bridgetalk.com forums :: Laws & Rulings

Al Kimel

Alerting psychics? ( 17:24:43 SatNov 16 2002 )

In the November issue of the ACBL Bulletin, Richard Colker states that one is actually disallowed to "alert" partner's propensity to psyche in certain situations. He writes:

"Can't the psychers simply Alert the opponents to those situations in which a psychic is likely so that both sides have 'equal access' to the tendency? Surprisingly, no. For one thing, on a practical level the psychers can never impart to their opponents the same level of awareness that they themselves possess.

"For another, once the pair achieves the ability to anticipate their psychs, they have an illegal agreement (ACBL regulations make illegal any call which makes allowance for a psychic, called a psychic control). Thus, if a call is intended to fool the opponents by grossly misstating the hand's honor strength or suit length, it must fool partner as well. But as soon as partner develps the ability to recognize and allow for a possible psychic, we have an infraction." (p. 102)

Is Colker's interpretation of the Laws and ACBL regulations correct? Is this view peculiar to the ACBL or does it also represent other jurisdictions?

TIA.

Al Kimel

bluejak

428 posts
Forum Host

Reply

Re: Alerting psychics? ( 00:50:59 TueNov 19 2002 )

This is a complex question. hiowever to deal with one detail first, when Rich says

Quote: Richard Colker

For one thing, on a practical level the psychers can never impart to their opponents the same level of awareness that they themselves possess.

that is silly. The same could be true of every agreement a partnership has and is no reason not to alert psyches.

Certainly, the Law accepts that when a pair has an agreement over a psyche it is legal so long as their opponents are fully informed. So it comes down to ACBL regulations, which apparently disallow psyches.

Yet this generally held view is probably wrong in certain situations. For example, a 2NT response to a weak two was originally played as a game try or better, and an enquiry. Players have realised that it is quite a good move on a weak hand to the extent that it is quite common and expected. This is legal if disclosed. You could call this a legal psyche, or you could just say that it is a legal way of playing it.

The real answer seems to be that if a player is likely to make a specific call in a specific situation to an extent where partner is aware of this the opponents need to be advised. Now it just depends on whether you are allowed to play that specific agreement in that particular place.

In areas of the world which allow a much greater degree of system, such as the European Bridge League [though not all their member countries: certainly not Great Britain] and Australia, various psyches are probably perfectly legal if disclosed adequately.

A final example: the comic no-trump was in vogue many years ago, by which a 1NT overcall was either strong balanced, or was a psyche on a weak hand with a long suit. If a pair was to use it frequently in England then presumably they need to disclose it. Interestingly that is fine in the top tournaments where it is legal [called the Gardener no-trump in England] but not in lower tournaments.

Note: I notice you also posted this query to RGB: feel free to copy this reply there if you wish.

---
David Stevenson <laws2@blakjak.com>
Liverpool, England, UK
http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm

Al Kimel

Re: Alerting psychics? ( 13:37:20 WedNov 20 2002 )

A folllow-up question, David: Colker appears to suggest that one may not "alert" to partner's psyching tendencies in specific situations because "as soon as partner develps the ability to recognize and allow for a possible psychic, we have an infraction." But isn't there a difference between recognizing the possibility of a psychic bid in a specific situation and actually taking this tendency into account in one's bidding? For example, I know that in the past my partner has on a few times opened 1H in first position with two or three small and a very weak hand. Perhaps I even announce this fact to my opponents. But I still respond on the assumption that he has a normal opener and bid accordingly, at least until the psyche is exposed.

Colker's reasoning here, with the assertion that partner must be as "surprised" as the opponents, seems deeply flawed. I wonder if Rosenberg is "surprised" by Zia's psyches ...

8 bridge player(s) online in the last 15 minutes - 1 bridgetalk member(s), 0 incognito and 7 guest(s).
(The most ever was 52 09:45:43 Fri Feb 14 2003)
bluejak

Total Members: 393, Newest Member: edm.

International Bridge Laws Forum

If you need help with the Laws or rulings from
any country in the world, this is the place!

Hosted by David Stevenson
Senior Consultant Director
English Bridge Union

International Bridge Laws Forum

If you need help with the Laws or rulings from any country in the world, this is the place!Hosted by David StevensonSenior Consultant DirectorEnglish Bridge Union

If you need help with the Laws or rulings from
any country in the world, this is the place!

Hosted by David Stevenson
Senior Consultant Director
English Bridge Union