[jeffford76]

 mjj29, on 2013-February-19, 18:06, said:

Yes... that's the definition of a psyche...

If it's an expected action, then no, it's not the definition of a psyche.

[mjj29]

 jeffford76, on 2013-February-20, 11:52, said:

If it's an expected action, then no, it's not the definition of a psyche.

This is what I was replying to:

 jeffford76, on 2013-February-20, 11:52, said:

Because the actual hands you will make calls with differ from those you told the opponents you would have.

Perhaps you meant "because you've incorrectly disclosed your actual agreement to your opponents", which is a different thing entirely. We were talking about departing from your agreements which (assuming you're disclosing your agreements) must mean that your actual hand differs.

[jeffford76]

 mjj29, on 2013-February-20, 12:03, said:

Perhaps you meant "because you've incorrectly disclosed your actual agreement to your opponents", which is a different thing entirely. We were talking about departing from your agreements which (assuming you're disclosing your agreements) must mean that your actual hand differs.

The problem is that what we call psyches are really mixed strategies. To pick something arbitrary, say that your 1NT bid in 3rd seat is 99.9% of the time a balanced 15-17, and 0.1% of the time a hand with many fewer points when opponents play penalty doubles (so that a reasonable answer to the question do you ever psyche is "yes, but rarely".) Suppose that when they're not playing penalty doubles, it's 96% of the time a balanced 15-17 and 4% of the time a hand with many fewer points. So your answer changes to "yes, reasonably often".

I don't think you're allowed to tell the opponent's the first thing but actually play the second, and I think that's what people who frequently "psyche" when there is no penalty double available to the opponents are effectively doing.

In an ideal world you would have to choose your strategy *not knowing what their double would mean*, and then their strategy would be allowed to depend on what they were told.

[blackshoe]

It's kind of hard to know how often you might psych in a particular circumstance until that circumstance has come up a few times and you are actively tracking your psych frequency. Or rather, more to the point, your partner is actively tracking it.

[barmar]

if you know your partner's general style, you may be able to predict what will happen in a particular situation, by extrapolating from other situations.

Although 3rd seat 1NT's are frequent enough that a regular partner would probably have a reasonable idea of your actual behavior under various opposing circumstances.

[gombo121]

 mjj29, on 2013-February-19, 03:22, said:

If you don't discuss an agreement for the bid and then open it, if your partner gets it right there is no way you're going to convince me that you don't have an implicit concealed agreement and rule against you under L40

Fair enough. But there is a good chance that my partner would not need to get anything right - he may have too weak hand and pass in any case or strong enough to bid game in any case.
And then there is chance that it would be your pair that would need to guess right meaning of your double - and then the same argument about L40 would apply to you.

[gombo121]

 Zelandakh, on 2013-February-19, 02:44, said:

Gombo, my example was showing how you can formulate such an agreement and still (probably) fall within the regulations. The important point is that there is a default agreement for the opening bid should all of the conditionals beforehand fail. if you like, think of it as a set of nested if-then statements with an else statement at the end. And yes, the regulations do make it clear imho that the opening side have to "declare" first.

Yes, your suggestion would eliminate the loop nicely, but you misunderstood my purpose. I'm not interested in playing conditional agreements and to amend them to fit regulation. I want to understand the regulations better. Can you please expand on why do you think that regulations make it clear that the opening side have to "declare" first? - which regulations are you referreing?

[mjj29]

 gombo121, on 2013-February-21, 13:37, said:

Yes, your suggestion would eliminate the loop nicely, but you misunderstood my purpose. I'm not interested in playing conditional agreements and to amend them to fit regulation. I want to understand the regulations better. Can you please expand on why do you think that regulations make it clear that the opening side have to "declare" first? - which regulations are you referreing?

I don't think there's a regulation _per se_, it's just self evident that the meaning of any bid must depend on all previous bids. Hence, my defense must depend on your system, but the converse is not true, thus there is only one way to resolve this.

Alternatively, it should also be obvious that if you open, now you must be able to disclose the agreed meaning of the call immediately, thus it can't depend on anything later in the auction. The EBU regulations allow you to change your basic system before each round (if you like, depending on who and what you are playing against), but they do require you to _have_ a basic system for each round.

[Zelandakh]

Regulations depend on where you are but it follows as a natural consequence of 40A1b. Both sides make their partnership understandings available to their opponents. Your opponents have the agreement that double of a weak NT is penalty and that double of a strong NT is not. You have the agreement that 1NT is strong if their double is penalty, weak otherwise. There is no problem here. Your 1NT opening is simply undefined and shows "any 13 cards". Of course, if you have a better idea of what your partner's undefined 1NT opening might mean (notice that 12-14 or 15-17 is functionally identical to 12-17) then you have given MI. More than this, such a 1NT opening is illegal under most jurisdictions (regulations). So you need to have a default meaning for your 1NT should the conditions not be met for your 1NT opening to be legal. And then there is no loop. This is precisely what David told you back in post #11 but for some reason you seem not to want to accept it.

[Fluffy]

I don't agree Zel, you could then write down that you play weak NT unless opponents play penalty doubles to weak NT, in that case play strong NT. This is making your bidding agrements after opponents decide their defence.

Getting a more extreme, you could agree to play multi-2D only when the opponents have no agreement against the opening (under some regulations that don't let opponents agree defences after bidding period started), or something similar.

[Vampyr]

 Fluffy, on 2013-February-22, 08:38, said:

(under some regulations that don't let opponents agree defences after bidding period started)

This is probably allowed only in the ACBL with their booklets. I don't think it's actually legal, but that's life.

[hrothgar]

 Vampyr, on 2013-February-22, 09:09, said:

> (under some regulations that don't let opponents agree defences after bidding period started)

This is probably allowed only in the ACBL with their booklets. I don't think it's actually legal, but that's life.

I just had a horrifying idea...

In theory, here in the glorious ACBL, one might define a defense to a multi 2D opening in which a double showed precise

♠ AKQJ
♥ 2
♦ KQ54
♣ AQT2

Then, we define a second defense, such a double describes

♠ AKQJ
♥ 3
♦ KQ54
♣ AQT2

Repeat, ad nauseam, until we exhaust the set of hands that might consider bidding over a multi 2D

Once the opponent's open multi in a pairs even, we sort through the set of defenses until we find the one that best identifies our hand...

[aguahombre]

 Vampyr, on 2013-February-22, 09:09, said:

This is probably allowed only in the ACBL with their booklets. I don't think it's actually legal, but that's life.

I notice that pre-submitting system cards for WBF events is not complied with by all pairs. Is that true, or are some of them just not published on the site?

If everyone does submit cards in advance, for teams to study and develope defenses, then my question doesn't apply.

If not, doesn't WBF allow use of the booklets?

[blackshoe]

 Vampyr, on 2013-February-22, 09:09, said:

This is probably allowed only in the ACBL with their booklets. I don't think it's actually legal, but that's life.

I must have missed something somewhere. What booklets?

[aguahombre]

 blackshoe, on 2013-February-22, 09:39, said:

I must have missed something somewhere. What booklets?

We are talking about "approved defenses" to Multi, etc. At least I think that is what Vamp meant.

[barmar]

I think she's referring to the written defenses that players are required to provide for Mid-Chart agreements. ACBL allows you to wait until the situation comes up before consulting them and deciding which defense to use.

[blackshoe]

Ah, I see.

[Fluffy]

 hrothgar, on 2013-February-22, 09:29, said:

I just had a horrifying idea...

In theory, here in the glorious ACBL, one might define a defense to a multi 2D opening in which a double showed precise

♠ AKQJ
♥ 2
♦ KQ54
♣ AQT2

Then, we define a second defense, such a double describes

♠ AKQJ
♥ 3
♦ KQ54
♣ AQT2

Repeat, ad nauseam, until we exhaust the set of hands that might consider bidding over a multi 2D

Once the opponent's open multi in a pairs even, we sort through the set of defenses until we find the one that best identifies our hand...

No need to go to the extreme, I think just having 2M as natural and 2M as takeout is already good enough to abuse the rule.

[Vampyr]

 aguahombre, on 2013-February-22, 09:29, said:

If not, doesn't WBF allow use of the booklets?

I don't believe that any jurisdictons apart from the ACBL allow reference to written materials, or consultation between partners during the auction.

I can't find my lawbook. but doing the above is against about three laws (which might be one reason why it is not practiced elsewhere).

[FrancesHinden]

 Vampyr, on 2013-February-22, 12:09, said:

I don't believe that any jurisdictons apart from the ACBL allow reference to written materials, or consultation between partners during the auction.

I can't find my lawbook. but doing the above is against about three laws (which might be one reason why it is not practiced elsewhere).

Virtually all jurisdictions, including the EBL, the WBF and the EBU, allow reference to written materials during the auction under certain circumstances (usually against HUM systems & brown sticker conventions).
Consultation between partners during the auction is not allowed anywhere, so far as I know.