[Jlall]

The main one for me is 1) Your hand is too good. 2) You have enough spades where you might have a good save over 4H when partner is shapely, or you might be able to compete against them, 3) You have too many hearts (yes, some people say 3 is the best number to psyche because of the safety, but here you are expressly trying to pick off their fit on the basis that you don't really have to worry too much about partner, I'd much rather have a doubleton to make it far more likely I am actually picking off their fit.

In that order.

Also, I just noticed it's matchpoints. Not sure if you noticed that also but I think 1H is really absurd at MP for obvious reasons. Ok, I see that you saw it was MP later on.

[jdonn]

Yeah I noticed later, I would (pretty much) never make a blatant psych like that at matchpoints. That would be strategically awful.

[Phil]

[quote name='jdonn' date='Jul 20 2009, 09:50 AM'] 1[he] is taking a good idea too far.[/QUOTE]
Too far in what direction? This hand is too ____ for 1[he] in your opinion? (please fill in the blank) [/quote]
The 'good idea' is bidding on drek when pard is limited to make life tough for the opps. When we add in a non-existent suit, that is taking the concept too far.

I can't think of an adjective here, but lets say a strong jump shift of 2[he] would be taking matters even further.

[rbforster]

Phil, on Jul 20 2009, 03:51 PM, said:

I can't think of an adjective here, but lets say a strong jump shift of 2♥ would be taking matters even further.

Even if partner is expected to relay with 2♠ after our "strong" jump shift? Then we could pass and let them guess what's going on, while letting partner declare the potentially poor contract.

[Jlall]

Rob F, on Jul 20 2009, 05:06 PM, said:

Phil, on Jul 20 2009, 03:51 PM, said:

I can't think of an adjective here, but lets say a strong jump shift of 2♥ would be taking matters even further.

Even if partner is expected to relay with 2♠ after our "strong" jump shift? Then we could pass and let them guess what's going on, while letting partner declare the potentially poor contract.

Seems like a good way to cheat to me!

[aguahombre]

Jlall, on Jul 20 2009, 05:14 PM, said:

Rob F, on Jul 20 2009, 05:06 PM, said:

Phil, on Jul 20 2009, 03:51 PM, said:

I can't think of an adjective here, but lets say a strong jump shift of 2♥ would be taking matters even further.

Even if partner is expected to relay with 2♠ after our "strong" jump shift? Then we could pass and let them guess what's going on, while letting partner declare the potentially poor contract.

Seems like a good way to cheat to me!

And now for a whole new string on whether the prohibition of Psyching strong artificial bids applies to responses.'

[the hog]

jdonn, on Jul 20 2009, 09:50 PM, said:

jdonn, on Jul 19 2009, 11:14 PM, said:

Passing is a style that is simply not effective, no matter what the resident old fogies will say.

The_Hog, on Jul 20 2009, 02:27 AM, said:

Pass is obvious. This hand is a pile of crap.

I mostly just said that yesterday because I knew I would be able to point this out today.

Phil, on Jul 20 2009, 09:20 AM, said:

1♠ for me.

1♥ is taking a good idea too far.

Too far in what direction? This hand is too ____ for 1♥ in your opinion? (please fill in the blank)

Why do you think I posted it in this way Josh? By the way, you young whippersnapper, are you calling me an old fogey?

[jdonn]

I think, since I posted first, you technically called yourself an old fogey. Checkmate!

[OleBerg]

jdonn, on Jul 21 2009, 02:53 AM, said:

I think, since I posted first, you technically called yourself an old fogey. Checkmate!

He even did it electronically. Bridgemate.

[the hog]

jdonn, on Jul 21 2009, 07:53 AM, said:

I think, since I posted first, you technically called yourself an old fogey. Checkmate!

Ok. I'll pay tha one - one fo the few.