[WellSpyder]

Echognome, on 2014-December-17, 15:02, said:

I agree with Gonzalo. I think if the player says that this is a strong opening bid in her system, then why fight it and try to recharacterize it as a psyche, deviation, or misbid. I would simply say then that this is agreement is legal/illegal based on the guidance from my NBO.

Fine. But let's not forget the need for proper disclosure. OP implies that this pair properly disclose that their so-called strong bid might have as few as 13 points. But do they disclose that it might have as few as 8?

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2014-December-17, 16:44, said:

In which sense do you mean your usage of the word "privilege"? And so what? Players should consider themselves lucky the TD believes what they say?

Yes

[Fluffy]

RMB1, on 2014-December-17, 17:39, said:

The WBF regulations only apply to opening bids below 3NT, not 3NT and above, so a gambling 3NT is not restricted.

Opening bids at the one-level are restricted by HUM and opening bids between 2♣ and 3♠ are restricted by "Brown Sticker".

("Brown Sticker" regulations would restrict playing an opening 3♠ as a "gambling 3NT").

Right, now I remember the problem was about 3♠ Alder (same as 3NT gambling but played from the other side)

[Cthulhu D]

blackshoe, on 2014-December-17, 16:44, said:

Hm. So a hand with 13 spades is an average hand. Does that really make sense?

This is because 'weak' 'average' and 'strong' are purely defined in HCP and a hand with 13 spades does indeed only have 10.

WBF doesn't include 'or equivalent playing strength' which perhaps it should but which should DEFINITELY be includes in explanations. hate people who explain things as a strong when it could just be 'tons of offence'

[pran]

Cthulhu D, on 2014-December-18, 08:35, said:

This is because 'weak' 'average' and 'strong' are purely defined in HCP and a hand with 13 spades does indeed only have 10.

WBF doesn't include 'or equivalent playing strength' which perhaps it should but which should DEFINITELY be includes in explanations. hate people who explain things as a strong when it could just be 'tons of offence'

And very wisely so, because these terms are used to define strength limits for certain types of calls to be accepted as legal.

When for instance some artificial calls according to regulation may be used with a variety of "weak" hands provided there is also included at least one "strong" option then it is essential that players cannot get around this condition by stating that "my hand with 10 HCP has equivalent playing strength to a (different) hand with 13 HCP".

However, explanations should of course always be clear on whether the stated strength is HCP only or incorporates "equivalent playing strength".

[barmar]

pran, on 2014-December-18, 09:18, said:

However, explanations should of course always be clear on whether the stated strength is HCP only or incorporates "equivalent playing strength".

Is that really a matter of partnership agreement, or simply individual hand evaluation or style? Are there any competent bridge players who don't generally treat hands with equivalent playing strength similarly?

I've never had a discussion with my partners that I use the Rule of 22 when deciding whether to open -- I just do it.

[blackshoe]

pran, on 2014-December-18, 03:11, said:

Yes

This in response to my question "a player who says that he psyched should consider himself lucky the TD believes him?"

My answer to Sven is "Pfui." Or "nonsense." Take your pick.

[blackshoe]

"Style" is disclosable.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2014-December-18, 10:12, said:

This in response to my question "a player who says that he psyched should consider himself lucky the TD believes him?"

My answer to Sven is "Pfui." Or "nonsense." Take your pick.

The player who makes an alleged psychic call must convince the Director that not only is the call a deliberate and gross deviation from the partnership's published agreements but also that the partner had no reason (from previous experience or similar) to be prepared for and guess the true nature of the call.

As I use to say: Partner must be at least as surprised as opponents are.

No player will ever have any problem with this if he makes what we understand by a true psychic call, but once the Director gets a feeling that the partner seemed prepared for the situation then that player should find himself in trouble.

So it is certainly not sufficient for a player to state that "I psyched", the situation must pass a scrutiny by the Director.

[blackshoe]

Perhaps, but if the default thought going through the director's head when he hears "I psyched" is "bullshit", then the director is doing it wrong.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2014-December-18, 15:33, said:

Perhaps, but if the default thought going through the director's head when he hears "I psyched" is "bullshit", then the director is doing it wrong.

Of course, and I am convinced that no serious Director would do his investigation in that manner.

[Xiaolongnu]

Thanks everyone for your opinions. As Director I have thought through all of these and my conclusion is, considering the offender is a club granny who is impossible to educate in the matters of legal and illegal psyches, the best practical solution seems to be to give her a lecture on a recommended use of the dynamic NT which clearly is also the best for her masterpoint victory interests.

[Vampyr]

Xiaolongnu, on 2014-December-22, 01:18, said:

Thanks everyone for your opinions. As Director I have thought through all of these and my conclusion is, considering the offender is a club granny who is impossible to educate in the matters of legal and illegal psyches, the best practical solution seems to be to give her a lecture on a recommended use of the dynamic NT which clearly is also the best for her masterpoint victory interests.

But isn't this simply a matter of disclosure?