[Gerben42]

Today I was commentating on the Poland - Switzerland match and this hand came up:

Scoring: IMP

---

Partner opens 1♦, RHO passes. Although the meanings of 1♦ for the two players were slightly different, both Gawrys (Poland open team, playing Polish Club) and Willard (French ladies team, playing SEF) responded 1♥.

This was not alerted but I think it should, and no you are not going to tell me this was the first time. In both cases the other table bid and made 4♥ from the opponent's side but where the 1♥ response was made, partner bought it for 3♦ (down 1).

How do you feel about this?

[Flame]

I think the fact that this same bid come from 2 different tables is proving that this isnt a private agrement (not to mention that its on any book on psyches and has a name), it is a public one and since no need to be alerted.
Im not sure i would say this as a director, im saying this as a general view on the subjuct.

[rbforster]

Perhaps the public should be told to expect 3 card suits, if they don't usually?

[hrothgar]

I think that this one falls under the category "general bridge knowledge"...

Good choice of bids by the players.

[Flame]

The psyching problem will not be solved as long as psyches are allowed. You cant expect a player to tell you. This bid has 1.56% of being on 3 cards and 2.66% of being with 2 cards. cant expect ppl to tell you exactly how many times thier partner did each psych. Its not clean, its a problem, the partnership knows somehing that the opponenets dont, but this cant be solved and is the case in many other situations, we cant get a 100% here.

[the hog]

You can't possibly alert this otherwise you will alert every single bid you ever make. I agree with Flame's post here. Richard has a point in that this is basic general knowledge.

[glen]

Gerben42, on Aug 22 2006, 11:55 PM, said:

Dealer: North Vul: E/W Scoring: IMP

♠ 52 ♥ JT9 ♦ T632 ♣ KT63

How do you feel about this?

Not a "gross misstatement" of 1♥ response, and a common tactical bid. I thought I saw it bid in two of the open matches on BBO vugraph, both times effective in blocking the opponents heart contract.

[kenrexford]

For decades, people have noted a number of RARE occasions where "natural" bidding occasionally merits a three-card major call when a four-card suit is expected. A few examples:

(1) 3316, and the partnership lacks tools to show some specific-range club raise after a club opening.
(2) 3145/3154 with HHx in spades (and out) and a forcing 1NT used, especially without Flannery.
(3) A terrible doubleton in one major and a great fragment in the other major, after a Stayman 2C to your 1NT opening/overcall.

The fourth that I have often seen:

(4) An undiscussed semi-Herbert Negative with three cards in hearts after a 1D opening. (Bare minimum response values with three hearts.)

This is, among many, a fairly well-known RARE possibility. VERY VERY rare. However, when the RARE occasion comes up, a few spot it and go that route. This is not a psychic, but a legitimate "natural" call arising from good theory.

How does one alert this? First of all, it is not a call based upon a special partnership understanding. Rather, it is a call based upon a special understanding of the game. This is not to say that 1H is the "right" call. However, anyone who is erudite enough would say that 1D-P-1H could possibly be an auction where responder has three hearts, albeit rare.

Second, almost every call would require alerts if 1D-P-1H was alerted, as "Possibly, once every couple thousand times we have this auction, partner might have only three hearts." A 1NT opening might feature a stiff. A 1S opening might be a canape, possibly even with only four spades. 1H-P-2H might be bid with a hand that will obviously offer a greater than 50% chance of game, and yet be passable. A forcing one-level response might be passed by Opener, even if Opener did not psych. These, and many other oddities, are methods of handling rare problem hands.

On this actual hand, 1H made sense, in the most simplistic analysis, as a hedge against 4432 pattern. If you are going to declare a 4-3 contract, make it the major because (a.) if it makes, this is better and, more importantly, (b.) the opponents bid 2S after 2H. It also makes Opener, the stronger hand, Declarer whenever NT is the final contract, meaning opposite any 3-card heart suit from Opener. With a doubleton inspades, that seems more likely.

Sure, the 1H call also gains when it picks off the heart suit from the opponents. Good calls often have multiple ways to win.

[awm]

Well if there's an agreement to often respond with the "better major" on a hand too weak for a 2/1, then it should be alerted. The question is really "when does a bid move from the realm of a psych or tactical bid into an agreement?" One criterion is frequency -- if these players would virtually always bid a three-card major with a (23)44 shape in some point range it becomes an agreement. Another criterion is the follow-up methods. For example:

(1) Do they ever raise on three-card support? If the answer is never or virtually never, it gives a great deal of protection to bidding three-card suits.

(2) If partner makes a strong four-card raise, how easy is it to back into notrump or diamonds at a fairly low level? If it's hard, then the 1♥ call is basically "at the bidder's risk" and hardly something partner might expect. If it's easy, then again this protects the three-card bid.

I think if the methods are designed in such a way as to give a great deal of protection to a "psych" that would in most other methods be risky, then the opponents deserve to be informed of such.

On the other hand, it could well be that this was just a good psych and worked out. This kind of call does work out fairly often even assuming partner raises on three cards with reasonable frequency.

[the saint]

Whats the big deal?

If opener had done something that indicated knowledge of the psyche and acted accordingly then there would be a case to answer. But he didn't. I fail to see what the fuss is about.

[paulg]

I don't think it is a big deal at a major championship like this - it is certainly in the general bridge knowledge arena.

However I do see top players do this sort of thing against weaker players and wonder about the its legitimacy there. After all, they would not be weaker players if they had general bridge knowledge!

Having seen Zia-Rosenberg declare 'Psychics and tactical bids that have repeated' on their USBC System Summary, I'd like to see this section on all convention cards!

Paul

[Gerben42]

I like the bid also, I even predicted it would be made. The question is when do you start to alert this. About raising on 3 cards, I've had this one (on BBO so my partner had to self-alert his response)

I have 3442 and open 1♦...

1♦ - 1♥
2♥ - 2♠ (Alster relay, asks for singleton and 3- or 4-card support)
3♥ (min. balanced, 4-card support) - 3NT
Pass

Guess what. We didn't have a ♥ fit.

I know of another pair who play Polish Club and alert 1♣ - 1M as "can be 3" and it is also protected by system. For those who know a bit about it, after 2♦ Odwrotka their responses are 445533...

[mgoetze]

kenrexford, on Aug 23 2006, 04:56 AM, said:

This is, among many, a fairly well-known RARE possibility. VERY VERY rare. However, when the RARE occasion comes up, a few spot it and go that route. This is not a psychic, but a legitimate "natural" call arising from good theory.

How does one alert this? First of all, it is not a call based upon a special partnership understanding. Rather, it is a call based upon a special understanding of the game.

The problem is that this is actually a call based upon a special understanding of the system. When someone playing an uncommon system (even, say, vanilla Precision) does this sort of thing, the lynch mobs start forming immediately. People who really have a "special understanding of the game" will realize that, in a strong club context, P-P-1♥-P-2♣ does not really promise a lot of values. Nevertheless, this happened. I don't think it's fair for so-called "natural" systems to get special privileges that other systems don't.

[jtfanclub]

mgoetze, on Aug 23 2006, 05:45 AM, said:

kenrexford, on Aug 23 2006, 04:56 AM, said:

This is, among many, a fairly well-known RARE possibility.  VERY VERY rare.  However, when the RARE occasion comes up, a few spot it and go that route.  This is not a psychic, but a legitimate "natural" call arising from good theory.

How does one alert this?  First of all, it is not a call based upon a special partnership understanding.  Rather, it is a call based upon a special understanding of the game.

I had one of those this week in real life. Bidding went 1♥-P-2♥ "What does that mean". I explained that it was "usually 7-10 points and a card support, could be a doubleton honor". It turned out to be...

Q9xxxx Txxx xx x

We made 4 with a combined 15 count, so partner's evaluation of the hand was correct- it didn't have many hcp but it was extremely powerful. Opponent didn't call the director, though I might have in his place (they could make 5♦- they had a 10 card fit).

How do you alert this stuff? How should you alert this stuff? I was playing Precision, so partner could afford to make a 'tactical' bid knowing that it was unlikely that I'd bid game (although in fact if I had bid game it would have gone well).

My own, personal, feeling is that it should be based on the possible continuations. If there's an inquiry I can make or partner has a way of saying "just kidding partner", then it should be alerted and explained as could be weak. If there is no such method, and I will be forced to assume that partner has 7+ hcp until the moment dummy comes down, then to alert it as "partner might be lying" seems silly to me.

By the same logic, if the players have any possible auction where responder can say "I don't really have 4 hearts", then I think it should be alerted now. Otherwise, opener and opponents are equally in the dark.

As far as the other case you mentioned...I wonder. Player opens 1♥ third seat playing SAYC with weak 3rd hand openings. If responder bids 2♣, how many points is he really promising? If the responder had bid the hand with SAYC, would anybody complain?

[blackshoe]

As I said just now in another forum, a partnership understanding is not a promise to opponents. If you occassionally deviate from your agreements, there's nothing wrong with that, and opponents have no good reason to whinge about it. If you do it often enough that partner is likely to expect it, that's a different story, of course, but one or two times in a session won't cut it, IMO.

[bid_em_up]

blackshoe, on Aug 24 2006, 01:56 AM, said:

As I said just now in another forum, a partnership understanding is not a promise to opponents. If you occassionally deviate from your agreements, there's nothing wrong with that, and opponents have no good reason to whinge about it. If you do it often enough that partner is likely to expect it, that's a different story, of course, but one or two times in a session won't cut it, IMO.

If you were to do it as frequently as one or two times in a session (regularly), then it probably should be alerted. Partner will be aware that you are prone to making this sort of response.

If you do it one or two times in a session, and then dont do it again for 4-5 sessions, then no, it doesnt.

There is a difference.