[han]

mila85, on Aug 30 2005, 07:24 AM, said:

In Riccione LHO opened 2♣ - precision. Partner doubled and I bid 2nt. From my point of view it was Lebensohl. Partner thought it was natural and I played 3nt. It was a stupid contract but I played it undoubled and the defence wasn't the best one. It was because my pard explained it as natural - one opponent was misinformed. The result was changed by TD.
Eventhough my pard bid 3nt not 3♣ so it was obviously our misunderstanding not cheating, we should have known what we bid.

If you still thought that your agreement was that 2NT was Lebensohl, you should have explained this to the opponents before the lead was made. Failure to do so may lead to score correction.

If you forgot that you agreed to play 2NT as natural here, you shouldn't say anything, and the director should definitely not change your score.

If this auction was completely undiscussed and your partner has explained 2NT as natural then you should tell the truth (i.e. auction undiscussed) to your opponents before the lead was made, so that they know that 2NT might not be intended as natural.

"we should have known what we bid"

Sometimes you don't, and you should tell your opponents that you don't have an agreement before the play begins.

[kenberg]

The issue of explaining what you intend versus saying no agreement has been debated and depbated and debated here and elsewhere. I have a suggestion: Perhaps some tpurneys could be run that are open only to partnerships that agree to have gone over a card, and have agreed on many issues, before enterring. No subs. If someone loses his connection he is expected to return promptly. He needs a very strong reason to not do so, or he doesn't play again. Of course there will still be a bidding oops from time to time (it happens at the highest level) but the expectations will be clear.

In the usual current format, where you only hope partner knows what you are doing, I will continue to state my intentions. After 1M-2NT I explain that 3C, say, is intended to show shortness. Hopefully 2NT is Jacoby, hopefully partner understands 3C. Maybe yes, maybe no, but it's my expectation or at least my hope he will. So I explain. I really don't care if I am entitled to say "no agreement".

But the tourney where everyone is fully expected to have some idea of what their bids mean, at least in common auctions, is really appealing to me.

Ken

[Chamaco]

Quote

When I use a bid I expect partner will understand it (we played Lebensohl over weak two openings). So I say to opps what I think it means.

You are not forced to tell opps that.
Your opponent must know exactly the same as your partner.

But one does not have to explain in detail why he makes the bid: "no agreement" is another way to say "I expect pard to take it in the most obvious meaning", but one is not obliged to explain in detail the meaning of the bid if the meaning was not agreed.

The main point here is simply that, in order to avoid being victim of cheating, one must be sure that there is indeed no hidden agreement, which in this case would be undisclosed to opps: but this is true for virtually every single call opponents can make.

Quote

If someone opens 2nt and has no idea how his partner will take it, he must be crazy or cheating.

No, saying "undiscussed" means basically the natural bid, but since he was psyching, it would have been even worse to say "20-21 hcp bal" when he held instead an unbalanced hand.
Opp can be psyching and there is nothing wrong in it: if he psyches, he is not a cheater, he is making a bid that neither his pard nor opps will probably understand.
Sure, in this case, you will have a hard time to make an intelligent decision, but the same is true for his partner.
If his psyche wins, and you get a bad result because of it, you must accept it, not cal the director, psyches are part of the game: when he decided to psyche, he took his risks, and this time he got a top, the next time it may backfire.

[candybar]

Chamaco, on Aug 31 2005, 02:17 AM, said:

No, saying "undiscussed" means basically the natural bid, but since he was psyching, it would have been even worse to say "20-21 hcp bal" when he held instead an unbalanced hand.

It is not worse. If you open 2N (which by any agreement or not, partner will expect strong balanced hand), and you are psyching, you MUST explain your AGREEMENT.

It is absolutely right to say "20-21 hcp bal" if that is what partner will expect, even if you are psyching. If you say, "No Agreement" or "Undiscussed" in an attempt to protect yourself from the ire of the opponents when they discover the psyche, you are lying about the meaning of your bid. THAT is worse.

[jillybean]

candybar, on Aug 31 2005, 04:46 AM, said:

Chamaco, on Aug 31 2005, 02:17 AM, said:

No, saying "undiscussed" means basically the natural bid, but since he was psyching, it would have been even worse to say "20-21 hcp bal" when he held instead an unbalanced hand.

It is not worse. If you open 2N (which by any agreement or not, partner will expect strong balanced hand), and you are psyching, you MUST explain your AGREEMENT.

It is absolutely right to say "20-21 hcp bal" if that is what partner will expect, even if you are psyching. If you say, "No Agreement" or "Undiscussed" in an attempt to protect yourself from the ire of the opponents when they discover the psyche, you are lying about the meaning of your bid. THAT is worse.

Huh? Are you saying that if you dont have an agreement you should describe your bid as to what you assume your partner will expect?

The alert query does not ask you about the meaning of your bid it is asking what agreement you have with your partner, saying "no agreement" is not lying if that is the reality. The opps have just as much information as your partner!

jb

(oh - I thought this was about a sub in a tournament when there is no time to agree on systems)

This post has been edited by jillybean2: 2005-August-31, 15:14

[mila85]

The problem is that it's always difficult for opps or TD find what the full agreement is. You have something in your cc, something in your system notes but you also played lots of hands and you have hundreds of agreements which were never said.

Imagine a situation:
You have to make a bid and you are not sure if your pard will understand it.
1. You alert it and say that you have no agreement - it can be ... or ... Opps have to know the same what partner so you don't tell them what it is.
Your pard now explain correctly what you have and takes a good action. Td is called - you have to explain that it was just lucky.
2. You alert it, say what you think it means (you have). I your pard takes a bad action. It's your problem that you don't know the system. You will have a bad result and the advantage your opponent had isn't the reason.

Another situation:
Partner opened weak nt. RHO doubled and I passed. It forces redouble - it's only bid pard can make. And he bids 2 spades...
I can explain it as no agreement. But I must do something, I must think what it means.
So I explain what I think it is and what I will do (not the exact bid, only idea).

3rd situation:
Bidding goes 1♠-2nt/3♦-3♥/4♠.
2nt was inv+, 3♦ and 3♥ some game tries. Both of you think for a long time about playing this not easy game. You imagine every possible hand pard can have.
Opps ask to explain the bidding. You say 'game tries'. They want to know more but you don't want to say them more than your pard knows...

When you say 'no agreement' it's always suspicious. You expect some action from your partner. You can always say something - What the other bids mean? How we bid in similar situation? Is it forcing?
Don't be afraid that you give them too much informations. You have always an advatage. They can never know everything. So say what you can.

(This is about online brige or game with screens, of course you can't say to your pard what you have)

Quote

If you still thought that your agreement was that 2NT was Lebensohl, you should have explained this to the opponents before the lead was made. Failure to do so may lead to score correction.

I didn't know how it was explained at the other side of the screen.

Quote

"we should have known what we bid"
Sometimes you don't, and you should tell your opponents that you don't have an agreement before the play begins.

1. I was sure we have the agreement in very similar situation - I didn't think about not having it here. And my pard didn't think that we can have it here. The auction was absolutely boring and normal for both of us:)
2. There are only two possibilities. Lebensohl or Natural. I can say that I'm not sure. But I must say what I think it is.
3. If I explained it as 10-12 nat. bal. and had very weak hand (we can call it bluff) what I had and my pard explained it also as natural, he would be in the same situation, none of the opps will know my hand but the result wouldn't be changed. The only problem was different explanation - you must know your system in this event - because it's impossible find out what the real agreement is.

[mycroft]

I don't know about others, but I'm saying that especially in a world-wide setup, "no agreement" is frequently insufficient disclosure.

1) I played FtF last night with someone I'd never played with before. But I've played against him for three years, and have a pretty good idea of his style. We played pickup, so we had 5 minutes to discuss system. Do we have "no agreement" on auctions that go past our discussion? Or, to quote the Laws, no "special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership experience"? Of course not.

2) I agree, with another Canadian I have never met, to play "2/1". That's our entire discussion. The auction goes 1D-1S; 1NT-2C. I know it's NMF, I am bidding 2C in full expectation that it will be taken as NMF, but I get to say "no agreement", because all we discussed was "2/1"? Yeah, right. Okay, I'm banking on "general experience" to know that anyone who plays 2/1 plays a certain set of conventions to fill the holes, and NMF is one of them, but if my opponents are from Bangladesh, *they* don't know that - it isn't "general bridge knowledge" to them.

3) I start playing, with no discussion at all, with my partner's other regular partner - and I know that my partner is resistant to new ideas. No agreement? Not likely - even though I have only ever been at this person's table as a director.

"NA but we agreed 2/1" - fine. If someone doesn't know what 2NT in "Generic 2/1" is, they can ask.

The Laws require explanation of agreements, explicit *and* implicit. That means even if you don't discuss them, if you expect partner to get it, and have a reason why, NA is not sufficient.

Michael.

[Winstonm]

Quote

If an opponent explain something as 'no agreement' I will ask him why he bids it.

Thanks, Mila. That is an excellent point that I never considered - if you know your partner will not understand the bid, why make it?

And I understood your point perfectly - language was not a barrier.

Winston

[1eyedjack]

Winstonm, on Sep 1 2005, 08:40 AM, said:

Quote

If an opponent explain something as 'no agreement' I will ask him why he bids it.

Thanks, Mila. That is an excellent point that I never considered - if you know your partner will not understand the bid, why make it?

I guess, because there may be no alternative. Making an alternative call that you expect partner to understand but which grossly (and unintentionally) misdescribes your hand is likely to result in a worse score than making a call about which you have no understanding but which at least stands a chance of being interpreted correctly. And not making a call at all is not an option either. To say that partner will not understand it overstates the implication of no agreement. He may understand it, you just do not know.

A skilful player with no agreements will take into consideration all available calls, both with regard to how accurately it describes his hand AND the likelihood of its being misinterpreted by partner. Case in point, if I have a 5332 hand with a 5 card major and do not know if we are playing transfers I may decide to raise partner's NT without investigating, or perhaps use stayman to find the 5-4 fit. On the other hand I *might* judge that the best chance of a result is if I assume that partner will guess correctly whether transfers are on or off (at the obvious possible cost of a disaster if he guesses wrong). However it is an exercise of judgement which route you go down, and there should be no aspersions cast on someone who makes a particular choice, in the absence of additional evidence of course.

[Winstonm]

bglover, on Aug 30 2005, 01:48 PM, said:

True story from a few weeks ago, altho it did not take place in a tourney.

Some silly person with world class in his profile is sitting at my table as my opponent. He opens 1 spade, I overcall 2 hearts... he clicks on my bid. I refused to answer.

Now, as a general rule I alert everything necessary and even overexplain alerted bids that aren't transfers (transfers I just alert).

This guy refuses to bid. Asks me what my 2 heart bid is AGAIN. My partner explains "it's a regular 2 heart overcall." The guy clicks for an explanation again. I just told the guy "leave the table."

I do think people are entitled to an explanation. But, not EVERYTHING requires one. This 2nt bid everyone is so focused on (when looking at all the hands) was an obvious attempt at a psyche. It got fielded. So, he refused to explain his bid further, knowing it had been fielded. The guy may be a jerk, that I agree, for not answering.

However, it hardly falls into the category of 'cheat." And, Winston (and the TD) have now besmirched this person (everyone who knows the name of the player now thinks maybe he cheated and Winston has praised the TD for expelling same).

Don't you see how wrong this is? Don't you understand it is a GAME. A game where people pysche, a game where people make silly bids that sometimes work? And you are willingly heaping praise on the director and the club for endorsing this?

Am I saying this guy clearly explained his bids? No. Ami saying it's impossible these 2 were comminicating? No. Anything is possible. What I see is plain lousy bridge, a lousier ruling and someone taking the opportunity to boost himself and simultaneously further drag someone's name through the mux because the director apparently agreed with his (highly likely wrong) assessment of the siutation.

Sorry, that's sick. Both you and the director deserve a warning, not any praise for this.

You obviously did not read my earlier post - the praise I give the director has nothing to do with legalities or bridge rules or laws but for having the guts to stand up for her convictions. Her site is designed to be a pleasant place to play without having to be placed in these kinds of awkward situations - it was the party who refused to adhere to her stipulations that instigated the awkward situation and that party was given ample opportunity to rectify yet refused to cooperate.

I give her praise for not a ruling, but for having the guts to enforce her own self-imposed zero tolerance policy. To me, it takes guts to mean what you say and back it up with action.

Winston

[1eyedjack]

Incidentally, if a partnership professes no agreement about a particular call, they likely have no agreement about most of the sensible alternative calls. So to ask why they make a particular call out of several alternatives about which they likewise have no agreement seems a pointless exercise.

[Chamaco]

mila85, on Aug 31 2005, 06:01 PM, said:

The only problem was different explanation - you must know your system in this event - because it's impossible find out what the real agreement is.

Many issues here:

1) Occasional partners and subs

You cannot reasonably expect a sub to have detailed agreement, or even nondetailed agrements.
If he makes a bid unagreed with pard, you have no right to know any more than his pard will.
If it's undiscussed, it's undiscussed, the bidder "hopes" pard will understand it, and you should be in the same situation than his partner: in some case, it will be YOU that need to know what it is and have to guess, in other situations, it will be his pard, that's life, once you win, once you lose.


2) Psyching

The guy was of course psyching. The "undiscussed" just means, usually, that the bid will be taken according to the most common meaning, which is in case of 2NT pener, 20-21 balanced.
If I were psyching, I would just have alerted it as "20-21 balanced" but then, you must not complain to the director by saying "he self-alerted 20-21 bal but hand a weak long minor hand".
I have the right to psyche without telling you "Hey, I am psyching" (provided my pard ignore the fact I am gambling)


3) "Undiscussed"
There are plenty of undiscussed sequences, even for people who play, say once or twice a week.
This is especially true for 2nd and 3rd round sequences, but also not so infrequent for responses to opening bids: try to ask someone playing Multi how they respond if people interfere; or try to ask many people how they respond in the sequence 2C(strong)- (3/4S overcall). For most people, that will be undiscussed.

I have found that, in the "undiscussed" cases, many of my opps that ask me explanation, they are only trying to set up a trap:
they want me to explain the hand in such detail that, if the exlanation deviates, they will call the TD because of misalerting.

Ever since then ( to protect myself from this kind of players who will scan like a lawyer through our bids and alerts) I have resorted to the frequent use of "undiscussed" eplanation: I am not supposed to explain what I *think* partener has, or *how I believe my partner will interpret my bid*.
If I have no specific agreements, "undiscussed" is pretty much correct, even if of course I am expecting some message to get through to my pard: opponents will have to guess just like my pard, "equal opportunities", that's not unethical IMO

[Winstonm]

1eyedjack, on Sep 1 2005, 02:51 AM, said:

Winstonm, on Sep 1 2005, 08:40 AM, said:

Quote

If an opponent explain something as 'no agreement' I will ask him why he bids it.

Thanks, Mila. That is an excellent point that I never considered - if you know your partner will not understand the bid, why make it?

I guess, because there may be no alternative. Making an alternative call that you expect partner to understand but which grossly (and unintentionally) misdescribes your hand is likely to result in a worse score than making a call about which you have no understanding but which at least stands a chance of being interpreted correctly. And not making a call at all is not an option either. To say that partner will not understand it overstates the implication of no agreement. He may understand it, you just do not know.

A skilful player with no agreements will take into consideration all available calls, both with regard to how accurately it describes his hand AND the likelihood of its being misinterpreted by partner. Case in point, if I have a 5332 hand with a 5 card major and do not know if we are playing transfers I may decide to raise partner's NT without investigating, or perhaps use stayman to find the 5-4 fit. On the other hand I *might* judge that the best chance of a result is if I assume that partner will guess correctly whether transfers are on or off (at the obvious possible cost of a disaster if he guesses wrong). However it is an exercise of judgement which route you go down, and there should be no aspersions cast on someone who makes a particular choice, in the absence of additional evidence of course.

I'm not sure I'm following you here - are you saying that because you are unsure whether or not you play transfers and decide to bid 2N that if questioned about the meaning of 2N you should answer, "Undiscussed." ?

In online bridge, private chat is available. I can disclose to either opponent indepedently of the other without either risking giving unauthorized information.

The main point here is why is this an issue to in the first place? Why penalize a sub and the sub's partner by rules that are meant for serious live play?

In the main room of play on BBonline my partner and I always have this standing table rule: if you and your partner have not discussed the meaning of a bid, feel free to ask your partner what his bid means. It is silly, IMO, to feel it necessary to get an edge with a pickup partnership (or even a regular partnership for that matter) by taking advantage of these misunderstandings - what use is it? It skews the results and I don't win any big cash prizes for winning the board. It's better to either skip the hand or allow the opponents to bid the hands as intended and see if they reach the right contract and if so see if we can beat it.

I would like to see the same concept adopted in casual tournament play - a pick up pard or sub shouldn't be handicapped by not knowing what system is in play - let him ask out loud so everyone knows - and this would also negate the luck/bad luck factor if a sub comes in at one table and has a bidding accident then the regular comes back just in time for the next round.

And I'm sorry I don't remember your name right now, but I agree totally with you that it's only a game - and an online game to boot. How serious does this all have to be? Be pleasant. Talk to the opponents if they ask you a question. Rudeness can be dealt with in two fashions - either by the host by regulating it - or by me - by simply disconnecting and going somewhere else to play.

Winston

[mila85]

Chamaco, on Sep 1 2005, 03:17 AM, said:

mila85, on Aug 31 2005, 06:01 PM, said:

The only problem was different explanation - you must know your system in this event - because it's impossible find out what the real agreement is.

Many issues here:

1) Occasional partners and subs

You cannot reasonably expect a sub to have detailed agreement, or even nondetailed agrements.
If he makes a bid unagreed with pard, you have no right to know any more than his pard will.
If it's undiscussed, it's undiscussed, the bidder "hopes" pard will understand it, and you should be in the same situation than his partner: in some case, it will be YOU that need to know what it is and have to guess, in other situations, it will be his pard, that's life, once you win, once you lose.

Yes. Bidder HOPES pard will understand it. So there must be an agreement. Without it it would be impossible to understand. (natural is also an agreement)

Quote

2) Psyching

The guy was of course psyching. The "undiscussed"  just means, usually, that the bid will be taken according to the most common meaning, which is in case of 2NT pener, 20-21 balanced.
If I were psyching, I would just have alerted it as "20-21 balanced" but then, you must not complain to the director by saying "he self-alerted 20-21 bal but hand a weak long minor hand".
I have the right to psyche without telling you "Hey, I am psyching" (provided my pard ignore the fact I am gambling)

No, this is not a normal psych. You know that partner is not sure what it means.
Imagine the bidding 2nt-p-3nt-dbl/4c-p-?
a) I have 20BAL, 5 clubs and think that RHO can make tricks in my unstopped suit (dbl was for a lead).
b ) I was psyching.
I think a) is normal. Partner can bid 5♣. But when you play with a sub he will always pass.

Quote

3) "Undiscussed"
There are plenty of undiscussed sequences, even for people who play, say once or twice a week.
This is especially true for 2nd and 3rd round sequences, but also not so infrequent for responses to opening bids: try to ask someone playing Multi how they respond if people interfere; or try to ask many people how they respond in the sequence 2C(strong)- (3/4S overcall). For most people, that will be undiscussed.

After multi bids can be natural or P/C. This is a big difference. I you deny explain it and partner takes a good action then TD will work...

Quote

I have found that, in the "undiscussed" cases, many of my opps that ask me explanation, they are only trying to set up a trap:
they want me to explain the hand in such detail that, if the exlanation deviates, they will call the TD because of misalerting.

You can say "It tends to be..." If it's true you must give this information.

Quote

Ever since then ( to protect myself from this kind of players who will scan like a lawyer through our bids and alerts)  I have resorted to the frequent use of "undiscussed" eplanation: I am not supposed to explain what I *think* partener has, or *how I believe my partner will interpret my bid*.

You can protect yourself very easily. When it's your bid, you know what you have in your hand. When it's parnter's bid you can say "I think it's ... and I will bid so."
In most of the tournaments it's enough.

Quote

If I have no specific agreements, "undiscussed" is pretty much correct, even if of course I am expecting some message to get through to my pard: opponents will have to guess just like my pard, "equal opportunities", that's not unethical IMO

Opps must guess. Your pard can think about it.

--------------
Of course nobody has to say what their actual holding is.
When you play with a sub explenation like "our 3rd board, SA2/1, no other agreements" is enough
With causual partner you should always say what you think it is.

[Chamaco]

mila85, on Sep 1 2005, 09:43 AM, said:

 
Yes. Bidder HOPES pard will understand it. So there must be an agreement. Without it it would be impossible to understand. (natural is also an agreement)

No.
A hope is not an agreement.

Quote

No, this is not a normal psych.

What is a "normal" psyche ?
there is no "normal" psyche. A psyche is an "abnormal" bid by definition.

Quote

You know that partner is not sure what it means.

Come on, let's be serious: whenever a sub come at my table and I see a unalerted 2NT opening bid, I assume 20-21, even with no agreement, and so will my opps.
And so will 95% of the players on BBO.
It's not an explicit agreement though.
An explicit agreement is just what the word says: it was explicitly agreed.

Quote

Imagine the bidding 2nt-p-3nt-dbl/4c-p-?
a) I have 20BAL, 5 clubs and think that RHO can make tricks in my unstopped suit (dbl was for a lead).
b ) I was psyching.
I think a) is normal. Partner can bid 5♣. But when you play with a sub he will always pass.

yes. So what ?

Quote

After multi bids can be natural or P/C. This is a big difference. I you deny explain it and partner takes a good action then TD will work...

There are people, I mean beginner/intermediats, who have no idea: they had not discussed whether a 3M response to Multi after interference was pass/correct or not: if they say "undiscused", it's quite legitimate, they do not havce to tell you what they have, they only have to tell you the explicit agrements they have with pard.
The ame hold true for strong 2C overcalled, and MANY competitive sequences.
If no agreements, "undiscussed" is ok

Quote

Quote

I have found that, in the "undiscussed" cases, many of my opps that ask me explanation, they are only trying to set up a trap:
they want me to explain the hand in such detail that, if the exlanation deviates, they will call the TD because of misalerting.

You can say "It tends to be..." If it's true you must give this information.

I usually do, when it is true that "it tends" to show something.
But when it is indeed undiscussed, I am not obliged to say anything: if my pard must guess, opps can be in the same position.
Take for instance the bidding in the thread "This cost much" by Ron:

1D-(p)-p-(2S)
4H-(4S)-5H-?

Is pass forcing here ?
If opps ask, I will say "undiscussed", because it was not discussed with partner.

Quote

Opps must guess. Your pard can think about it.

No, what you say is not right.
My pard can think about it only if *we have agrements and I do not disclose them*: in this case I would be outright cheating.
But *if pard indeed has no agreement*, he is guessing too, ad he can guess right or wring, just like opps:
- see the above example of forcing pass;
-or, if I open 2NT with, say, 10 hcp and a long minor, and opps buy the contract, my pard could be guessing wrong doubling opps assuming I do have 20 hcp.
So, by making a psyche or an undiscussed bid, one player can win or lose: let's just accept it, sometimes one ca win by gambling or psyching, by making a bid that noone else at the table will understand, but this is not necessarily cheating.

[FrancesHinden]

mila85, on Aug 31 2005, 01:01 PM, said:

Another situation:
Partner opened weak nt. RHO doubled and I passed. It forces redouble - it's only bid pard can make. And he bids 2 spades...

I can explain it as no agreement. But I must do something, I must think what it means.
So I explain what I think it is and what I will do (not the exact bid, only idea).

No, this is not right.
The correct explanation is to say:

"my pass forces redouble, systemically that is the only bid he can make"

If you have additional partnership experience you also reveal it ("but he sometimes forgets, or he sometimes likes to bid his 5-card suit here anyway") or even ("he has never done this before")

If you have no additional partnership experience, then you shouldn't explain what you think it is. If you are wrong, you will (not might, will) be ruled against if there was damage.

Similarly if playing with screens or online, your partner should only explain his 2S bid as

"partner's pass forced me to redouble; systemically I wasn't allowed to do anything else" and leave it at that.

[ochinko]

Winstonm, on Sep 1 2005, 11:00 AM, said:

I give her praise for not a ruling, but for having the guts to enforce her own self-imposed zero tolerance policy.  To me, it takes guts to mean what you say and  back it up with action.

Sorry, the TD could really had guts but I don't see how that ruling proves that. She ruled against a sub in favor of a (paying?) member. If it has been the reverse, and she had ruled against the member just because that was the right decision, that would've really shown some guts.

What you don't seem to understand is that you can't be impartial here because you were personally involved, whereas the posters that answered aren't emotionally attached to the case, and many of them disagree with you. If the player wasn't cheating but just psyching then the ruling, gutsy or not, was not right.

Perhaps I'm not quite impartial either. I had a simillar experience in a BBO tourney with a person that I know f2f. I explained my bid when she asked, then further described it, but she still wanted more. Then I said in a personal message: "Look, I told you we were playing together for the first time with my partner, and only agreed upon playing SAYC. You already know more about my hand that partner could possibly know. What more do you expect?" She doesn't speak to me ever since. I always try disclose at least what I think partner should assume, often even more than that, but you've got to draw the line somewhere.

Personally, I never make psychic bids. When opps psyche, and it goes in their favor, I don't feel any more displeased than if they had found a good sacrifice. They deserve credit, and no rules were broken (assuming the psyche wasn't from a 1st or 2nd position). We must learn to deal with those situations.

Petko

[jillybean]

ochinko, on Sep 1 2005, 04:13 AM, said:

When opps psyche, and it goes in their favor, I don't feel any more displeased than if they had found a good sacrifice. They deserve credit, and no rules were broken (assuming the psyche wasn't from a 1st or 2nd position). We must learn to deal with those situations.

Petko

Nice post.
I have seen 'No psyche in 1st or 2nd position' in a few tournament rules does this reflect an actual bridge law (its not in the WBF regulations) or is it something TD's are doing to keep players happy?

jb

[Walddk]

jillybean2, on Sep 1 2005, 03:52 PM, said:

I have seen 'No psyche in 1st or 2nd position' in a few tournament rules does this reflect an actual bridge law (its not in the WBF regulations) or is it something TD's are doing to keep players happy?

jb

Must be since psyches do not violate any law as long as they are not based upon a partnership understanding. Psyches are part of the game, and as we have said so many times before: TDs who disallow psyches do not follow the Laws of Duplicate Bridge.

It's as simple as that. Take it (play in those tourneys) or leave it (don't play in those tourneys).

Roland

[1eyedjack]

Winstonm, on Sep 1 2005, 09:28 AM, said:

I'm not sure I'm following you here - are you saying that because you are unsure whether or not you play transfers and decide to bid 2N that if questioned about the meaning of 2N you should answer, "Undiscussed." ?

No, that part of my post was addressing only the problem of what bid I personally would make if placed in the undesirable position of choosing between a number of calls in the absence of a partnership agreement. I did not in that part of the post consider at all the quesiton of how I would answer an interrogation about the chosen bid, and of course there is no requirement on others to make the same decision as I would make regarding the bid. But since you ask, for the record I guess I would have to answer "no agreement" to the 2NT raise as I would to any other response in that circumstance. I would simply judge that partner has a better chance of guessing correctly, and a lower likely cost if he guesses incorrectly. And my judgement in that regard may be wholly wrong, of course - he may read it as a minor suit transfer ... has happened.