[Mbodell]

bluejak, on Mar 1 2010, 04:50 PM, said:

Cascade, on Mar 1 2010, 08:07 PM, said:

Absolutely not.  The numbers I produced above were based on an real (but aggressive) 1♥ opening - opening 11 HCP with 5 hearts and 10 HCP with 6 hearts and 5/5 - and on the opponent having 15-18 HCP balanced with a stopper.

Why are you assuming the 1NT overcaller has 15?

Because you assume partner is operating, not the opponent, and that's illegal. It is quite common for a 1NT overcaller to have a suit, a few points, and hope.

This doesn't seem obvious to me merely from the auction and hand. If we add more information to the circumstances and find out that one of the reasons the E/W partnership has no history of psyching is because they have no history at all. E/W met at the partnership desk and this is the first time they've played in the same field, let alone as partners. Would it still be a red psych in that circumstance?

Don't we need more information than just the auction and hand. And isn't there common bridge knowledge that lots of people, even unknown partners, are much more flexible in their 3rd seat bidding. There might well be a hand similar to this one that is on the boundary of what I'd X with. And in such situation I'm more likely to X if I'm in 4th seat than 1st seat because, even playing with someone I've never heard of before, I'd trust their 2nd seat bidding more than their 3rd seat bidding and for marginal calls where I could go either way between pass and X I'd use things like seat and how much I respected the opponents to influence which call I'd choose.

[gnasher]

bluejak, on Mar 2 2010, 02:47 AM, said:

If you assume an opponent has not psyched because he does not do so, but therefore partner has psyched, because he might do so, that is fielding, a breach of Law 40. Sure, you are allowed to use knowledge of the opponent, but you are basing this on knowledge of partner also, and you have concealed that knowledge.

Suppose that my partner and I have just met, and I know nothing about him at all - we didn't even have time to agree upon a notrump range. My opponents, on the other hand, are well known to me as people who never psyche. May I now field partner's psyche without penalty?

[bluejak]

Yes, in theory.



As to the psyching thing being unfortunate and probably unsound, yes, I believe it is. The rules do not make psyching illegal in effect, they make it dangerous because {a} you might go for 1700, and {b} you might put partner in an unfortunate position.

Sure, it may be unfortunate occasionally. But it is a cross regular psychers have to live with. Some of the time they are lucky - I psyched a 1♠ overcall recently. Even when LHO banged her 6♠ card on the table hard after bidding 5♠ meaningfully the round before, her partner still did not get the hint!

But I could have got a bad board easily enough in certain situations. Now, in the current situation, if responder knows his partner psyches, his pass is not just possible fielding, it is entirely stupid: if he doubles, his partner pulls it, and now if the opponents bid 3NT he has no reason to double.

[hotShot]

I would say, that if it's common knowledge in your club, that these 2 psyche occasionally, you're off the hook since you don't know more than opps.

[iviehoff]

blackshoe, on Mar 2 2010, 11:13 AM, said:

iviehoff, on Mar 2 2010, 04:24 AM, said:

You may be aware that you are partnering one of the only two players in the club who psyches.  Your opponents have no reason to be aware of that.

Sure they do. The first sentence of my previous post was

Quote

At my local club, there are one or two players who have a reputation for occasional psyches.

By "they have a reputation" I mean that it is well known in this club that these players occasionally psych.

You may think that, but can you rely on it? Does it mean that you would have to bid differently if your opponents were, on that hand, a couple of occasional visitors, or new members? Or what happens if in the director call you assert this "common knowledge", and your opponent disputes it, for example "I'm not aware of that reputation" or "It may not have come to your attention, but actually I do psyche occasionally too."

[Cascade]

bluejak, on Mar 3 2010, 03:09 AM, said:

Now, in the current situation, if responder knows his partner psyches, his pass is not just possible fielding, it is entirely stupid: if he doubles, his partner pulls it, and now if the opponents bid 3NT he has no reason to double.

That is completely illogical.

Are you saying that they have a partnership understanding that if partner pulls a penalty double they are showing a psyche. I would think such an understanding was illegal.

I would expect partner to pull the double on many minimum distributional but normal openers not simply when the original bid was a psyche. And further sometimes when the bid was a psyche partner will have nowhere to run so will minimize his losses by sticking it out in 1NT.

[mycroft]

Cascade, on Mar 2 2010, 12:34 PM, said:

bluejak, on Mar 3 2010, 03:09 AM, said:

Now, in the current situation, if responder knows his partner psyches, his pass is not just possible fielding, it is entirely stupid: if he doubles, his partner pulls it, and now if the opponents bid 3NT he has no reason to double.

That is completely illogical.

Not necessarily.

Quote

Are you saying that they have a partnership understanding that if partner pulls a penalty double they are showing a psyche.  I would think such an understanding was illegal.

Yes, it would be illegal. But after 1NTx gets pulled, I *don't have to hit 3NT* to show interest in defending opposite a possible flat minimum/understrength third-seater. I already have - by being willing to defend 1NTx opposite a reasonable minimum, or normal-range third seater. Partner psyched? Well, he knows what to do now. Partner had a 9-count with a bad suit that had a good chance opposite a maxpass of taking 5 or so tricks in NT? Yep, he knows what to do now.

I would think that doubling 3NT (without 5 tricks in my hand) would be treated as an accusation that my partner has lost his mind. I would agree with them - since the other options are "caught up in the doubling rhythm" or "how dare you bid game", somebody has.

[Edit: defending 1NT *doubled*, not just defending 1NT]

[lamford]

jeremy69, on Feb 28 2010, 06:43 PM, said:

It just isn't a level playing field IMO when no action is taken on this sort of hand and it happens to coincide with partner having opened on complete tram tickets.

I agree. This hand seems very similar to one I had maybe 15 years ago with a former partner - I think at the National Swiss Teams. There the bidding had gone (Pass) - Pass - (1D) - 1NT - (Pass) - 3NT - All Pass. The dealer had, as I recall, Kxx xxx Qxx AJxx, and the 1D bidder had xxx Jxx K10xx xxx. The result of the hand was 3NT+1 which was +630. I recall reporting the psyche which the TD classified as amber, but I appealed against this and the score was adjusted to +800 for 2DX-4 by the non-vulnerable opponents, with the psyche being reclassified as red, which was only worth 3 IMPs against the other room, and only 1 VP, but it was the principle.

I recall one argument of the psycher, as to why the 10 count did not double, was that our side had just made a thin 6S on the previous board after my partner had mistimed the play and been forced to drop the stiff king of trumps offside, and therefore a psyche might be more likely than normal.

[FrancesHinden]

I think all the people saying it's a red psyche haven't played enough against bad players.

The reason the very light/psychic 1NT overcall is so popular is because people don't double on hands where they clearly ought to. It's more common to see requests for a ruling after P P 1S 1NT (7-count) and the opening side miss game, because it doesn't occur to them to double for penalties.

For me, the standard of the EW pair is extremely important in deciding how to classify the psyche.

[lamford]

FrancesHinden, on Mar 6 2010, 01:02 PM, said:

For me, the standard of the EW pair is extremely important in deciding how to classify the psyche.

I am sure that some Wests would not even consider that their partner might have psyched, and West's answers to the TD were plausible, but is it not right to have the same benchmark for fielding for all players? It is a little different to UI, but I would suggest that when West passes throughout where most people would act, this is fielding.

Are you saying that there should be different requirements for different strengths of player?

[blackshoe]

lamford, on Mar 6 2010, 07:39 PM, said:

FrancesHinden, on Mar 6 2010, 01:02 PM, said:

For me, the standard of the EW pair is extremely important in deciding how to classify the psyche.

I am sure that some Wests would not even consider that their partner might have psyched, and West's answers to the TD were plausible, but is it not right to have the same benchmark for fielding for all players? It is a little different to UI, but I would suggest that when West passes throughout where most people would act, this is fielding.

Are you saying that there should be different requirements for different strengths of player?

In practice there are several areas where there are different standards for different players. I'm not sure this shouldn't be one of them.

It is my understanding that the EBU treat "fielding" as if it means "illegally catering for" (a psych or a misbid). I don't see how not knowing what the hell you're doing can be illegal.

[gnasher]

blackshoe, on Mar 7 2010, 01:47 AM, said:

It is my understanding that the EBU treat "fielding" as if it means "illegally catering for" (a psych or a misbid).

I don't think that's quite correct. Both regulations and practice use the term "fielding" to mean "appearing to cater for (a psych or a misbid)".

[bluejak]

blackshoe, on Mar 7 2010, 01:47 AM, said:

It is my understanding that the EBU treat "fielding" as if it means "illegally catering for" (a psych or a misbid). I don't see how not knowing what the hell you're doing can be illegal.

A basic principle of English law is "Ignorance of the Law is no excuse". If you kill an intruder in your house, not knowing it is illegal will not get you off a manslaughter or murder charge.

Similarly, fielding a psyche is illegal whether you know it is or not. Hopefully, the first time it happens you will learn.

[blackshoe]

bluejak, on Mar 6 2010, 09:43 PM, said:

A basic principle of English law is "Ignorance of the Law is no excuse". If you kill an intruder in your house, not knowing it is illegal will not get you off a manslaughter or murder charge.

In England, maybe. Here, it will depend on the circumstances. Be that as it may, I don't think it's reasonable to draw parallels between the criminal law and the rules of a game.

Quote

Similarly, fielding a psyche is illegal whether you know it is or not.  Hopefully, the first time it happens you will learn.

Fair enough. Apparently I don't understand your (English) definition of "fielding". I'll go read the Orange Book again.

[bluejak]

Fielding is allowing for a hand that is not included in the definition that you have given opponents in a way that is not permitted.

I would be very surprised if "Ignorance of the Law is no excuse" was not part of American law.

Parallels are not inappropriate between various rules you have to follow in different walks of life, especially when some are likely to follow from others.

[blackshoe]

"Ignorance of the law is no excuse" is indeed embedded in American law. I was referring, though, to your comment about killing an intruder. In some states ("The Peoples' Republic" of Massachusetts, for example) the law in such cases is similar to England's. In others, it's not. I used to live in New Mexico. There was a rash of burglaries in the area, and in conversation about it with my next door neighbor, a state cop, he said "just make sure the body is inside the house when we get here".