[Tcyk]

This type of bidding after partner preempts seems to be pretty common. If you play RONF you can make some kind of a bid that sounds like a game try and then sign off in partner's suit. I long hesitation before signing off does sound very suspicious and should not be permitted. This type of bidding is done because opponents know a direct raise is weak. I don't know what can or should be done about it.

The greatest bid I ever saw was made by Dennis Dawson after I opened 3S. Dennis replied 3NT and all passed. My shape was 7222 with AKQ of spades, favorable vulnerability, and no outside honor. Dennis had 3325 shape with 5 clubs to the queen which was his only honor. His intention was to bid 4S if the opponents doubled. I don't know why, but the opponents played two rounds of clubs establishing Dennis' queen and led a third round. We took 10 tricks, the opponents had game and perhaps slam in hearts or diamonds. A double game swing is hard to overcome in a seven board Swiss teams match. Was 3NT a psyche? I always thought it was ... and a very successful one at that. We would have had a good board even if Dennis took zero tricks.

[barmar]

That 3NT isn't really a psyche, it's just a gamble. Does anyone really have detailed agreements about what this 3NT shows, other than interest in declaring 3NT? If you don't have specific agreements, how can you deviate from them?

On the other hand, I suppose you can consider general bridge logic to be part of everyone's agreements. Since 3NT is presumably natural, it logically implies either a really strong hand or side suit stoppers and support of preempter's suit so you think you'll be able to run it once you get in. Bidding 3NT with a hand that has practically no hope of making opposite the kinds of hands you expect for partner's 3♠ is something weird, but I'm not sure if "psyche" is it.

[peachy]

jdonn, on Feb 11 2009, 07:25 PM, said:

blackshoe, on Feb 11 2009, 07:19 PM, said:

barmar, on Feb 11 2009, 03:40 PM, said:

If you're going to err, it seems more fair to err in the direction of a true description of the hand.

Fair to whom? Granted it's more fair to the opponents. It's also less fair to the erring side. Why should a pair be "entitled" to an accurate description of an opponent's hand just because that opponent has misremembered or misunderstood his agreement with his partner?

Personally I agree with barmar. Why would anyone be more concerned in fairness for the erring side than for the innocent side? The online way is definitely preferable to me when compared to the live way.

Keep in mind the claim is not that it's fairer to get an accurate description of the bidder's hand. The claim is that it's fairer to get an accurate description of the bidder's intended meaning than it is to get one of his partner's intended interpretation, if they differ.

I think it is fairest to play by the laws and regulations. Or put the other way: Playing by the laws can never be unfair. When opponent asks, he must be given the complete explanation of a bid and that explanation must be what the partnership agreement is. Also, oftentimes a well-intended attempt at perceived "fairness" could backfire and lead to more problems than already may exist, in particular when one partner has forgotten system, was confused, or has psyched.

[jdonn]

Peachy I have no idea what you are talking about. No one disagrees that it's the agreement which should be explained. The discussion you quote is about whether it's preferable that the explainer be the bidder or his partner.

[JoAnneM]

I think it is a psyche because you are using a formal convention "Ogust" to get a response from partner, which I believe is illegal. If it was just a plain vanilla 2nt feature asking bid I would agree that it was not a psyche. Opponents now expect that 3S bid to show a different hand than a 3S bid from a normal 2nt bid.

Also, I would expect that partnership to never use that tactic again.

[hrothgar]

JoAnneM, on Feb 13 2009, 08:05 PM, said:

I think it is a psyche because you are using a formal convention "Ogust" to get a response from partner, which I believe is illegal.  If it was just a plain vanilla 2nt feature asking bid I would agree that it was not a psyche.  Opponents now expect that 3S bid to show a different hand than a 3S bid from a normal 2nt bid.

Also, I would expect that partnership to never use that tactic again.

How are thee wrong? Let me count the ways.

1. Many regulatory authorities have regulations that bar players from psyching a conventional bid. Here, we are asked to comment whether or not the bid in question was, in fact, a psyche.

The regulation in question might have some bearing on the ruling that the TD might deliver. It is completely inconsequential in determining whether the 2NT bid is a psyche.

2. "A plain vanilla 2NT feature asking bid" is no less conventional than Ogust. (As a general rule, the words "asking bid" and conventional often walk hand in hand). If you want to argue that a 2NT feature ask is natural, you're best bet is to use the expression "temporized"...

3. The ACBL has repeatedly been forced to admit that the one psyche-per-lifetime concept has no legal standing. ACBL officials might like to pretend that players can't repeat a given psyche with the same partner. However, if you spend enough time, they will grudging admit that Oakie was blowing smoke out his ass...

4. If the opponents know the Ogust convention, then they probably know that a 3♠ response shows a good suit + a good hand. Moreover, they probably also know that if the 2NT bidder passes this wonderous response something weird is going on... For the life of me, I can't figure out how knowledge regarding the specific definition of the 3♠ bid could help the non offending side.

The player sitting in direct seat doesn't have a hand that can bid over a 2♠ opening. He now knows that opener has a hand that shows a maximum with a good suit. Is this supposed to impact his decision regarding whether or not to bid?

The player sitting in balanced seat can be pretty sure that something is going on. In theory, the 2NT bidder might be playing a VERY deep game (he just psyched a pass hoping to draw an inopportune balance). However, I think that most players should be able to figure out what happened...

[jdonn]

JoAnneM, on Feb 13 2009, 12:05 PM, said:

I think it is a psyche because you are using a formal convention "Ogust" to get a response from partner, which I believe is illegal.

Illegal to ask partner a question if you don't care about the answer? I don't know what rule you think is being broken, which one?

Suppose my partner and I have a big heart fit, and I have all the keycards in my hand. I want to investigate how many kings we have for a possible grand slam. Are you saying it's illegal for me to bid blackwood (planning to then bid 5NT) since I don't care about his answer to my question 'how many keycards do you have'?

Quote

If it was just a plain vanilla 2nt feature asking bid I would agree that it was not a psyche.

What makes 2NT feature asking any less conventional than ogust? I also don't know what you mean by "plain vanilla". If that is another way of saying "common" then what does it matter?

Quote

Opponents now expect that 3S bid to show a different hand than a 3S bid from a normal 2nt bid.

Again, what do you mean "normal"? Feature asking is a convention too! Anyway, presumably the 3♠ response to ogust was alerted so the opponents have no reason to expect it means anything, they should ask instead.

Quote

Also, I would expect that partnership to never use that tactic again.

Firstly, they may not think it's a psych (in fact your opinion seems clearly minority) so I don't believe they would feel restricted. Secondly where does it say you can only choose a particular psych once in your life?

[barmar]

peachy, on Feb 13 2009, 11:53 AM, said:

I think it is fairest to play by the laws and regulations.  Or put the other way: Playing by the laws can never be unfair. When opponent asks, he must be given the complete explanation of a bid and that explanation must be what the partnership agreement is.

My comment was in the context of a mis-remembered agreement. How can you expect the player to give a correct explanation of the partnership agreement if he's forgotten it?

Here are the possiblities:

Partner alerts

Bidder remembers, partner mis-remembers: Opponents get an incorrect explanation of both the bidder's intention and the agreement. This can't be good.

Bidder mis-remembers (or psyches), partner remembers: Opponents get a correct explanation of the agreement, incorrect explanation of the intention. This is OK, opponents are only entitled to the agreements.

Self-alerts

Bidder remembers, partner mis-remembers: Opponents get a correct explanation of the agreement, and also of the bidder's intention. Only the player who has mis-remembered is confused, and is likely to damage his side. This seems right.

Bidder mis-remembers, partner remembers: Opponents get an incorrect explanation of the agreement, which is bad, but at least it correctly describes the bidder's intention, so it's not as bad as the first case above.

In the case where both players remember correctly or both forget, it doesn't matter to the opponents who alerts.

[peachy]

jdonn, on Feb 13 2009, 12:00 PM, said:

Peachy I have no idea what you are talking about. No one disagrees that it's the agreement which should be explained. The discussion you quote is about whether it's preferable that the explainer be the bidder or his partner.

Oops. I must have missed something!

[blackshoe]

That, in barmar's first case, the opponents get an incorrect explanation of the bidder's intention is irrelevant, for the laws do not entitle the opponents to that information. Barmar himself acknowledges this in his second case.

The WBFLC, in the minutes of their meeting in Beijing, 10 Oct 2008, had this to say:

Quote

The phrase “they have no claim to an accurate description of the N-S hands“ first appeared in the 1975 laws of the game. It was accompanied then as now by the injunction forbidding the Director to alter the table result. It was entered primarily to establish beyond doubt that that the partnership agreement must be described accurately in response to lawful enquiry and that the explanation given must not aim to describe what the explainer believes as to the contents of either hand. It was continued in those terms in the 1987 law book, while for 2007 NBOs were invited to say whether the example or the wording should be updated. Among replies received there was a general consensus for retaining them as they had been previously, whilst moving the statements from a footnote into the body of the Law.

As the WBFLC is the ultimate arbiter of the laws of bridge, this interpretation is the law.

[mikestar]

blackshoe, on Feb 15 2009, 02:27 PM, said:

That, in barmar's first case, the opponents get an incorrect explanation of the bidder's intention is irrelevant, for the laws do not entitle the opponents to that information. Barmar himself acknowledges this in his second case.

Point taken. However, it's necessary to remember the different conditions in online play and look at the intent of the Laws.

Self alerting is not viable in f2f play--it is viable online as partner does not hear our alerts: only the opponents do.

Now forget the letter of the law and consider its purpose: the alert procedure exists to keep the opponents accurately informed as to your side's agreements so they are not damaged by the lack of this knowledge.

Now there are two questions to consider:
1) Which procedure is more likely to produce a correct explanation of agreements? This is debatable, but my partnership experience is that the bidder is less likely to have forgotten than the partner.
2) If a wrong explanation is nevertheless given, under which procedure are the opponents less likely to be damaged? Clearly in the self alert case. Yes, this is because they have a more accurate description of the bidder's cards--but why is this a problem? They also have a more accurate description of the bidder's cards when they alert is explained correctly than when it isn't.

[peachy]

JoAnneM, on Feb 13 2009, 12:05 PM, said:

I think it is a psyche because you are using a formal convention "Ogust" to get a response from partner, which I believe is illegal. If it was just a plain vanilla 2nt feature asking bid I would agree that it was not a psyche. Opponents now expect that 3S bid to show a different hand than a 3S bid from a normal 2nt bid.

Also, I would expect that partnership to never use that tactic again.

Illegal by which law? Or by which regulation?

[blackshoe]

mikestar, on Feb 15 2009, 11:15 AM, said:

blackshoe, on Feb 15 2009, 02:27 PM, said:

That, in barmar's first case, the opponents get an incorrect explanation of the bidder's intention is irrelevant, for the laws do not entitle the opponents to that information. Barmar himself acknowledges this in his second case.

Point taken. However, it's necessary to remember the different conditions in online play and look at the intent of the Laws.

Self alerting is not viable in f2f play--it is viable online as partner does not hear our alerts: only the opponents do.

Now forget the letter of the law and consider its purpose: the alert procedure exists to keep the opponents accurately informed as to your side's agreements so they are not damaged by the lack of this knowledge.

Now there are two questions to consider:
1) Which procedure is more likely to produce a correct explanation of agreements? This is debatable, but my partnership experience is that the bidder is less likely to have forgotten than the partner.
2) If a wrong explanation is nevertheless given, under which procedure are the opponents less likely to be damaged? Clearly in the self alert case. Yes, this is because they have a more accurate description of the bidder's cards--but why is this a problem? They also have a more accurate description of the bidder's cards when they alert is explained correctly than when it isn't.

I had a whole long post going, but then I realized it's pointless.

I do not care which procedure is "better" by some measure of "goodness". If a regulation (e.g., regarding alerting) is legal according to the laws, then I will abide by, as a player, and enforce, as a director, that regulation. If it's not legal, I will protest, and if it is not changed I will either refuse to play or refuse to direct where the regulation remains in force. Note that failure on the part of a tournament organizer to publish in advance its regulations pertinent to an event is itself illegal. If I get bit by a regulation I did not know existed because it wasn't published in advance, I will protest all the more strongly, and vote with my feet with even more alacrity.

Oh, and self-alerting is certainly viable in f2f bridge. It's done all the time when screens are in use. It's also certainly viable even without screens - but the powers that be have decided that having partner alert is "better" (whatever that means).

[jdonn]

blackshoe, on Feb 15 2009, 04:53 PM, said:

Oh, and self-alerting is certainly viable in f2f bridge. It's done all the time when screens are in use. It's also certainly viable even without screens - but the powers that be have decided that having partner alert is "better" (whatever that means).

Because it prevents people from making up bids on the spot? They could easily do that in f2f if they self alerted and their partner could hear.

I open 3♥ - alert, it shows KQ AKJxxx A Kxxx

[glen]

jdonn, on Feb 15 2009, 04:58 PM, said:

...They could easily do that in f2f if they self alerted and their partner could hear.

I open 3♥ - alert, it shows KQ AKJxxx A Kxxx

f2f: 3♥ w/ self-alert - Pass (w/o asking) - ?
f2f with screens: 3♥ w/ self-alert, written down (partner only hears the writing), screen-mate writes back "GL"