[1eyedjack]

 karlson, on 2014-March-17, 23:36, said:

I've found that when playing 2n-3♣-3♥ as no 4-card major, the opponents are often not amused when you show up with 6 hearts and insist partner's explanation was correct.

Opponents are often not amused when you psych, period. They just have to suck it up (or ban it unlawfully in certain BBO arenas).

As to JLogic's post to which this responded, it is routine and fair game to attempt to protect the subterfuge of an earlier psych in the auction by continuing the lie. It is not the lying in response to Stayman that is the issue but the original psychic NT opener.

[1eyedjack]

 Stephen Tu, on 2014-March-17, 17:17, said:

I really don't think you can use success vs. robot defenders to suggest what works in the real world against competent opps.

Hence the caveat with which I opened my post.

 Stephen Tu, on 2014-March-17, 17:17, said:

You are taking advantage of a situation where you can essentially play illegally, having a concealed partnership agreement of frequent concealment of 4 cd majors without disclosure against opps who have no way of being informed of this.

Absolutely not. No-one, least of all I, advocates having implicit concealed understandings, and I trust that you do not suggest that this is possible in the robot tourney environment or that the action is in anyway illegal, "essentially" or otherwise, in that environment.

Much of the success of the policy in the robot world is reliant on opponents' trust in your bid. Were you capable of disclosing to the robot a high frequency tendency to psych, then the benefits would evaporate. Were you to do this with a regular partner in a F2F game sufficiently frequently as to require disclosure, that is indeed the outcome that would result. And some of the benefit would dissipate even on the first occasion because the possibility of a lie should be apparent to the human defenders. However small a likelihood, it will be greater than the zero likelihood assumed by a robot. But judging by the prevalent advice in this thread (that it is virtually never right to lie) then the opponents are equally versed in that optimal strategy so the perceived likelihood, while positive, will be sufficiently small for some comparison with the robot environment to be more reasonable.

 Stephen Tu, on 2014-March-17, 17:17, said:

Plus playing against opps who are super-rigid about possible NT distributions and point count, and have a tendency to be passive and not lead long suits. Or lead long suits then not continue them because of inability to read signals! This is a pretty much perfect environment to play in the "wrong" contract and do better. I don't think this works against decent humans.

OP's question is about bridge in general, not how to take max advantage against current GIB software design limitations.

Again, hence the opening caveat.
The point about trying these things out in the robot environment is that you have the opportunity to test out a hypothesis, such as the benefits of lying in response to Stayman, with a very high frequency without "essentially playing illegally" where such a tactic in a F2F game would very definitely be illegal. Were you to conclude on the basis of those results, that the tactic has legs in a F2F environment, then in order to keep it legal while avoiding a disclosure requirement which would eliminate the benefits, you would have to tone down the frequency. But the high frequency in robot tourneys is simply in order to get a large population of hands to examine in a relatively short time frame.

For sure, you would have to make adjustments to the success rate to account for misdefences by robots that you might not expect a human to make on the same information (such as finding the killing lead and then switching when declarer ducks). Provided that you are capable of doing this, the exercise still has merits.

I think that there is a growing tendency among humans to lead short suits against NT, more in line with the way that robots play (to trick 1). Maybe it is an improved technique, but it increases I think the defenders' exposure to this psych.

[helene_t]

I have a theory that modern bidding systems are too focused on suit length and too little on honour placement. I am not suggesting making radical changes here like frequently up- or downgrading suit length but I think that some auctions could benefit from doing so in extreme cases. With Richard's example hand I would prefer not to mention my hearts. I say "would prefer" because with most partners I would not dare to do it. The risk of annoying partner (she might accuse me of masterminding) or eroding trust isn't worth the putative gain in expected value of the board itself. Therefore it is good to discuss these things with partner.

Lying about distribution is a dangerous thing. You won't be able to pattern out correctly so sometimes partner will infer that you have a distributional feature which you haven't got. For example, if you respond 2♦ to Stayman you promise a 4+-card in a minor so with 4-4 in the minor partner might give you a choice of minor suit slam which might not work so great if you are 3433.

Playing weak notrump, partner almost never makes you pattern out (he probably doesn't even have the tools for it). Besides, once you show your hearts partner is always bidding 4♥ with a GF hand with hearts and no slam interest. So the only way to avoid a 4♥ contract is to lye about the hearts, or, if partner raises 2♥ to 3♥, to suggest 3NT.

Partner could have an unbalanced hand with four hearts. So even if you are confident that 3NT will play better opposite a balanced hand, you usually shouldn't lye.

[Trump Echo]

I would have bid 2 Diamonds as well, but I would not have considered it a lie since, at least in my mind, a 4-card major suit promises a Queen minimum.

[PhilKing]

OP will probably go to hell.

[Cyberyeti]

 PhilKing, on 2014-March-18, 06:56, said:

OP will probably go to hell.

Where TBF he'll meet about 95% of the other bridge players who are there for various misdemeanours.

[kenberg]

 karlson, on 2014-March-17, 23:36, said:

I've found that when playing 2n-3♣-3♥ as no 4-card major, the opponents are often not amused when you show up with 6 hearts and insist partner's explanation was correct.

I see your point, but all in all if my opponents want to suppress a six card major during the bidding, I don't mind. I might even say that I would happily encourage them to do it.

[EricK]

My partner did this to me last week. Suffice it to say it was wrong on the hand he had. Personally, I think you need a really good reason to lie in response to a direct question from partner. And when your hand is in line with your previous bidding, you almost certainly don't have a really good reason.

[Stephen Tu]

 1eyedjack, on 2014-March-18, 00:15, said:

Absolutely not. No-one, least of all I, advocates having implicit concealed understandings, and I trust that you do not suggest that this is possible in the robot tourney environment or that the action is in anyway illegal, "essentially" or otherwise, in that environment.

It is not possible to disclose system info to the robots. Thus you are operating with a tendency that in real life would have to be disclosed to human opponents, but vs. robots you can't. I suggest this is against the spirit of bridge law, even though in a robot tourney there is no enforcement mechanism and lots of people do these things.

[helene_t]

 Stephen Tu, on 2014-March-18, 09:56, said:

It is not possible to disclose system info to the robots. Thus you are operating with a tendency that in real life would have to be disclosed to human opponents, but vs. robots you can't.

Not true. In real life it would have to be disclosed if his partner knew about his history of lying. Here, his partner doesn't know anything about his history.

[chasetb]

What you really need is a way for partner to 'Checkback' to see how good your hand, and particularly your trump suit is. If you have the other suits well stopped (Strong NT, weak NT 2 of 3 suits stopped) but garbage trump, then 3NT might be the best game.

[ArtK78]

I have been playing this game for nearly 42 years, and I have yet to lie in response to Stayman. I have to admit thinking about it once or twice, but the fact of the matter is that partner asked if you have a 4-card major, and I am going to respond honestly. I don't know yet what he will do with the information, but at least he will have honest information to deal with.

[Zelandakh]

 chasetb, on 2014-March-18, 10:15, said:

What you really need is a way for partner to 'Checkback' to see how good your hand, and particularly your trump suit is.

If you wanted you could use SID for this purpose rather than the traditional idea of checking back for 4333 shape.

[aguahombre]

 ArtK78, on 2014-March-18, 10:38, said:

I have been playing this game for nearly 42 years, and I have yet to lie in response to Stayman. I have to admit thinking about it once or twice, but the fact of the matter is that partner asked if you have a 4-card major, and I am going to respond honestly. I don't know yet what he will do with the information, but at least he will have honest information to deal with.

Yes, and in those 42 years you probably never opened 1NT with a 6-card major. I would be concerned about the information/thought processes which went into that decision and the collateral choice not to show the suit at all in response to Stayman. I might wonder if, upon a Smolen continuation, they carefully avoided their 6-6 fit.

[Lovera]

 hrothgar, on 2014-March-17, 13:40, said:

Here's a few other things to think about

1. The bulk of your HCPs are in Aces and Kings. Aces and Kings (often) suggest that a suit contract will play better than NT
2. You have very few useful intermediates (Jacks, 10s, 9s, etc). These slow stoppers can be very useful in a NT contract
3. You have A4 in the diamond suit which is two big flaws for a NT contract. (The suit is short, so its likely to be lead and you can only hold up on the suit once)
4. You're at the bottom of your range for a 12-14 HCP NT opening. (Holding 24-25 HCPs, a 4-4 fit will often take 1 more trick in the suit than in NT. Less true with 27-28 or so)

I wouldn't string my partner up for lying about a four card major, but this isn't the hand to do so...

Here's a 12-14 HCP 1NT opening where I'd be more tempted

♠ KJT
♥ 8652
♦ KQT
♣ KQT

[Lovera]

Questa mano non credo sia proprio idonea alla dichiarazione senza atout debole Stayman che rrichiede che la forza della mano sia distribuita almeno in tre colori e non costituita solo da teste (sembra una mano povera). Penso sia preferibile l'apertura di 1 fiori.

[kuhchung]

 karlson, on 2014-March-17, 23:36, said:

I've found that when playing 2n-3♣-3♥ as no 4-card major, the opponents are often not amused when you show up with 6 hearts and insist partner's explanation was correct.

Maybe partner should have explained it as "no 4 OR 5 card major"

[ggwhiz]

On the general subject of lying, when Zia first hit the scene their partnership would open on air and later show zero aces in response to blackwood, hiding one. The next bid up asked "Are you sure?".

I think it was Billy Eisenberg coaching them later that convinced them to dump check back blackwood but son of check back stayman may appeal.

[ArtK78]

 aguahombre, on 2014-March-18, 11:00, said:

Yes, and in those 42 years you probably never opened 1NT with a 6-card major. I would be concerned about the information/thought processes which went into that decision and the collateral choice not to show the suit at all in response to Stayman. I might wonder if, upon a Smolen continuation, they carefully avoided their 6-6 fit.

I believe that the only poster who mentioned 6-card majors was JLOGIC, and he emphasized that this tactic is particularly effective in robot games on BBO, but also works in face-to-face games. Being a veteran of thousands of sessions of robot games on BBO, I can tell you that tactics that work in robot games are things I would never think of doing in real life. But I occasionally play online with a friend from Virginia who has opened 1NT with a six card major. He has some "interesting" ideas about the game.

[1eyedjack]

 Stephen Tu, on 2014-March-18, 09:56, said:

It is not possible to disclose system info to the robots. Thus you are operating with a tendency that in real life would have to be disclosed to human opponents, but vs. robots you can't. I suggest this is against the spirit of bridge law, even though in a robot tourney there is no enforcement mechanism and lots of people do these things.

I lose no sleep over being unable to describe my system to the robots.
For one thing there is nothing that I could tell them about my system that they do not already know. It is a system imposed upon me by my partner, who happens to be a clone of the opponents.
My decisions to depart from the system are for me alone to know (at the time), and all other three players at the table to discover as the hand plays out. I am afforded the luxury of departing frequently from the system because all three other players at the table (crucially including partner) have the memory of a goldfish.

For another thing, this practice does not disturb the fundamental principle of equity that requires it to be a level playing field. The only other adversaries are other humans sitting South who have the same options.

For as long as the level playing field is preserved, and and the letter of the law is observed, in my opinion if you seek to suggest that I am breaking the spirit of the law then the onus is on you to back it up and be a bit more explicit.

There is one exception to the level playing field that may be worth closer examination, and that is the "Instant" tourneys, where the other human Souths are playing with and against a different version of robot. It is not possible to predict with certainty that the same opportunity to psych will be available to South at separate tables for the same pre-set conditions preceding the psychic bid, nor that the actions resulting from it will be identical. It may be worth noting that the Instant tourney is definitely NOT a level playing field even before you make a decision to psych, however frequently if at all, for that very reason. Indeed you are walking into the tournament with a built in disadvantage, having two enhanced opponents to only one enhanced partner, compared with other human adversaries. If psyching plays a small part in levelling that playing field then if anything it reinforces the spirit of the law.