I have a simple question - would the bid by East be considered a psychic bid?
Psychic Bid
#1
Posted 2021-July-27, 23:56
I have a simple question - would the bid by East be considered a psychic bid?
#2
Posted 2021-July-28, 00:12
It might be considered a bad bid, but that's a different question and would depend at least in part on East's experience level.
#3
Posted 2021-July-28, 01:17
#5
Posted 2021-July-28, 04:58
#6
Posted 2021-July-28, 05:15
Chris3875, on 2021-July-27, 23:56, said:
I have a simple question - would the bid by East be considered a psychic bid?
This question can not be asked without ascertaining the partnership's agreements.
FWIW, I wouldn't want to unilaterally bid 3!C with that hand.
Balancing is not completely unreasonable, however, I'd want to make a bid that showed both minors.
For me, this would be 2NT
#7
Posted 2021-July-28, 05:38
hrothgar, on 2021-July-28, 05:15, said:
FWIW, I wouldn't want to unilaterally bid 3!C with that hand.
Balancing is not completely unreasonable, however, I'd want to make a bid that showed both minors.
For me, this would be 2NT
I'm a bit surprised that North didn't take it to 3♠
#8
Posted 2021-July-28, 09:11
A psychic bid is a "gross and deliberate deviation from the partnership agreements". Partner will know we don't have 6 clubs or we would likely have done this the first time; so she will expect "cards, not enough to invite, not enough spades to double" (assuming double is penalty). That looks like what we have.
#10
Posted 2021-July-28, 19:24
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
#11
Posted 2021-July-28, 23:59
Chris3875, on 2021-July-28, 01:17, said:
"Any call that deliberately and grossly misstates either honor strength or suit length is by definition a psych."
I don't think a 3♣ bid by a passed hand, with 4 clubs and 6 points fits the definition of a psyche.
(still learning)
"At last: just calm down, this kind of disrupted boards happens every day in our bridge community. It will always be an inherent part of bridge until we move to a modern platform, and then will we have other hopefully less frequent issues." P Swennson
#12
Posted 2021-July-29, 00:43
jillybean, on 2021-July-28, 23:59, said:
This is a very common misunderstanding of the laws!
Law 40C said:
1.
A player may deviate from his side’s announced understandings, provided that his partner
has no more reason than the opponents to be aware of the deviation [but see B2(a)(v)
above]. 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. If the Director judges there is undisclosed knowledge that has
damaged the opponents he shall adjust the score and may assess a procedural penalty.
The important question is whether he has called like this before (making it a concealed partnership understanding rather than a psyche), not just how much the 3♣ deviates from their partnership understanding. And this question cannot be answered without analyzing the partnership history.
#13
Posted 2021-July-29, 08:12
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
#14
Posted 2021-July-29, 08:46
#15
Posted 2021-July-29, 08:54
blackshoe, on 2021-July-29, 08:12, said:
There are no fixed time limits here. Even only once before could in some situations be sufficient.
What is important is that the deviation must have been a surprise to his partner at least as great as it was to his opponents.
The Director must clarify the facts as best he can and satisfy himself that the caller's partner had no more reason than the opponents to be aware of the deviation.
If he finds that the partner in question quite possibly could have had more reason than his opponents to suspect the deviation he shall rule a concealed (implicit) partnership understanding.
#16
Posted 2021-July-29, 09:22
Obviously, this also depends on agreements, but as I said, this looks to be like "they don't play a happy 2♠ white at matchpoints when we have 21-23 HCP". Doesn't touch agreements at all, just judgement.
This strongly looks to me like "you made a bid I wouldn't have thought of making, it must be a psychic". That's a common reaction, and needs to be met (when it isn't psychic, of course) with education. We'd of course ask about agreements, but I bet we'll get "we don't have agreements on this auction, but partner knows I didn't transfer to clubs last round, so he'd obviously scramble if I caught xx".
#17
Posted 2021-July-29, 14:12
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
#18
Posted 2021-July-29, 14:20
blackshoe, on 2021-July-29, 14:12, said:
Exactly the same methods the Director uses for his inquiries in order to accurately assess the precise circumstances in other cases of irregularity?
#19
Posted 2021-July-29, 14:48
mycroft, on 2021-July-29, 09:22, said:
Obviously, this also depends on agreements, but as I said, this looks to be like "they don't play a happy 2♠ white at matchpoints when we have 21-23 HCP". Doesn't touch agreements at all, just judgement.
This strongly looks to me like "you made a bid I wouldn't have thought of making, it must be a psychic". That's a common reaction, and needs to be met (when it isn't psychic, of course) with education. We'd of course ask about agreements, but I bet we'll get "we don't have agreements on this auction, but partner knows I didn't transfer to clubs last round, so he'd obviously scramble if I caught xx".
I'm only partly convinced.
I have one partner (fortunately) who reasons "they don't play a happy 2♠ white at matchpoints when we have 21-23 HCP", but others who don't. Is that knowledge of their "judgement" not part of our agreements?
A partner who knows my "judgement" would also recognise that I could have a respectable club holding without having transferred last round.
#20
Posted 2021-July-29, 15:35
pran, on 2021-July-29, 00:43, said:
(My enhancements)
The important question is whether he has called like this before (making it a concealed partnership understanding rather than a psyche), not just how much the 3♣ deviates from their partnership understanding. And this question cannot be answered without analyzing the partnership history.
I somewhat, agree. My comment was in response to the OP calling the 3C bid a psyche.
(still learning)
"At last: just calm down, this kind of disrupted boards happens every day in our bridge community. It will always be an inherent part of bridge until we move to a modern platform, and then will we have other hopefully less frequent issues." P Swennson
++++++++++++++++++++
It depends on East-West agreements but assuming 3♣ is natural it doesn't appear to be a psych. A flight of fancy or a tactical bid but not a psych. Psychs are legal so, even if 3♣ were a psych, it wouldn't normally justify a director call