[dickiegera]

Opponents play a strong club of some nature.

They open 1 club alerted as 16+. They end up in 4 Hearts with opener as dummy.
Dummy has only 12 pts.

I called director and she ruled average+ for us and Average- for them.

ACBL rules stste that one is not allowed to psych artifical bids.

I am Ok with ruling except that maybe they should have been required to play board and see if we might have received a better score.
I believe we would have.

Comments
Thank you

[hrothgar]

dickiegera, on 2016-August-25, 15:18, said:

Opponents play a strong club of some nature.

They open 1 club alerted as 16+. They end up in 4 Hearts with opener as dummy.
Dummy has only 12 pts.

I called director and she ruled average+ for us and Average- for them.

ACBL rules stste that one is not allowed to psych artifical bids.

I am Ok with ruling except that maybe they should have been required to play board and see if we might have received a better score.
I believe we would have.

Comments
Thank you

ACBL rules allow you to open a strong 2♣ with a 12 count if you genuinely beleive this is the best description of the hand.

Why should a strong club be treated any differently?

[mycroft]

Well, there are issues, such as:

• you're not allowed to describe it as "16+ any, 17+ if BAL" and show up with 12, if you agree that that hand is a 1♣ opener (I guess we might give a pass to AQTxxxx AQTxx - x or xx AKQJT9xxxx - Qx, but Precision handles those hands Very Well Indeed outside the strong club framework);
  
• you're not allowed to psych a conventional forcing opening (so if 16+ *is* your agreement and the hand doesn't qualify, it doesn't matter if a different agreement would be legal);
  
• you can't use artificial, NGF responses if it doesn't promise 15.

But yes, I think "a strong hand" has the same caveats for 1♣ that it does for 2♣.

Remember, you can open 2♣ on "a strong hand" if you believe it to be strong, but you can't legally describe it as "22+", either (however, cue my rant about how it's effectively impossible *to* adequately describe a "we don't require defence for our strong 2♣, if bid on playing tricks" agreement).

If we rule the bid a psychic (which, remember, is a gross and deliberate misstatement of your *agreement*, whether or not an agreement that would have this not be a misstatement would be *legal*), then the traditional ruling in the ACBL is the same as any other "use of illegal system" ruling, which is "if there's damage, we adjust; if there's evidence that this was not a "lack of knowledge" issue, we issue PP". Whether or not I'm happy with that - because it does lead to "heads, you don't know we're playing an illegal system or don't call us on it, and we win; tails it probably didn't appreciably affect the result, so there's no penalty (we break even); even when we lose, we can still get the result we likely would have got if we had played by the rules." - it's how we rule. There aren't many people who deliberately violate the CoC anyway.

Now, if we rule that it was not a psychic, then either it's one of those "everyone thinks this is closer to 17 than 12" hands (unlikely, as I said) or we rule that "16+" is not actually their agreement (I remember discussing with one pair that if 6 controls is a 1♣ bid, then you have to make sure the opponents know - "16+ or 6+ AK controls". Yes, they would open Axxx Axx Axxx xx 1-strong-club). If the latter, then it's a standard misinformation case, and if the misinformation caused damage, we'll rule on *that*.

[blackshoe]

Quote

Definitions: Psychic call (commonly “psych[e]” or “psychic”): A deliberate and gross misstatement of honor strength and/or of suit length.

The director apparently believes that opening a Precision club on 12 HCP is a gross misstatement of honor strength, and maybe it is. Suit length is irrelevant, since the bid doesn't specify any. He also apparently believes that it is appropriate to rule an action a psych without determining whether the action was deliberate.

Quote

Law 40B2{d}: The Regulating Authority may restrict the use of psychic artificial calls.*
* See Elections 3, 4, 5 and 6, pp. 136 and 137.

There is no mention of this law in any of the Elections, included those not cited above. Nor is there anything in the General Conditions of Contest. The only reference I can find to this restriction is in the General Convention Chart:

Quote

Item 2 under "Disallowed": Psyching of artificial or conventional opening bids and/or conventional responses thereto. Psyching conventional suit responses, which are less than 2NT, to natural openings.

Quote

Law 12B1: The objective of a score adjustment is to redress damage to a non-offending side and to take away any advantage gained by an offending side through its infraction. Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favorable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred – but see C1{b{ below.

12C1{b} is irrelevant to this discussion (it's the law dealing with SEWoGs).

Quote

Law 12C1{a}: When after an irregularity the Director is empowered by these Laws to adjust a score and is able to award an assigned adjusted score, he does so. Such a score replaces the score obtained in play.

Quote

Law 12C2{a}: When owing to an irregularity no result can be obtained (and see C1(d) above), the Director awards an artificial adjusted score according to responsibility for the irregularity: average minus (at most 40% of the available matchpoints in pairs) to a contestant directly at fault, average (50% in pairs) to a contestant only partly at fault, and average plus (at least 60% in pairs) to a contestant in no way at fault.

12C1{d} is probably irrelevant (it deals with "numerous or not obvious" possible results, allowing an artificial adjusted score in such cases). The ACBL Tech Files say "It should be a very rare combination of circumstances which make an artificial adjustment appropriate."

It is not possible to determine damage until the hand is played out. So IMO the director erred in three particulars: he did not determine whether the bid was in fact a psych, he assumed that the NOS would be damaged if the play had continued, and he interrupted the play, thus preventing a ruling under 12C1{a}.

Hrothgar: The ACBL seems to believe that for some bids (but not all) there is a hard and fast lower limit of HCP that should be allowed, and anything less than that should incur an adjusted score, or a penalty, or both. This belief makes no sense to me either.

[Vampyr]

Once upon a time the EBU had a regulation that you couldn't psyche your strongest opening bid. My partner had, with his former partner, a 5NT opener that showed a one-loser hand with voids in both majors (though I think that it was once bid with a stiff A in one of the majors.)

When they psyched an Acol 2♣, they argued (successfully) that it was legal as it wasn't their strongest opening bid.

[blackshoe]

LOL!

[The_Badger]

dickiegera, on 2016-August-25, 15:18, said:

Opponents play a strong club of some nature.

They open 1 club alerted as 16+. They end up in 4 Hearts with opener as dummy.
Dummy has only 12 pts.

I called director and she ruled...etc.

hi dickiegera,

The actual hand would be a useful reference point...and what, if any, arguments can a partnership use that they genuinely miscounted their hands I wonder?

Sadly, some players eyesight and mental acuity isn't what it used to be. And being disabled myself, and on strong painkillers (morphine amongst others), I have difficulty with concentration, and that's why I rarely play.

As for dope tests, well I do some pretty strange things at the table these days - like miscounting generally - so perhaps I'm a dope after all

[Manastorm]

It seems that, if one changes agreemensts to 15+ or strong for 1♣ and 22+ or strong for 2♣ you are safe. Maybe you can include strong options creatively in other places too as it seems you can call what ever you want to as strong.

[mycroft]

In the ACBL, at least - and that's where the original issue is - that will work. However, you will have to be able to explain "strong" in such a way that your opponents are not misinformed as to what is actually in your agreement. This is non-trivial.

It is a very convoluted set of issues we're working with here.

"Strong" openings, however they're defined, tend to have "best defenses" that ignore looking for your own game, because the chance of it is so small. That means that psyching them can be incredibly effective. This is believed by many to be an unfair tactic, and the Laws allow regulatory agencies to restrict it, and they do.

Many people have got around system restrictions by "psyching" when they have a hand that is in their desired agreement, but explaining it as a legal one. This is clearly an attempt to use a legal tool (psychic calls) to circumvent regulation, and misinformation to boot. RAs tend to take a dim view of this, for some reason.

While we allow judgement in (most) actions, judgement by a partnership that is not reasonable to the average non-Walrus needs to be disclosed, as their agreements are unexpected. When that doesn't happen, we will deal with that.

Why (most) actions? Because there is a slippery slope argument - that has been used - when your agreements are right on the edge of restriction. Basically, RAs want to ensure that you don't pull the endrun mentioned above by continually "using" your "judgement" to actually have an agreement that would be illegal if it wasn't "judgement". So, for instance (in the ACBL), if you play 11-14 NTs, really good 10s can be upgraded to 11s with no concern for the rest of your system, but you're going to have a fight on your hands if you upgrade even the most perfect 9-count into a 10-12 NT. I wish this weren't an issue that we need to hard-line (because I play EHAA, and have to pass KQT9xx T8 T98x 9 where the world, playing 6-10 weak 2s, get to upgrade it into a 2♠ call).

So, one of the things that gets caught in this morass is issues like the opening case, and Manastorm's "agreement". As I said earlier, the *agreement* they have could be legal and could include this particular 12-count. But describing it as "16+" or "standard Precision" is misinformation, that may have affected the opponents' bidding. Their agreement may be that this is *not* in their agreement, that it was a gross and deliberate misstatement of the hand, in which case, that is not a tactic the ACBL wishes to promote, and so they ban it (theoretically, to be truly Lawful, they have to rule that "you are allowed to play 1♣ as a strong forcing bid provided part of your agreement is that you will never psych it. You psyched it, therefore you do not have that agreement, therefore your agreement for 1♣ is illegal" It's just easier to ignore all of that waffle for non-SBs). If you choose to play "15+ or 'strong'", then you'd better be able to describe 'strong' for your partnership well enough for the opponents to understand and defend against it, and, if instead you are just trying to avoid the regulations, we'll ensure that your 'game' is treated like any other attempt to game the system.

Other people that fall down this hole (while playing ostensibly, and likely no-questions-asked legal systems) are the "psychic Ogust" people who describe 2NT as "asking for suit and hand quality" and *deliberately not mentioning* that for them it doesn't necessarily show interest in game. Their *agreement* is that it doesn't, and it's a legal agreement, but by being perfectly correct in what they say, but careful in what they deliberately do not say, this agreement becomes more effective than it would otherwise be. *That* is not legal, nor is calling something 16+ when what you mean is (to reprise my example-that-really-happened) "16+ or 6 AK controls".

[Vampyr]

mycroft, on 2016-August-26, 11:50, said:

(theoretically, to be truly Lawful, they have to rule that "you are allowed to play 1♣ as a strong forcing bid provided part of your agreement is that you will never psych it. You psyched it, therefore you do not have that agreement, therefore your agreement for 1♣ is illegal" It's just easier to ignore all of that waffle for non-SBs).

Is it? It seem to me that in that case you can not psych any bid, since agreements to do so are illegal.

Quote

Other people that fall down this hole (while playing ostensibly, and likely no-questions-asked legal systems) are the "psychic Ogust" people who describe 2NT as "asking for suit and hand quality" and *deliberately not mentioning* that for them it doesn't necessarily show interest in game. Their *agreement* is that it doesn't, and it's a legal agreement, but by being perfectly correct in what they say, but careful in what they deliberately do not say, this agreement becomes more effective than it would otherwise be.

The description you give does not say whether responder is interested in game or not, so why should one or the other be specified. In any case I am not sure this is a true agreement. Everyone who plays Ogust does this from time to time, but normally very rarely.

People who are not familiar with Ogust are especially unwise to make assumptions.

[mycroft]

1) you have the theory backwards there. Agreements to psych are illegal, but agreements not to are not. "You may only play this convention if you also agree not to psych it" is a legal restriction (arguments on whether it should be legal can be written on a 3x5 index card and mailed to "Anybody but us"); "you may not psych" is not.

2) That's what everybody who uses this tactic says. In spite of the fact that no, in fact, most players who play Ogust (or other such conventions) do in fact 'know' that 2NT shows interest in game, it's the way they were taught, it's the way they always do it, and they've never heard of any other way of playing it before. In fact, when I pulled this in the 10K swiss finals with a very experienced partner (note, we had no agreement, so for us it *was* a psych), he hit their 4♥ because he had the best hand and I clearly had invitational values (in spite of the auction). When I had 4-and-4, it made with an overtrick. He'd just never seen that before.

It is certainly more convenient for players to "not know that this is how it is generally perceived" and therefore that they don't have to explicitly point out that they play it (occasionally) differently from the way most expect. It's definitely more effective, too.

I will admit that, once you've been burned by it, you'll know for the future and expect it, and it's not as effective afterward. It's also in the players-who-do-this-by-agreement's best interest to keep as many opponents as possible in the dark.

I assume you've been in real flight A for long enough that this, to you, is an "everybody knows" issue. I guarantee, however, that it isn't, and that there are those who "don't bother" to mention it (until the TD arrives) deliberately rather than through lack of knowledge.

[Vampyr]

mycroft, on 2016-August-26, 14:16, said:

It's also in the players-who-do-this-by-agreement's best interest to keep as many opponents as possible in the dark.

But what constitutes an agreement? You've seen this player "psyche" 2% of her Ogust bids? More? Less?

There are definitely bids that are well known to be much more psychable than others:

• The other major after one-of-a-major, double
  
• The other major after two-of-a-major, double
  
• Drury
  
• One-of-a-major openings when Drury is in force
  
• Acol 2♣ openings
  
• 1NT overcalls
  
• 3NT after partner's preempt, prepared only to play there if undoubled (if that is even a psyche)
  
• And the list goes on...

If you or partner has psyched a couple of these over several hundred sessions, or even if not, is it necessary to identify to the opponents when you make one of the bids that is "safer" than most to psyche?

[sanst]

dickiegera, on 2016-August-25, 15:18, said:

...
I called director and she ruled average+ for us and Average- for them.
...
I am Ok with ruling except that maybe they should have been required to play board and see if we might have received a better score.
I believe we would have.

A typical case of the lazy director's syndrome. The board should have been played and, if there was damage resulting from an infraction, assuming there was one, an adjusted score should have been awarded. No way A+/A- could be the result at this board.

[barmar]

It's not possible to have an agreement not to psyche something. By definition, a psyche is a deliberate violation of agreements, and you're allowed to violate your agreements. So even if you have an agreement not to psyche, you're allowed to violate that agreement.

However, the Laws allow RAs to prohibit certain psychic calls. That doesn't affect your agreements, it means that if you make one of those prohibited psyches you have committed an infraction, and the TD can rectify it. Just because ACBL implements this prohibition by writing it in the convention charts, which ostensibly govern agreements, it's effectively just their election under 40B2d.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2016-August-27, 22:00, said:

Just because ACBL implements this prohibition by writing it in the convention charts, which ostensibly govern agreements, it's effectively just their election under 40B2d.

I wasn't saying the ACBL is wrong to put this on the GCC rather than in the list of elections in the back of the law book. In fact, thinking about it, it seems to me the ACBL may be wrong to list their elections in the law book at all, unless no one in the Western Hemisphere outside of North America uses the ACBL's book — a circumstance I find unlikely, given ACBL holds the copyright throughout the Western Hemisphere. Granted, they're listed under the title "Elections by the ACBL Board of Directors", but it may not be clear to, say, the Argentine Bridge Federation that they don't have to implement these elections in their events, they can make their own choices.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2016-August-28, 08:37, said:

I wasn't saying the ACBL is wrong to put this on the GCC rather than in the list of elections in the back of the law book. In fact, thinking about it, it seems to me the ACBL may be wrong to list their elections in the law book at all, unless no one in the Western Hemisphere outside of North America uses the ACBL's book — a circumstance I find unlikely, given ACBL holds the copyright throughout the Western Hemisphere. Granted, they're listed under the title "Elections by the ACBL Board of Directors", but it may not be clear to, say, the Argentine Bridge Federation that they don't have to implement these elections in their events, they can make their own choices.

Even in North America there is an entire zone that is not the ACBL.

[blackshoe]

Central America is arguably part of the North American continent, but WBF calls Zone 2 "North America" and Zone 5 "Central America and Caribbean". Interestingly, Bermuda is part of Zone 5, despite being in neither Central America nor the Caribbean. The other zone in the Western Hemisphere, Zone 3, is "South America".

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2016-August-28, 22:02, said:

Central America is arguably part of the North American continent, but WBF calls Zone 2 "North America" and Zone 5 "Central America and Caribbean". Interestingly, Bermuda is part of Zone 5, despite being in neither Central America nor the Caribbean. The other zone in the Western Hemisphere, Zone 3, is "South America".

"Arguably" LOL. We could do with an eighth continent, even a tiny one.

[blackshoe]

If we're going to have an eighth continent I would vote for Tasmania.

[RMB1]

blackshoe, on 2016-August-29, 07:55, said:

If we're going to have an eighth continent I would vote for Tasmania.

I can think of a small island off the coast of Europe that would prefer to be continent of its own.