[jeffford76]

GreenMan, on 2013-September-24, 16:05, said:

The ACBL sees your agreement as destructive rather than obstructive, therefore illegal, and I agree with them.

Right, I agree that they were trying to say the agreement was destructive. It was just weird to talk about psyches.

I don't agree, though, on the classification. If I raise a weak 2 to 3, I might have a bad hand trying to further the preempt, and I might have a decent hand planning to pound anything the opponents bid over it. Same thing if I bid Ogust with either hand. Why is one allowed and one destructive?

My understanding was that mycroft believed it was ACBL-legal to agree to play Ogust this way. If I've misunderstood, I hope he'll clarify.

[blackshoe]

So when Rick Beye said "it's an illegal psychic control" he was practicing obfuscation rather than clarification. The actual ACBL position is that it's an illegal destructive method, and the position has nothing to do with psychic controls. I think they do this in a misguided attempt to add more legitimacy to their position. It make no sense, however. It would help if the ACBL, or its employees, would avoid this obfuscating rhetoric and just state which regulation, or part of a regulation, is being violated. :-(

[nige1]

lamford, on 2013-September-20, 15:07, said:

If the general expectation of Stayman is that it either has a four-card major, or has values, then 2C is a psyche. True, one might when desperate bid it on a 3-3-5-2 Yarborough, but being 2-3 in the majors would be unexpected. If the CC does not indicate that Stayman can be bid on such hands, I think it is a psyche and we rule accordingly. I do not agree with the rule prohibiting the psyching of Stayman, but do agree that if it is there it should be enforced. And I agree that Pass is SeWoG on the North hand, but is it unrelated to the infraction?

I suppose it depends on local understandings.

• We understand Stayman 2♣ as a relay for majors. In general, the Stayman bidder has majors and/or game interest but he promises nothing. For us, it wouldn't be a psych to use Stayman with a weak hand and no major.
• Similarly, we understand Ogust 2N be a relay asking about the strength and quality of partner's weak two. Generally, the Ogust bidder has interest in game but again he promises nothing. It wouldn't be a psych to use Ogust on a Yarborough.

If either of these bids promised particular values, we would feel bound to disclose them.

[Vampyr]

nige1, on 2013-September-24, 19:00, said:

Generally, the Ogust bidder has interest in game but again he promises nothing. It wouldn't be a psych to use Ogust on a Yarborough.[/list]If either of these bids promised particular values, we would feel bound to disclose them.

Do you disclose the fact that the Ogust bid could be made on a Yarborough? I do. I don't know whether it is required, and I suspect not; but I think it might be helpful to some players.

[aguahombre]

nige1, on 2013-September-24, 19:00, said:

I suppose it depends on local understandings.

• We understand Stayman 2♣ as a relay for majors. In general, the Stayman bidder has majors and/or game interest but he promises nothing. For us, it wouldn't be a psych to use Stayman with a weak hand and no major.
• Similarly, we understand Ogust 2N be a relay asking about the strength and quality of partner's weak two. Generally, the Ogust bidder has interest in game but again he promises nothing. It wouldn't be a psych to use Ogust on a Yarborough.

If either of these bids promised particular values, we would feel bound to disclose them.

The viewpoint presented here, seems to be that when one player assumes captaincy, and the other is simply directed to answer the questions asked by a convention --- the responder to the asking bid doesn't need to know or to speculate about what partner might hold and doesn't need to disclose such speculation. Nige1's last sentence, however, seems to go against that viewpoint.

The big difference however is that the OP's partner seems to believe he doesn't even have to respond to the asking bid; if that is their agreement, everything changes.

[nige1]

Vampyr, on 2013-September-24, 19:29, said:

Do you disclose the fact that the Ogust bid could be made on a Yarborough? I do. I don't know whether it is required, and I suspect not; but I think it might be helpful to some players.

I don't but I don't know whether I should. IMO, if asked, you should say Ogust is an artificial relay asking about the quality and strength of the 2-opener. If it promises high-card values or guarantees game interest then you should disclose that as well. For completeness, I suppose you could also divulge what other bids would have shown.

There's a kind of analogy with a Benjamin 2♣. Local players explain it as a notrump-range (e.g. 21-22 flat) or opening-bid values with 8-9 probable tricks. Had they agreed additional high-card or other special requirements, I'm sure they would divulge them.

[Trinidad]

aguahombre, on 2013-September-24, 19:51, said:

The viewpoint presented here, seems to be that when one player assumes captaincy, and the other is simply directed to answer the questions asked by a convention --- the responder to the asking bid doesn't need to know or to speculate about what partner might hold and doesn't need to disclose such speculation. Nige1's last sentence, however, seems to go against that viewpoint.

The big difference however is that the OP's partner seems to believe he doesn't even have to respond to the asking bid; if that is their agreement, everything changes.

That is simply not true. It is pretty clear that that the OP's partner believes that -according to the agreement with his partner- he has to respond to 2♣. However, when he sees from his opponent's behavior that passing will likely lead to a good result, he can take a view and pass. It is not against the laws to violate a partnership agreement.

Of course, he does so at his own risk. If East read his opponent wrong, he might miss a cold game (or slam) and the first thing he should do after the hand is apologize to his partner. But in bridge it is not forbidden to take a unilateral action. You are even allowed to pass a Stayman bid. And if East would be my partner I would congratulate him.

Rik

[aguahombre]

What I said might not be true for this pair, but "simply" is inaccurate. I posted early on that North brought on the pass with his tells. But just above these two posts, I said "if that is their agreement" --did not say it was their agreement.

[trevahound]

I was West. Here's my serious problem. This was a first time partnership, seriously really without partners in common. No purer moment, and I bid 2c in perfect tempo. The pairing/parntership was a last minute fill in type deal. Both my partner and I had played baby NT in other non-overlapping partnerships, and had pretty different styles. However, in this case, it's fairly clear to me that N's questions and E's hand inspired the pass. It was close to a pro-client situation, only no one is silly enough to pay me to play with them (thank goodness).

Most of the time I play with regular partners. I don't have the agreement to pass 2c with anyone with just clubs. However, I once passed it myself, when any sensible person on Earth would have (more than a year prior to this, no one in common, including opps).

What happens when I'm playing with a regular partner and this happens, hypothetically? I know the answer to that, but it sickens me, more or less.

It's absurd to me that a regular partner isn't allowed to play bridge, but according to at least some of my regular opponents I fear that's the case, unless I alert (or god forbid pre-alert) every call with, "partner might continue to play bridge, and not just count 4-3-2-1 points and bid like an commodore pet". It's extremely frustrating to me.

If I/we alert everything that might potentially happen once every few years, we make a mockery of the alert procedure, and furthermore, we come at least very close to cheating, as we're wildly mis-describing our actual agreements to opps.

Experts are allowed to play bridge. I don't see why us joe six-packs can't as well, on the rare occasions inspiration (with all parties freely agreeing there was no UI at all) strikes. If I choose between 2s (non-forcing, natural) and 2c (stayman, but not the GF version), in a desperate "all hands on deck" situation, and manage it in perfect tempo, and opps guide partner to a brilliancy he's never before managed, why should I be expected to pre-alert or more every call any of us make going forward. And what do we pre-alert?

South, the OP poster, was admirable at the table (not reopening even though it was clear to all North had a serious problem), and admirably tried to post this problem as "can one in admittedly desperate circumstances bid stayman without a 4cM or inv values, or anything a LOL would consider a good reason to bid stayman?", given the ACBL's regulatory morass.

Brian Zaugg,
Seattle

[Mbodell]

I think there's also a confusion here about very low frequency events. For instance, I've passed a 2♣ stayman response over a 12-14 nt before (partner was a passed hand, I had 6 clubs and a 12 count, it was matchpoints). I've passed a stayman response over a "15-17 nt" before (I was in 3rd seat with 6 clubs and 4 hearts and 8 hcp and opened 1nt and passed stayman). I've passed a capp 2♣ before. I've passed partner's DONT X (again without discussion). I've passed a forcing reverse before (I had a 3 count and a stiff in the opening suit). I've passed forcing bids before accidentally (pulled wrong card and/or didn't realize the bid was forcing). In none of those cases was this a partnership understanding, or discussed agreement and in none of those cases was this at all common. It would be misleading to explicitly tell the opponents that I could pass a stayman 2♣ bid, even though I can, because it is exceptionally rare and it is a violation of our partnership agreements about the meaning and treatment of that bid (but is within our partnership agreement to always be thinking and take whatever action we think best even if it is unusual/surprise to partner).

[campboy]

If you have explicitly agreed that Stayman is forcing then you certainly shouldn't describe it as non-forcing just because there is a chance that you will violate your agreements. If you haven't explicitly discussed it, but it is clear from the sort of hands that bid Stayman that it should be forcing, I think the same applies. But here there is no evidence that this pair had agreed 2♣ to be forcing, and many people have suggested that since it is limited it makes sense to pass with a particularly suitable hand. So I don't think this was a case of choosing to violate an agreement.

Of the examples you give, it would never occur to me to describe a DONT double or a Capp 2♣ as forcing. Of course you can pass them. It might be rare, in the latter case at least, but it is the normal call with certain types of hand.

[gnasher]

trevahound, on 2013-September-25, 02:19, said:

What happens when I'm playing with a regular partner and this happens, hypothetically?

Nothing different happens. If you have an agreement that it can be passed, you say so. If your agreement is that it can't be passed, you say so. If it's not normally passed but might be with an offbeat 1NT opening, you say so. If it's unclear from your agreements whether it's forcing or not, you say so, and explain the relevant agreements that you do have.

What seems to have gone wrong here was that you said "it's not game forcing" rather than "it's limited to less than a game force". It's like the difference between 1♥-1♠ and 1♥-1NT: neither of these is game-forcing, but one of them might contain game-forcing values and the other can't.

Obviously you didn't intend to mislead North. Most Norths would not have been misled, because they already know what "non-forcing Stayman" means. But when it becamse clear that this North didn't know what that meant, it was your responsibility to explain the meaning of 2♣ accurately.

[Cyberyeti]

Trinidad, on 2013-September-25, 00:50, said:

That is simply not true. It is pretty clear that that the OP's partner believes that -according to the agreement with his partner- he has to respond to 2♣. However, when he sees from his opponent's behavior that passing will likely lead to a good result, he can take a view and pass. It is not against the laws to violate a partnership agreement.

Yup, this occurs fairly frequently in the 1N-(X)-P(alerted forcing)-P(lots of questions confirming the pass really was forcing)-P ...(director call) situation and also with people who ask questions over a multi then pass and find their partner fixed by a pass over them.

[gnasher]

Cyberyeti, on 2013-September-25, 05:35, said:

Yup, this occurs fairly frequently in the 1N-(X)-P(alerted forcing)-P(lots of questions confirming the pass really was forcing)-P ...(director call) situation and also with people who ask questions over a multi then pass and find their partner fixed by a pass over them.

If it occurs fairly frequently, doesn't that make it an implicit agreement, and therefore disclosable?

[trevahound]

gnasher, on 2013-September-25, 05:24, said:

Nothing different happens. If you have an agreement that it can be passed, you say so. If your agreement is that it can't be passed, you say so. If it's not normally passed but might be with an offbeat 1NT opening, you say so. If it's unclear from your agreements whether it's forcing or not, you say so, and explain the relevant agreements that you do have.

What seems to have gone wrong here was that you said "it's not game forcing" rather than "it's limited to less than a game force". It's like the difference between 1♥-1♠ and 1♥-1NT: neither of these is game-forcing, but one of them might contain game-forcing values and the other can't.

Obviously you didn't intend to mislead North. Most Norths would not have been misled, because they already know what "non-forcing Stayman" means. But when it becamse clear that this North didn't know what that meant, it was your responsibility to explain the meaning of 2♣ accurately.

Sorry, I was West. I was the emergency desperation stayman bidder. I was not asked to explain anything. I was at the table to hear North's questions and partner's responses. Partner was inappropriately vague at first; he is prone to give names of agreements. Again, this was a first time last minute partnership. The sum total of our agreement on our stayman was "two way stayman". He got that information all out clearly before North finally passed, though not as concisely as might be hoped for.

Playing 2 way stayman in an undiscussed setting, I've found multiple strong players believe some GF hands systemically go through 2c (I am not one of them). I have no idea if this partner believed that or not, but in this circumstance it's obviously not a matter of agreement, and so there's nothing to disclose other than that we had 2d available as GF stayman.

North and South are very strong players, and each other's most serious regular partner. North plays against baby NT and two way stayman quite regularly. One of the reasons I was in full emergency mode is I know very well they have strong agreements after double, so if there was a way to avoid that, I was looking for it. Vs inexperienced with these methods opps, at these colors, it's not the same full panic situation.

I shouldn't have posted at all last night. I had a very long day at work, then had to fill in to run our club game last night at the last minute, and it was not an easy night at the club. I was both tired and frustrated and pathetically sober when I wrote that post. I do believe that had it been a regular partner who passed in the same circumstance a first time partner chose to pass, "people" would still be birthing their kittens. A regular partner is assumed to be using CPUs when they do something very unusual but coincidentally correct.

The OP's question was about whether or not I made an illegal call in ACBL land.

Brian Zaugg

[barmar]

gnasher, on 2013-September-25, 06:27, said:

If it occurs fairly frequently, doesn't that make it an implicit agreement, and therefore disclosable?

I think he meant frequently in general, not frequently in any particular partnership.

[barmar]

jeffford76, on 2013-September-24, 16:35, said:

Right, I agree that they were trying to say the agreement was destructive. It was just weird to talk about psyches.

My impression is that 99% of bridge players don't really understand the technical definition of psyches. This includes most TDs, even the ones who respond to questions like this at ACBL HQ.

Despite the definition in the Laws, it's almost universally understood to mean a bid that deviates significantly from what the opponents are likely to expect, rather than deviating from the the pair's agreements.

[jeffford76]

trevahound, on 2013-September-25, 02:19, said:

... this problem as "can one in admittedly desperate circumstances bid stayman without a 4cM or inv values, or anything a LOL would consider a good reason to bid stayman?", given the ACBL's regulatory morass.

This was indeed my reason for posting. I didn't and don't have any issue with the pass of 2♣ as I had previously told Brian in private correspondence.

In the ACBL I don't think it's legal to have the agreement that asking bids can be made with any hand. In particular, I don't think it's legal to have the agreement to use an asking bid to try to sow confusion in an auction where you know the hand belongs to the opponents. This is because of the prohibition on "destructive" conventions, which admittedly isn't a very clear description of what is and isn't allowed. All I can go by is previous conversations and correspondence with ACBL tournament directors.

If this conclusion is true, then bidding 2♣ with the hand in the OP is either using an illegal convention if it is part of the partnership agreements, or it is an illegal psyche if it is not.

It is a completely separate question whether these regulations are sensible. I don't think they are. I also think they are obscure enough that it is very easy to run afoul of them without realizing it or intending to.

[mycroft]

I disagree that this meets the limits for "agreements whose primary purpose is to destroy the opponents' methods" - the longhand for "illegally destructive convention" (and much more accurate and limiting). Any of these calls. If I can (and I can) play Psycho-Suction over a strong club at all levels (I either have the suit I bid, or the two above it), without it being considered "primarily designed to destroy" the strong club, I think that trying to play a suit that may, or may not, go for 4 digits over letting 1NT get doubled which *will* go for 4 digits, and will also guarantee that our runout gets doubled for > game as well is not only destructive, but highly constructive.

Confusing? yes. Potentially a disclosure issue? Certainly. If it were a "standard" auction, people would be bringing up "it's just bridge" that doing something rather than meekly handing out 1100+ is a good idea, and "why should we have to teach the opponents basic bridge?" Because it is basic bridge - if you play a weak NT, it's elementary that when you know you're going for your life, and there's a possibility of saving something, you take that possibility. Note that in this case, as in the other case, I don't think that that's an appropriate way of avoiding disclosure.

[blackshoe]

"Conventions and/or agreements..." What's the difference between a convention and an agreement?

"whose primary purpose…" The primary purpose of Stayman is to find a possible major suit contract.

"is to destroy the opponents' methods." I have no idea what this means. If I'm supposed to take it literally, why aren't all preempts illegal? If I'm not supposed to take it literally, how am I supposed to take it?

I would be tempted to quit bridge altogether until the ACBL gets its act together on laws and regulations, except that I'm about 99% sure it'll never happen.