[rbforster]

Club game against typical poor-to-average club players.
3rd Seat, Favorable.
Two passes to you.

Scoring: MP

P-P-?

---

Partner's pass denies as much as a balanced 10 count or a unbalanced 9 count. Do you have anything funny in mind? If you were to try something, what would you bid?

Edit: Ugh, I suck at polls. Please reply if you'd bid a major which major it is!


Systems agreements if relevant, but feel free to comment playing standard also:

• Light 3rd seat openings are agreed, 1M could be 4 cards, 1♦ could be 2+ (precision)
  
• 1NT is 10-13 (with 2♣ stayman and NF other replies, decent runouts if doubled)
  
• You play precision openings in the 9-15 point range for bids other than 1♣, include 2♣ natural 10-15
  
• 2♣ one-way reverse Drury over 3rd seat major openings (uncontested only)
  
• transfers and preemptive jumps after 1M-X (including a transfer-raise as more constructive than direct raise)

This post has been edited by Rob F: 2007-August-26, 23:48

[cherdano]

I would bid 1H, often it doesn't achieve anything but in particular against weak opponents it might, and it is pretty safe. (If you want to get a great result you need to psych with a short suit but that is bad against weak opponents.)

[jdonn]

I prefer to pass in this relatively weak sounding field. I don't want to create a somewhat random swing, or get partner off to a bad lead.

[awm]

I like pass also.... the time to bid is when your opponents are the strongest pair in the field because you will usually get a poor result leaving them to their own devices. In this case I rather like a natural 2♣ opening, which at least will get partner to a non-awful lead and won't be a total disaster if partner raises.

[helene_t]

2♥, p does not expect more than this although it may elicit the wrong lead. Againast stronger opps I would open 3♥. I'm sure some kind of mixed strategy has merrits but that's not my style.

[Free]

I'd pass, not because it's insance, but because it's unethical and useless to psych against poor players (what's the point anyway? We can beat them the normal way)...

[the hog]

Agree with Frederick. Psyching against weak players is unethical. I am surprised you even posted this and that anyone would contemplate it.

[Mr. Dodgy]

close for me, first instinct is to pass but I don't mind 2♥ (is two-suited the way i play) - perhaps this is influenced by a dirty suspicion that I AM one of the "typical poor-to-average club players"

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

If I bid, 2H seems best, ... I virtually never psych.
I would love to have the Q off hearts instead of the
Q of spades, but in this case, it would not be a problem?

I assume favourable means green vs. red.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[Elianna]

Depending on the director/club you play at, some of the bids you suggested may get you in trouble.

(As I know that you're in ACBL land, I will use those regulations.)

Under GCC, Disallowed #2: Psyching of artificial or conventional opening bids.

So this would clearly disallow 2D and 2NT, and if I were directing, it would disallow 1d.

I also agree with those who point out that it is not a good idea to psyche against bad players, they might mess up anyway.

[sceptic]

cant see the fun in trying to be clever against poor players, that is probably half the reason MBC is so bad

[ralph23]

I voted "Pass."

Comments:

a. 2♥ opening, assuming such a bid is within the partnership agreement which allows very undisciplined weak 2's in 3rd position at favorable vul, does (but barely) meet the so-called "standard" on weak-2 bids (5 HC points + 5 cards). As my partner will attest, I take lots of liberties with weak-2's esp. in this circumstance, but this one is just too sucky even for me to open. On a bad day, however, I will confess that I am considering this ploy .....

b. 1♥ opening: If it is within the partnership agreement to open 1♥ here, then it is not legal in ACBL-land, which disallows under the General Chart {#6 under "Disallowed") "opening one bids which by partnership agreement could show fewer than 8 HCP." [Emphasis added]

Note: The Chart specifically states that this standard does not apply to a psych, but only to an opening 1-bid that is within the "partnership agreement."

c. The General Chart also disallows psyching of artificial or conventional openings. [#2 under Disallowed]

d. I agree that's it's usually wrong as a tactical matter to psych against weak players, -- they are perfectly capable of screwing it up themselves without any help from your side -- but why is it "unethical", as opposed to just "being mean" or "not very sporting, old chap" or just plain "not very nice" ??

NB - Here a psych would be a 1♥ opening, not contemplated by partnership agreement, as described in #6 in the GCC and as noted above. I think the 2♥ opening is extreme, but it is not a psych.

The only info given in the posting statement is that the field is the average "not very good/poor player" club game. Maybe it's a limited masterpoint game. Maybe not... I'm assuming that my opps on this board are just average for this field.

So, does that mean that you can NEVER ethically psych in a game where everyone (except you and partner of course ) is "not so good"?

Is this just someone's feeling on what is ethical or not? Or is there an ACBL rule on it? If there is such a rule, I am not familiar with it...

Anyone who can point to some legal authority on this being unethical, I am very interested in seeing it. If it's just your feelings, then that's OK ... I don't feel it's very "sporting" myself -- but I do recognize that your feelings and my feelings aren't law.

[Apollo81]

I might psych a strong NT; wouldn't psych a weak NT

[mikeh]

I pass.

I won't psyche against very bad players: it ruins the game for them, and randomizes my results.. yes, it likely leads to a good result, but I expect a good result without psyching. I'd consider psyching against average players, but this hand doesn't look quite right for it. I'd open 1♠ if my majors were reversed, but I don't like my shape nor the location of my (few) hcp.

I would probably open 1♥ against a strong pair. 2♥ is too likely to get partner too excited if he has a fit. I used to psyche short(ish) suits when I wsa a lot younger, but good players tend to double us too much when partner raises, and he is more likely to over-compete opposite a short suit psyche than a long suit.

[hrothgar]

Few quick comments here:

1. As many people note, there isn't much reason to psych versus weak players. You're expecting them to hang themselves without any help by you. In an ideal world, you want to play the field contract against this pair and then watch them screw up declaring or defending.

I don't think that psyching against beginners is in any way unethical. I just don't consider it a percentage action, particularly at MP.

2. Partner has denied a strong hand and I am quite weak. We have every indication that LHO is sitting on some values. Even so, there aren't any psyches that are (really) standing out.

If I were to pysche I would (probably) psyche a 1NT opening. We should have a good run out scheme that will let us scramble to a 2 level fit. The opening will shut down the entire one level without level us exposed. Plus, LHO will (hopefully) place cards wrong.

If LHO ends up in 3N, partner will need to worry that he has a long running suit and a stopper so might not make a (suicidal) double.

Nothing else appeals that much. Mark me down for

Passing 80% of the time.
Opening 1NT 20% of the time

[helene_t]

ralph23, on Aug 27 2007, 04:38 PM, said:

Anyone who can point to some legal authority on this being unethical, I am very interested in seeing it. If it's just your feelings, then that's OK ... I don't feel it's very "sporting" myself -- but I do recognize that your feelings and my feelings aren't law.

I found a SAYC booklet on an unofficial site, not sure if it's actually taken from an official source. It says

Quote

sychs are a sensitive subject to players in this event. A very rare, totally unexpected psych is not illegal, but pairs who wish to psych with any degree of frequency are encouraged to enter other games.

Personally, I don't think it's necessarily unethical to psyche against weaker players. I know a lot of weaker players who ignore the meaning of opps calls. This is partly because it makes their system simpler, partly because they are used to opps who make absurd mistakes. If playing social bridge, of course you should adhere to the local ethical code even if it is somewhat contradictory to the laws. It's not my impression that weaker players in general have an issue with psyches. I might be wrong, though, it's not something I have investigated.

[rbforster]

Thanks for the comments everyone. I certainly agree that psychs are generally a bad idea against weak players for the reasons given above (but not that you have an ethical responsibility not to psych). The event was an National Pairs qualifier, so I doubt the field "deserved" any protection in the way say a 199'er game might.

I tried 1♠. I psych very rarely, and the few times I have tried "short suit" psychs they always seem to work out badly (when partner raises more than I want), and this was no exception. After the expected double, partner with

---

jumped to 4♠ with support and a stiff heart (seems aggressive but reasonable), doubled again by 4th hand for -1100 and cold bottom. I think 4th hand had a 27 count, but due to partner's supporting club honor and the misfitting hands, I think 3N+2 was par for the opponents.

In retrospect, I think 1NT or 2♣ might have been decent choices, especially since defending a weak NT or a natural 2♣ might be more likely to lead to a confused auction by the opponents (being these are relatively unusual methods). In our methods, those would lead to 2♣ or 2♦ (or maybe 3♣ if 2♣ was raised after a X) as our stopping point and then the opponents could bid on or double as they chose. Preempts in hearts like a weak 2 or weak 3 bid seem reasonable as well.

[pclayton]

My personal view, especially at MPs is to bid in 3rd chair green if you have a reason to. I've made weak 2's on yarboroughs, jump overcalls on J-5th, etc.. What seems to happen is that it randomizes the results against weak players. One thing in particular that seems to happen a lot is that they sell out and you struggle in a 5-1 fit for -150, when -110 / -120 / -140 is their normal result. Against good players, you'll defend 3N and pard may get off to a poor lead. Or pard will raise and you'll get sawed off for 800 against their game. Or, declarer will take multiple finesses through pard.

There are several psyches (and tactical calls) that have worked out well for me:

1. Opening 1N with a long suit that is a source of tricks. For extra fun, pass pard's stayman call, or jacoby transfer.

2. Opening a 4 or 3 card major as a lead director with a weak hand. One of my favorite stories was from the Reno regional in 1985 in the event I made my LM. I held a 3334 hand only holding the ♥AQx. The opponents bid to 4♠ on their 4-3 fit. We beat it with ♥, ♥ and a ♥ ruff and pard's side Ace. 3N and 4♥ were both cold their way.

3. Opening a heavier weak 2 where its doubtful we have game. Before you jump on this one, consider: ♠AKxxxx ♥Qxx ♦Kx ♣xx. While its possible we have 4♠, I'd just assume try to get the opponents to the 3 level and we have a shot at 200.

Other than #3, my weak 2's look pretty normal, although a mini-multi could be made on the OP's hand.

[hrothgar]

Rob F, on Aug 27 2007, 08:04 PM, said:

In retrospect, I think 1NT or 2♣ might have been decent choices, especially since defending a weak NT or a natural 2♣ might be more likely to lead to a confused auction by the opponents

One point that I didn't consider until just now:

Your first/second seat pass denies holding a balanced 10 count
Your 3rd/4th seat 1NT opening promises 10-13 HCP

If you open 1NT in 3rd or 4th seat, its (essentially) impossible for the partnership to have sufficient values for game. Partner can't ever hand you by bidding 3NT or bidding Stayman and then forcing to game or even inviting game.

Comment 1: Its unclear for me whether this is an efficient use of a 3rd/4th seat 1NT opening. I suppose that this is an OK preempt, however, I don't find this overly appealing. I'd want a 1NT opening to promise enough values that game is possible. Otherwise, the amount of "dead" bidding space over the opening seems excessive.

Comment 2: I don't think that this structure would constitute a psychic control per see. However, it could be argued that a 1NT psyche is protected by the initial pass playing a light opening style.

You might want to be careful about this one...

[jtfanclub]

hrothgar, on Aug 27 2007, 01:22 PM, said:

Comment 2: I don't think that this structure would constitute a psychic control per see. However, it could be argued that a 1NT psyche is protected by the initial pass playing a light opening style.

You might want to be careful about this one...

I think that's a really good point. Certainly, if I were directing, you'd get away with this once. Ever. It is so tempting to make the 1NT bid "0-13 hcp, balanced if 10-13" that if I got a whiff of that you wouldn't be playing the system any more. At least, not outside of Superchart.