[FrancesHinden]

Walddk, on Aug 22 2007, 11:47 AM, said:

ewj, on Aug 22 2007, 12:35 PM, said:

Is 2♠ really constructive by a passed hand? What would you do with a 6 count and 3 spades for instance?

1NT (forcing) followed by 2♠ if available. Either 5-7 with 3 or 6-10 with 2. I like 2♠ to be 8-10(11) with 3. We were told that the system is 2/1, not Acol where 1NT is NF.

I am inside the 8-11 range with 3, so I have no problem with a single raise.

Roland

We're also told that 1NT is no longer forcing by a passed hand...

But I would make the same assumption as Roland that 1NT includes a weaker spade raise.

[han]

I think 2S is quite clear and 2C is the only alternative.

I'd say that 4S is bonkers if I used words like that.

[jdonn]

4♠ is a great answer in a problem. Either is works spectacularly well, or it works terribly and you say you were kidding, which is what everyone had assumed anyway.

[sheepman]

At the table i looked around for my 2 and a half spade bid, found someone had stolen it from my box so settled on 2S.

Pard made 2S, as in 2 tricks he should of made 3 but that's neither here nor there. Good board against 620, director is called and the opponents ask for it recorded, whilst muttering about psykes being legal and thinking they should be banned.

All is well and good.

Later in the round the director comes back and says it's been fielded and changes the score to 60%-30%.

I then have to waste half my lunch break waiting for the appeals committee to turn up.

When they do they decided it's no longer been fielded, but warm me if I bid 2S again it will be fielding.

Good ruling?

[jtfanclub]

sheepman, on Aug 22 2007, 04:45 PM, said:

Good ruling?

How can we possibly know that without knowing partner's hand?

[Echognome]

jtfanclub, on Aug 22 2007, 01:49 PM, said:

sheepman, on Aug 22 2007, 04:45 PM, said:

Good ruling?

How can we possibly know that without knowing partner's hand?

Because the question is obviously whether this hand fielded. Why on earth should it matter what the psycher's hand looked like?

[han]

Well, a large majority here bids 2S so it seems like both the director and the appeals committee (in their comment) were off.

[1eyedjack]

jtfanclub, on Aug 22 2007, 10:49 PM, said:

sheepman, on Aug 22 2007, 04:45 PM, said:

Good ruling?

How can we possibly know that without knowing partner's hand?

It is true that the question of whether a psyche has been fielded requires two tests: (1) has there been a psychic bid and (2) if so, was it fielded. The question of adjustment only arises if both of those tests return true. If the answer to (2) is false then you need not concern yourself with question (1) and partner's actual hand is rendered irrelevant. Partner's hand may be relevant to the issue, but only if you regard a 2S to be a field GIVEN that the 1S opener is ruled as a psyche.

As I said earlier I would not have bid 2S at the table. I am persuaded by the others in the thread that 2S is a better bid (especially given that, in context, there is an agreement that it is constructive). I would not regard a bid of 2S as a field, so I am not interested in whether partner has actually psyched.

[jtfanclub]

Echognome, on Aug 22 2007, 04:53 PM, said:

jtfanclub, on Aug 22 2007, 01:49 PM, said:

How can we possibly know that without knowing partner's hand?

Because the question is obviously whether this hand fielded. Why on earth should it matter what the psycher's hand looked like?

I don't consider a weak hand 3rd position with a good suit opening at the 1 level to be a psyche. I certainly don't think factoring in that it's a 3rd hand opener to bid conservatively is 'fielding' a psyche.

But there are other ways it could have been a psyche...say, a 4 card spade suit & 5 clubs in a 5 card major opener. Each opponent holds 3 spades, and waits for the 'short spade' hand to reopen, and when they don't figures that they're weak for their position. If you'd bid clubs, it would have been easy for them to come in.

[jtfanclub]

1eyedjack, on Aug 22 2007, 05:01 PM, said:

It is true that the question of whether a psyche has been fielded requires two tests: (1) has there been a psychic bid and (2) if so, was it fielded.  The question of adjustment only arises if both of those tests return true.

For the last question, at least in the U.S., there's a third test...did the opponents play bridge.

I would argue that if the psych was being extremely light in third seat, that the opponents did not. Letting the opponents play in a fit at the 2 level is usually not a good idea to start with, and surely one of them was easily strong enough to do something. For that reason alone, there should be no adjustment regardless of whether there was a psyche.

If the third hand opening was a suit psyche...then it gets more interesting.

[cherdano]

Hannie, on Aug 22 2007, 04:00 PM, said:

Well, a large majority here bids 2S so it seems like both the director and the appeals committee (in their comment) were off.

Well, maybe the appeals committee did not know (or believe) that 2S had been agreed as "constructive". Given that this was a "casual partnership with an inexperienced but talented players" it seems surprising indeed that this had actually been discussed. Given that this statement is self-serving, I wouldn't blame the appeals committee for ignoring it.

[Echognome]

jtfanclub, on Aug 22 2007, 02:13 PM, said:

I would argue that if the psych was being extremely light in third seat, that the opponents did not. Letting the opponents play in a fit at the 2 level is usually not a good idea to start with, and surely one of them was easily strong enough to do something. For that reason alone, there should be no adjustment regardless of whether there was a psyche.

If the third hand opening was a suit psyche...then it gets more interesting.

I strongly disagree with this. The rules on "failure to play bridge" are to protect against the "double shot". I would find it hard to believe that someone was taking a double-shot by failing to protect. Your claim seems to rely on the fact that no one should be able to play 2M in the auction 1M - 2M. Remember here who are the non-offenders!

[jtfanclub]

Echognome, on Aug 22 2007, 05:55 PM, said:

Your claim seems to rely on the fact that no one should be able to play 2M in the auction 1M - 2M.  Remember here who are the non-offenders!

A 9 count isn't a psyche (Q or less below stated strength, assuming that's 11). I would have a very hard time taking seriously than an 8 count was a psyche (at least in the U.S., only openings which are 'frequently' 8 counts need to be alerted).

That leaves 24+ hcp between the two opposing hands. If you're passing out opponent's 2M with 24+ hcp between you, something is just wrong with your system.

It's a long ways from saying that nobody should be able to play 2M on this auction when the opponents have a game count to nobody should be able to play 2M on this auction at all!

I'm having a very hard time imagining how the hands could be set up where even 1% of players would pass with both of the opposing hands. There's just too many points and too few spades between the two hands.

I think somebody was going for the double shot, yes.

[cherdano]

Jt, you are making suspicions about the double shot while you have no idea about the hand... I suspect partner didn't have a 5-card spade suit, otherwise he might have taken more than 2 tricks.

[jtfanclub]

cherdano, on Aug 22 2007, 06:53 PM, said:

Jt, you are making suspicions about the double shot while you have no idea about the hand... I suspect partner didn't have a 5-card spade suit, otherwise he might have taken more than 2 tricks.

I understand that. And that's my point....if the psyche was points only, I think there's a dozen reasons why I would argue that this wasn't a field, or if it was a field it should not be adjusted. A 2 spade bid over a points psyche should not have slowed the opponents down much...at the very least they should have found a part score. And bidding 2 clubs vs. 2 spades, who cares? If anything, 2 clubs should have made it less likely for them to balance, since it's not clear that we have a fit.

But if the psyche was in fact that partner did not have a 5 card suit, this gets interesting. A 2 spade bid makes it very difficult for the opponents to come in (since both have spade length), while a 2 club bid would make it darned easy for whichever of them had short clubs to find their voice. That....ugh. I'd not like to be the director in that case.

So what sort of psyche was it?

[FrancesHinden]

jtfanclub, on Aug 23 2007, 01:05 AM, said:

So what sort of psyche was it?

I don't remember the hand exactly, but I believe it had neither many points and I think it was a doubleton spade.

[Walddk]

jtfanclub, on Aug 23 2007, 02:05 AM, said:

So what sort of psyche was it?

I think it's pretty obvious to see (the opponents were cold for 620, sheepman wrote) that partner opened third in hand on virtually nothing and a singleton or doubleton spade. In other words: they had a spade game.

No one can get in on an auction like this. As I said earlier, 2♠ looks perfectly normal, but it also happened to be a lucky strike because it kept the opponents out of 4♠. There is no law against being lucky.

As for fielding a psyche I see no evidence whatsoever. That was also the committee's conclusion, although I don't understand why sheepman was warned as far as his 2♠ raise is concerned.

That seems like normal bridge to me and not a call based on a partnership understanding ("I underbid my hand in case you have psyched").

Roland