BBO joke

[Player]

What a joke some of the BBO tourneys are. Mps. You are nv vs vul and hold
Xx xxx QJx Axxxx. Partner opens 1c and next hand doubles. Your bid?
I think 1s is obvious. Next hand passes and pd bids 1nt. The doubler passes as do you.
Pd misplays the hand to make 1nt - best declarer play will see you go -1. That shows you the quality of the defence.
This should be a great score as the opps are cold for 2s. However after dummy tracks, your rho who claims to be an expert, bleats for the director. At the end of the hand the director awards both pairs an avg.
Note that there is nothing, nada, zilch about no psyches allowed in the tourney rules. When I point this out to the director, he threatens to blacklist me. What a joke online bridge is.

[Player]

I forgot to mention that the "eggspurt" opponent wanted me to alert the psyche. Roflmao.

[jogs]

Post by Player
I forgot to mention that the "eggspurt" opponent wanted me to alert the psyche. Roflmao.

I agree with your "eggspurt" opponent. If you and your partner both agree that this is an obvious psyche, then it is part of your system. And it is an alert.

[Player]

Stupid comment. How can you alert a psy he Jogs. 1s - oh opp that is a psyche, I don't really have spades. Anyway it was a random pickup.
Yes they do issue masterpoints Lorne. I will take your advice.

[jogs]

Post by Player
Stupid comment. How can you alert a psy he Jogs. 1s - oh opp that is a psyche, I don't really have spades. Anyway it was a random pickup.
Yes they do issue masterpoints Lorne. I will take your advice.

Any comment which disagrees with your position is a stupid comment.
The director who chastised you is incompetent? Maybe you are not playing by the rules.

So what do you bid with AKxxx, xxx, xxx, xx in this auction?

[Player]

Post by jogs

Post by Player
Stupid comment. How can you alert a psy he Jogs. 1s - oh opp that is a psyche, I don't really have spades. Anyway it was a random pickup.
Yes they do issue masterpoints Lorne. I will take your advice.

Any comment which disagrees with your position is a stupid comment.
The director who chastised you is incompetent? Maybe you are not playing by the rules.
So what do you bid with AKxxx, xxx, xxx, xx in this auction?

I bid 1S with that hand. So what does this have to do with the price of fish in the Sahara? How can you self-alert a psyche? Sheesh!

[Will in New Haven]

Post by jogs

Post by Player
I forgot to mention that the "eggspurt" opponent wanted me to alert the psyche. Roflmao.

I agree with your "eggspurt" opponent. If you and your partner both agree that this is an obvious psyche, then it is part of your system. And it is an alert.

There is a hole in your thinking here. If he psyched a bid like this _often_ enough with this partner (although this is a pickup partner, which renders your comment somewhat foolish) and they were playing in a game with the partner of the bidder alerting, I would think partner possibly should alert and say "may be a psyche,"

However, the bidder himself or herself alerts in online games. Should he alert and say "I sometimes (often or whatever) psyche this bid. Should he say "I just psyched." I just don't see it.

[Lorne Anderson]

Post by Will in New Haven
I would think partner
possibly should alert and say "may be a psyche,"

Where I live it is illegal to have an agreement to psyche - it has to be
a surprise to partner or you get heavily penalised.

[Will in New Haven]

Post by Lorne Anderson

Post by Will in New Haven
I would think partner
possibly should alert and say "may be a psyche,"

Where I live it is illegal to have an agreement to psyche - it has to be
a surprise to partner or you get heavily penalised.

It was a pickup partnership in this case. I do not think that the general bridge idea that one might psyche in this situation constitutes an agreement. Unless there is an agreement never to raise Spades, which would be grossly illegal. I played 2H the other day and only took one trick. I stuck a 2H bid in the middle of their auction and neither could double because a double would have been for takeout. I played my 1-2 fit and the opponents laughed about it afterward. My partner did not raise with her doubleton and no values. Who should have alerted?

--
Will now in Pompano Beach

[Barry Margolin]

Post by Lorne Anderson

Post by Will in New Haven
I would think partner
possibly should alert and say "may be a psyche,"

Where I live it is illegal to have an agreement to psyche - it has to be
a surprise to partner or you get heavily penalised.

That's essentially the definition of a psyche. It's a deviation from
agreements, so if you have an agreement then it can't be a psyche. Then
you have to determine if the agreement itself is legal according to
local convention regulations -- if it is, you presumably have to alert
it, if not you aren't allowed to have that agreement.

[Dave Flower]

Post by Barry Margolin

Post by Lorne Anderson

Post by Will in New Haven
I would think partner
possibly should alert and say "may be a psyche,"

Where I live it is illegal to have an agreement to psyche - it has to be
a surprise to partner or you get heavily penalised.

That's essentially the definition of a psyche. It's a deviation from
agreements, so if you have an agreement then it can't be a psyche. Then
you have to determine if the agreement itself is legal according to
local convention regulations -- if it is, you presumably have to alert
it, if not you aren't allowed to have that agreement.
--
Barry Margolin
Arlington, MA

But if you know that partner has a record of making a particular psyche, then it becomes an implicit agreement, and should be alerted.

Dave Flower

[[e-mail]]

Post by Dave Flower

Post by Barry Margolin

Post by Lorne Anderson

Post by Will in New Haven
I would think partner
possibly should alert and say "may be a psyche,"

Where I live it is illegal to have an agreement to psyche - it has to be
a surprise to partner or you get heavily penalised.

That's essentially the definition of a psyche. It's a deviation from
agreements, so if you have an agreement then it can't be a psyche. Then
you have to determine if the agreement itself is legal according to
local convention regulations -- if it is, you presumably have to alert
it, if not you aren't allowed to have that agreement.
--
Barry Margolin
Arlington, MA

But if you know that partner has a record of making a particular psyche, then it becomes an implicit agreement, and should be alerted.
Dave Flower

That particular psych, short suit over takeout double, used to be common.

Apparently, it is no longer, since the bridge public seems to play (1C) - Dbl - (1S) - Dbl as takeout. This has no published advocacy, but somehow it became default. An ACBL director informed me that not only did it not need to be on th3e convention card, but I had no right to ask at the beginning of the round what the partnership would mean by that double. (I'm sure that's contrary to Law, but ...)

Carl

[Kenny McCormack]

In article <e9a50c35-687e-430d-9019-***@googlegroups.com>,
***@verizon.net <***@gmail.com> wrote:
...

Post by ***@verizon.net
Apparently, it is no longer, since the bridge public seems to play (1C) -
Dbl - (1S) - Dbl as takeout.

I don't understand this. Wouldn't it scan better if you had said "bridge
public seems to play ... as *penalty*" ?

Which, in fact, I think it always has been.

Post by ***@verizon.net
This has no published advocacy, but somehow it became default. An ACBL
director informed me that not only did it not need to be on th3e
convention card, but I had no right to ask at the beginning of the round
what the partnership would mean by that double. (I'm sure that's contrary
to Law, but ...)

[Will in New Haven]

Post by Kenny McCormack
...

Post by ***@verizon.net
Apparently, it is no longer, since the bridge public seems to play (1C) -
Dbl - (1S) - Dbl as takeout.

I don't understand this. Wouldn't it scan better if you had said "bridge
public seems to play ... as *penalty*" ?
Which, in fact, I think it always has been.

It might scan better but it is not how it is usually played these days. Why this impacts how often one might psyche 1S is a different question. I think it makes psyching _more_ attractive. I play that double as penalty and was told that we should alert it. So takeout must be awfully common.

[Kenny McCormack]

Post by Will in New Haven

Post by Kenny McCormack
...

Post by ***@verizon.net
Apparently, it is no longer, since the bridge public seems to play (1C) -
Dbl - (1S) - Dbl as takeout.

I don't understand this. Wouldn't it scan better if you had said "bridge
public seems to play ... as *penalty*" ?
Which, in fact, I think it always has been.

It might scan better but it is not how it is usually played these days. Why this
impacts how often one might psyche 1S is a different question. I think it makes
psyching _more_ attractive. I play that double as penalty and was told that we
should alert it. So takeout must be awfully common.

I think we are saying the same thing - which is that a tendency to play it
as takeout makes the psyche more attractive. But PP seemed to arguing the
contrary - that the psyche was becoming less common now that people are
playing it as takeout. This position seems counter-intuitive to me (and,
I'm guessing, to you as well).

[[e-mail]]

Post by Kenny McCormack

Post by Will in New Haven

Post by Kenny McCormack
...

Post by ***@verizon.net
Apparently, it is no longer, since the bridge public seems to play (1C) -
Dbl - (1S) - Dbl as takeout.

I don't understand this. Wouldn't it scan better if you had said "bridge
public seems to play ... as *penalty*" ?
Which, in fact, I think it always has been.

It might scan better but it is not how it is usually played these days. Why this
impacts how often one might psyche 1S is a different question. I think it makes
psyching _more_ attractive. I play that double as penalty and was told that we
should alert it. So takeout must be awfully common.

I think we are saying the same thing - which is that a tendency to play it
as takeout makes the psyche more attractive. But PP seemed to arguing the
contrary - that the psyche was becoming less common now that people are
playing it as takeout. This position seems counter-intuitive to me (and,
I'm guessing, to you as well).
--
"Only a genius could lose a billion dollars running a casino."
"You know what they say: the house always loses."
"When life gives you lemons, don't pay taxes."
"Grab 'em by the p***y!"

No. People are playing it as takeout, because they do not fear having their suit stolen.

Notice that bidding 1S with 5432, allegedly non-psychic, is even more effective in suit-stealing.

Carl

[Player]

Post by ***@verizon.net

Post by Kenny McCormack

Post by Will in New Haven

Post by Kenny McCormack
...

Post by ***@verizon.net
Apparently, it is no longer, since the bridge public seems to play (1C) -
Dbl - (1S) - Dbl as takeout.

I don't understand this. Wouldn't it scan better if you had said "bridge
public seems to play ... as *penalty*" ?
Which, in fact, I think it always has been.

It might scan better but it is not how it is usually played these days. Why this
impacts how often one might psyche 1S is a different question. I think it makes
psyching _more_ attractive. I play that double as penalty and was told that we
should alert it. So takeout must be awfully common.

I think we are saying the same thing - which is that a tendency to play it
as takeout makes the psyche more attractive. But PP seemed to arguing the
contrary - that the psyche was becoming less common now that people are
playing it as takeout. This position seems counter-intuitive to me (and,
I'm guessing, to you as well).
--
"Only a genius could lose a billion dollars running a casino."
"You know what they say: the house always loses."
"When life gives you lemons, don't pay taxes."
"Grab 'em by the p***y!"

No. People are playing it as takeout, because they do not fear having their suit stolen.
Notice that bidding 1S with 5432, allegedly non-psychic, is even more effective in suit-stealing.
Carl

We have a similar agreement to Carl's. x of (1M) shows 5 poor or 4 in the suit. With a decent 5 we bid 2M as we place trust in partner's x rather than the opp's bidding.

[[e-mail]]

Post by Will in New Haven

Post by Kenny McCormack
...

Post by ***@verizon.net
Apparently, it is no longer, since the bridge public seems to play (1C) -
Dbl - (1S) - Dbl as takeout.

I don't understand this. Wouldn't it scan better if you had said "bridge
public seems to play ... as *penalty*" ?
Which, in fact, I think it always has been.

It might scan better but it is not how it is usually played these days. Why this impacts how often one might psyche 1S is a different question. I think it makes psyching _more_ attractive. I play that double as penalty and was told that we should alert it. So takeout must be awfully common.
--
Will now in Pompano Beach

Except, of course, in all publications and polls. But as always, I protest the adjective "penalty." It just shows 4+ in suit. It does *not* suggest that defending 1Sx is in partnership's best interest.

Carl

[jogs]

Post by ***@verizon.net

Post by Will in New Haven
O

Post by Kenny McCormack

Post by ***@verizon.net
Apparently, it is no longer, since the bridge public seems to play (1C) -
Dbl - (1S) - Dbl as takeout.

I don't understand this. Wouldn't it scan better if you had said "bridge
public seems to play ... as *penalty*" ?
Which, in fact, I think it always has been.

It might scan better but it is not how it is usually played these days. Why this impacts how often one might psyche 1S is a different question. I think it makes psyching _more_ attractive. I play that double as penalty and was told that we should alert it. So takeout must be awfully common.
--
Will now in Pompano Beach

Except, of course, in all publications and polls. But as always, I protest the adjective "penalty." It just shows 4+ in suit. It does *not* suggest that defending 1Sx is in partnership's best interest.
Carl

I like I would have willingly made that bid if opponent had not made the bid before me. It does suggest defending, but does not demand it.

[Will in New Haven]

Post by ***@verizon.net

Post by Will in New Haven

Post by Kenny McCormack
...

Post by ***@verizon.net
Apparently, it is no longer, since the bridge public seems to play (1C) -
Dbl - (1S) - Dbl as takeout.

I don't understand this. Wouldn't it scan better if you had said "bridge
public seems to play ... as *penalty*" ?
Which, in fact, I think it always has been.

It might scan better but it is not how it is usually played these days. Why this impacts how often one might psyche 1S is a different question. I think it makes psyching _more_ attractive. I play that double as penalty and was told that we should alert it. So takeout must be awfully common.
--
Will now in Pompano Beach

Except, of course, in all publications and polls. But as always, I protest the adjective "penalty." It just shows 4+ in suit. It does *not* suggest that defending 1Sx is in partnership's best interest.

Of course, it _does_ suggest that. It doesn't _demand_ it but it does suggest it. You have personally defined the penalty double out of existence but most people have not.

[[e-mail]]

Post by Will in New Haven

Post by ***@verizon.net

Post by Will in New Haven

Post by Kenny McCormack
...

Post by ***@verizon.net
Apparently, it is no longer, since the bridge public seems to play (1C) -
Dbl - (1S) - Dbl as takeout.

I don't understand this. Wouldn't it scan better if you had said "bridge
public seems to play ... as *penalty*" ?
Which, in fact, I think it always has been.

It might scan better but it is not how it is usually played these days. Why this impacts how often one might psyche 1S is a different question. I think it makes psyching _more_ attractive. I play that double as penalty and was told that we should alert it. So takeout must be awfully common.
--
Will now in Pompano Beach

Except, of course, in all publications and polls. But as always, I protest the adjective "penalty." It just shows 4+ in suit. It does *not* suggest that defending 1Sx is in partnership's best interest.

Of course, it _does_ suggest that. It doesn't _demand_ it but it does suggest it. You have personally defined the penalty double out of existence but most people have not.
--
Will in New Haven
All change for round nine; slow pairs please go home.

No. Not in the sense that the S J Simon double at the 2-level suggests "this may be our last chance for a plus score."

The double does of (1C) - Dbl - (1S) - ? does not, and cannot, say "In my opinion we should defend." It says "that may be our suit, do what you think best."

That is, it states a fact. It does not express an opinion.

Carl

[jogs]

Post by ***@verizon.net
The double does of (1C) - Dbl - (1S) - ? does not, and cannot, say "In my opinion we should defend." It says "that may be our suit, do what you think best."
That is, it states a fact. It does not express an opinion.
Carl

It always comes back to our tricks.

E(tricks) = trumps + (HCP-20)/3

The double implies 3+ spades. If intervenor has only one spade and was planning to double first and bid hearts later, he would still bid hearts rather than pass. It is a matter of semantics, advancer has expressed an opinion to defend if intervenor has a 'normal' takeout double.

[[e-mail]]

Post by jogs

Post by ***@verizon.net
The double does of (1C) - Dbl - (1S) - ? does not, and cannot, say "In my opinion we should defend." It says "that may be our suit, do what you think best."
That is, it states a fact. It does not express an opinion.
Carl

It always comes back to our tricks.
E(tricks) = trumps + (HCP-20)/3
The double implies 3+ spades. If intervenor has only one spade and was planning to double first and bid hearts later, he would still bid hearts rather than pass. It is a matter of semantics, advancer has expressed an opinion to defend if intervenor has a 'normal' takeout double.

No. 4+ spades. 3+ invites insanity. You have to know whether to declare spades after they run.

The purpose of the double is to retain the option of declaring the suit.

Carl

[Will in New Haven]

Post by ***@verizon.net

Post by jogs

Post by ***@verizon.net
The double does of (1C) - Dbl - (1S) - ? does not, and cannot, say "In my opinion we should defend." It says "that may be our suit, do what you think best."
That is, it states a fact. It does not express an opinion.
Carl

It always comes back to our tricks.
E(tricks) = trumps + (HCP-20)/3
The double implies 3+ spades. If intervenor has only one spade and was planning to double first and bid hearts later, he would still bid hearts rather than pass. It is a matter of semantics, advancer has expressed an opinion to defend if intervenor has a 'normal' takeout double.

No. 4+ spades. 3+ invites insanity. You have to know whether to declare spades after they run.
The purpose of the double is to retain the option of declaring the suit.

The last time this came up at the table, I was in fourth chair with 4-1-3-5 shape and very strong Clubs. The purpose of my double was that the auction not go (1C) Dbl (1S) all pass. Now lots of people play the 1S bid by responder over a double as forcing and others rarely pass it anyway but that auction was possible. I would have been _delighted to defend 1SX but I was even happier to defend 3CX when they had an accident in the auction. Defending 2CX would have been fine also. As long as partner had a fairly normal takeout double, I was looking for a _penalty_

[jogs]

Post by ***@verizon.net

Post by jogs

Post by ***@verizon.net
The double does of (1C) - Dbl - (1S) - ? does not, and cannot, say "In my opinion we should defend." It says "that may be our suit, do what you think best."
That is, it states a fact. It does not express an opinion.
Carl

It always comes back to our tricks.
E(tricks) = trumps + (HCP-20)/3
The double implies 3+ spades. If intervenor has only one spade and was planning to double first and bid hearts later, he would still bid hearts rather than pass. It is a matter of semantics, advancer has expressed an opinion to defend if intervenor has a 'normal' takeout double.

No. 4+ spades. 3+ invites insanity. You have to know whether to declare spades after they run.
The purpose of the double is to retain the option of declaring the suit.
Carl

The original double by intervenor implies 3+ spades.
The second double by advancer shows 4+ spades.

[Fred.]

Post by ***@verizon.net

Post by Will in New Haven

Post by Kenny McCormack
...

Post by ***@verizon.net
Apparently, it is no longer, since the bridge public seems to play (1C) -
Dbl - (1S) - Dbl as takeout.

I don't understand this. Wouldn't it scan better if you had said "bridge
public seems to play ... as *penalty*" ?
Which, in fact, I think it always has been.

It might scan better but it is not how it is usually played these days. Why this impacts how often one might psyche 1S is a different question. I think it makes psyching _more_ attractive. I play that double as penalty and was told that we should alert it. So takeout must be awfully common.
--
Will now in Pompano Beach

Except, of course, in all publications and polls. But as always, I protest the adjective "penalty." It just shows 4+ in suit. It does *not* suggest that defending 1Sx is in partnership's best interest.
Carl

Intervener's double leads to contracting to take 7+ tricks in
spades if advancer has four spades. How on earth could
advancer's double showing four spades fail to suggest
defending 1S? Intervener is not, of course, required to
accept the suggestion. All doubles are optional. Some doubles,
particularly those at a low level, are more optional than others.
"Penalty", "optional", "takeout" describe bias, not absolutes.

Fred.

[Robert Chance]

Post by ***@verizon.net
That particular psych, short suit over takeout double, used to be common.
Apparently, it is no longer, since the bridge public seems to play (1C) - Dbl - (1S) - Dbl as takeout.

This type of psyche is only likely to be effective against opponents who play the second double as take-out.

If you psyche 1S here and LHO has spades and can double for penalty, then your psyche is immediately exposed. If LHO does not have spades, partner is likely to have four of them and will raise you in spades. Suppose partner raises you to 3S - you are in some trouble unless opponents make the mistake of doubling.

Opponents are only likely to be in trouble if LHO has spades and is unable to make a penalty double.

[Barry Margolin]

Post by Dave Flower

Post by Barry Margolin

Post by Lorne Anderson

Post by Will in New Haven
I would think partner
possibly should alert and say "may be a psyche,"

Where I live it is illegal to have an agreement to psyche - it has to be
a surprise to partner or you get heavily penalised.

That's essentially the definition of a psyche. It's a deviation from
agreements, so if you have an agreement then it can't be a psyche. Then
you have to determine if the agreement itself is legal according to
local convention regulations -- if it is, you presumably have to alert
it, if not you aren't allowed to have that agreement.
--
Barry Margolin
Arlington, MA

But if you know that partner has a record of making a particular psyche, then
it becomes an implicit agreement, and should be alerted.

But if it's an illegal agreement, you can't have it in the first place.
So you have to stop making that psyche once you do it enough that
partner might suspect it.

Either way, he can't alert it. If he alerts it, the opponents can call
the TD and complain that you're playing an illegal agreement.

[Ronald]

Post by Dave Flower

Post by Barry Margolin

Post by Lorne Anderson

Post by Will in New Haven
I would think partner
possibly should alert and say "may be a psyche,"

Where I live it is illegal to have an agreement to psyche - it has to be
a surprise to partner or you get heavily penalised.

That's essentially the definition of a psyche. It's a deviation from
agreements, so if you have an agreement then it can't be a psyche. Then
you have to determine if the agreement itself is legal according to
local convention regulations -- if it is, you presumably have to alert
it, if not you aren't allowed to have that agreement.
--
Barry Margolin
Arlington, MA

But if you know that partner has a record of making a particular psyche,
then it becomes an implicit agreement, and should be alerted.
Dave Flower

In 3rd hand I have 2 hcp. After 2 passes I know opps have at least game.
Usually I do "something" to make life difficult for opps. This something
could be a psyche if I don't happen to have a long suit. This I call "just
good bridge". My partner knows that I play "good bridge" (at least every
once in a while). Is this an implicit agreement? Should we alert a 3rd
hand opening as "either 0-5 or 10-18"? Should we stop playing "good
bridge"? Of course pard will expect 10-18 and bid accordingly until the
bidding (including opps) suggest otherwise.

[Charles Brenner]

Post by Ronald

Post by Dave Flower

Post by Barry Margolin

Post by Lorne Anderson

Post by Will in New Haven
I would think partner
possibly should alert and say "may be a psyche,"

Where I live it is illegal to have an agreement to psyche - it has to be
a surprise to partner or you get heavily penalised.

That's essentially the definition of a psyche. It's a deviation from
agreements, so if you have an agreement then it can't be a psyche. Then
you have to determine if the agreement itself is legal according to
local convention regulations -- if it is, you presumably have to alert
it, if not you aren't allowed to have that agreement.
--
Barry Margolin
Arlington, MA

But if you know that partner has a record of making a particular psyche,
then it becomes an implicit agreement, and should be alerted.
Dave Flower

In 3rd hand I have 2 hcp. After 2 passes I know opps have at least game.
Usually I do "something" to make life difficult for opps. This something
could be a psyche if I don't happen to have a long suit. This I call "just
good bridge". My partner knows that I play "good bridge" (at least every
once in a while). Is this an implicit agreement? Should we alert a 3rd
hand opening as "either 0-5 or 10-18"?

Yes. You call it "good bridge", but others may reasonably have a different idea even if you are right. The opponents are entitled to know what you think.

And I wonder. Suppose you open in 4th chair, end up declaring, and eventually your line of play depends on which opponent holds the !CK. RHO so far is known to have short clubs and 4HCP outside of clubs. Do you really bank on the assumption that RHO must have the !CK because with less good bridge demands 3rd seat opening?

[Ronald]

Post by Charles Brenner

Post by Ronald

Post by Dave Flower
But if you know that partner has a record of making a particular
psyche, then it becomes an implicit agreement, and should be alerted.
Dave Flower

In 3rd hand I have 2 hcp. After 2 passes I know opps have at least game.
Usually I do "something" to make life difficult for opps. This something
could be a psyche if I don't happen to have a long suit. This I call
"just good bridge". My partner knows that I play "good bridge" (at least
every once in a while). Is this an implicit agreement? Should we alert
a 3rd hand opening as "either 0-5 or 10-18"?

Yes. You call it "good bridge", but others may reasonably have a
different idea even if you are right. The opponents are entitled to know what you think.
And I wonder. Suppose you open in 4th chair, end up declaring, and
eventually your line of play depends on which opponent holds the !CK. RHO
so far is known to have short clubs and 4HCP outside of clubs. Do you
really bank on the assumption that RHO must have the !CK because with
less good bridge demands 3rd seat opening?

I wrote "usually" not "always", but yes, if RHO is a good player, that
would be part of my considerations.

[Player]

Non vulnerable 3rd seat openings are anything goes and that is expert standard these days.

[KWSchneider]

Post by Player
Non vulnerable 3rd seat openings are anything goes and that is expert standard these days.

Agreed - subject to the local laws. For example, you couldn't open 1suit on 7pts in the ACBL unless you had essentially never done it before, allowing it to be considered a psyche. I generally avoid this by opening 2suit with any weak hand where a lead is useful, especially in spades. For example NV - AQTx x xxxxx xxx is a 2S opening in 3rd seat. There is no ACBL Law that says a 2opening needs 5+cards (a 4card opening is a 'treatment', hence alertable but not unlawful), it just denies our ability to use conventional responses.

Does it backfire? Only when I'm in deep trouble and 2nd seat is willing to reopen with a double after 4th seat passes in tempo. However, this is rare - if I'm a few spades short and if partner hasn't got them (otherwise saving me), 2nd hand likely has 3+.

Kurt

[jogs]

Post by KWSchneider

Post by Player
Non vulnerable 3rd seat openings are anything goes and that is expert standard these days.

Agreed - subject to the local laws. For example, you couldn't open 1suit on 7pts in the ACBL unless you had essentially never done it before,

There's no way to police this. Does every pair call the director when opponents do something strange? Is there a master file on these instances?
Some of these ACBL laws makes no sense to me. Also the value of a hand should not be based solely on HCPs. Pattern counts. Length in one or two suits should be used to determine when and how high to bid.

[KWSchneider]

Post by jogs

Post by KWSchneider

Post by Player
Non vulnerable 3rd seat openings are anything goes and that is expert standard these days.

Agreed - subject to the local laws. For example, you couldn't open 1suit on 7pts in the ACBL unless you had essentially never done it before,

There's no way to police this. Does every pair call the director when opponents do something strange? Is there a master file on these instances?
Some of these ACBL laws makes no sense to me. Also the value of a hand should not be based solely on HCPs. Pattern counts. Length in one or two suits should be used to determine when and how high to bid.

Very easy to police. If 3rd hand opens 1suit on 7 points in the ACBL, it should be registered as a psyche and thereafter will be illegal for that pair. If we just naturally assume that "everything is unpoliceable" we would have a wild west of bidding.

ACBL Laws ARE senseless in many respects. For example a 2m response to a 1M opening can be made on 3+cards without an alert, since it was deemed that a minor suit is natural on 3cards. Nonetheless, we have to obey them.

Kurt

[jogs]

Post by KWSchneider

Post by jogs

Post by KWSchneider
Agreed - subject to the local laws. For example, you couldn't open 1suit on 7pts in the ACBL unless you had essentially never done it before,

There's no way to police this. Does every pair call the director when opponents do something strange? Is there a master file on these instances?
Some of these ACBL laws makes no sense to me. Also the value of a hand should not be based solely on HCPs. Pattern counts. Length in one or two suits should be used to determine when and how high to bid.

Very easy to police. If 3rd hand opens 1suit on 7 points in the ACBL, it should be registered as a psyche and thereafter will be illegal for that pair. If we just naturally assume that "everything is unpoliceable" we would have a wild west of bidding.

Vul: none. I opened a 6 HCP hand in 1st seat.
Kxxxx, Kxxxxx, x, x
Opened 1S.
1S - X - 3S - X
all pass

Partner had
QJxx, x, Qxxx, xxxx

Hearts were 3-3. 3SX rolled.
Opponents were not pleased. Yet they did not call the director.

Please don't tell me directors have any clue what pairs have done in the past!!!

[Fred.]

Post by Will in New Haven

Post by jogs

Post by Player
I forgot to mention that the "eggspurt" opponent wanted me to alert the psyche. Roflmao.

I agree with your "eggspurt" opponent. If you and your partner both agree that this is an obvious psyche, then it is part of your system. And it is an alert.

There is a hole in your thinking here. If he psyched a bid like this _often_ enough with this partner (although this is a pickup partner, which renders your comment somewhat foolish) and they were playing in a game with the partner of the bidder alerting, I would think partner possibly should alert and say "may be a psyche,"
However, the bidder himself or herself alerts in online games. Should he alert and say "I sometimes (often or whatever) psyche this bid. Should he say "I just psyched." I just don't see it.
--
Will now in Pompano Beach
"Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings"
Robert Hunter (Eyes of the World) The Grateful Dead

Law 40C1 reads: "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*. Repeated
deviations lead to implicit understandings, which then form part of the
partnership’s methods and must be disclosed in accordance with the
regulations governing disclosure of system." (* bold mine).

My own sense is that once the call becomes an implicit understanding
and part of partnerships methods, it is no longer a psyche and not
only must be disclosed, but comes under any restrictions on methods
imposed by the regulating authority.

Thus, the first time 1H (P) 1S occurs as a baby psyche it is lawful.
After some number of such calls in the partnership 1S is no longer a psyche,
but systemic, and must be announced in the manner required by the RA.
Thus, also, the call is lawful only if the RA permits a 1S response showing
either a spade suit or a spade shortage and strong heart support.

Fred.

[Steve Willner]

If he psyched a bid like this _often_ enough with this partner...

Then partner should alert, and if asked, give as good an account as
possible of partnership experience.

However, the bidder himself or herself alerts in online games.

And behind screens.

Should he alert

If there's enough experience that he would expect partner to alert, yes.
Maybe even if there's not quite so much experience. In general, alert
regulations require more alerting behind screens, but as always with
alerts, it depends on the exact regulations in force.

and say "I sometimes (often or whatever) psyche this bid.

He should give exactly the account of partnership history he would
expect partner to give if partner were the one explaining. This is
regardless of whether he has psyched this time or not.

Should he say "I just psyched."

No, that would be silly.

The general principle is that you need to explain "partnership
understandings," no matter how they were arrived at, but you should not
say anything about the hand you were dealt.

It was a pickup partnership in this case. I do not think that the
general bridge idea that one might psyche in this situation
constitutes an agreement.

I agree.

Unless there is an agreement never to raise Spades, which would be
grossly illegal.

Why would it be illegal? Of course any implications for the initial 1S
bid should be included in the explanation of that bid. Probably
opener's rebids would become alertable because they wouldn't deny spade
support, and full explanations should be given if asked.

Having any agreement _and hiding it_ is grossly illegal. I hope we all
agree on that.

... the definition of a psyche. It's a deviation from agreements, so
if you have an agreement then it can't be a psyche.

Exactly.

Then you have to determine if the agreement itself is legal
according to local convention regulations -- if it is, you presumably
have to alert it, if not you aren't allowed to have that agreement.

I agree with the essence of this. My quibble would be that alerting
depends on the regulations. In most jurisdictions, most "apparent
psychs" are likely alertable, but some of them might not be. As an
extreme example, some jurisdictions might not require alerting at all.

But if it's an illegal agreement, you can't have it in the first
place. So you have to stop making that psyche once you do it enough
that partner might suspect it.

Indeed. Of course the "baby psych" that started this thread would be a
legal agreement to have in the ACBL and I expect most other
jurisdictions. It would be alertable in the ACBL, but you could play
any followup methods you wanted. Agreeing to open at the one level on a
2-count would be an example that would be illegal in most jurisdictions,
in the ACBL for sure.

[Barry Margolin]

Post by Steve Willner

Then you have to determine if the agreement itself is legal
according to local convention regulations -- if it is, you presumably
have to alert it, if not you aren't allowed to have that agreement.

I agree with the essence of this. My quibble would be that alerting
depends on the regulations. In most jurisdictions, most "apparent
psychs" are likely alertable, but some of them might not be. As an
extreme example, some jurisdictions might not require alerting at all.

It's hard to imagine any of the meanings we're talking about not being
alertable in most jurisdictions. E.g. "1S is either natural or 0-3 HCP
with any hand shape".

Post by Steve Willner

But if it's an illegal agreement, you can't have it in the first
place. So you have to stop making that psyche once you do it enough
that partner might suspect it.

Indeed. Of course the "baby psych" that started this thread would be a
legal agreement to have in the ACBL and I expect most other
jurisdictions. It would be alertable in the ACBL, but you could play
any followup methods you wanted. Agreeing to open at the one level on a
2-count would be an example that would be illegal in most jurisdictions,
in the ACBL for sure.

I'm a little surprised, but I guess you're right. GCC Competitive 7a
says that any defense is allowed to a conventional call, and takeout
doubles are conventions. Although it also says that the explicit list in
the DISALLOWED section takes precedence, and the first one there is
"agreements whose primary purpose is to destroy the opponents' methods."
One might argue that bidding almost randomly when you have a worthless
hand is primarily intended to disrupt.

[Adam Lea]

Post by Player
What a joke some of the BBO tourneys are. Mps. You are nv vs vul and hold
Xx xxx QJx Axxxx. Partner opens 1c and next hand doubles. Your bid?
I think 1s is obvious.

I don't. I'd probably bid 3C as a pre-emptive raise.

Post by Player
Next hand passes and pd bids 1nt. The doubler passes as do you.
Pd misplays the hand to make 1nt - best declarer play will see you go -1. That shows you the quality of the defence.
This should be a great score as the opps are cold for 2s. However after dummy tracks, your rho who claims to be an expert, bleats for the director. At the end of the hand the director awards both pairs an avg.
Note that there is nothing, nada, zilch about no psyches allowed in the tourney rules. When I point this out to the director, he threatens to blacklist me. What a joke online bridge is.

Sounds like the "expert" is a sore loser, and the director is a prat
(with an oversized ego).

I've had (very rarely) comparably silly things happen at club bridge but
if that is typical of online bridge, I would question what the point is
of participating. Did the director and the "expert" belong to the same
online clique?

[Player]

3c is off two. I don't know whether they belonged to the same group. The eggspert was Swedish and the director Chinese.
Getting back to the hand, I think you are too soft for 3c.

[Adam Lea]

Post by Player
3c is off two. I don't know whether they belonged to the same group. The eggspert was Swedish and the director Chinese.
Getting back to the hand, I think you are too soft for 3c.

Yes it is a bit flat, I admit. Two off in 3C nv is good if the opps can
make 2M, unless they find a double (most players at the clubs I play at
wouldn't).

[Lorne Anderson]

Post by Player
What a joke some of the BBO tourneys are. Mps. You are nv vs vul and hold
Xx xxx QJx Axxxx. Partner opens 1c and next hand doubles. Your bid?
I think 1s is obvious. Next hand passes and pd bids 1nt. The doubler passes as do you.
Pd misplays the hand to make 1nt - best declarer play will see you go -1. That shows you the quality of the defence.
This should be a great score as the opps are cold for 2s. However after dummy tracks, your rho who claims to be an expert, bleats for the director. At the end of the hand the director awards both pairs an avg.
Note that there is nothing, nada, zilch about no psyches allowed in the tourney rules. When I point this out to the director, he threatens to blacklist me. What a joke online bridge is.

Do they issue masterpoints for this game ? If so report them to the
ACBL as it is illegal to issue master points if you do not follow the
basic rules of the game and the director here clearly is not following
the rules.

[KWSchneider]

Post by Player
What a joke some of the BBO tourneys are. Mps. You are nv vs vul and hold
Xx xxx QJx Axxxx. Partner opens 1c and next hand doubles. Your bid?
I think 1s is obvious. Next hand passes and pd bids 1nt. The doubler passes as do you.
Pd misplays the hand to make 1nt - best declarer play will see you go -1. That shows you the quality of the defence.
This should be a great score as the opps are cold for 2s. However after dummy tracks, your rho who claims to be an expert, bleats for the director. At the end of the hand the director awards both pairs an avg.
Note that there is nothing, nada, zilch about no psyches allowed in the tourney rules. When I point this out to the director, he threatens to blacklist me. What a joke online bridge is.

While I have no problem with your bid and wouldn't complain, let me play devil's advocate. In this situation (weakish hand, 5cd support for opener's minor, X on your right, shortness in a major), I suspect that you 'often' trot out a 1M bid in your short major. Furthermore, I would suspect that your partner (or any good bidder) would be able to field the psyche. As such, this would be an implied agreement, subject to an alert.

In fact, I would suggest that the bid is almost mandatory after 1m (X) when you have 5+m, 0-8HCP, 1-2M and expect partner to 'recognize' the psyche when you return to 3m after he raises to 2M.

Nonetheless, online bridge should be avoided unless you know all of the pairs involved.

Kurt

[KWSchneider]

Post by KWSchneider

Post by Player
What a joke some of the BBO tourneys are. Mps. You are nv vs vul and hold
Xx xxx QJx Axxxx. Partner opens 1c and next hand doubles. Your bid?
I think 1s is obvious. Next hand passes and pd bids 1nt. The doubler passes as do you.
Pd misplays the hand to make 1nt - best declarer play will see you go -1. That shows you the quality of the defence.
This should be a great score as the opps are cold for 2s. However after dummy tracks, your rho who claims to be an expert, bleats for the director. At the end of the hand the director awards both pairs an avg.
Note that there is nothing, nada, zilch about no psyches allowed in the tourney rules. When I point this out to the director, he threatens to blacklist me. What a joke online bridge is.

While I have no problem with your bid and wouldn't complain, let me play devil's advocate. In this situation (weakish hand, 5cd support for opener's minor, X on your right, shortness in a major), I suspect that you 'often' trot out a 1M bid in your short major. Furthermore, I would suspect that your partner (or any good bidder) would be able to field the psyche. As such, this would be an implied agreement, subject to an alert.
In fact, I would suggest that the bid is almost mandatory after 1m (X) when you have 5+m, 0-8HCP, 1-2M and expect partner to 'recognize' the psyche when you return to 3m after he raises to 2M.
Nonetheless, online bridge should be avoided unless you know all of the pairs involved.
Kurt

Posted before I read the litany of responses. The one issue that I didn't consider is the 'self alert' in online bridge. In that case, you would have to self alert: "either length or shortness".

Kurt

[peter cheung]

the problem is too many people claim to be an expert on bbo. very few claim expert in okbridge. experts in bbo means nothing.

[Kenny McCormack]

Post by peter cheung
the problem is too many people claim to be an expert on bbo. very few claim
expert in okbridge. experts in bbo means nothing.

"expert" in BBO terms means that it really has been at least a week since
you learned that "bridge" could refer to anything other than a structure
used to cross a river.

Part of the problem is that the official definition of the ranking system
is ridiculous. By the official definition(s), about 0.000000000000001% of
people on BBO qualify as "expert" and about that number squared qualify as
"world class". So, effectively, those ranks are unused. Reality is that
everyone on BBO is somewhere between 'beginner' and 'intermediate' (at
best), but the fact is that if you put that on your profile, nobody will
play with you.