[bluejak]

I suppose it depends on what the hand is. People have argued here, on BLML, on RGB and elsewhere that light third in hand openers are deviations. But, typically, a player will pass

Jxx
T9xxx
KQJ
KJ

in first seat because it is a filthy opening bid [I would] then open

Jxx
T9xx
KQJ
Qxx

in third and claim it is a deviation. It is not: it is a psyche. It is gross.

Furthermore, there is no excuse in the EBU which has a method on the SC for showing light third in hand openers. So, if players do not fill it in, they do not play it, and 8 to 10 is gross.



The real reason it is Red is that, despite fancy arguments of what can go wrong, if partner has his opening - and perhaps an opponent has not - you are throwing 500 or 800 away. I do not believe you are doing so because the hand might go poorly: you are doing so because you believe based on your experience that partner has psyched.

[hotShot]

It would have been a good idea to make this a bidding poll in an other part of the forum asking what to bid over 3NT.
That would give us an unbiased view how many people would pass.

My guess is, that it would be the "bigger half".

[campboy]

And what to do over 1NT, which I would have doubled without a second thought. To be fair, my agreements for minimum openers are about half a point stronger than "rule of 19".

Anyway, you can still do that. Probably not many of the people who do the polls in General Bridge have read this thread.

[campboy]

In fact (going back and looking at the auction), I think it is ridiculous not to double 1NT. Partner knows you are a passed hand, and you are happy to hear him pull if he has rubbish, as you would still expect to make 2H.

[Cascade]

campboy, on Mar 2 2010, 02:54 AM, said:

In fact (going back and looking at the auction), I think it is ridiculous not to double 1NT. Partner knows you are a passed hand, and you are happy to hear him pull if he has rubbish, as you would still expect to make 2H.

Do you expect him to pull to a five card suit?

What about an ordinary 5-4?

[Cascade]

bluejak, on Mar 2 2010, 01:37 AM, said:

I suppose it depends on what the hand is. People have argued here, on BLML, on RGB and elsewhere that light third in hand openers are deviations. But, typically, a player will pass

Jxx
T9xxx
KQJ
KJ

in first seat because it is a filthy opening bid [I would] then open

Jxx
T9xx
KQJ
Qxx

in third and claim it is a deviation. It is not: it is a psyche. It is gross.

Furthermore, there is no excuse in the EBU which has a method on the SC for showing light third in hand openers. So, if players do not fill it in, they do not play it, and 8 to 10 is gross.



The real reason it is Red is that, despite fancy arguments of what can go wrong, if partner has his opening - and perhaps an opponent has not - you are throwing 500 or 800 away. I do not believe you are doing so because the hand might go poorly: you are doing so because you believe based on your experience that partner has psyched.

The examples depend on method. On which the opening post is relatively silent.

Natural rule of 19 is all that was given. Other useful information like 4-card or 5-card majors is not included.

Not vulnerable I often play a style in third seat where a minimum balanced hand is frequently opened in a four-card major - even a poor suit. While I almost certainly wouldn't open your example shift a small spade to a minor or even hearts and it gets close enough to my minimum standard that I wouldn't consider it gross.

For example this would be in range and it meets the rule of 19 quoted in the opening post.

Jx
T9xx
KQJ
KJxx

+800 is a pipe dream. I just finished looking at 40 hands in detail and I didn't find one potential 800 and there were only two +500.

A double dummy analysis opposite a real (sound) 1♥ opening - 4 card majors weak NT - showed that +800 was available against 1NT around 2% and +500 around 20%.

However even those numbers are inflated as when those numbers were available against 1NT the opponents had a safer resting place at the two-level almost always. 90% of the time they could do better than -500 at the two-level in their best fit. 30% of the time that 1NT was -500 or worse they could actually make a contract at the two-level.

[campboy]

Cascade, on Mar 1 2010, 03:53 PM, said:

campboy, on Mar 2 2010, 02:54 AM, said:

In fact (going back and looking at the auction), I think it is ridiculous not to double 1NT. Partner knows you are a passed hand, and you are happy to hear him pull if he has rubbish, as you would still expect to make 2H.

Do you expect him to pull to a five card suit?

What about an ordinary 5-4?

If he has an ordinary 5-4 then he has at least 10 HCP according to the agreements given, so I don't mind my chances of defeating 1NT.

Anyway, I imagine bluejak's post talking about getting 500 or 800 was in reference to doubling 3NT, not 1NT.

[bluejak]

It is also due to the fact that I am not presuming partner is operating, which Cascade is. If you spend your bridge playing career trusting opponents and not partner, you will not be successful.

[Cascade]

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.

Perhaps you would like to assume a sounder opening style but on the other hand the opponent won't necessarily overcall with all 15s (nor maybe with some 16s) opposite a passed hand.

If there is even a minute chance that opener has less which is a normal 3rd seat opening style for some pairs then the numbers no doubt will be much worse for doubling. And this is with a ten count that will almost certainly prove useful to partner if your side declares and on defense if you do 'catch' them.

[cherdanno]

I can't believe anyone would not double 1NT with the West hand. You may have 500, and you are describing your hand very well (maximum pass, balanced). I can only see an upside to doubling.

[jdonn]

FWIW it is WAY more suspicious to not double 1NT (when it's not that risky and shows your hand) than it is to not double 3NT (by that point the auction makes no sense and you can't be forced to assume the opponents are insane).

[Siegmund]

Yes, it's mostly the not doubling 1NT that feels strange.

It feels red to me - and its just about the ONLY red psych I've ever seen posted in one of these EBU threads, in which all sorts of ordinary regular psychs get punished.

[bluejak]

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.

[Siegmund]

Quote

Because you assume partner is operating, not the opponent, and that's illegal.

Eh?

It's illegal to make use of knowledge about your partner's psyching tendencies that your opponents don't have access to, yes.
But it's certainly possible to know that an opponent has never psyched in his life (about half the players at my home club are on that list!) and conclude, completely legally, that IF anyone is operating, it must be partner. It's also certainly possible to have an auction occur which makes it clear to all that SOMEone at the table MUST be operating (or misbidding or very badly misevaluating his hand.) In such a case you have to make a judgment about who is most likely to be operating -- and there's nothing illegal about judging partner is more likely to be operating than your opponent, if that's what the AI indicates.

On this particular hand, I think that on the 1st round, the failure to double is strange and caters to the possibility that 3rd hand psyched - while on the 2nd round, the bidding has made it abundantly clear that either 3rd hand psyched or NS are having a bidding accident (e.g. long weak clubs for the 3C bidder), and I can legally judge how likely I think those two possibilities are.

If West doubled 1NT but passed 3NT this would be 110% green IMO.

It doesn't look to me like Cascade assumed anybody was operating at all - he said that if East and South BOTH had the legal minimum for their bid, he wasn't convinced double was a winning move. That's a view, a minority view, but I think he spelled it out pretty clearly.

[bluejak]

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.

[aguahombre]

Blue, I agree with everything you have (tried to have) said. Just a question: when should partner of the one who psyched have done something so that he wouldn't be "concealing" the knowledge? (If you mean not doubling 1NT is concealing, then my question is moot.)

[blackshoe]

bluejak, on Mar 1 2010, 08:47 PM, 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.

At my local club, there are one or two players who have a reputation for occasional psyches. The other 198 or so players never psych. I haven't partnered either of the two who do, but it sounds to me like you're saying that should I ever do so, and it becomes clear that somebody psyched, I'm not allowed to conclude it was partner. I don't buy it. Disclosure is a problem, particularly in NA, because we aren't supposed to put psyching tendencies on the SC anymore. I'm not sure how or if we are supposed to disclose them. Perhaps the rule is "if there's a psych, and the TD is called, he's gonna shoot somebody". Yuck.

Suppose everybody and his brother knows that partner may psych occasionally. Am I still in violation of the law if I don't mention at some point that I think he psyched?

This whole can of worms makes my head hurt.

[mjj29]

aguahombre, on Mar 1 2010, 09:02 PM, said:

Blue, I agree with everything you have (tried to have) said.  Just a question:  when should partner of the one who psyched have done something so that he wouldn't be "concealing" the knowledge? (If you mean not doubling 1NT is concealing, then my question is moot.)

If this were a two-level opening you could describe it as "6-10 points, 6 card suit, but occasionally he opens it a lot lighter in 3rd or with fewer cards", which would be a legal agreement. Unfortunately, it's not legal to have an agreement that a 1 level bid can be made on two kings and out, even in 3rd (minimum in the EBU is 8).

IMO, if you _do_ have a partner who psyches then should anything in the auction suggest that he might have done so you should treat this as UI and try to avoid selecting any LAs which are based on that UI. In this case, clearly doubling 1NT and 3NT are LAs. Pass may or may not be an LA, but it's certainly suggested by the fact that partner sometimes psyches, so you should double, to ensure there is no question of fielding.

I also think this is the approach the TD should use when ruling, but the EBU disagrees with me on this point.

[iviehoff]

blackshoe, on Mar 2 2010, 03:42 AM, said:

At my local club, there are one or two players who have a reputation for occasional psyches. The other 198 or so players never psych. I haven't partnered either of the two who do, but it sounds to me like you're saying that should I ever do so, and it becomes clear that somebody psyched, I'm not allowed to conclude it was partner. I don't buy it. Disclosure is a problem, particularly in NA, because we aren't supposed to put psyching tendencies on the SC anymore. I'm not sure how or if we are supposed to disclose them. Perhaps the rule is "if there's a psych, and the TD is called, he's gonna shoot somebody". Yuck.

Suppose everybody and his brother knows that partner may psych occasionally. Am I still in violation of the law if I don't mention at some point that I think he psyched?

This whole can of worms makes my head hurt.

Law 40C1: "A player may deviate from his side’s announced understandings always
provided that his partner has no more reason to be aware of the deviation than have the opponents."

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. So I don't think you are allowed to make use of that information. It is of course always possible that today is the day that one of your opponents has decided to psyche for the first time, or in fact you were unaware of the fact that actually he does occasionally psyche.

A psyche ceases to be a psyche when it becomes a disclosed agreement. So disclosing psyching tendencies can be a contradiction. An agreement that you occasionally make a call with a totally different hand may well not be a legal agreement.

[blackshoe]

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.

As to the rest of what you said, ivie, I know all that — intellectually, at least. But there I am at the table, the auction has gone wonkie, I'm convinced it's my partner who has psyched, and... what? I'm supposed to carefully avoid taking what may be the only action that prevents us getting a bottom, on the assumption that if I do anything at all that seems to help our situation, the TD will rule against us? Will partner ever play with me again? Besides, if the situation does come up, it's gonna take me about thirty minutes to figure out which of my possible actions might be "fielding", so I can avoid them — and now I've put partner in a bind.

The other side of the coin is that those who don't understand this whole psyching thing are likely to feel cheated if someone psychs against them, playing with a regular partner, and the psyching side gets a good result. Call the director every time? Sure, that'll go over well.

Either psyching is legal, or it's not. Making it damn near impossible for the partner of a player who psychs to avoid an adverse ruling seems to me tantamount to making psyching illegal. Some people are quite happy with that, I suppose.