[Vampyr]

 bluejak, on 2011-November-30, 03:13, said:

whether a 2NT on a weak hand is a psyche is another question.

I think that it is, since my partner and I play 2NT as forward-going. But we do it without values on occasion, and if asked I add to the explanation, "he has been known to psyche here". Is this appropriate?

[wyman]

 Vampyr, on 2011-November-30, 12:18, said:

I think that it is, since my partner and I play 2NT as forward-going. But we do it without values on occasion, and if asked I add to the explanation, "he has been known to psyche here". Is this appropriate?

I usually say something like: this is ostensibly a game try; he's asking me to further describe my hand. But (at w/r, I might add "especially at these colors" ) this could just be tactical as well.

[Cascade]

 Vampyr, on 2011-November-30, 12:18, said:

I think that it is, since my partner and I play 2NT as forward-going. But we do it without values on occasion, and if asked I add to the explanation, "he has been known to psyche here". Is this appropriate?

In similar situations in my experience there comes a point when it is no longer a psyche but a partnership agreement. Then it needs to be treated as such. That means it needs to be disclosed as an agreement - which is more or less what you are doing - and subject to system regulations. In some cases the agreement will fall foul of the system regulations. For example, openings one-level bids (in third seat) on very weak values will make your system a HUM (WBF regulations), opening weak twos on 3-counts may put your weak two outside the ACBL 7-point range and you will not be allowed to play conventions, and in this example such a 2NT bid may be deemed destructive (ACBL) and as such illegal. The consequences will vary obviously depending on your jurisdiction. There is a conflict between full disclosure of partnership agreements (explicit and implicit) and system regulation boundaries. Many players hide behind "its just bridge" or the like or the low frequency of the hand type rather than making full disclosure of their methods to make bids that have become and would reasonably be ruled implicit agreements and as such flout the system regulations.

[wyman]

 Cascade, on 2011-November-30, 12:49, said:

In similar situations in my experience there comes a point when it is no longer a psyche but a partnership agreement. Then it needs to be treated as such. That means it needs to be disclosed as an agreement - which is more or less what you are doing - and subject to system regulations. In some cases the agreement will fall foul of the system regulations. For example, openings one-level bids (in third seat) on very weak values will make your system a HUM (WBF regulations), opening weak twos on 3-counts may put your weak two outside the ACBL 7-point range and you will not be allowed to play conventions, and in this example such a 2NT bid may be deemed destructive (ACBL) and as such illegal. The consequences will vary obviously depending on your jurisdiction. There is a conflict between full disclosure of partnership agreements (explicit and implicit) and system regulation boundaries. Many players hide behind "its just bridge" or the like or the low frequency of the hand type rather than making full disclosure of their methods to make bids that have become and would reasonably be ruled implicit agreements and as such flout the system regulations.

But while directors answer these kind of "accusations" with "grow up, guys" or "it's just bridge" or "you might be right, but everybody does it, so just move on," I'll continue to bid (and disclose) as though I'm not running afoul of anything.

edit: the regs are fashioned essentially so that all things that the "pros" do (and essentially only those things) are fair game anyway, so while this might not be consistent with the letter of the regulations, it's almost certainly consistent with the (implicit) spirit of the law.

[Cascade]

 Cascade, on 2011-November-30, 03:54, said:

I am not convinced that such regulations are legal in that Law 40 specifically gives players the right to depart from agreements.

 campboy, on 2011-November-30, 05:29, said:

The RA has the right to "allow, disallow, or allow conditionally any special partnership understanding" (40B2a). So it may allow you to play such a method with the condition that you do not psyche it.

There is a clear conflict between L40A3 which allows a player to make "any call" provided there is no agreement and L40B2a which allows the RA to regulation special partnership understandings "without restriction".

[wyman]

All I'm saying is that I think AKxx / xxxx / xxxx / x is a 1S opener in 3rd seat, and my partner might agree, but the ACBL says we can't agree to open this. But if you call the director (and the director is a good TD, not just a random club director) and say something about an illegal agreement to open 7 counts, he'll probably tell you to bugger off.

You'd be right, of course, by the letter of the law, as written by the regulating authority (ACBL). But it's not enforced anywhere.

And my point re: the 2N bid is that we should be forthcoming if partner does this with any frequency, and I wouldn't hold my breath for an illegal agreement ruling against an opponent who did this.

[Cascade]

 wyman, on 2011-November-30, 12:52, said:

But while directors answer these kind of "accusations" with "grow up, guys" or "it's just bridge" or "you might be right, but everybody does it, so just move on," I'll continue to bid (and disclose) as though I'm not running afoul of anything.

edit: the regs are fashioned essentially so that all things that the "pros" do (and essentially only those things) are fair game anyway, so while this might not be consistent with the letter of the regulations, it's almost certainly consistent with the (implicit) spirit of the law.

The problem with this approach is that there are players and partnerships that make an effort to not run afoul of the regulations as written. This creates two classes of players those that ignore the regulations and those that adhere to the written regulations.

Another way to look at the two classes as there are those that are "in the know" and those that are not.

If directors really rule as you say then I think that is reprehensible. The laws require that the directors rule according to the announced regulations. They are supposed to be subject to those regulations.

An attitude that I am going to continue doing what I am doing knowing that is contrary to the written regulations is deliberately breaking the rules. I don't believe that such an approach has any part in the proper playing of the game.

[Cascade]

 wyman, on 2011-November-30, 13:06, said:

All I'm saying is that I think AKxx / xxxx / xxxx / x is a 1S opener in 3rd seat, and my partner might agree, but the ACBL says we can't agree to open this. But if you call the director (and the director is a good TD, not just a random club director) and say something about an illegal agreement to open 7 counts, he'll probably tell you to bugger off.

You'd be right, of course, by the letter of the law, as written by the regulating authority (ACBL). But it's not enforced anywhere.

And my point re: the 2N bid is that we should be forthcoming if partner does this with any frequency, and I wouldn't hold my breath for an illegal agreement ruling against an opponent who did this.

As a director I would ask something like "would you always or nearly always open this hand in third seat?" and "would you always or nearly always expect your partner to open this hand in third seat?" Based on those answers I might be convinced that the pair have an illegal agreement. In which case I would be bound by the laws and regulations to rule against the pair. I would expect a competent tournament director to approach the issue similarly.

The pair either have an agreement or they don't. If they do the agreement is either consistent with the regulations or it is not. Having determined those things the director no longer has discretion in my view.

[wyman]

I agree with you in principle. But in ACBL-land, that's simply not the way things work.

I think it was Meckstroth, though I'm prepared to be corrected, who told an audience that "if you are in 3rd seat nonvul and you have 5 spades and you have an ace in your hand, and you're not opening, then you don't understand the state of bridge today."

I have no problem if you want to take the moral high ground and not do this -- this was my position for a long time. But so long as I can't get a TD to rule against an opponent who does it, it is not de facto illegal, and I don't feel bad taking advantage of the implicit rules.

edit: same thing for the 0-15 precision diamond in 3rd seat. People open that with way more frequency than is acceptable for a psychic. It's a tactical bid, and it happens to be the right bridge decision very frequently, but there's an implicit agreement there after such a frequent maneuver. And by the letter of the law, it's illegal. But good luck getting a ruling.

edit2: also I should include the caveat that this is just my experience, which is of course quite limited. Perhaps some of the more serious players in the audience can weigh in.

[Trinidad]

I remember a hand we played a long, long time ago when we were still studying in the USA. We were palookas, had played about two years and were playing a college teams tournament in Ann Arbor, MI. Our team mates were even bigger palookas than we were. We were playing a team from Chicago and our opponents were playing a seemingly complicated strong club system.
My wife (then girl friend) had a nine card diamond suit and 8 HCP. She added her 5 length points to the HCPs and came to 13: a clear opening bid and opened 1♦. In the auction, she repeated her diamond suit at the two level and at the three level. The opponents bought the contract in 3♥ or something, missing an ice cold game.

The opponents were furious. "You can't open an 8 point hand at the 1 level!!!". The TD was called (or more accurately: The TD was yelled). He needed to look it up in his Law book in an other room. That took about 5 minutes. During those 5 minutes I saw some amazing behavior, highly interesting for psychologists. My opponents started to walk along a wall. One took one wall, the other the opposite wall. They kept walking along this wall (maximum 6 inches away from it) from one end to the other and back like tigers in a cage.

When the TD came back, he ruled in our favor. After all, we didn't have an agreement to open such a hand with 1♦. Then I looked at my partner's hand and said (as naive as I was): "Oh, but anyone would open that 1♦. I certainly would." A new explosion followed. After all, now we had an agreement. The TD asked me why I would open and I explained: 8HCPs + 5 for distribution = 13: an opening bid according to Audrey Grant and therefore to us. Now, the TD went to see whether we had an illegal agreement. Ten minutes later he came back. It turned out that our agreement was legal. An opening bid was supposed to have a minimum of 8 HCPs. This one did, so the agreement was legal.

Our opponents were steaming.

A little later, we compare with our team mates. On this board, they bid and made 4♥. I asked how the auction went. "Well, he made a takeout double and I bid 4♥. Wasn't very difficult." -"But what did they bid then?" "Ohh, they opened 1♣ or 1♦, or something."

So, the team mates of our furious opponents who had been yelling so loud that I expected the fire department to arrive opened the hand exactly like my girl friend did.

Rik

[Cascade]

 wyman, on 2011-November-30, 13:47, said:

I think it was Meckstroth, though I'm prepared to be corrected, who told an audience that "if you are in 3rd seat nonvul and you have 5 spades and you have an ace in your hand, and you're not opening, then you don't understand the state of bridge today."

That is a sad indictment on the state of bridge today.

If there are rules they should be adhered to and enforced.

If the rules are not intended that way then they should be rewritten.

The implicit advice given in the above quote is that players should cheat - deliberately break the rules. Perhaps they pretend that it is a psyche when the advice suggests always opening that hand under the conditions given and is therefore part of the pairs' agreements.

I have heard similar advice elsewhere. But that doesn't make it any more palatable.

If there is a rule and you actively go out of your way to ignore the rule then for me that is cheating whatever someone else wants to call it - "the state of bridge", "its just bridge", "everyone does it" ...