[gordontd]

 RMB1, on 2016-August-29, 12:52, said:

I can think of a small island off the coast of Europe that would prefer to be continent of its own.

Corsica?

[blackshoe]

hehe. Point taken. But it's not really all that small.

[Zelandakh]

 RMB1, on 2016-August-29, 12:52, said:

I can think of a small island off the coast of Europe that would prefer to be continent of its own.

Don't be silly, that island already became the 51st State. And going by the ESC, it seems Australia is interested in taken up the place in Europe!

[mycroft]

 Vampyr, on 2016-August-26, 19:52, said:

But what constitutes an agreement?

If their argument to the TD is that "2NT asks, it doesn't show anything", then they have the agreement that it could be bid as "psychic Ogust". It is not a psychic call, I very much agree with that; however, describing it simply as "Ogust" or "asking for partner's suit and hand strength" is a very carefully phrased explanation that, through "common knowledge", ends up making the call more effective than the statement given to the TD would. And that's my problem with it, not either the agreement nor the tactic. You will note that I said before that I tried it myself (and it failed miserably) - but we clearly did *not* have an agreement about it, so for me it *was* a psychic.

Quote

There are definitely bids that are well known to be much more psychable than others:

If you or partner has psyched a couple of these over several hundred sessions, or even if not, is it necessary to identify to the opponents when you make one of the bids that is "safer" than most to psyche?

Let's just put "well known" in quotes here. It's well known to two classes of players: those who have had these discussions, and those who have had these psychics pulled on them. There is a certain amount of "you gotta live through it" endemic to bridge, but especially with the lack of education players - even Flight A players - get on psychic calls, and the pressure to "not scare the newbies", what should be well known - isn't. Except to people at or above our level (at least one of play level or Law knowledge).

Answering your question, if I've noticed a trend on which of these my partner tries (I don't precisely *psych* my third-seat 1M calls, but if it goes p-1M-2♣-2M, partner raises at her own risk, and she knows that!), the opponents are entitled to that information. If I haven't, then I don't have to say anything. If I'm as "oblivious" to my partner's antics as a particular local pair, the answer is "many others have noticed. You get to start now, or we'll start penalizing you."

But remember, nothing is a psych if it's a valid call (more particularly, not a "gross misstatement of your hand") for your partnership, no matter whether it would be psychic for anyone - or everyone - else. It might be an illegal agreement (implied or express); it might be a misexplained agreement; but not a psychic. And what I've been calling "psychic Ogust", by those pairs who say to the TD that "2NT just asks, it doesn't show anything", isn't a psychic, it's an agreement that has not been fully disclosed.

[jeffford76]

 mycroft, on 2016-August-26, 11:50, said:

In the ACBL...

Other people that fall down this hole (while playing ostensibly, and likely no-questions-asked legal systems) are the "psychic Ogust" people who describe 2NT as "asking for suit and hand quality" and *deliberately not mentioning* that for them it doesn't necessarily show interest in game. Their *agreement* is that it doesn't, and it's a legal agreement...

Depends on which director you get, I think. I have run into ones who think actually having the agreement that you are asking, but may not care about the answer falls under the prohibition on "destructive" calls. And by "ones" I mean the response from rulings@acbl.org.

[Vampyr]

One problem is that you could ask just hoping for AKQxxx.

[Vampyr]

 mycroft, on 2016-August-30, 13:00, said:

Let's just put "well known" in quotes here. It's well known to two classes of players: those who have had these discussions, and those who have had these psychics pulled on them.

Could be. I am in neither of these classes.

[Vampyr]

 Zelandakh, on 2016-August-30, 06:10, said:

Don't be silly, that island already became the 51st State. And going by the ESC, it seems Australia is interested in taken up the place in Europe!

Israel has been in the ESC for ages! Surely they get priority over Australia!

[Zelandakh]

 Vampyr, on 2016-August-30, 19:39, said:

Israel has been in the ESC for ages! Surely they get priority over Australia!

Israel has essentially been counted as European for rather a long time, not only with the ESC but also for most sports. You could perhaps say they replaced the DDR but I think we need a new country to step in for the outgoing island nation.

[mycroft]

 jeffford76, on 2016-August-30, 18:47, said:

Depends on which director you get, I think. I have run into ones who think actually having the agreement that you are asking, but may not care about the answer falls under the prohibition on "destructive" calls. And by "ones" I mean the response from rulings@acbl.org.

I don't doubt you, but I'd want to see the answer.

Given that case law has it that (1♣)-2♦ "diamonds or majors" is not "purely destructive" against a Precision Club (but (1♣)-1♠ "denies a suit he wants to show at the 2 or higher level, we do not pass, double or bid 1red" is), I think "tell us about your hand, may just be a raise to 3" isn't even close. Perhaps, however, the analogy isn't to that auction, but to the "if you play [10-12, in the original case] NT, and play 2M "to play", but have the agreement that opener can not compete even with 4 and a maximum, you're playing a psychic control if you ever don't have the suit you 'play' in." Whether I agree with that (or with the original statement) or not, at least there's a case there.

I know there are club directors who would say that if 18000 MPs are playing 1600 and you pull this, they would suggest you either quit trying to win this way or quit playing in their game. I have issues with that as well, but I believe it is their right as (delegated) RAs.

[blackshoe]

If the director owns the club, he's the (delegated) RA. If he doesn't own the club, he's not. Whoever or whatever owns the club is.

That said, I'd guess at least 90% of clubs in NA are sole proprietorships, and the director is often the owner.