[DrTodd13]

Fred, I am wondering about the correctness of someone giving a description of a bid as "this hand type or almost any other hand type." Isn't it almost certain that in practice "almost any other hand type" is really two or three specific hand types and that others are excluded? Isn't the principle that any question triggers full disclosure and that they shouldn't have to ask you what other hand types the "almost any other hand type" can actually be? The 3♦ bid may be a real HSGT, an advance cue-bid, or a worthless dub or trip attempting to deter a lead. How many other options do you actually use and what is the problem will listing these options?

[Double !]

bid_em_up, on May 21 2007, 09:49 AM, said:

Just a few thoughts:

1) Toystar was playing with Double!. They do not appear to be a regular partnership, so there is no possibility of "fielding" a psyche.

In fact, I had never met nor had the pleasure of playing with Toystar prior to this travesty.

We had just started playing, so prior discussion other than, possibly, "your profile, P", had not occurred. (No one plays my profile, It's too schizophrenic.) I didn't have a clue about what my P was up to until a little light bulb went off (well, more like flickered) when he raised 3H to 4H...........I said "hmmmmm".

DHL

[Echognome]

bid_em_up, on May 21 2007, 09:36 AM, said:

P_Marlowe, on May 21 2007, 10:56 AM, said:

#2 What is the difference between a tactical bid and a psych bid?  There is no difference.

Of course there is a difference. A psyche is usually based on garbage and may or may not work well, even if you have a suit to run to.

With the tactical bid, the opening bidder is always bidding 4H, regardless of what his partner does or what the opponents do. He is simply attempting to draw attention away from a possible diamond lead. Is it a form of a psyche? Sure. But it is one that is made with a specific intent or tactic in mind. Of course, by bidding game over partners non-acceptance of the game try, you also tend to clue good opponents into the fact that the 3D call might have been a tactical bid.

I have to say that using the term 'tactical bid' has no meaning whatsoever in the laws and may as well be disregarded entirely. It's fine by me if you want to classify psyches as 'tactical bids' or 'pure psyches based on garbage', but the distinction from a legal point of view is nothing. A psyche is defined in the laws, a tactical bid is not. From a TD's point of view, they are not going to care whether the psyche was a tactical bid or not. It is still a psyche. Being a psyche doesn't make it illegal (in fact you are specifically allowed to psyche as long as it's not a concealed partnership understanding. You are also allowed to have some multi-way bids and even some cryptic bidding, but then you'd have to alert and explain.)

Whether your opponents can work out it was lead averting by the fact that you still raised to game is another issue. Just see how Fred plays it. It could be a slammish hand that was asking responder to evaluate how his hand fit with opener having a diamond suit on the side. If responder bid 3♥ to show no interest (game or otherwise) and opener carried on to game, it could still be the case that opener has not psyched. Give opener x KJTxxx AQJx AK for example and he might bid this way.

[fred]

DrTodd13, on May 21 2007, 06:03 PM, said:

Fred, I am wondering about the ethics of someone giving a description of a bid as "this hand type or almost any other hand type." Isn't it almost certain that in practice "almost any other hand type" is really two or three specific hand types and that others are excluded? Isn't the principle that any question triggers full disclosure and that they shouldn't have to ask you what other hand types the "almost any other hand type" can actually be? The 3♦ bid may be a real HSGT, an advance cue-bid, or a worthless dub or trip attempting to deter a lead. How many other options do you actually use and what is the problem will listing these options?

The explanation we give is practical I think because both my partner and I have made "game tries" with a lot of different 2-card and 3-card holdings in the suit bid. Off the top of my head I can't remember either of is ever making a "game try" with a singleton or void in the suit bid, but it certainly could happen.

Of course if an opponent asked me more about our history I would be happy to provide a list of holdings for which we might make a psychic game try, but I believe it would be a waste of time to offer such a list without being asked. Given that I have seen us make these bids with holdings ranging from xx to AKQ, I don't see the point of trying to enumerate these holdings and everything in between.

Surely it is better to say "just about anything is possible" (but it might be appropriate to add "unlikely to be a singleton or void").

It is not like this happens a lot, by the way. Probably we make no more than a couple of game tries per (long) tournament and of course some of these are not psychs (more likely they are natural slam tries).

Most of our opponents really seem to appreciate the way we alert and explain these bids since psychic game tries are far from rare in top-level bridge and since most partnerships are not forthcoming at all about these possibilities.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[blackshoe]

hrothgar, on May 21 2007, 07:48 AM, said:

blackshoe, on May 21 2007, 12:46 AM, said:

It is tantamount to the flat statement I read in a recent book on bidding: "ethical players never psych."

Out of curiosity, who wrote that?

Eric v.d. Luft, in How I Became a Life Master Playing the Weak Notrump.

[kenberg]

It's becoming clear, if it wasn't so already, that game tries mean different things to different people. With the given E hand, I would accept all game ties of any sort. Only if I had agreed to look only at my diamonds and absolutely nothing else would I reject a 3D game try, and even then I might bid 4H and just claim I forgot.

Even so, game tries and slam tries often seek different holdings. If, for example, the 3D asks if responder can trump the third round of diamonds then that would be useful for a game and not for a slam. W is not making a slam try here, only a lead inhibiter, but strengthen the W hand a bit and he might well want to do so.

From this I assume that at least on some hands a responder might reject a game try but reconsider if he comes to think that partner was actually slam seeking.

Fred explicitly and Justin implicitly seem to be endorsing the phony game try for at least occasional use as a lead inhibiter. Is partner forbidden to reevaluate his hand for slam purposes once he rejects the game try and opener bids game anyway? It would seem that this must be so. Or are the game tries designed so that no reevaluation would be reasonable?

[fred]

kenberg, on May 21 2007, 08:59 PM, said:

Fred explicitly and Justin implicitly seem to be endorsing the phony game try for at least occasional use as a lead inhibiter. Is partner forbidden to reevaluate his hand for slam purposes once he rejects the game try and opener bids game anyway? It would seem that this must be so. Or are the game tries designed so that no reevaluation would be reasonable?

I have always played that in auctions like:

1H-2H-3D-x-4H

4H is a complete signoff regardless of what x is (including 3H of course).

This has nothing to do with the possibility that 3D might be a psych - it is because responder has limited his hand and opener has picked the contract he wants to play in.

If opener wants to keep slam in the picture after responder bids x, he has to bid something other than 4H at his 3rd opportunity.

I doubt this appears in any textbook on "standard bidding", but I would be willing to bet that you would have a hard time finding a top-level expert who would disagree with the above.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[skjaeran]

fred, on May 21 2007, 11:14 PM, said:

I have always played that in auctions like:

1H-2H-3D-x-4H

4H is a complete signoff regardless of what x is (including 3H of course).

This has nothing to do with the possibility that 3D might be a psych - it is because responder has limited his hand and opener has picked the contract he wants to play in.

If opener wants to keep slam in the picture after responder bids x, he has to bid something other than 4H at his 3rd opportunity.

I doubt this appears in any textbook on "standard bidding", but I would be willing to bet that you would have a hard time finding a top-level expert who would disagree with the above.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

I wouldn't advice anyone to take that bet.

[SoTired]

I have always felt that a lead-inhibiting lie is still a "psyche". It's intent is to fool the opponents by greatly misrepresenting either the length of the suit or strength of your hand.

A "tactical psyche" is a lie that may greatly misrepresent your hand, but its intent is not to fool the opponents.

For example, opener jump-shifts onto a short suit or responder bids a 3-card new suit to force opener.

[helene_t]

SoTired, on May 22 2007, 03:33 AM, said:

A "tactical psyche" is a lie that may greatly misrepresent your hand,

Yes, a pleonasm is a pleonasm. I agree concordantly

[kenberg]

1H-2H-3D-3H-4H:
Suppose I know that 4H absolutely forbids partner to bid again and suppose I am on lead. Dummy is likely to have little in diamonds. Declarer might hold something in diamonds, planning on slamming had partner been more encouraging but he also might hold nothing in diamonds hoping to discourage a diamond lead. He gets dealt more hand of the latter type than of the former. Seems as if I should look at my hand only long enough to be sure I have my hands on a diamond, and then lead.

Is this reasoning valid, given that the 4H call bars another bid?

Added: Of course then declarer should bid 3D whenever he holds AQ or generally whenever he wants a D. One of these game theory things I guess.

[toystar]

I truly confess that I have never enjoyed real bridge game.
I've been enjoying it only through Internet (BBO MSN gaming zone OKbridge...)during my 10 years of bridge career.
And I'm not an advanced player nor an expert.
I'm just an advancing player.

If there's any one who is to blame for this kind of fake bidding,
it is definitely not I who am an innocent and naive, a good listening bridge student
who bids and plays as he has been taught
but the author of 5 weeks to winning bridge(Alfred Sheinwold) and his acquaintance, the clergyman (the hero in the chapter of fake cue bid page 101-102)

To my great surprize and to my sorrow, there has been no comments in this forum about Alfred Sheinwold's fake cue bid.......

[kenberg]

A true confession, a claim to innocence, great surprise and sorrow.

And some people think bridge is dull!