[hrothgar]

Shugart23, on 2017-August-09, 17:47, said:

We do agree that using the definition of a destructive bid, some psychs can be classified as destructive bids and the others would not be classified as destructive...My only point/question/thought/muse is that there
seems to be logical argument that destructive psychs are banned.

No

Under the current regulatory system Psyches and Destructive bids are non-overlapping magisteria

The notion of a "destructive bid" - one which I deplore - is predicated on the partnership agreement about what a bid shows.

The concept of a psyche - which I also believe to be badly flawed - is based on a violation of partnership agreement.

[Shugart23]

hrothgar, on 2017-August-10, 03:45, said:

No

Under the current regulatory system Psyches and Destructive bids are non-overlapping magisteria

The notion of a "destructive bid" - one which I deplore - is predicated on the partnership agreement about what a bid shows.

The concept of a psyche - which I also believe to be badly flawed - is based on a violation of partnership agreement.

You are probably right...in which case you and your partner have an agreement that destructive bids are permitted from time to time ....

( Just curious...in your view, if partner and I have a lame agreement that we will always overcall a strong 1C bid with a psych bid of 2S, would that be permitted ? if not, why not ?)


anyway, the inquiry has been made to ACBL to confirm and I will post their response

[hrothgar]

Shugart23, on 2017-August-10, 07:35, said:

You are probably right...in which case you and your partner have an agreement that destructive bids are permitted from time to time ....anyway, the inquiry has been made to ACBL to confirm

Not too good with the whole reading comprehension thing are you?

[Shugart23]

hrothgar, on 2017-August-10, 08:06, said:

Not too good with the whole reading comprehension thing are you?

No, I see your point....I just want clarification from ACBL that destructive psych bids are going to be permitted in the future......I don't think I have run into any pair that has an agreement to make a destructive bid with a specific meaning.....so the whole concept of defining and disallowing destructive bids seems a bit meaningless...

[barmar]

Practically all psychic bids would be classified as destructive if the partnership had an agreement to make that bid with the holding they have. So if the prohibition against destructive bids applied to psychs, it would effectively ban all psychs. I don't think this is ACBL's intent (why bother with an explicit statement that psyching strong, artificial calls is prohibited if all psychs are prohibited?). I'll just go back to my earlier statement that the prohibition against destructive methods only refers to agreements (both explicit and implicit), not deviations from those agreements (i.e. psychs).

This is simply a non-issue, IMHO.

People like Richard who like to play strange methods have a reasonable complaint about this regulation, but psychs aren't part of it.

[hrothgar]

Shugart23, on 2017-August-10, 08:34, said:

No, I see your point....I just want clarification from ACBL that destructive psych bids are going to be permitted in the future......

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A DESTRUCTIVE PSYCHE

Talking about a "destructive psyche" is like having a conversation about a high octane swimming pool or a low calorie lawnmower.

These words have nothing to do with one another.

[Shugart23]

barmar, on 2017-August-10, 10:55, said:

Practically all psychic bids would be classified as destructive if the partnership had an agreement to make that bid with the holding they have. So if the prohibition against destructive bids applied to psychs, it would effectively ban all psychs. I don't think this is ACBL's intent (why bother with an explicit statement that psyching strong, artificial calls is prohibited if all psychs are prohibited?). I'll just go back to my earlier statement that the prohibition against destructive methods only refers to agreements (both explicit and implicit), not deviations from those agreements (i.e. psychs).

This is simply a non-issue, IMHO.

People like Richard who like to play strange methods have a reasonable complaint about this regulation, but psychs aren't part of it.

I am pretty sure the consensus opinions being expressed are correct. I just want ACBL to confirm....when I use the term destructive, I am not using the adjective destructive...I am using the ACBL definition of what constitutes a destructive bid....I would actually think most psychs are NOT destructive using the ACBL definition...e.g. any hand that has about average strength is not destructive no matter what you bid; any hand that has at least a 5-4 shape is not destructive no matter what you bid...and so on...

So consensus opinion is psychs and destructive bidding agreements are independent and have nothing to do with one another...That is fine and is likely true... The new proposed regulations define what constitutes a destructive bid for the first time ever, as far as I know....Not sure what the point of this definition is useful for....I am probably stretching it too far to say that it's application applies to psychs, but it does no harm to ask

[jeffford76]

Shugart23, on 2017-August-10, 07:35, said:

anyway, the inquiry has been made to ACBL to confirm and I will post their response

Who did you send an inquiry to? I haven't seen it.

[Shugart23]

Acbl rulings from link on their website

[jeffford76]

Shugart23, on 2017-August-10, 11:44, said:

Acbl rulings from link on their website

That means you are asking directors about how to interpret a chart that isn't approved yet instead of emailing the address specifically created for comments on the draft charts.

[Shugart23]

jeffford76, on 2017-August-10, 14:23, said:

That means you are asking directors about how to interpret a chart that isn't approved yet instead of emailing the address specifically created for comments on the draft charts.

thanks!

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on 2017-August-09, 18:10, said:

I think you are conflating my post with someone else's because I didn't say that. But I also didn't say what I meant to say.

To wit, if 3♣ = ♣ OR ♦ + ♠ is illegal, and the agreement is that 3♣ = ♦ + ♠, then I think that psyching 3♣ when holding clubs is improper.

I was replying to Shugart.

Forget about legality for the moment. If the agreement is ♣ OR ♦ + ♠, then bidding 3♣ when you have clubs is not a psych.

[blackshoe]

Shugart23, on 2017-August-10, 11:36, said:

when I use the term destructive, I am not using the adjective destructive...I am using the ACBL definition of what constitutes a destructive bid

You sound like that FBI agent at Waco who announced through his bull horn "This is not an assault" while the tanks were knocking down the walls of the building.

Richard is right. The world of psychs and the world of "destructive bids" as defined in the new convention charts are orthogonal to each other.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2017-August-10, 21:27, said:

I was replying to Shugart.

please don't quote a person you are not replying to.

Quote

Forget about legality for the moment. If the agreement is ♣ OR ♦ + ♠, then bidding 3♣ when you have clubs is not a psych.

Forget about legality how? My comment has no point if the method is not illegal.

[Shugart23]

blackshoe, on 2017-August-10, 21:38, said:

You sound like that FBI agent at Waco who announced through his bull horn "This is not an assault" while the tanks were knocking down the walls of the building.

Richard is right. The world of psychs and the world of "destructive bids" as defined in the new convention charts are orthogonal to each other.

orthogonal or parallel ?

So on a slight tangent, as long as we are discussing psychs and destructive bids, let me just ask a theoretical question, merely because I am curious...

Could a partnership have an agreement that in certain conditions, a non-destructive (ACBL definition) psych bid will be made...eg.


Favorable vulnerability : Partner Passes, RHO bids precision 1C (or strong 2C), you bid 3X which is alerted...LHO asks the meaning and partner says " when we have favorable vulnerability, in 3rd seat, our agreement is that if we make a 3-level bid over a strong opening ,the 3-level bid is artificial, and shows either a hand that has at least 4 of the suit bid OR a hand that has a 5+4+ distribution in two undisclosed suits Or a hand that is 4441 with an unknown singleton OR a hand of about average strength.

Legal? not legal ?

[pran]

Shugart23, on 2017-August-11, 07:07, said:

orthogonal or parallel ?

So on a slight tangent, as long as we are discussing psychs and destructive bids, let me just ask a theoretical question, merely because I am curious...

Could a partnership have an agreement that in certain conditions, a non-destructive (ACBL definition) psych bid will be made...eg.


Favorable vulnerability : Partner Passes, RHO bids precision 1C (or strong 2C), you bid 3S which is alerted...LHO asks the meaning and partner says " when we have favorable vulnerability, in 3rd seat, our agreement is that if we make a 3 level bid over a strong opening and the level bid is artificial and shows either a hand that has at least 4 of the suit bid OR a hand that has a 5+4+ distribution in two undisclosed suits Or a hand that is 4441 with an unknown singleton OR a hand of about average strength.

Legal? not legal ?

I would rule illegal for the simple reason that a psychic call is defined as: a deliberate and gross misstatement of honour strength and/or of suit length.
"Misstatement" must be related to the relevant partnership understanding and may therefore itself no be included in such understandings.

[Shugart23]

pran, on 2017-August-11, 08:06, said:

I would rule illegal for the simple reason that a psychic call is defined as: a deliberate and gross misstatement of honour strength and/or of suit length.
"Misstatement" must be related to the relevant partnership understanding and may therefore itself no be included in such understandings.

interesting.....I guess I have a follow -up question
.
Forget the word psych.....could the 3-level bid just be an artificial alertable bid and the explanation given is what it is ? Is there a prohibition on making an artificial 3 level bid over a 1C precision or 2C strong bid, as long as the proper explanation is given ?

[hrothgar]

Shugart23, on 2017-August-11, 08:38, said:

interesting.....I guess I have a follow -up question

Is there a prohibition on making an artificial 3 level bid over a 1C precision or 2C strong bid, as long as the proper explanation is given ?

There is no prohibition against making an artificial 3 level bid over a Precision 1C opening.
However, there is a restriction against making any purely destructive overcall.

Note: The chart does not define purely destructive overcall. It does define purely destructive opening.
I am assuming that they are the same.

[Shugart23]

hrothgar, on 2017-August-11, 10:11, said:

There is no prohibition against making an artificial 3 level bid over a Precision 1C opening.
However, there is a restriction against making any purely destructive overcall.

Note: The chart does not define purely destructive overcall. It does define purely destructive opening.
I am assuming that they are the same.

Thanks. right....so by defining the artificial 3 level bid as I have, it is by definition, NOT a destructive overcall (under the new proposed regulations)----even though nobody at the table knows what your holding is

[hrothgar]

Shugart23, on 2017-August-11, 07:07, said:

Favorable vulnerability : Partner Passes, RHO bids precision 1C (or strong 2C), you bid 3X which is alerted...LHO asks the meaning and partner says " when we have favorable vulnerability, in 3rd seat, our agreement is that if we make a 3-level bid over a strong opening ,the 3-level bid is artificial, and shows either a hand that has at least 4 of the suit bid OR a hand that has a 5+4+ distribution in two undisclosed suits Or a hand that is 4441 with an unknown singleton OR a hand of about average strength.

Legal? not legal ?

What does the appropriate line in the chart say?
its not at all unclear...

You DON'T promise average strength
You DON'T promise a three suited hand
You DON'T promise 4+ cards in a known suit
You DON'T promise 5+ 4 distribution in two known suits

Why would you ever think that this was legal?