[Xiaolongnu]

In general, partner passed oot and was silenced by L30. I psyche, taking matters into my own hands. No problem?

[sfi]

Some problem.

The fact that partner has to pass is authorised information, but you're not entitled to know that partner has a hand that could not open the bidding. Depending on the psyche and your hand, there could be an argument that you used the UI in your decision.

[barmar]

When you know your partner is silenced, no one expects you to bid strictly according to your agreements. You need to bid what you think (or hope) your side can make, because you can't exchange information with partner during the auction. And you obviously shouldn't make any artificial bids, since partner can't take it out. If you played strong club, it would be suicide to open 1♣ without a club suit.

[nigel_k]

sfi, on 2013-November-15, 02:02, said:

Some problem.

The fact that partner has to pass is authorised information, but you're not entitled to know that partner has a hand that could not open the bidding. Depending on the psyche and your hand, there could be an argument that you used the UI in your decision.

This is technically correct, but you are also entitled to know the laws of bridge. That, plus the knowledge that partner is barred for one round, is enough to work out that he doesn't have an opening bid without relying on any other information.

So I don't think there is a legal problem with psyching in that situation, though I wouldn't do it just because it doesn't feel right to create a major problem for opponents that they never would have had if partner had acted legally. It's also not entirely safe because partner is silenced for one round only.

[RMB1]

nigel_k, on 2013-November-15, 13:56, said:

This is technically correct, but you are also entitled to know the laws of bridge. That, plus the knowledge that partner is barred for one round, is enough to work out that he doesn't have an opening bid without relying on any other information.

A player might be barred from bidding because of an irregularity by partner - bid out of turn, insufficient bid, etc.
The partner can not deduce from the fact that the player is silenced that the player must have passed.

The withdrawn Pass suggests that the player does not have opening values and so his partner is constrained by Law 16B and Law 73C. Not only does that mean the partner may not be able to bid suits he has not got but it may also mean he has to overbid. I think the law here (combination of Law 30A and Law 16D) does not work.

[pran]

RMB1, on 2013-November-15, 15:31, said:

A player might be barred from bidding because of an irregularity by partner - bid out of turn, insufficient bid, etc.
The partner can not deduce from the fact that the player is silenced that the player must have passed.

The withdrawn Pass suggests that the player does not have opening values and so his partner is constrained by Law 16B and Law 73C. Not only does that mean the partner may not be able to bid suits he has not got but it may also mean he has to overbid. I think the law here (combination of Law 30A and Law 16D) does not work.

There will hardly ever be any problem with UI when offender's partner is forced to pass.

There is however indeed a problem when the offender himself must pass due to his own opening pass out of turn because his partner now knows about the offender's lack of opening values. This knowledge is certainly UI and the partner must therefore not among logical alternatives select one that could be suggested by this UI.

A psyche will easily fall into this category and thus be illegal in this position.

[barmar]

Partner is barred, and you have flat 25 HCP. You normally play Gambling 3NT. Would anyone consider opening 3NT to be a psyche in this situation?

[sfi]

pran, on 2013-November-15, 16:54, said:

A psyche will easily fall into this category and thus be illegal in this position.

It's not as black and white as you suggest. Barmar provides one example, but how about something more outrageous: A 19 point hand with 7 spades opens 4H. Any reason to suggest that this is suggested by the UI that partner does not have an opening hand?

[pran]

barmar, on 2013-November-16, 22:41, said:

Partner is barred, and you have flat 25 HCP. You normally play Gambling 3NT. Would anyone consider opening 3NT to be a psyche in this situation?

Psyche?
This sounds to me like bidding what has a fair chance of making?
(You are allowed to vary your agreements according to the authorized knowledge that partner is barred)

[pran]

sfi, on 2013-November-16, 22:45, said:

It's not as black and white as you suggest. Barmar provides one example, but how about something more outrageous: A 19 point hand with 7 spades opens 4H. Any reason to suggest that this is suggested by the UI that partner does not have an opening hand?

4S is quite likely to make and you decide to "psyche" with 4H? Good Luck!

Sounds to me like a hand that would normally open 4D (transfer to 4S) but quite legally will be opened 4S because partner is barred?

[sfi]

pran, on 2013-November-17, 03:07, said:

4S is quite likely to make and you decide to "psyche" with 4H? Good Luck!

Sounds to me like a hand that would normally open 4D (transfer to 4S) but quite legally will be opened 4S because partner is barred?

I didn't say it was a good idea - just that not all psyches are necessarily illegal.

[pran]

sfi, on 2013-November-17, 04:25, said:

I didn't say it was a good idea - just that not all psyches are necessarily illegal.

A psyche is not illegal unless it is judged to be based on CPU.

A call (psyche or not) that is considered "could well be suggested by UI" will result in score adjustment only when it results in damage to the non-offending side.

[nigel_k]

Suppose someone is taken ill and you are asked to substitute. After taking your seat, you are told that RHO has passed as dealer and it your call. You are also told that partner is barred from the auction for one round only.

Based only on the above authorised information, it is 100% certain that partner made an opening pass out of turn. The UI does not suggest anything because it adds no new information.

[RMB1]

nigel_k, on 2013-November-17, 23:46, said:

Suppose someone is taken ill and you are asked to substitute. After taking your seat, you are told that RHO has passed as dealer and it your call. You are also told that partner is barred from the auction for one round only.

Based only on the above authorised information, it is 100% certain that partner made an opening pass out of turn. ...

100% ?

What if the previous player in your seat had doubled and this was cancelled.

[campboy]

RMB1, on 2013-November-18, 02:21, said:

What if the previous player in your seat had doubled and this was cancelled.

Then he would be silenced for more than one round. The previous player in your seat could have dropped an honour card, though.

Looking again at the OP, I see that it is not clear whether partner was silenced for one round or throughout. I had assumed he was silenced throughout, since in that case the psyche is safer.

[helene_t]

nigel_k, on 2013-November-17, 23:46, said:

Based only on the above authorised information, it is 100% certain that partner made an opening pass out of turn. The UI does not suggest anything because it adds no new information.

This doesn't sound right to me. The reason why I know that partner doesn't have opening strength is that he passed (as it happened, OOT).

If he hadn't passed (OOT) I would have know nothing about his hand.

It's true that I have AI that he is going to pass this round but that's a different thing. It's like we were playing a system in which partner always passes at his first opportunity.

[Cascade]

On a plain reading of law 30 it seems to allow any call.

"Offender’s partner may make any sufficient bid, or may pass, but may not double or redouble at that turn, and Law 23 may apply."

[VixTD]

Cascade, on 2013-November-18, 05:38, said:

On a plain reading of law 30 it seems to allow any call.

"Offender’s partner may make any sufficient bid, or may pass, but may not double or redouble at that turn, and Law 23 may apply."

But law 16D2 states that there are legal constraints on the choice of a player whose (offending) partner has withdrawn a call:

Quote

For an offending side, information arising from its own withdrawn action and from withdrawn actions of the non-offending side is unauthorized. A player of an offending side may not choose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the unauthorized information.

[ArtK78]

barmar, on 2013-November-15, 10:06, said:

When you know your partner is silenced, no one expects you to bid strictly according to your agreements. You need to bid what you think (or hope) your side can make, because you can't exchange information with partner during the auction. And you obviously shouldn't make any artificial bids, since partner can't take it out. If you played strong club, it would be suicide to open 1♣ without a club suit.

Many years ago I was playing in one of the morning side pair games at a North American Championship. This was before the proliferation of 95 simultaneous events, so there was no novice game or other game for players with very few masterpoints. As a result, all of the players who would otherwise have been playing in the novice games played in these side games.

One of our opponents passed out of turn and was therefore barred from the bidding. When the bidding got back to her partner, her partner opened 1♣. This was alerted "Could be Short!" I thought that was hilarious.

[mycroft]

I had one open 2♦ after partner passed out of turn. At least 2, probably 3 (given that forced-to-pass partner Alerted it) of the 5 people at the table had an issue with it. "But your card says that's Flannery!"