[Shugart23]

I am interested in hearing about the following disallowed actions starting 1/18....Disallowed are 1) a purely disruptive overcall 2) Psyching an Artificial Overcall, and 3) psyching an artificial Response below 2NT to an opening bid or an overcall.

Last night, I opened strong Club...LHO passes..partner bids 1D (weak, artificial), RHO Passes, I bid natural 2C, not-forcing, LHO bids 2S with 3 Spades, 4333 distribution and about 7 points.....I ultimately get the contract , bidding and making 4C.....I asked LHO about her bid and she said 'she thought partner might have 5 Spades'.

question:...come January 2018, will her bid be disallowed ?

question...what is an example of Psyching an Artificial Overcall, which will be disallowed ?

question.....what is an example of psyching an artificial Response below 2NT to an opening bid or an overcall, which will be disallowed.

question...true or false : a psych bid must not also be a disruptive bid

Thanks for any clarification of the new rules

[barmar]

I don't see the word "disruptive" anywhere in the new convention charts, I assume you mean "destructive".

"purely destructive" refers to agreements, so unless the pair has an agreement to bid like this, I don't think it applies.

Assuming a direct overcall normally shows 5+ cards in the suit, it seems like it's a psych, since she has 2 cards fewer than expected. But the rule is against psyching artificial overcalls. This was a natural overcall, so the psych is permitted.

An example of a psych that's not allowed would be if they psyched a Suction or CRASH overcall. Or psyching Michaels or Unusual 2NT against natural openings.

[Shugart23]

barmar, on 2017-August-08, 09:31, said:

I don't see the word "disruptive" anywhere in the new convention charts, I assume you mean "destructive".

"purely destructive" refers to agreements, so unless the pair has an agreement to bid like this, I don't think it applies.

Assuming a direct overcall normally shows 5+ cards in the suit, it seems like it's a psych, since she has 2 cards fewer than expected. But the rule is against psyching artificial overcalls. This was a natural overcall, so the psych is permitted.

An example of a psych that's not allowed would be if they psyched a Suction or CRASH overcall. Or psyching Michaels or Unusual 2NT against natural openings.

yeah, I meant 'Destructive'......ok, I think I might be getting it....let me see if this is correct...Assume you and I , who have never played together agree out 1NT range is 10-13.......The rule is I can't open 1NT with less than 10 points and I can't upgrade a 9 point hand to be a 10 point hand......Nonetheless, I can open 1NT with an 3 HCP hand AS LONG AS THIS IS NOT AN AGREEMENT that you and I have......would this be an accurate statement ? (In other words, I can pretty much do whatever I want, as long as we don't have any agreement that violates any of the rules....of course you may never play with me again, but that is a different story)


I went back and re-read....I guess I still don't know if a 'purely destructive overcall' is ever allowed....By the definition of destructive overall, clearly what she did is defined as a destructive overcall.......so are you saying that as long as we agree to not use destructive overcalls, I can, in fact, use them ?

W.L.O.G, psyching an Artificial overcall is disallowed is the very next item ...Is it only disallowed to have an agreement that we would do it ? and hence it is allowed if we have an agreement that we don't ?....

This is confusing to me....


So

[steve2005]

2S is a bad bid. If going to make a crazy bid surely double would be takeout why not try that. P could have 5 in the red?
But there is nothing illegal about bidding 2S.

[Shugart23]

steve2005, on 2017-August-08, 09:55, said:

2S is a bad bid. If going to make a crazy bid surely double would be takeout why not try that. P could have 5 in the red?
But there is nothing illegal about bidding 2S.

yeah, wife and I do love punishing opponents, when they stick their neck out like that....

[jeffford76]

Shugart23, on 2017-August-08, 09:43, said:

yeah, I meant 'Destructive'......ok, I think I might be getting it....let me see if this is correct...Assume you and I , who have never played together agree out 1NT range is 10-13.......The rule is I can't open 1NT with less than 10 points and I can't upgrade a 9 point hand to be a 10 point hand......Nonetheless, I can open 1NT with an 3 HCP hand AS LONG AS THIS IS NOT AN AGREEMENT that you and I have......would this be an accurate statement ? (In other words, I can pretty much do whatever I want, as long as we don't have any agreement that violates any of the rules....of course you may never play with me again, but that is a different story)

This is correct. By the new rules you can't shade 9 HCP to 10, but you can still outright psyche natural calls.

Quote

I went back and re-read....I guess I still don't know if a 'purely destructive overcall' is ever allowed....By the definition of destructive overall, clearly what she did is defined as a destructive overcall.......so are you saying that as long as we agree to not use destructive overcalls, I can, in fact, use them ?

Purely destructive is defined for agreements. You cannot have an agreement to make a bid that meets the definition. Note that if you repeatedly make a bid with the same partner you will eventually have an implicit agreement. Those would also need to follow the rules. But yes, if you have no agreement to make destructive overcalls, you can occasionally psyche with one.

Quote

W.L.O.G, psyching an Artificial overcall is disallowed is the very next item ...Is it only disallowed to have an agreement that we would do it ? and hence it is allowed if we have an agreement that we don't ?....

In the situations where psyching artificial calls is disallowed, it doesn't matter whether you have an agreement, it's disallowed. (If you did have an agreement it wouldn't be a psyche! But then the agreement would need to be legal.)

One other comment - there was a note at the beginning of the thread about these being effective 1/18. There has been no approval yet or start date set. I would be surprised if it was that soon.

[Shugart23]

[ Purely destructive is defined for agreements. You cannot have an agreement to make a bid that meets the definition. Note that if you repeatedly make a bid with the same partner you will eventually have an implicit agreement. Those would also need to follow the rules. But yes, if you have no agreement to make destructive overcalls, you can occasionally psyche with one.



In the situations where psyching artificial calls is disallowed, it doesn't matter whether you have an agreement, it's disallowed. (If you did have an agreement it wouldn't be a psyche! But then the agreement would need to be legal.)

..I guess my point of confusion is that psyching artificial calls being disallowed follows immediately after destructive bids being disallowed. Since the destructive bid is defined for agreements, it would seem the same is true for psychs......You seem to be making a distinction saying psychs in certain situations are absolutely dis-allowed but for some reason, you are saying sometimes destructive bids are NOT absolutely disallowed (because it is in the agreements section).....But BOTH 'dis-allowments' are contained in the agreements section, so why is one absolute and the other is not ?

My logic is thinking a psych bid can be allowed, as long as the psych bid is not destructive....this is not what you and the other responder suggest, but I am not seeing that logic

In the situation where a psych bid is allowed and if it also can be definitionally destructive, then what is ACBL's point in defining what a destructive bid is......It would seem that in the real world, I could almost never call the director on the opponent for making a destructive bid, because the claim would always be "it was a psych"...My example that I described from the club game, might be a clear example that destructive bids can be made any time, dressed up as a psych.....

[Shugart23]

I have made inquiry into the ACBL because as I read the potential new rules, partnership agreement to allow destructive bids is disallowed...Psych bids are allowed...however (my opinion) a psych bid CANNOT be destructive and must have 4+ cards in a known suit OR 5+ cards in one of two possible suits OR a 5+,4+ distribution OR be a 3 suited hand Or have average strength....I am reading it that you can make a psych bid if and only if your bid satisfies at least one of the listed conditions .

We all agree that you can make a psych Opening bid.. Therefore all partnerships have an (implicit or explicit) agreement that psych bids are allowed. If you also believe that some psych bids are allowed to be destructive, then you also have an (implicit or explicit) partnership agreement that some destructive bids are allowed (because it would be your view that some destructive bids are a subset of psych bids). But then, the consequence is that you now have a partnership agreement that some destructive bids are allowed...But this is a violation of the rules...e.g. you cannot have a partnership agreement that a destructive bid is allowed

Thus, I conclude, the intersection of the set of psych bids and the set of destructive bids is an empty set.

[WellSpyder]

Shugart23, on 2017-August-09, 08:41, said:

I have made inquiry into the ACBL because as I read the potential new rules, partnership agreement to allow destructive bids is disallowed...Psych bids are allowed...however (my opinion) a psych bid CANNOT be destructive and must have 4+ cards in a known suit OR 5+ cards in one of two possible suits OR a 5+,4+ distribution OR be a 3 suited hand Or have average strength....I am reading it that you can make a psych bid if and only if your bid satisfies at least one of the listed conditions .

We all agree that you can make a psych Opening bid.. Therefore all partnerships have an (implicit or explicit) agreement that psych bids are allowed. If you also believe that some psych bids are allowed to be destructive, then you also have an (implicit or explicit) partnership agreement that some destructive bids are allowed (because it would be your view that some destructive bids are a subset of psych bids). But then, the consequence is that you now have a partnership agreement that some destructive bids are allowed...But this is a violation of the rules...e.g. you cannot have a partnership agreement that a destructive bid is allowed

Thus, I conclude, the intersection of the set of psych bids and the set of destructive bids is an empty set.

I think you are over-analysing this! I don't even know what you think "a psyche must have 4+ cards in a known suit" means. A psyche does not actually have what it purportedly shows, so how can you "know" with it has? I suggest you go back and read what jefford76 wrote above, which explains clearly why regulations about disruptive bids and about psyches are completely independent of each other.

[Shugart23]

WellSpyder, on 2017-August-09, 08:54, said:

I think you are over-analysing this! I don't even know what you think "a psyche must have 4+ cards in a known suit" means. A psyche does not actually have what it purportedly shows, so how can you "know" with it has? I suggest you go back and read what jefford76 wrote above, which explains clearly why regulations about disruptive bids and about psyches are completely independent of each other.

I respectfully disagree.....It is my view that a psych bid must satisfy at least one of the conditions listed to avoid being classified as a destructive bid, otherwise you and your partnership have an implicit agreement that certain destructive bids are allowed, despite rules to the contrary.

I don't think I am over analyzing...I am just trying to understand the new rules....hence my inquiry ....

Again, if you and your partner hold that psych bids can be classified as destructive in certain instances, than you may have an illegal agreement, is my interpretation..e.g you cannot have a partnership agreement that a bid you might make could be destructive (defined by ACBL)

[barmar]

Shugart23, on 2017-August-09, 09:19, said:

I respectfully disagree.....It is my view that a psych bid must satisfy at least one of the conditions listed to avoid being classified as a destructive bid, otherwise you and your partnership have an implicit agreement that certain destructive bids are allowed, despite rules to the contrary.

No, a psych is by definition a deviation from agreements.

You're not allowed to have an agreement to open 1♠ with only 3 spades.

You are allowed to open 1♠ with only 3 spades if partner has no reason to expect it, because then it's a psych.

You can't do this often enough with the same partner that it becomes an implicit agreement -- it has to be rare to remain a psych.

[Shugart23]

barmar, on 2017-August-09, 10:06, said:

No, a psych is by definition a deviation from agreements.

You're not allowed to have an agreement to open 1♠ with only 3 spades.

You are allowed to open 1♠ with only 3 spades if partner has no reason to expect it, because then it's a psych.

You can't do this often enough with the same partner that it becomes an implicit agreement -- it has to be rare to remain a psych.

I agree with everything you say.....BUT the issue is " must a psych also not be destructive as well'......everyone seems to say, yes...destructive psychs are permitted and everyone may well be correct.....

In your example, say I have average strength and a singleton Spade....I can open 1S as a psych but my bid is NOT defined AS DESTRUCTIVE because I satisfy one of the conditions....

Take similar hand, but I have 3 Spade and only 2 points. I can open 1S as a psych, but now the bid IS Destructive.

In both cases a psych is made....The former is clearly allowed...I am not so sure on the latter. I am not convinced calling a bid a psych gives free license to do whatever one wants under the new rules.

So focus on my main question....Is it allowed for a psych bid to be destructive ? I think logically, if a psych bid can be classified as destructive, it may be forbidden ( because you and your partner have an agreement that destructive bids are allowed)

[blackshoe]

Shugart23, on 2017-August-09, 10:16, said:

So focus on my main question....Is it allowed for a psych bid to be destructive ? I think logically, if a psych bid can be classified as destructive, it may be forbidden ( because you and your partner have an agreement that destructive bids are allowed)

It is allowed for a player to psych whatever he has in his hand. Therefore, whether what he has bid might be considered "destructive" if he had an agreement to make that particular bid with that particular hand is irrelevant.

[Shugart23]

blackshoe, on 2017-August-09, 13:03, said:

It is allowed for a player to psych whatever he has in his hand. Therefore, whether what he has bid might be considered "destructive" if he had an agreement to make that particular bid with that particular hand is irrelevant.

I am reasonably sure the consensus opinion is correct....Yet, ACBL is on the verge of issuing new rules, so what 'is' today, may not be 'is' tomorrow, hence my inquiry to ACBL.

1) We agree partnerships may not have an agreement to bid destructive bids
2)We have a definition of when a bid is classified as destructive.
3)We know psych bids in today's world can be classified as Destructive or non-destructive (using the ACBL definition)
4) For a partnership that agrees to use psych bids, if they don't explicitly agree to exclude Destructive Psych bids, then they have an implicit agreement that they can make destructive bids
5) Statement 4 is in direct conflict with statement 1

Where am I going wrong ?...anyway.....beating a dead horse perhaps

Thanks for feedback; it is always well-informed and helpful

[pran]

Shugart23, on 2017-August-09, 10:16, said:

I agree with everything you say.....BUT the issue is " must a psych also not be destructive as well'......everyone seems to say, yes...destructive psychs are permitted and everyone may well be correct.....

In your example, say I have average strength and a singleton Spade....I can open 1S as a psych but my bid is NOT defined AS DESTRUCTIVE because I satisfy one of the conditions....

Take similar hand, but I have 3 Spade and only 2 points. I can open 1S as a psych, but now the bid IS Destructive.

In both cases a psych is made....The former is clearly allowed...I am not so sure on the latter. I am not convinced calling a bid a psych gives free license to do whatever one wants under the new rules.

So focus on my main question....Is it allowed for a psych bid to be destructive ? I think logically, if a psych bid can be classified as destructive, it may be forbidden ( because you and your partner have an agreement that destructive bids are allowed)

What is meant by a "destructive" call? Destructive for whom?

In my world most calls are usually (in some way) advantageus for the caller and correspondingly disadvantageus for the opponents. Preemptive bids are usually intended to be destructive for your opponents.

If you hold the top 9 clubs and nothing more then chances are good that the only tricks your side will make when defending are the ones your partner can win. Consequently an opening bid in 6♣ will often be very sound for your side and of course very destructive for your opponents.

Is this fact justification for disallowing such preemptive calls?

[Shugart23]

pran, on 2017-August-09, 13:41, said:

What is meant by a "destructive" call? Destructive for whom?

In my world most calls are usually (in some way) advantageus for the caller and correspondingly disadvantageus for the opponents. Preemptive bids are usually intended to be destructive for your opponents.

If you hold the top 9 clubs and nothing more then chances are good that the only tricks your side will make when defending are the ones your partner can win. Consequently an opening bid in 6♣ will often be very sound for your side and of course very destructive for your opponents.

Is this fact justification for disallowing such preemptive calls?

Destructive calls have a very specific definition being proposed by ACBL...I listed the conditions in an earlier post to determine if a bid is classified as destructive or not. Having 4+ cards in a known suit would make the bid fall into a non-destructive classification

[Vampyr]

I think that the ACBL are making a mistake, and do not see how it is legal to ban psyches.

However, i am forced to admit that there is a psych I would like to see banned -- psyching of illegal methods. I am pretty sure that in the EBU a 3♣ overcall showing clubs or two other suits is illegal in the EBU. And I think that a 3♣ psyche when holding those other suits should be illegal.

I also think that misbids should be treated as psyches. I see no reason why not, since if the players are inexperienced it will always be green anyway.

[blackshoe]

I think you're going wrong here: when a player makes a psychic bid, it is the agreed meaning of the bid at which you should be looking, not what's in his hand. Let's say you had among your agreements a perfectly legal 1♠ opening bid. You psych - you do not have what your agreement says you have. Instead, you have some hand that, if you had an agreement to bid 1♠ with that hand, that agreement would run afoul of the prohibition on destructive bids. But you have no such agreement. It is agreements that are being regulated.

You say the partnership has an agreement to psych. I don't think that's accurate. What happens in most partnerships where psychs might happen is that both partners are aware that psychs are legal, and probably aware of the circumstances when a psych might be appropriate. They may even be aware of each other's tendencies. But unless the psychs occur so frequently that the psycher's partner begins to say to himself "crap, there he goes again with a damn psych" there is no agreement to psych. There is merely an understanding that psychs are a part of the game and may happen, albeit rarely.

In my own regular partnerships, if you asked my partners "does your pair ever psych?" I would imagine all of them would say no. If you asked me, I would say "partner doesn't. I might." Up until a few months ago, I would have told you that the last time I psyched was in 1972. Now, I'd have to tell you that I did psych a few months ago. Partner didn't notice.

I have had a partner tell me "if you ever psych, this partnership is over!" The partnership is over, but psyching wasn't the reason.

[Shugart23]

blackshoe, on 2017-August-09, 17:26, said:

I think you're going wrong here: when a player makes a psychic bid, it is the agreed meaning of the bid at which you should be looking, not what's in his hand. Let's say you had among your agreements a perfectly legal 1♠ opening bid. You psych - you do not have what your agreement says you have. Instead, you have some hand that, if you had an agreement to bid 1♠ with that hand, that agreement would run afoul of the prohibition on destructive bids. But you have no such agreement. It is agreements that are being regulated.

You say the partnership has an agreement to psych. I don't think that's accurate. What happens in most partnerships where psychs might happen is that both partners are aware that psychs are legal, and probably aware of the circumstances when a psych might be appropriate. They may even be aware of each other's tendencies. But unless the psychs occur so frequently that the psycher's partner begins to say to himself "crap, there he goes again with a damn psych" there is no agreement to psych. There is merely an understanding that psychs are a part of the game and may happen, albeit rarely.

In my own regular partnerships, if you asked my partners "does your pair ever psych?" I would imagine all of them would say no. If you asked me, I would say "partner doesn't. I might." Up until a few months ago, I would have told you that the last time I psyched was in 1972. Now, I'd have to tell you that I did psych a few months ago. Partner didn't notice.

I have had a partner tell me "if you ever psych, this partnership is over!" The partnership is over, but psyching wasn't the
reason.

I am not saying psychs arer banned and I am not saying they should be banned....We do agree that using the definition of a destructive bid, some psychs can be classified as destructive bids and the others would not be classified as destructive...My only point/question/thought/muse is that there
seems to be logical argument that destructive psychs are banned.

This post has been edited by barmar: 2017-August-10, 10:36
Reason for edit: fix quote markup

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2017-August-09, 17:26, said:

You say the partnership has to an agreement to psych.

I think you are conflating my post with someone else's because I didn't say that. But I also didn't say what I meant to say.

To wit, if 3♣ = ♣ OR ♦ + ♠ is illegal, and the agreement is that 3♣ = ♦ + ♠, then I think that psyching 3♣ when holding clubs is improper.