1NT opening - legal, illegal, psych?
A player playing 5CM and holding 5440 distribution with 15-17 points decides to open 1NT which partner describes as 15-17 balanced (this is their partnership agreement). There follow three passes and 1NT scores very well. The opponents then claim they have been damaged. Is the 1NT bid legal? Is it a psych? Would they answers be different between level 2 and level 4 events? Thank you.
Comments
Very interesting subject and I think it will take a book to help understand it. As I see it the problem is that the laws and regulations discuss agreements (actual and implicit). As directors we don't always know if there is an implicit agreement (to be fair, neither do the partners!!). As I see it at level 4 the partnership could have an agreement for a void in a suit for 1NT but how can you tell whether one partner has forgotten and misinformed or whether one partner has deviated from the agreement and have they done it before. White Book 8.40.1.7 & 8.40.1.8 don't exactly clear the mud from the water as in 1.7 whilst it is not a permitted agreement it is only illegal if their partner thinks it is a bid they would make. In 1.8 it seems that if opening 1NT with a singleton is permitted but only if an honour of Queen or greater then opening with a 9 singleton is a deviation.
So as I have said before , as a playing director I just hope this doesn't occur until or unless i can get a better understanding. I suspect I will never have this kind of problem but hey ho! anything can happen these days.
To my mind this falls under a gross distortion of shape (and/or HCP count) and qualifies as a psych. Especially if, as we're told, their agreement is 15-17 balanced. Generally, a psych is legal..
But if they frequently open 1NT with singletons by agreement? Maybe it's nearer being a distortion and might be considered to be their agreement if it's habitual. You don't necessarily know this of course, which is one reason to record psychs. At level 2 the agreement to open 1NT with a void is quite specifically an illegal agreement.
At level 4, they have options. But they have to pick one. So they can open it with 5440 hands by agreement under 7B3iii, but can't combine that with natural openings as defined in 7B3i.
7B3ii might be a get out for strong NT players, allowing any combination of meanings that all show a strong hand. But that'd have to be 16 HCP or 13 HCP in 2 suits containing 10+cards, it'd exclude 15 counts. I'd struggle to credit that as their actual agreement.
"15-17 balanced" is a legal agreement :)
An agreement to open 1NT which includes 15-17 balanced and 5440 is not a legal agreement.
Ask the opener what he intended. If they thought this hand was part of their agreement then more investigation is required - probably tell them that this is not a permitted agreement, and record the hand as "other", no adjustment.
If opener says it was an "experiment" then then record it as a psyche - no adjustment.
If opener says they were bored - then warn them that frivolous psyching is a disciplinary offence.
If opener says the had the 5 card suit sorted as a 3-card suit and a 2-card suit, you may believe him. Misbid - no adjustment.
This is the 1st time I have come across the term 'frivolous psyching' and a google search ensued. I found a definition from the ACBL: "Frivolous Psychic Bidding — Any psychic action inspired by a spirit of malicious
mischief or lack of will to win may be interpreted as frivolous. "
However, I can find no definition within the laws and ethics published by the EBU.
If this is the definition, then surely all psychs are designed to be harmful and damaging to the ops and so meet this designation. Opening 1S with a yarborough and void in spades is designed to stop the ops from finding 4 or 6S or whatever - this by intent causes harm and (if successful) damages the ops.
WB 1.4.1 and 8.40.1.10 seems sufficient to show frivolous psyches have been considered.
Short of an admission from a player as to their particular state of mind, a TD is likely to create a needless storm suggesting a player had been frivolous.
WB8.40.1.10 does provide a platform for a TD that wants to make such a ruling.
Sorry Robin I might have the wrong end of the stick but I took the OP to mean that the partnership agreement was 15-17 Balanced and that opener had decided to open with 15-17 HCPs and 5440. Admittedly opener doesn't seem to have corrected the announcement made by responder (law 20F5b) before the opening lead was made. So would that indicate that opener has made an "experiment" or a "misbid". It would seem to me that to decide that it is an illegal bid the director has a number of hurdles to climb over before coming to that conclusion.
Given the number of places (F2F and online) people can play it will be difficult to record how many times partnerships have opened these odd hands "experimentally" to see how the bidding might shape up. 5440 hands don't turn up much anyway but how do clubs know that a pair is know to have psyched in another club with the exact/similar same hand?
As I have said before it all turns around on an "agreement". It doesn't help the opponents that believe that the bid is "illegal" and that they have been damaged.
@CMOT_Dibbler
You sportingly provided good answers to 2 questions from the OP that I wouldn't have because they are rather too ambiguous.
For example, the appended question raised the possibility that an explanation might have been provided for the bid, but we haven't been told what it was: "Would they answers be different between level 2 and level 4 events?" (sic)
Possibly a partnership that plays different conventions at different levels or a partnership that plays with people at different levels etc. and the appended question is fishing to see if the given explanation was plausible.
I had in mind the following in WB 1.4.1
This is not a definition and elsewhere in the WB the L&E 'did not wish to give any guidance' (except ...).
Opponents should be reminded that bids are not "illegal" (if in turn and sufficient, etc.), it is understandings/agreements that are "illegal" (not permitted). Pysches/deviations/misbids are not illegal.
if the opponents think such actions are spoiling their enjoyment and the club don't want bridge to be played that way then this is a disciplinary matter.
On a point of pedantry, if a particular agreement is illegal, then a bid that utilises that agreement is also illegal because to say you can't have an illegal agreement but you can make a bid that relies on that agreement is simply double-speak nonsense.
It follows that if you have an illegal agreement, any bid that takes the meaning of the illegal agreement is also an illegal bid. It is implicit in the rules that there are legal bids, irregular bids and illegal bids.
Happy for you to disagree, but I at least don't have to explain to a player that their bid is legal but it can't mean what they say it means, when I have just discerned that their bid does have an illegal meaning and no other.
> On a point of pedantry, if a particular agreement is illegal, then a bid that utilises that agreement is also illegal because to say you can't have an illegal agreement but you can make a bid that relies on that agreement is simply double-speak nonsense.
>
I think you are wrong...
Psychic bids are, by their very nature, probably illegal should you agree that the hand might be what you actually have.
Opening 1S with a yarborough and void in spades, for example, is a perfectly legal and obvious psych... subject to logging and a review of responders actions to ensure that there was no fielding involved.
Agreeing to open at the 1 level with fewer than 8 HCP is an illegal agreement.
This means that an agreement to open such hands at the 1 level is illegal; whilst making that bid is legal.
Does that make sense?
So, to Robins point, after 1S (psych) - passes and ops mis a slam in spades they may feel aggrieved and may (incorrectly) call such a bid with fewer than 8 points an illegal bid. The director should point out that the bid is a legal one, but an agreement to open such hands thusly would not be legal.
Hi Martin
I understand the point, but no, it doesn't make sense.
If a particular bid is part of an illegal agreement, then the bid is transformed into an illegal bid for that partnership: That means the partnership is forbidden to make use of that bid to convey their illegal agreement.
It makes no sense to interpret the rules in such a way that says a bid that conveys an illegal agreement is a legal bid. The rules should be understood to mean that illegal agreements are banned from the game and so are bids that are used to convey such illegal agreements.
If the bid is not allowed but there is no agreement to use such a bid, then the bid is irregular. If the bid is not allowed but there is an agreement to use it, the bid is illegal.
"Psychic bids are, by their very nature, probably illegal should you agree that the hand might be what you actually have. " So you do agree with Jaded then?
I mean in the the sense that if you agree that opening 1S shows 0-7 HCP, that this is an illegal agreement - thusly making a 1S bid whilst this agreement is in place is utilising an illegal agreement.
Making the 1S opening bid with 5 HCP is not illegal where no such agreement (implicit or explicit) exists.
@Martin
What you've written in response to CMOT_Dibbler is exactly what I've said, so it appears that you do agree with me and yet you still want to call the illegal bid a legal bid.
You might find it interesting to look at what I had to say about Laws 73 and 89 in this thread:
https://forums.ebu.co.uk/discussion/1495/law-73-and-89-amended-w-e-f-1-1-2024
"Law 89A.3
Convey, or attempt to convey, via prohibited means information to partner about a board currently in play."
If we take the view that a bid which conveys an illegal agreement (understanding) is a legal bid, then illegal partnership understandings are not captured by Law 89A.3 because the means (the bid) has been ruled to be legal.
Legal means are not prohibited means.
And this is still not the best argument in favour of making the changes I suggested for Law 89. I hope that more people can see the loophole that has been created in light of the above discussion.
Just to underline my point...
"LAW 16 - AUTHORIZED AND UNAUTHORIZED INFORMATION
A. Players’ Use of Information
1. A player may use information in the auction or play
if:
(a) it derives from the legal calls and plays of the current board (including illegal calls and plays that are accepted) and is unaffected by unauthorized information from another source; "
DEFINITIONS
...
Call Any bid, double, redouble or pass.
Where should I start with this? Perhaps...
The brackets in 16A.1(a) should read:
(including irregular calls and plays that are accepted)
In one fell swoop the Regulating Authority has accepted that illegal agreements are a legitimate part of the game.
If there was any serious challenge to a decision based on the use of illegal agreements, I wouldn't back the Regulating Authority to come out as the winner: I refrain from saying why.
Ambiguity in the rules is not a good thing, neither are contradictions. The lawmakers need to go back to basics and sort out the mess they've created with regards to legal and illegal calls.
Of course, those are just my thoughts and suggestions. I could be wrong.
The Laws don't deal with what agreements are legal as that is a matter for the regulating authorities.
It doesn't seem necessary for the Laws to be written in any particular way just to make it clearer when reading regulations imposed by subordinate organisations, e.g. The EBU.
On a related matter:
I'm not sure about this. Can a Club as a regulating authority, outlaw psyches in the same way they can prohibit specific agreements or allow only certain agreements?
Can a Club reasonably take disciplinary action against a player who has neither misbehaved not committed a gratuitous irregularity, e.g. frivolity or cheating, but has merely taken an action that the Laws of bridge permit?
On a number of occasions in games where the Club prohibits psyching, paid professional TDs (EBU or County qualified) have refused to take any action against players purely because they have psyched, on the grounds that psyching is a legitimate bridge action and that if psyching isn't permitted the game being played isn't bridge. The Club is then probably in breach of its own Constitution and whatever agreements exist between the Club and County/EBU at least for masterpointed games.
Another question relating to psyches and legal/illegal agreements:
You hold AQ10xxxx Spades and AQ10xxx Diamonds.
Can you legally open 2C, artificial and strong, or is it an illegal agreement, psyche or deviation?
If I remember rightly this specific shape was considered so unusual to be 'outside the scope' of the old 8 playing tricks rule (a comment by the EBU). As it's a hand I opened 2C the only time I played with the late Marietta Andree I would be interested in your view. All I'll say is Marietta wasn't best pleased with me (we missed 6D I think).
That last hand is currently right on the edge of being considered strong, currently it'd be a deviation and quite possibly an illegal aggreement. I do sometimes think the Blue book should have a disclaimer to the effect that it doesn't apply to hands with more than one void.
Hi Roger not sure I am fully with you on all bar the last two paragraphs. I think Robin has already answered your question in that "bids are not "illegal" (if in turn and sufficient, etc.), it is understandings/agreements that are "illegal" (not permitted)". So it you decide to open it 2C and there is no agreement (explicit or implicit) then no problem However, I am with Marietta on opening that hand with a 2C bid. My prefered bid would be 1 Spade to give room to investigate the best contract for the partnership.
I have just thought why a club might act on psyches. If a pair psyche three or more times in a row then I would hope that someone might decide that it is not in the best interests of the club to let this continue. It may be ok(legal) but isn't exactly in the spirit of the game. What happens at County or National level is another matter.