with playing a Mexican 2♦ in an otherwise standard system? Apparently, this pair decided that they did not like the other uses avaialble for 2♦ openings so they decided to plug a hole in their system by using the Mexican 2♦. While I personally don't agree with their choice, I don't find their decision particularly outlandish.

As for "4♣ is always Gerber," at least these pairs are never in doubt when one of them bids 4♣. And, by the way, I don't believe them. There are plenty of auctions in which even a "4♣ is always Gerber" pair will bid 4♣ without it being Gerber.

[TylerE]

No, at least one of the pairs I've seen them bid at least 20-30 times over several years. It really is always Gerber.

For the other - because there is no hole. The pair that played it (they came to their senses and stopped) had no system hole. They just didn't bid 1m-1banana-2N as 18-19, rather opening 2d with it for some reason.

[ArtK78]

 TylerE, on 2013-February-08, 12:16, said:

No, at least one of the pairs I've seen them bid at least 20-30 times over several years. It really is always Gerber.

For the other - because there is no hole. The pair that played it (they came to their senses and stopped) had no system hole. They just didn't bid 1m-1banana-2N as 18-19, rather opening 2d with it for some reason.

(1♠)-2♣-(P)-P
(X)-P-(2♠)-3♣
(P)-P-(3♠)-P
(P)-4♣

I am sure that even one of the pairs that you are referring to would not play this 4♣ as Gerber.

As for playing Mexican 2♦ in a standard structure, there are plenty of uses for the jump rebid of 2NT other than 18-19 balanced. There has been discussion in these fora for the use of 2NT as an artificial game force. And, while I have not played Mexican 2♦ openings for about 30 years, it might be possible to get out in 2 of a major after a 2♦ opening (and it is certainly possible to get out in 2♦) which is something that is not possible after a 2NT rebid. Of course, if one opens one of a minor with the 18-19 HCP hand, it is possible to get out in one of the minor.

[TylerE]

 ArtK78, on 2013-February-08, 12:45, said:

(1♠)-2♣-(P)-P
(X)-P-(2♠)-3♣
(P)-P-(3♠)-P
(P)-4♣

I am sure that even one of the pairs that you are referring to would not play this 4♣ as Gerber.

The pair in question have a combined age pushing 190 years. They don't bid 4♣ here.

Quote

As for playing Mexican 2♦ in a standard structure, there are plenty of uses for the jump rebid of 2NT other than 18-19 balanced.

Sure, but the pair in question weren't playing any of them. 1x-1y-2N was undefined.

[GreenMan]

 ArtK78, on 2013-February-08, 12:07, said:

As for "4♣ is always Gerber," at least these pairs are never in doubt when one of them bids 4♣. And, by the way, I don't believe them. There are plenty of auctions in which even a "4♣ is always Gerber" pair will bid 4♣ without it being Gerber.

Also, you never have to PLAY 4♣. This is an underrated benefit.