[Old York]

In a friendly team game, an oppo opened 2♠ with this :-

♠QT762
♥7
♦T9765
♣J8

alerted as 5+♠ 5+m weak

Is this a psyche or not? Just how weak is weak?
Is it not unlawful to psyche any artificial bid?
If a weak 2 is expected to show 6-11 hcp, then this bid must be a Gross Deviation?

Is there a web-link that gives rules/guidelines for Multi players?

This is a genuine question (not just sour grapes)

Tony

[gwnn]

Doesn't look like a psyche to me. Of course opps need to disclose their range. I would like to open this hand if I had the 5/5 agreement, except when 2nd seat or 1st seat vulnerable.

[FrancesHinden]

1. What has this got to do with the multi? The multi is a 2D opening showing various possible hands including a weak two in a major. This is a 2S opening showing 5-5 spades and a minor.

2. Whether it is a psyche or not, depends on what their disclosed range is. For example, my declared range for weak twos in third seat is 0-11, if that is their range it isn't a psyche.

3. It is not against the Laws of bridge to psyche an artificial bid. Some regulating authorities do not permit such psyches, but (e.g.) the EBU in general does not (there are a couple of exceptions, but this would not be one of them).

4. "Expected" to be 6-11 by whom? If the pair in question declare that their range is 6-11, and open it on this hand, then (IMO) it's a psyche.

5. "Rules" for multi players depend on your jurisdiction. I can point you at the English ones. Although this is irrelevant, because as mentioned above this opening isn't a multi.

[Old York]

because Multi 2♦ shows a weak two in an undisclosed major, many players use 2♠ and 2♥ to show specific types of weak hands. This is down to partnership agreement (and is a Multi add-on), but many established pairs fail to alert the range.

So, the general consensus is that oppo failed to alert correctly?

[kfay]

My thoughts are.... alert was totally normal. They held 5+ 5+ right?

[fachiru]

They told you what their agreement was, didnt they?
They can deviate from that as they please; the guy told you their expected range for that bid; he may have strategically chosen to lower it (for example: 3rd seat, nv vs v, etc). You conveniently left that info out
So, no, they didnt "fail to alert correctly", not even close.
And this is not a Multi hand as your topic suggests.

[Old York]

Many thanks for the input

I will never again swim in this shark infested pool

oppo did NOT alert range

2♠ IS part of the Multi-system

It was a FIRST SEAT bid

Defenders have a RIGHT to certain EXPECTATIONS if a bid is not alerted correctly

Sheesh, a guy cannot ask a simple question on this forum !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[FrancesHinden]

Old York, on Feb 6 2009, 06:04 PM, said:

So, the general consensus is that oppo failed to alert correctly?

Not that I can see.

They alerted it as 5-5 and weak.
They had 5-5 and weak.
What's the problem?

They only failed to alert correctly if they had told you (or their convention card said) a completely different range (e.g. 6-11) in which case either they have failed to alert correctly, or they have psyched.

Edit: I've just seen your other post. It seems they didn't tell you a range at all other than 'weak'. You don't tell us the vulnerability. If this were vulnerable against not I would expect an alert of the form "may be very weak", but I don't think this is legally required.

You want to know the exact range, you ask.

[FrancesHinden]

Old York, on Feb 6 2009, 06:42 PM, said:

2♠ IS part of the Multi-system

I'm sorry to sound picky, but it's not.
You might play this opening in conjuction with a multi, but you don't have to. I play a multi, and I don't play a 2M opening as a weak two-suiter. I've also played this type of 2M opening and used 2D to show a weak hand with both majors. It's like saying "5-card majors is part of the strong NT system"

But I agree it's not really worth arguing about. The only reason you are getting objections is that you called the thread 'multi again' and all the posters feel confused because the question is nothing about the multi at all...

[gwnn]

Old York, on Feb 6 2009, 08:42 PM, said:

Many thanks for the input
(snip)
Sheesh, a guy cannot ask a simple question on this forum !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The two statements seem to be a little contradictory in terms of satisfaction with the answers

[Walddk]

Old York, on Feb 6 2009, 08:04 PM, said:

So, the general consensus is that oppo failed to alert correctly?

No, it's your view. If you had been interested in their specific range, you could have asked.

It has nothing to do with Multi, and it is not a psyche.

Roland

[Walddk]

Old York, on Feb 6 2009, 08:42 PM, said:

It was a FIRST SEAT bid

Are you sure? I have looked it up now, and I see it as a second seat 2♠ bid, NV against Vul. You were in first seat and passed.

Roland

[Old York]

This is the most common problem that occurs on BBO

Expert players have private agreements which they are incredibly reluctant to disclose.

This could never happen in f2f tournaments, because you can examine their convention cards

p.s. Sorry, it was second seat.... I never said that it was a bad bid, in fact it was an excellent and brave bid which I applaud, I simply questioned the legality of the bid/alert in a general way (sorry if this was misunderstood)

[jtfanclub]

Old York, on Feb 6 2009, 02:01 PM, said:

This is the most common problem that occurs on BBO

Expert players have private agreements which they are incredibly reluctant to disclose.

This could never happen in f2f tournaments, because you can examine their convention cards

No, it sounds like they SELF-ALERTED the bid as 5+/5+ and weak.

You only have 20 characters or so to work with, so it's going to be only the basics. But I'm sure if you asked they'd have been happy to tell you it was 0-9 hcp or whatever.

Meanwhile, if you open 2♥ 2nd hand white on red with a hand like:

xx
QTxxxxx
x
J9x

would you have felt the need to alert it?

[Old York]

jtfanclub, on Feb 6 2009, 08:24 PM, said:

Meanwhile, if you open 2♥ 2nd hand white on red with a hand like: (snip) would you have felt the need to alert it?

Of course I would alert. I would Alert the partnership agreement.

If that happened to be "6-10 6-card suit" then opponents are entitled to exactly the same information as my partner.

If I fool oppo by opening very weak, I am also fooling my partner, so no real harm is done. ...... but if my partnership agreement is to open very light, then I would alert that too

[TylerE]

The actual hand record, if anyone still cares: http://online.bridgebase.com/tools/handvie...3473-1233874379

Looks to me like any "damage" was caused by West passing a good 14 count over a non-forcing opening. NS probably reach 4♠ regardless.

[Gerardo]

If their agreement was "5-5, below opening strength", the exlanation is accurate.

this "6-10" range is/was your assumption, not specified elsewhere.

[InTime]

Old York, on Feb 6 2009, 02:41 PM, said:

jtfanclub, on Feb 6 2009, 08:24 PM, said:

Meanwhile, if you open 2♥ 2nd hand white on red with a hand like: (snip) would you have felt the need to alert it?

Of course I would alert. I would Alert the partnership agreement.

If that happened to be "6-10 6-card suit" then opponents are entitled to exactly the same information as my partner.

If I fool oppo by opening very weak, I am also fooling my partner, so no real harm is done. ...... but if my partnership agreement is to open very light, then I would alert that too

I do not really understand what the fuss is all about. Say for instance the definition is like you said 6-card suit 6-10 pts.
With a 6-3-3-2 type of hand with 6 pts no problem.
Now, say for instance my distribution is 6-0-4-3 and I have 5 pts. According to the specs I cannot open with this extra distribution because I do not have 6 pts?
Again, say my distribution is 6-0-2-5 with 4 pts, again I cannot open?
And, what about 6-0-6-1 with 3 pts, again I cannot open because of 6 pts?
This really does not make sense to me.
IMO, what the definition implies is that it is not an opening hand and the point count is a general description of your strength - not an absolute.
For instance, with a 6-5 distribution, a good 10 pts in the two suits, I will probably considering to open the bidding normally. Now I can't, because I have 10 pts and not 11?
The general consideration should be how you feel about your hand - not absolute point count.
If this understanding becomes a problem for the defenders, then it is maybe better to state a 0-10 count if that will help the defenders.
Regards

[hrothgar]

Old York, on Feb 6 2009, 09:42 PM, said:

Many thanks for the input

I will never again swim in this shark infested pool

oppo did NOT alert range

2♠ IS part of the Multi-system

It was a FIRST SEAT bid

Defenders have a RIGHT to certain EXPECTATIONS if a bid is not alerted correctly

Sheesh, a guy cannot ask a simple question on this forum !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ignorant, pissy, and passive aggressive is a very bad combination if you hope to elicit a respectful reply.

best wishes

hrothgar

[Mbodell]

Old York, on Feb 6 2009, 09:39 AM, said:

Just how weak is weak?

Sounds like a good question to ask the person who said weak. If you don't, than caveat emptor, and any weak range is fine and not a psych (0-11, 4-10, 2-7, whatever). You can't assume that weak means 6-11. Personally, in a partnership where I play 2M as a two suited preempt we say generally it is about 4-10 points and two suited with at least, and usually exactly, 5 of the M and at least 4 of the m. In real life we say all of that sentence when asked after an alert. Online I certainly might abbreviate it as 5M4+m weak in the self alert bid box.

This hand is right on the weakest border for me. It is only 3 HCP, but it is 55 (and my bid only promises 54) and it has 2 T and reasonable spots. If we were favorable I'd quite likely open it, even though 2nd seat is a negative. If I did decide to open it, I certainly wouldn't think it a psych as it is not a large deviation.