[badderzboy]

You're playing in a local competition and the following happens...

Partner opens a weak 2♠s and you hold

Scoring: MP

---

RHO passes....

Always competing to 3♠s you decide to bid 2NT as Ogust to get partner to describe their hand and to 'put' off opps who surely have game between them...

LHO enquires what is 2NT and is told 'it is purely a relay to enquire about my hand and asks for more information'.

LHO passes after 10-15 secs and Partner bids 3♠s then 3 passes.

Everyone is a tad surprised at dummy and East/West get a little upset but nevermind that bit.

I'm sure this type of bidding was suggested in a book or article as a tactical bid but I can't remember where.

(i) Do you agree with the bidding?
(ii) Is it a pysche?
(iii) Can anyone remember reading the same suggestion in a text book?

Cheers

Steve

[awm]

It's an interesting philosophical question whether it is possible to psych an asking bid.

I'd say no: the 2NT bid didn't show anything about responder's hand so it's not a psych. Admittedly there might be some expectation of a good hand for this call, but no guarantees.

Similarly if you bid blackwood on a bad hand with a big fit (mostly to determine whether to sacrifice against slam) I would say it is not a psych.

[jillybean]

How experienced were your ops?

[jdonn]

I think it's technically not a psych, but I could see why beginners who haven't come across the idea before would think it is one. They were taught to respond 2NT on hands with a chance for game or slam, so they probably tend to make a mental association in their minds that 2NT 'shows' a hand like that.

[badderzboy]

Hi Jillybean,

The opponents were decent players with some success in regional competitions and to be honest was amazed they fell for it.

I'll give you the west hand later

Steve

[Hanoi5]

If you have an agreement that to use 2NT you need a good hand (13+?), then it is a psych. If there's no agreement and responder can ask with any hand then it's perfectly normal, however the 'meaning' of 2NT has to be checked for opponents might need to know that ogust can be made on a very weak hand, such as the one you have.

[shevek]

badderzboy, on Feb 11 2009, 02:07 AM, said:

You're playing in a local competition and the following happens...

Partner opens a weak 2♠s and you hold

Dealer: North Vul: None Scoring: MP

♠ Qxx ♥ Jxxx ♦ xx ♣ Jxxx

RHO passes....

Always competing to 3♠s you decide to bid 2NT as Ogust to get partner to describe their hand and to 'put' off opps who surely have game between them...

LHO enquires what is 2NT and is told 'it is purely a relay to enquire about my hand and asks for more information'.

LHO passes after 10-15 secs and Partner bids 3♠s then 3 passes.

Everyone is a tad surprised at dummy and East/West get a little upset but nevermind that bit.

I'm sure this type of bidding was suggested in a book or article as a tactical bid but I can't remember where.

(i) Do you agree with the bidding?
(ii) Is it a pysche?
(iii) Can anyone remember reading the same suggestion in a text book?

Cheers

Steve

It is a bit strange.
In Ogust as I recall, 3♠ says "good suit & good hand" right? When you pass that, it's clear to decent players that you don't have an invite and are fooling around.
Really, you should raise to 4♠. No guts!

I guess your agreement with partner was "Let's play Ogust" period. In that case, you are fine this time. If you went so far as to say "Let's play Ogust but doesn't have to be strong" then there is a problem.

[peachy]

2NT over partner's weak-two opener is an "asking bid", not a "showing bid". Much of the time it is used to look for game, but not always. There are no legal or regulation restrictions [in ACBL. I doubt that anywhere else either] as to what kind of hand the 2NT bidder must have or what his reasons for asking must be. And it was also not a psych, UNLESS you had agreed with partner that the 2NT asker promises a good hand.

Same with Stayman. One is allowed to use Stayman with no HCP or with no 4-card major. It is an asking bid, not a showing bid, UNLESS you have agreed with partner that Stayman bidder always has one or both majors.

[helene_t]

I would say it is a psyche since its purpose was to mislead opps. Obviously it's a question of semantics. If I bid a grand slam in the hope that opps won't lead their ace because they don't think I would be silly enough to bid a grand without a void in that suit, then I am also trying to fool opps but it isn't a "gross deviation of an agreement", more akin of a falsecard.

Against inexperienced opps it may be a good idea to mention, when explaining the bid, that it doesn't promise any strength but could be purely tactical. Not sure about this, though. If you alert all partner's calls with the explanation that once in a blue moon it could be something different than what they might expect, you are inducing alert-fatigue.

[FrancesHinden]

A bid is only ever a psyche, or not, by comparison to the partnership agreement. Here are three possible partnership agreements:

1. A 2NT bid in response to a weak two is an enquiry about range & suit quality. It does not promise any values, and if they opponents bid over it I expect you to pass whatever your hand.

2. A 2NT bid in response to a weak two is an equity about range & suit quality. It promises at least invitational values. If fourth hand acts over it, we are in a forcing pass auction below 3 of our suit, you should double or bid a feature, as appropriate. If they bid at the 4-level, I expect you to bid game in your suit if you have extras.

3. A 2NT bid in response to a weak two is an equity about range & suit quality. It either has least invitational values or has a good fit and may be very light in high cards. We haven't got as far as discussing forcing pass agreements.

If your agreement is (1) or (3), then the 2NT bid is not a psyche.
If your agreement is (2), then the 2NT bid is a psyche.

Many partnerships either play (1), or play (2) but sometimes psyche it, or are more honest and admit they play (3). Of course, if you say you play (2) but psyche it "often" (for some definition of "often") then you are not disclosing your methods properly. In particular, I would not be happy with a pair who claimed that 2NT promised a good hand, but explicitly agreed not to play pass as forcing over intervention.

Most experienced players know all of this, and will not be surprised at seeing the 2NT bid whatever your hand. However, some weaker players may not be aware of this type of tactic, and if you explain the 2NT bid as e.g. a "forcing relay" they will be upset and confused if you turn out to have a weak hand. The EBU, in its interfering way, has a special regulation on describing bids: if you say something is "forcing" without qualification, that means "forcing from strength".

The problem with just saying 2NT is "Ogust" is there is no common understanding of whether that means (1), (2) or (3) above. That gets about 3/10 for full disclosure, with "Forcing relay" getting 1/10. For me, the explanation "it is purely a relay to enquire about my hand and asks for more information" gets about 8/10 for clarity. For 10/10 you have to say "A relay asking about my strength and suit quality. May be any strength, but usually has a good fit if weak." (If that's your agreement. If your agreement is that it shows strength but you've psyched it, that's the end of it.) I don't play Ogust, but if I did then I might say something like "Relay, but might be bid for a laugh"

As for whether I'd do it or not, to be honest this tactic only works against weak players (good ones bid, or double 2NT to show a take-out double of spades); a pre-emptive raise is better against people who can cope. But if you pick your moment, then it certainly can work well. I don't know who you were playing at the time, but if it worked then you chose the right time to do it.

[hrothgar]

FrancesHinden, on Feb 11 2009, 06:43 PM, said:

The EBU, in its interfering way, has a special regulation on describing bids: if you say something is "forcing" without qualification, that means "forcing from strength".

While said regulation might be interfering, I would consider it a welcome addition here in North America

[Echognome]

Reminds me of a situation where this happened to me in a F2F game. Started 2♠ on my right, 2NT on my left. 3♣ on my right alerted, then long think on my leftt before an eventual 3♠. I had a marginal hand to balance (obviously was close to a direct action over 2♠).

When dummy came down with a weak hand with spade support, I thought the hesitation over 3♣ (showing bad hand and bad suit in their system) was "coffee housing." The player said he was considering whether to "pre-sac" in 4♠ or see if he could get the bidding to end in 3♠.

To me it felt a wrong place to hesitate. But maybe others view that as a legitimate reason to think.

[peachy]

helene_t, on Feb 11 2009, 07:55 AM, said:

I would say it is a psyche since its purpose was to mislead opps.

This is not the definition of a psych. I think it would be good for the discussion if we stay within the legal definition of a psych: a deliberate and gross deviation from partnership agreement.

But of course I agree that *if* opponent asks about the 2NT call (Ogust) we don't want to act like sleazebags and break the Laws in the process! Explanation in full: Asking opener to clarify his suit quality and general strength; does not necessarily promise values.

[blackshoe]

Peachy brings to mind an interesting point. In f2f bridge, your partner alerts and explains your agreements. In online bridge, you alert and explain your own agreements. That opens the door to a greater possibility of misexplanation, because we may expain what we have or what we intended, rather than our agreement. Then again, if we explain the agreement, that opens the door to, at the very least, dissatisfaction on the part of the opponents when the explanation does not match the hand.

It seems that the way online bridge handles alerts helps in some ways, and creates problems in others.

[barmar]

Blackshoe's point has been made numerous times. I don't think there will ever be a fully satisfactory solution to this, it's always a matter of tradeoffs.

For instance, consider what happens when a player forgets their agreement. If the explainer forgets, the opponents get an incorrect explanation of agreements in either system, but at least in the case of self-alerts they get a correct explanation of the intended meaning. If you're going to err, it seems more fair to err in the direction of a true description of the hand.

Screens can make things even worse, because then you have both players alerting to their screenmate, and occasionally each opponent gets a different explanation -- these situations can be really hard for the TD to sort out, and often end up in appeals committees.

[blackshoe]

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?

[jdonn]

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.

[the hog]

This is clearly not a psyche. It says nothing about 2NT bidders hand. Same as 3x 3NT on trash and a fit is not a psyche.

[Echognome]

The_Hog, on Feb 11 2009, 04:37 PM, said:

This is clearly not a psyche. It says nothing about 2NT bidders hand. Same as 3x 3NT on trash and a fit is not a psyche.

"Clearly" is an overbid. It clearly depends on what the agreements are, as discussed by Frances and others.

[the hog]

As 2NT asks for strength and suit quality, it is CLEARLY not a psyche. Hardly an "overbid!"