[pescetom]

MP

---

EW had 6♦ or 3NT+2 and the intervention of S with such a weak hand raised some controversy.
2♦ was explained on alert as "majors at least 5-4" which is also on their System Card (no mention of strength).
Is there an infraction or anything unseemly here?
Would anyone consider this a psychic misstatement of strength?

[steve2005]

ever hear of cue-bidding

[TylerE]

S said he had the majors. He has the majors.

The only thing unseemly I see here is that this post which sure seems to be trying to say something without saying it.

[blackshoe]

If someone fails to mention strength in describing the meaning of a call, then it seems to me the default assumption should be "any strength", so 0 to 37 HCP. If you're not comfortable assuming that the director will agree, then you should ask for clarification when the explanation is first given.

You can't look at a hand in isolation and say "that's a psych". You need to know two things: what is their actual agreement as to the meaning of the bid, and did the bidder deliberately psych. In this case, if the meaning is 'any strength' then it's not possible to psych it on the basis of strength.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

The cue occurred facing a passed hand, but they are red.

Making the bid with the distribution is certainly not "usual", but I have
seen it, i.e. I am not saying it is "highly" unusual, but I have seen it.
If it would have happened green vs. red, it would be less unusual.

It is probably a case of incomplete disclosure. Hard to proof.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[thepossum]

They play a weak-strong system do they? Was that on their card?

[Cyberyeti]

P_Marlowe, on 2023-August-08, 02:42, said:

Hi,

The cue occurred facing a passed hand, but they are red.

Making the bid with the distribution is certainly not "usual", but I have
seen it, i.e. I am not saying it is "highly" unusual, but I have seen it.
If it would have happened green vs. red, it would be less unusual.

It is probably a case of incomplete disclosure. Hard to proof.

With kind regards
Marlowe

Looks like they noticed the slow 1♦, correctly attributed it to opener having run out of fingers and toes to count their points and decided to lob a grenade on the fire. I suspect they'd have bid it whether it was systemic or a psyche.

Ask the bidder's partner what the normal range of this bid and I suspect you'll get the answer that this would be relatively normal NV but a bit fruity at game all.

[pescetom]

thepossum, on 2023-August-08, 04:06, said:

They play a weak-strong system do they?

No they don't. And they would usually avoid 2D very weak. But here as Cyberyeti said you don't need to be Zia to figure out that RHO has half the pack and that 2D may be an effective spanner in the works despite the risks (partner with no play in 2Mx or opponents pushed into 6D=).

[pescetom]

blackshoe, on 2023-August-08, 01:47, said:

If someone fails to mention strength in describing the meaning of a call, then it seems to me the default assumption should be "any strength", so 0 to 37 HCP. If you're not comfortable assuming that the director will agree, then you should ask for clarification when the explanation is first given.

You can't look at a hand in isolation and say "that's a psych". You need to know two things: what is their actual agreement as to the meaning of the bid, and did the bidder deliberately psych. In this case, if the meaning is 'any strength' then it's not possible to psych it on the basis of strength.

They haven't explicitly discussed strength of Michaels but would not usually use it very weak, even at favourable vulnerability. But of course this situation is not usual or even vaguely comparable to a cue in second seat. The bidder did consider that it was unusual for this partnership to bid 2D so weak and he deliberately did so all the same, with the prime intention of disturbing the opponents' bidding. So deliberate intent is there, as is a gross difference in strength compared to more normal Michaels situation. But they weren't in a normal situation and they weren't asked about strength.

[P_Marlowe]

blackshoe, on 2023-August-08, 01:47, said:

If someone fails to mention strength in describing the meaning of a call, then it seems to me the default assumption should be "any strength", so 0 to 37 HCP. If you're not comfortable assuming that the director will agree, then you should ask for clarification when the explanation is first given.
<snip>

I disagree, that the default assumption should be "any strength" (*), but making assumption about not stated thinks is done at ones own risk,
... so from a practical point of view, I agree.

(*) Openings that get alerted to show "any" shape are consisered problematic, I dont see, why "any" strength should be different.

[mycroft]

• What is their agreement? Remember, it isn't psychic just because it's a gross deviation of *your* agreement (for whatever definition of "you", be it the opponents or the director or...) Witness My "Psychic Ogust and Friends" Thread.
  
• Even if it is gross enough to be psychic, is there a regulation against psyching Artificial Overcalls?(*) Especially when, as others have said, South noticed East kicking off his shoes to have more things to count...
  
• What are the regulations for explanation/Alerting? I know in the ACBL, "unexpectedly weak" is now almost never grounds for making a non-Alertable call Alertable; "you're supposed to ask" (not that anybody does, or can actually explain. They do, however, fly totally off the handle when they get "tricked" by their opponents' "dangerously weak" call).
  
• Do they have defences to 2-suited bids? It could be that the reason they missed 6 was the 3♦ courtesy call rather than the 2♠ "strong diamond raise". It could be the reason they missed their 1400 (**) was the 3♦ courtesy call rather than the "I think we can set at least one suit" double. It might even be "why did you bid 5♦ rather than look for 3NT? it's matchpoints after all", or it could be "we all know that 5♦ at MPs is an invitation to 6; should the 3♦ bidder go?"
  
• So, they would have made +600 into +630 if overcaller had ♠K9873 instead? "Everybody" playing "mini-maxi" would think that's a reasonable Michaels bid (which is one of the reasons I don't any more).

I have less sympathy than many for "they did something [that could have gone very badly for them] that I wouldn't do, and I made the wrong guess based on them bidding like we do", especially (not that this pair necessarily does) when they also use the "but it's Just Bridge" line when *they* do it. I also believe that until people start using the red card for its original purpose some more, these kinds of "could have gone for 1400" bids are going to continue to be made, and they're going to continue to pick up "but this time, instead, they went 620 into 660 for a great score because the opponents got scared" results. If your system can't handle it, people will keep doing it against you.

For those who want them to add the "could be much weaker than normal" line, I note that back in the days we were playing EHAA, and had to pre-Alert, and Alert, and included in our explanation that "*any* 5+card suit is opened", we didn't get doubled much more than we do playing "normal". I mean, obviously, if we know that this time it *is* much weaker than normal, obviously we drop the axe. But oops, this time it's a more reasonable KJxxx QTxxx, catching a 6-count with fitting honours, and it makes overtricks...

(*) I am reminded of the NAP finals where I opened a really awful 5-card diamond suit 2♦. At the end of the hand, they looked at my card and said "that wasn't a 'good' 5-card suit" (part of our agreement). My response was "it's third seat, and obviously you have a 1♦ (Strong, Artificial and Forcing) opener that I didn't want you to be able to make." "Fair enough".
(**) And okay, that works here. But what if 6NT was on instead, and -1400 was a good score against all the -1440s? What if it was 1♥-2♥ with spades and diamonds, with 1430 on?

[sanst]

It looks like E shot him/herself in the foot with the 5♦ call. Why not 4♦, cueing or even ask aces? But making a very final call like 5♦ silences everybody at the table.
The bad result is entirely due to E and maybe W and they shouldn’t use the director to get it remedied. Instead, if I was E I would probably congratulate S on a well placed bid.

[pescetom]

mycroft, on 2023-August-08, 11:06, said:

What is their agreement?

As per the System Card and successive comments: both majors at least 5-4, in second seat would not be very weak albeit undiscussed.
It's open to discussion whether they even have an agreement about what it means in fourth seat after a third seat minor opening and if so to what extent it is equivalent to agreement in second seat (see "it's just Bridge" below).

mycroft, on 2023-August-08, 11:06, said:

Even if it is gross enough to be psychic, is there a regulation against psyching Artificial Overcalls?

There was in this tournament, and the TD ruled it was violated. I was curious to know if people here agreed, given the unusual circumstances. But I was equally curious to know if people saw any issue with the (non) disclosure about strength given the lack of any related enquiry and the nature of the agreement.

mycroft, on 2023-August-08, 11:06, said:

What are the regulations for explanation/Alerting? I know in the ACBL, "unexpectedly weak" is now almost never grounds for making a non-Alertable call Alertable; "you're supposed to ask" (not that anybody does, or can actually explain. They do, however, fly totally off the handle when they get "tricked" by their opponents' "dangerously weak" call).

Any artificial call, including a cue bid which is Michaels (a common agreement, but not assumed or even always known) is alertable.

mycroft, on 2023-August-08, 11:06, said:

Do they have defences to 2-suited bids? It could be that the reason they missed 6 was the 3♦ courtesy call rather than the 2♠ "strong diamond raise".

It was their first time together, South knew and took advantage of this. West is an accomplished player, East less so (although convinced otherwise).

mycroft, on 2023-August-08, 11:06, said:

I have less sympathy than many for "they did something [that could have gone very badly for them] that I wouldn't do, and I made the wrong guess based on them bidding like we do", especially (not that this pair necessarily does) when they also use the "but it's Just Bridge" line when *they* do it. I also believe that until people start using the red card for its original purpose some more, these kinds of "could have gone for 1400" bids are going to continue to be made, and they're going to continue to pick up "but this time, instead, they went 620 into 660 for a great score because they got scared" results. If your system can't handle it, people will keep doing it against you.

I agree with you on both these points, but I see this more as a genuine "it's just Bridge" move by a pair that would not whine if the opps pulled the same stunt.

TylerE, on 2023-August-07, 16:56, said:

The only thing unseemly I see here is that this post which sure seems to be trying to say something without saying it.

Sorry if it wasn't to your taste. I thought the situation was unusual enough to raise some interesting points for both Directors and Players and I didn't want to put words into their mouths. The replies have been useful to me so thanks to all who contributed.

[sanst]

pescetom, on 2023-August-08, 16:08, said:

There was in this tournament, and the TD ruled it was violated.

Did the TD give a reason why it was violated?

Quote

… I see this more as a genuine "it's just Bridge" move by a pair that would not whine if the opps pulled the same stunt.

I fully agree with you. Here you are with this hand and both your LHO and partner have passed. Even without hesitation - which is AI for S - you know that EW will at least play game if not slam. The least you can do is trying to throw a spanner in their machine, keeping them out of NT, which can be quite advantageous at MP’s. Nothing wrong with that.

[mycroft]

Okay, is there a requirement in the regulations for two-suited overcalls to have a minimum strength? If not, what argument do they give for "not very weak in 2nd seat implies anything opposite a passed hand"? I mean, I could see the argument. But my response would be "I have 5-4 in a situation where they have *at least game*. Why would I give them a free run at it? Why would "partner, we might have game" apply when she's passed, the way it does when she hasn't had a chance to come in?

Per "South taking advantage of unfamiliar partnerships": yeah, and? Isn't "putting them to the test" or "system check" part of the game? Isn't "playing the opponents" a *lauded* part of the game, or is that only for experts when they "tactical bid" the C (or A!) players? I certainly know that if the opponents play "stolen bid doubles" over 1NT that I'm going to overcall more aggressively; and that doesn't seem to wend to claims of "psych!" (or if it does, I will avoid such games in future. "We play DONT. They NT, I D O it. We make that clear in our explanation" "But that's not how Bridge Is Played Here". Okay).

Question: would 987543 JT843 -- 64 be considered a psych? 987543 JT8643 -- 4? If so, seriously? If not, is the damage really from the psych, or is it from failure to try?

Now, depending on the RA and their regulations, we might just say that the damage didn't come from the psych, it was from the choices of calls. Maybe 3♦ is the "best option available" in a new partnership, and maybe 5♦ "matchpoint slam try" is the best bid East could make, maybe passing is also "best result possible, if not best possible result" (How confident is West that East knows that "at matchpoints, 5m is an invitation to 6"?) (we haven't seen the hands. No idea). But maybe "give South the ♠K, now it's 600 into 630. Damage is primarily from failure to look for 3NT, score stands, penalty to N/S for illegal agreement ("you're allowed to play this as long as you never psych it, you psyched it, therefore your agreement includes 'could psych' and is therefore against regulations."). Even if we don't, I think +620 should be not only part of the weighting, but a large part.

re: "It's Just Bridge" - I guess is what I'm saying. I'm not going to gainsay the director, though. If they determine that N-S's agreement is that this is a "gross deviation" (I think we can take deliberate as read) from their agreements on p-p-1x-2x, then, given there is a restriction on psyching an artificial overcall, South violated it, and we do whatever that does. What I was saying is that if E or W are known for "we didn't say anything about strength did we? That's because there isn't any agreement about it" or similar constructions, *my* ruling as director will likely include many of those words.

It's likely that if South instead bid 1♥ (well, maybe not. West would trust a 2♥ response, and east would at least look for a heart stopper if she has two levels to look for it. But 2♥?) on this hand, the same thing would have happened; and when they cried "Psych!" the director would say "yep. legal. score stands".

Maybe my biases on "what bids promise strength, so much so that you're misinformed if we don't mention we don't" are showing here. I know they're obvious from previous posts (like the once-a-year "they bid 2♠ with 6 spades and a zero count over my 2♣! Is that legal?" ones, and my "you could have taken it for 1100. Your system doesn't allow it. Looks like a hole in your system, not in their bidding" ones).

[pescetom]

sanst, on 2023-August-09, 02:11, said:

Did the TD give a reason why it was violated?

He considered there was a gross variation in strength compared to the way they said they usually bid Michaels and that the variation was too big to be justified by the unusual situation.

The first part is objectively correct, the second part doesn't encounter much sympathy here.

[mycroft]

Looks like actually having an agreement that you can explain at the table is a good thing.

"In second seat, we need points in our suits. Opposite a passed hand, 'she has 13 cards, and at least 9 of them are majors'."

And, of course, because the 2♦ call is Alerted, and of course they asked, they would be told that, and any further misguesses on how weak or strong that could be is on them.

I am not gainsaying the director; but I think were I South, it would be one of my "thanks, director" and next hand ones. People familiar with my history discussing "TD playing in someone else's game" will understand, I think.

[Cyberyeti]

"Sorry, I had my club in with my spades"

[pescetom]

mycroft, on 2023-August-10, 10:54, said:

Looks like actually having an agreement that you can explain at the table is a good thing.

"In second seat, we need points in our suits. Opposite a passed hand, 'she has 13 cards, and at least 9 of them are majors'.

Yes, I agree North South should take away the message to discuss unusual situations like opposite a passed hand. The System Card doesn't expect one to go beyond normal second seat agreement but it would be correct to have and explain an agreement for this situation too. Although to some extent it's just a question of applying normal bridge logic to adapt the basic agreements to the modified situation (much like a third seat opening) and we do expect experienced opponents to be able to figure that out for themselves.

[HardVector]

In my opinion, while the interference was clearly a psyche, I would not assume it was a partnership agreement in an isolated event. Instead, I would say that there are very easy methods available to unravel the nature of the psyche that clearly were not explored and the result you got was deserved.