[dan_ehh]

bluejak, on Jun 14 2010, 02:21 AM, said:

dan_ehh, on Jun 14 2010, 12:17 AM, said:

campboy, on Jun 13 2010, 09:38 PM, said:

peachy, on Jun 13 2010, 07:20 PM, said:

If it were first or second seat, there is something to investigate.  Not-vul in third seat, everybody and their dog the world over frequently opens light in third seat.  If I were the TD, I would gently explain this general bridge knowledge to the opponents. 

This is not HUM unless the event or the national regulation says so and says that third seat is subject to same regulation as any other seat,  or something to that effect. [I don't know].

Why on earth should the regulation need to specifically say that it includes the third seat? I would think rather that it applies equally to all seats unless it says otherwise.

Because the bridge logic of 1st seat and the bridge logic of 3rd seat are entirely different.
Different positions require different regulations (or so I believe anyway).

I believe that light openings at 3rd seat cannot be classified as an agreement, because they are part of general bridge knowledge. If they cannot be classified as an agreement, they cannot be an illegal agreement.
Remember that these light openings are either made for the lead, or to throw off the opponents. In which case, the implicit agreement that you might want to attribute to them is... "we may open light on 3rd seat if we wish to direct partner's lead, and sometimes we may also psyche in 3rd seat". Isn't this pretty much equal to "we play bridge"?

If this suddenly becomes illegal per some interpretation of regulation, the whole game will change. Do we really want that?

It is not general bridge knowledge that players ignore the regulations so it is legal: it just is not legal. And no, insisting the rules are followed does not change the game.

Once again you have failed to address the main argument.

The regulation which Wayne quoted says:
"An opening bid at the one level that may be made on high card strength a king or more below that of an average hand (i.e., 0-7 HCP and insufficient compensating distributional values)."

If you take this at face value, any player who has psyched a <8 hcp opening bid once in his or her life will never be allowed to psyche with the same partner again, because the initial psyche has created the implicit agreement that "sometimes we open with less than 8 hcp", and this agreement is illegal.

A light opening in 3rd seat is just a psyche which for perfectly logical bridge reasons tends to occur at a higher frequency than other psyches.

The system card had a special place for disclosure of psych tendencies. I don't see why any other measures are required.

[bluejak]

I answered a specific comment: there is no actual rule to say I cannot. I am sorry if you want a rule about what may be answered and what may not but you are not getting such a rule.

Quote

If you take this at face value, any player who has psyched a <8 hcp opening bid once in his or her life will never be allowed to psyche with the same partner again, because the initial psyche has created the implicit agreement that "sometimes we open with less than 8 hcp", and this agreement is illegal.

That is just rubbish. One occasion does not create an agreement.

Quote

A  light opening in 3rd seat is just a psyche which for perfectly logical bridge reasons tends to occur at a higher frequency than other psyches.

That may or may not be true. As an all-embracing statement it is certainly not true. Psyches depend on partnership agreements: different partnerships have different agreements. Most partnerships have agreements that they open lighter in third.

Quote

The system card had a special place for disclosure of psych tendencies. I don't see why any other measures are required..

What is required is for you to understand the basic difference between an agreement and a happening. Once you know the agreement then you can judge whether a happening is a psyche or not.

[Siegmund]

Quote

Quote

Are you saying that Drury is a psychic control?

This is an interesting question. It certainly fits my conception of the term. Yet in the ACBL, at least, Drury is explicitly allowed on the GCC. I've wondered whether this means that, in effect, you are not allowed to psych a 3rd seat major suit opening, but I don't know the official position on it.

The way I read the rules, Drury can legally be used in response to legal-strength 3rd-seat openers... lots of 11s and most 10s and shapely 9s, etc... but absolutely is illegal in combination with a 3rd seat psychic. I've never actually seen someone punished for it. If I were director, however, I wouldn't have any hesitation about giving a PP and demanding that Drury be stricken from a partnership's card when I saw a 3rd seat psych. (You don't need to wait until you catch them responding 2C to the psychic opening; just the combination of the psychic opening with the existence of a method to control it is good enough.)

That said, lots of good players have literally laughed in my face at the suggestion that using Drury as a psychic control is illegal.

The posted hand looks much more like an illegally-light 3rd seat opener than a psych, but thats a judgment call for someone else to make.

[zenko]

Playing light openings, Drury, and F 1N (or heavy NF), which most experts do these days, gives you an opportunity to use "advance overcalls" 3rd seat openings, i.e. if I have enough to overcall 1S why wait to see will I get another chance to bid it and to show to my partner "where I live"? To make this unlawful feels unnatural.