[matmat]

helene_t, on Jun 21 2009, 05:06 PM, said:

matmat, on Jun 21 2009, 08:53 PM, said:

A good and ethical player will be aware of the possibility that their partner may have psyched, but will not act on this knowledge until the psych is revealed.

Is that really the lawful thing to do?

It seems to me that if I can infer that my p is likely to have psyched without the psych have being "revealed" it means that we have an implicit agreement to psyche. Which is an oxymoron.

if I do not act on this knowledge, there is no advantage?
nb., I am not advocating that if a psych is likely it should not be alerted as a possible one.

[barmar]

matmat, on Jun 21 2009, 06:16 PM, said:

helene_t, on Jun 21 2009, 05:06 PM, said:

It seems to me that if I can infer that my p is likely to have psyched without the psych have being "revealed" it means that we have an implicit agreement to psyche. Which is an oxymoron.

if I do not act on this knowledge, there is no advantage?

Not disclosing it makes it difficult for the opponents to defend against it, creating an advantage.

[jkljkl]

helene_t, on Jun 21 2009, 05:06 PM, said:

matmat, on Jun 21 2009, 08:53 PM, said:

A good and ethical player will be aware of the possibility that their partner may have psyched, but will not act on this knowledge until the psych is revealed.

It seems to me that if I can infer that my p is likely to have psyched without the psych have being "revealed" it means that we have an implicit agreement to psyche. Which is an oxymoron.

Hello,

english is not my mother tongue is "to be aware" the same as "to infer"?

we agree that a psyche is allowed and part of the game.
So playing with every single bridge player on this world I am aware of the possibility of a psyche. How does this lead to an implicit agreement?

Should I stop playing bridge because, playing with every single player on this world, I am aware that 1♣ - 1♠ could be short in spades?

ciao stefan
germany

[Oof Arted]

jkljkl, on Jun 22 2009, 01:38 AM, said:

helene_t, on Jun 21 2009, 05:06 PM, said:

matmat, on Jun 21 2009, 08:53 PM, said:

A good and ethical player will be aware of the possibility that their partner may have psyched, but will not act on this knowledge until the psych is revealed.

It seems to me that if I can infer that my p is likely to have psyched without the psych have being "revealed" it means that we have an implicit agreement to psyche. Which is an oxymoron.

Hello,

english is not my mother tongue is "to be aware" the same as "to infer"?

we agree that a psyche is allowed and part of the game.
So playing with every single bridge player on this world I am aware of the possibility of a psyche. How does this lead to an implicit agreement?

Should I stop playing bridge because, playing with every single player on this world, I am aware that 1♣ - 1♠ could be short in spades?

ciao stefan
germany

Not quite that bad

If you play with Zia once or Forrester once;

You may be aware that they might psyche;

However the very 'ONCE' means you CANNOT have a partnership agreement :
A partnership agreement is just that:
You would need to play with them a good number of times AND they need to have done the SAME psyche more than say 3 times whilst playing with YOU before it becomes a partnership agreement

[barmar]

jkljkl, on Jun 22 2009, 02:38 AM, said:

So playing with every single bridge player on this world I am aware of the possibility of a psyche. How does this lead to an implicit agreement?

"possibility" is not the same as "likely". With a regular partner, you're familiar with their tendencies. If he is more likely to psyche in certain situations than most other players, and you can know this from your history with him, that is an implicit agreement.

[FrancesHinden]

uday, on Jun 21 2009, 08:42 PM, said:

Quote

An agreement to psych, either explicit or implicit, is illegal. Apattern of frequent psychs
suggests an agreement

Thus an ACBL-land partnership that has an implicit agreement to psych is doing something illegal. We can decide later what exactly is meant by "pattern of frequent psychs"

It seems that psychs within regular partnerships ( in ACBL-land ) should eventually cross some threshold (thus generating an implicit agreement) and become illegal implicit agreements. Can we think of any partnership that has curtailed its psyching on this basis ? Any at all?

From the minutes of the last EBU L&E meeting:

"The committee considered two hands from the same match where a pair had psyched a no trump bid – once as an overcall and once as an opening bid. On their own admission they had psyched in similar situations a number of times in the past year. The Secretary was asked to write to the pair reminding them of the danger of situations turning into illicit partnership agreements."

If they continue to do it, they will find that
- an opening 1NT psyche will have the board cancelled and +/-3 imps plus a PP awarded for playing an illegal system
- a 1NT psychic overcall with a long minor will be ruled as an MI case (an agreement that a 1NT overcall is either natural or a weak hand with a minor is legal, but it must be disclosed)

As for pairs who have actually changed the frequency of their psyches, not exactly, but my disclosure has changed and my methods have changed:

3C P/dbl 3NT

3NT alerted. Explanation: either natural, good hand, expecting to make or a club fit. If fourth hand bids, opener can double to suggest a hand suitable for saving.

Some friends of mine alert

2H dbl 2S as

"Either natural, or lead directional, or a weak hand probably with a heart fit"

And my team-mates system file used to say in their responses to the multi:

Non-vul: 2D P/dbl 3H
This is usually played as 'pass or correct', but they explain it as "Opener is expected to pass whatever his major unless doubled, in which case he only passes with hearts."
(it's a well-known multi psyche to pass partner's poc bid with the other major)

(of course the advantage is that all these agreements are legal)

[AnJoe]

I know that many years ago, when I was an active director, under ACBL it was deemed illegal to psyche a limited bid, like an opening 1 Nt (15-17 agreed) or 2 C (if that was your all purpose strong bid.) Only a 1 pt deviation was allowed.

Did this rule change while I wasn't playing much or is it true only under ACBL rules?

[hrothgar]

AnJoe, on Jul 3 2009, 06:59 PM, said:

I know that many years ago, when I was an active director, under ACBL it was deemed illegal to psyche a limited bid, like an opening 1 Nt (15-17 agreed) or 2 C (if that was your all purpose strong bid.) Only a 1 pt deviation was allowed.

Did this rule change while I wasn't playing much or is it true only under ACBL rules?

This rule was never true, regardless of what you might have believed (or been told) at the time...

[TimG]

ACBL has long barred psyches of a strong artificial 2♣ opening.

[jdonn]

hrothgar, on Jul 3 2009, 11:01 AM, said:

AnJoe, on Jul 3 2009, 06:59 PM, said:

I know that many years ago, when I was an active director, under ACBL it was deemed illegal to psyche a limited bid, like an opening 1 Nt (15-17 agreed) or 2 C (if that was your all purpose strong bid.) Only a 1 pt deviation was allowed.

Did this rule change while I wasn't playing much or is it true only under ACBL rules?

This rule was never true, regardless of what you might have believed (or been told) at the time...

I think what he is confusing it with is a guideline (I doubt it was an actual rule) whereby anything more than a 1 point deviation from a limited bid would be considered a psych.

[TimG]

There is a guideline to the effect that opening a 10-12 NT with a 9 HCP hand establishes an agreement and that agreement carries with it some restrictions regarding what conventions (none) you can play after such an opening.

[blackshoe]

TimG, on Jul 3 2009, 12:04 PM, said:

There is a guideline to the effect that opening a 10-12 NT with a 9 HCP hand establishes an agreement and that agreements carries with it some restrictions regarding what conventions (none) you can play after such an opening.

There was such a guideline. My understanding is that it is no longer in effect.

[hrothgar]

blackshoe, on Jul 4 2009, 01:48 AM, said:

TimG, on Jul 3 2009, 12:04 PM, said:

There is a guideline to the effect that opening a 10-12 NT with a 9 HCP hand establishes an agreement and that agreements carries with it some restrictions regarding what conventions (none) you can play after such an opening.

There was such a guideline. My understanding is that it is no longer in effect.

Wouldn't be cool if the ACBL actually documented which regulations are in effect at a given point in time...

[Jlall]

Yeah I was barred from playing 10-12 NT for 10 years with my dad for having 9 too often lol. So much for judgement! Now we play 11-13 sometimes.

[rbforster]

TimG, on Jul 3 2009, 12:04 PM, said:

There is a guideline to the effect that opening a 10-12 NT with a 9 HCP hand establishes an agreement and that agreement carries with it some restrictions regarding what conventions (none) you can play after such an opening.

I always thought this guideline was pretty unfairly applied to mini NT players, since it seems logical that it would also apply to anyone psyching 1N in 3rd seat with less than 10 points. Consequently, you'd think the strong NT crowd should be banned from using stayman, etc, over their 3rd seat NT if they ever psyched 1N in 3rd seat. Of course this was never done to my knowledge, but consistent application of the laws/guidelines isn't one of the ACBL's strong points.

I'm glad to hear such a guideline may no longer be used.

[Mbodell]

Rob F, on Jul 3 2009, 09:39 PM, said:

TimG, on Jul 3 2009, 12:04 PM, said:

There is a guideline to the effect that opening a 10-12 NT with a 9 HCP hand establishes an agreement and that agreement carries with it some restrictions regarding what conventions (none) you can play after such an opening.

I always thought this guideline was pretty unfairly applied to mini NT players, since it seems logical that it would also apply to anyone psyching 1N in 3rd seat with less than 10 points. Consequently, you'd think the strong NT crowd should be banned from using stayman, etc, over their 3rd seat NT if they ever psyched 1N in 3rd seat. Of course this was never done to my knowledge, but consistent application of the laws/guidelines isn't one of the ACBL's strong points.

I'm glad to hear such a guideline may no longer be used.

While I agree with you that it is unfortunate that we can't apply common sense and upgrade some very good 9's into a 10-12 NT and still play systems on, I think there is a difference between a psych and an adjustment. For a 15-17 NT player a 9 point 1NT is a psych. For a 10-12 NT a 9 point 1NT is not a psych. I don't think you'd get into trouble playing 10-12 NT and very occasionally (I.e., no more often than a 15-17 player would) psyching 1NT with 2 points. It is the 8 or 9 that gets sketchy where it may be more an upgrade than a psych.

[Cascade]

Mbodell, on Jul 4 2009, 06:06 PM, said:

Rob F, on Jul 3 2009, 09:39 PM, said:

TimG, on Jul 3 2009, 12:04 PM, said:

There is a guideline to the effect that opening a 10-12 NT with a 9 HCP hand establishes an agreement and that agreement carries with it some restrictions regarding what conventions (none) you can play after such an opening.

I always thought this guideline was pretty unfairly applied to mini NT players, since it seems logical that it would also apply to anyone psyching 1N in 3rd seat with less than 10 points. Consequently, you'd think the strong NT crowd should be banned from using stayman, etc, over their 3rd seat NT if they ever psyched 1N in 3rd seat. Of course this was never done to my knowledge, but consistent application of the laws/guidelines isn't one of the ACBL's strong points.

I'm glad to hear such a guideline may no longer be used.

While I agree with you that it is unfortunate that we can't apply common sense and upgrade some very good 9's into a 10-12 NT and still play systems on, I think there is a difference between a psych and an adjustment. For a 15-17 NT player a 9 point 1NT is a psych. For a 10-12 NT a 9 point 1NT is not a psych. I don't think you'd get into trouble playing 10-12 NT and very occasionally (I.e., no more often than a 15-17 player would) psyching 1NT with 2 points. It is the 8 or 9 that gets sketchy where it may be more an upgrade than a psych.

... and just why should upgrading be disallowed?

[TimG]

Cascade, on Jul 4 2009, 01:39 AM, said:

... and just why should upgrading be disallowed?

ACBL's convention charts have many references to HCP. Like it or not (I'm in the "not" camp) this is the evaluation technique essentially made official by the ACBL. If there is a regulation that says "no conventions after a 1N opening which, by partnership agreement, may be made with a hand containing fewer than 10 HCP" then players should not be able to get around this regulation by saying their range is 10-12 and choosing to "upgrade" certain 9 HCP hands.

This really isn't a question of "upgrading" but rather of prescribed evaluation method.

[Cascade]

TimG, on Jul 5 2009, 01:51 AM, said:

Cascade, on Jul 4 2009, 01:39 AM, said:

... and just why should upgrading be disallowed?

ACBL's convention charts have many references to HCP. Like it or not (I'm in the "not" camp) this is the evaluation technique essentially made official by the ACBL. If there is a regulation that says "no conventions after a 1N opening which, by partnership agreement, may be made with a hand containing fewer than 10 HCP" then players should not be able to get around this regulation by saying their range is 10-12 and choosing to "upgrade" certain 9 HCP hands.

This really isn't a question of "upgrading" but rather of prescribed evaluation method.

The laws of bridge specifically allow me to deviate from my system.

This is legal whether the deviation is 1 HCP or 6 HCP or 10 HCP or whatever.

Therefore it is perfectly reasonable to play a system where 1NT is 10-12 HCP but from time to time to deviate and open an occasional 9 HCP hand.

If the ACBL or anyone else is trying to circumvent the lawful ability of a player to deviate from one's system then they are acting contrary to the laws of the game. Furthermore the laws specifically disallow regulations that are contrary to the laws.

Of course if a player writes down 10-12 HCP when in reality they have a partnership agreement to open all or many or some 9 HCP hands then that is also not legal.

[gnasher]

Cascade, on Jul 4 2009, 10:00 PM, said:

The laws of bridge specifically allow me to deviate from my system.

Law 40B said:

In its discretion the Regulating Authority may designate certain partnership understandings as “special partnership understandings”. A special partnership understanding is one whose meaning, in the opinion of the Regulating Authority, may not be readily understood and anticipated by a significant number of players in the tournament.
...
The Regulating Authority is empowered without restriction to allow, disallow, or allow conditionally, any special partnership understanding.

That appears to allow the ACBL to designate a 10-12 notrump as a special partnership understanding, and then to make it a condition that you're not allowed to deviate from that agreement. I know that another part of the same law reads:

Law 40C said:

A player may deviate from his side’s announced understandings always provided that his partner has no more reason to be aware of the deviation than have the opponents.

but I don't know of any reason for this to take priority over the part I quoted earlier.