[Hanoi5]

N-S use a Big Club auction to get to 6♠. Before the final Pass East asks about the bidding and is told (among other things) that declarer showed a diamond control. West leads a heart and the contract is made. A diamond lead would have set the contract. E-W complain, the Director asks for the CC of N-S; he can't find (it's not there) the proper explanation for the sequence.

1- Can the Director change the result to down one based on the fact that there was a mistaken explanation?
2- Can the Director change the result to down one based on the fact that an artificial bid can't be psyched?
3- How should the Director rule in such a case? Are there important facts missing?

[RMB1]

Hanoi5, on 2011-November-22, 05:10, said:

3- How should the Director rule in such a case? Are there important facts missing?

The director needs to form an opinion on whether the bid showed a diamond control as an explicit agreement, and whether there was any implicit agreement that contradicted this. If East claims he knew their agreements when he showed a diamond control, but the bid was a psyche, then the TD needs to be concerned whether the partnership has a history of such psyches so as to change their implicit agreement.

Law 21B1b means the TD needs evidence of their agreements to rule that it was a misbid/psyche rather than a misexplanation.

Hanoi5, on 2011-November-22, 05:10, said:

1- Can the Director change the result to down one based on the fact that there was a mistaken explanation?

If the TD determines that the bid was misexplained rather than a misbid/psyche then he can adjust under Law 47E.

Hanoi5, on 2011-November-22, 05:10, said:

2- Can the Director change the result to down one based on the fact that an artificial bid can't be psyched?

If there is a regulation that artificial bids can't be pscyhed and that regulation specifies that an adjusted score may be awarded then perhaps such an adjustment is possible. [But the adjusted score may be on the basis that the psyche did not happen not that the psyche were explained as if it were the partnership agreement.]

If there is a regulation that artificial bids can't be pscyhed and that regulation specifies a different penalty, then that penalty should be applied.

But if there is a regulation that artificial bids can't be pscyhed, it usually only applies to bids on the first round of the auction, and often there is no specified penalty.

[iviehoff]

You don't actually say so, but I presume declarer did not have this diamond control his partner says he advertised.

To be clear, there is nothing in the laws of bridge which makes psyching artificial bids illegal. But this is the kind of area that there may be local regulations on. You need to direct us to the specific local regulations in force. As RMD says, it would be most unusual for there to be a ban on psyching a control bid after the first round of the auction - I've never heard of it, and if I did see it I would presume there had been an accident in the drafting. Psyching a control bid is a well-known tactic, much employed by the characters in Mollo's menagerie, and no one has ever thought it might be illegal.

But do you really think someone deliberately made a psychic control bid to mislead the opposition in this case? Incompetence seems much more likely. If they can show the incompetence was in the selection of the bid - and it is for them to show it - then all is fair. Incompetence of this kind occasionally leads the perpetrators to a good result, but more often leads to disaster for them; the other side have just been unlucky today. But let us suppose that the incompetence lay in the explanation. To get an adjustment, we first need to decide what the explanation should have been, and then decide what was likely to be led with a correct explanation - a weighted adjustment may be appropriate if used in that administration.

[bluejak]

From the weekeend:

---

So, what do you lead? 4♦ denied first or second round club control. 4♥ may or may not have a heart control but is a slam try.

Do you lead a heart since partner doubled for a heart lead even though declarer must have a heart control? Or do you lead a low club through dummy's known ♣A?

I led a heart and none of the other three members of my team was very impressed! It turned out that despite opener denying a club control, responder made a slam try with no club control.

Was this a psyche? No, she did not do it deliberately. Was it MI? No, they do play the system this way? What was it? A brain failure, I think. So even if artificial bids were not allowed to be psyched here, I there is no infraction: bad bridge is not illegal.

[pran]

bluejak, on 2011-November-22, 07:38, said:

From the weekeend:

---

So, what do you lead? 4♦ denied first or second round club control. 4♥ may or may not have a heart control but is a slam try.

Do you lead a heart since partner doubled for a heart lead even though declarer must have a heart control? Or do you lead a low club through dummy's known ♣A?

I led a heart and none of the other three members of my team was very impressed! It turned out that despite opener denying a club control, responder made a slam try with no club control.

Was this a psyche? No, she did not do it deliberately. Was it MI? No, they do play the system this way? What was it? A brain failure, I think. So even if artificial bids were not allowed to be psyched here, I there is no infraction: bad bridge is not illegal.

"none of the other three members of your team was very impressed". What did they think about your partner's request (or suggestion) for a heart lead? What would have been their reaction if West had the neccessary club control and then a heart loser that would have set the contract eventually disappeared?

My experience is that in the long run it pays to obey partner's suggestion unless you have a convincing reason for leading otherwise. If nothing else you (usually) save the partnership.

[Free]

Hanoi5, on 2011-November-22, 05:10, said:

N-S use a Big Club auction to get to 6♠. Before the final Pass East asks about the bidding and is told (among other things) that declarer showed a diamond control. West leads a heart and the contract is made. A diamond lead would have set the contract. E-W complain, the Director asks for the CC of N-S; he can't find (it's not there) the proper explanation for the sequence.

1- Can the Director change the result to down one based on the fact that there was a mistaken explanation?
2- Can the Director change the result to down one based on the fact that an artificial bid can't be psyched?
3- How should the Director rule in such a case? Are there important facts missing?

1. This is difficult. You can't expect to find this sequence on a CC. The CC may mention control bidding, and in that case there is no MI. But even without a CC, if the auction clearly set trumps, then cuebidding seems standard. Without knowing the exact bidding sequence, I would say that in most cases Director can't change the result based on MI.
2. Depends on where you live. Artificial bids may be psyched in most cases, local laws however sometimes forbid psychs of STRONG artificial bids. This is not the same. Again, I would say no.
3. Declarer fooled you nicely, Director can't/shouldn't do anything imo, except perhaps record this psych for future reference.

[billw55]

Interesting. There is mention of implicit agreements. True and yet .. what experienced bridge player has not fudged a bid to influence the opening lead?

[RMB1]

billw55, on 2011-November-22, 07:59, said:

True and yet .. what experienced bridge player has not fudged a bid to influence the opening lead?

Sure. I would like to say it is general bridge knowledge that some cue bids are "tactical". But obviously many players do not have this knowledge.

I don't think we expect this to be disclosed: players are expected to gain this general bridge knowledge the hard way.

[barmar]

Free, on 2011-November-22, 07:59, said:

2. Depends on where you live. Artificial bids may be psyched in most cases, local laws however sometimes forbid psychs of STRONG artificial bids. This is not the same. Again, I would say no.

In ACBL, the prohibition is against:

Quote

Psyching of artificial or conventional opening bids and/or conventional
responses thereto. Psyching conventional suit responses, which are less
than 2NT, to natural openings.

So unless you start cue bidding on the 1 or 2 level immediately after partner opens, there's nothing prohibiting psyching cue bids.

In the previous version of the GCC the restriction on artificial openings was only on strong ones, but they generalized it.

[Siegmund]

As long as we're on the subject...

Quote

2- Can the Director change the result to down one based on the fact that an artificial bid can't be psyched?

Since when were control-showing bids considered artificial?

Under the old laws they were clearly not conventional, showing strength in the bid suit. Has someone reinterpreted them as "artificial" now despite them being the most natural of all the common uses of new-suit bids at the 4-level after another suit is agreed?

[Cascade]

Siegmund, on 2011-November-24, 11:32, said:

As long as we're on the subject...



Since when were control-showing bids considered artificial?

Under the old laws they were clearly not conventional, showing strength in the bid suit. Has someone reinterpreted them as "artificial" now despite them being the most natural of all the common uses of new-suit bids at the 4-level after another suit is agreed?

If a shortage is a possibility then they are artificial.

... 4♣ Playing first or second round controls I usually explain this as "ace or king or singleton or void"

[AlexJonson]

I think we all know you can psych a cue bid.

Please tell me now and clearly and directly if I am wrong about that.

Of course, if the other players in the club you happen to drop into for the first time are not impressed by your clever ploy, maybe you will not be welcome there again.

[blackshoe]

In England and Wales you can, unless I've missed something, psych a control bid at any level. In the ACBL, the same. Elsewhere, ask your RA.

Alerting is a different kettle of fish, and the ACBL alert regulation is a bit of a mess in this area. The regulation includes three relevant definitions:

• Convention: A bid which, by partnership agreement, conveys a meaning not necessarily related to the denomination named or, in the case of a pass, double or redouble, the last denomination named. In addition, a pass which promises more than a specified amount of strength, or artificially promises or denies values other than in the last suit named.
  
• Cuebid: A bid in a suit which an opponent has either bid naturally or in which he has shown four or more cards.
  
• Control bid: A bid, not intended as a place to play, which denotes a control (usually first or second round). The control need not be in the denomination named. These bids are usually used to investigate slam.

Unfortunately, both the alert chart and the alert procedure address only cue bids, they do not address control bids at all. However, by the first definition in the list, control bids are conventional. The default per the regulation is that conventions require an alert. Ergo, control bids require an alert. The alert must be delayed if the bid occurs at or after the opener's second bid and is above 3NT, but it's still a required alert.

[blackshoe]

Heh. Having said that control bids are alertable, I wonder if anybody does it.

[aguahombre]

The "first definition" to which you refer defines a convention. Control bids convey a meaning quite related to the suit which is bid.

Last Train would fall under "not necessarily related" to the suit bid. Please explain how you arrive at the conclusion that control bids (often called cuebids even though they are not in a suit bid by the opponents) are alertable or delay alertable in ACBL.

If asked after the auction, of course we would explain.

[barmar]

Control bids and Last Train are most frequently above 3NT, and ACBL doesn't require alerts at that level except on the first round (is there a system where you can start control bidding that soon?).

[Cascade]

barmar, on 2011-November-24, 22:53, said:

Control bids and Last Train are most frequently above 3NT, and ACBL doesn't require alerts at that level except on the first round (is there a system where you can start control bidding that soon?).

Swiss nearly gets there.

It would be playable for a double jump to be a control.

[aguahombre]

barmar, on 2011-November-24, 22:53, said:

Control bids and Last Train are most frequently above 3NT, and ACBL doesn't require alerts at that level except on the first round (is there a system where you can start control bidding that soon?).

Hence, "delay alert" was posted. It sounded to me as if Blackshoe was saying that about control bids, so it would still be nice to hear why.

[bluejak]

Siegmund, on 2011-November-24, 11:32, said:

Under the old laws they were clearly not conventional, showing strength in the bid suit. Has someone reinterpreted them as "artificial" now despite them being the most natural of all the common uses of new-suit bids at the 4-level after another suit is agreed?

The most "natural" use of of 'new-suit bids at the 4-level after another suit is agreed' is to show length in the suit. I am afraid you are confusing the word "natural" with common.

blackshoe, on 2011-November-24, 21:53, said:

Heh. Having said that control bids are alertable, I wonder if anybody does it.

Sure: I alert control bids below 3NT in both the EBU and the ACBL.

[Mbodell]

bluejak, on 2011-November-25, 01:34, said:

Sure: I alert control bids below 3NT in both the EBU and the ACBL.

I sometimes do in the ACBL, but there it is likely after some highly artificial relay and a denial cue bid which, could, happen to be about the suit that was bid (coincidentally).

But an auction that isn't that uncommon where control bids are not alerted in practice below 3nt is:

1♥ - 2NT! (jacoby)
3♣! (shortness) - 3♦ (no alert, control bid)