[kenrexford]

You are dealt and impressive hand as Dealer, all white:

♠AQJxx ♥Kxxxxx ♦Ax ♣---

You open 1♥. Your LHO doubles, and partner bid 1♠. RHO jumps to 3♣.

For the sake of argument, suppose that you bid 4♠. LHO will bid 5♣ doubled by partner and passed to you.

Any thoughts here?

Something fishy has been going on, by the way. For a slight bit of twilight zone information that the real bidder had, see the hidden text that follows:

Spoiler

This is a local club game, where you smell a rat. Hands are often sorted into suits before they have yet been played. The playing director wins an extraordinarily large amount of the time.

This evening, everyone seems to have an 11-card fit. 80% of the hands involve 5-level decisions, and sometimes even competitive six-level decisions.

Your partner seems to be in on the joke. He has made a few weird leads that are the only winning lead, spurning the obvious but ineffective lead. His average first bid is at the four-level, way too high normally for his hand but more and more successful as the night progresses.

[skjaeran]

The jump to 4♠ certainly didn't put us in a forcin pass position now.
So my action depends on how we treat this double of 5♣.
If it's pure penalty, I'll pass.
If it shows extra strenght and asks me to make a decison based on this, I'll bid on. My ♥'s aren't strong enough for anything more forwardgoing than 5♠.

[Quantumcat]

Is 4♠ no longer pre-emptive because an opponent bid something pre-emptive (don't pre-empt over pre-empt)? If 4♠ is strong, then what does 4♣ say now that's different? Strong, and club control perhaps?? Curious.

[ArtK78]

The 4S bid was just awful. A grand slam is cold opposite Kxxx of spades and the Ax of hearts. A small slam is cold opposite less than that.

I think 4C is automatic over 3C. And there is no way that I am letting the opponents play in 5Cx.

Quite frankly, 6S over 3C is a better call than 4S. But I am not advocating that call.

Is partner prone to psyching 1S over 1Hx? If so, I am in a severe ethical bind on this auction. Perhaps that explains your 4S bid, Ken.

[kenrexford]

ArtK78, on Jul 20 2007, 09:46 AM, said:

Is partner prone to psyching 1S over 1Hx? If so, I am in a severe ethical bind on this auction. Perhaps that explains your 4S bid, Ken.

I did not bid 4♠ in this auction, but you are onto something...

[skjaeran]

kenrexford, on Jul 21 2007, 06:46 AM, said:

ArtK78, on Jul 20 2007, 09:46 AM, said:

Is partner prone to psyching 1S over 1Hx?  If so, I am in a severe ethical bind on this auction.  Perhaps that explains your 4S bid, Ken.

I did not bid 4♠ in this auction, but you are onto something...

If partner is prone to psyching 1♠ here, I'd NOT pass 5♣x (nor just raise to 4♠ previous), I'd probably bid 6♠ to try to teach him not to continue this silly psyche. (I've got nothing against psyching, quite the contrary, but this baby-psyche is just completely silly.)

[kenrexford]

skaeran, on Jul 21 2007, 06:00 AM, said:

kenrexford, on Jul 21 2007, 06:46 AM, said:

ArtK78, on Jul 20 2007, 09:46 AM, said:

Is partner prone to psyching 1S over 1Hx?  If so, I am in a severe ethical bind on this auction.  Perhaps that explains your 4S bid, Ken.

I did not bid 4♠ in this auction, but you are onto something...

If partner is prone to psyching 1♠ here, I'd NOT pass 5♣x (nor just raise to 4♠ previous), I'd probably bid 6♠ to try to teach him not to continue this silly psyche. (I've got nothing against psyching, quite the contrary, but this baby-psyche is just completely silly.)

Ah, but can't you combine your options? Is there a way, with this hand, to "invite the grand" by bidding hearts at some point? This might include, for instance, bidding 5♥ and then bidding on if partner signs off, cuebidding again?

As it was, there was a psychic, and perhaps a poor one in theory. However, 5♥ is cold, and 6♥ makes on the actual layout with anything but a diamond lead, and even that lead only fails because the spade hook fails.

So, the "strange and unexpected problem" on this particular hand was whether a person should consider making the passable call that caters to a high-possibility psychic as the slam move or game try or lead-director. Whether this is an ethical problem, or whether this might simply be legitimate tactical thinking.

[skjaeran]

kenrexford, on Jul 21 2007, 01:54 PM, said:

skaeran, on Jul 21 2007, 06:00 AM, said:

kenrexford, on Jul 21 2007, 06:46 AM, said:

ArtK78, on Jul 20 2007, 09:46 AM, said:

Is partner prone to psyching 1S over 1Hx?  If so, I am in a severe ethical bind on this auction.  Perhaps that explains your 4S bid, Ken.

I did not bid 4♠ in this auction, but you are onto something...

If partner is prone to psyching 1♠ here, I'd NOT pass 5♣x (nor just raise to 4♠ previous), I'd probably bid 6♠ to try to teach him not to continue this silly psyche. (I've got nothing against psyching, quite the contrary, but this baby-psyche is just completely silly.)

Ah, but can't you combine your options? Is there a way, with this hand, to "invite the grand" by bidding hearts at some point? This might include, for instance, bidding 5♥ and then bidding on if partner signs off, cuebidding again?

As it was, there was a psychic, and perhaps a poor one in theory. However, 5♥ is cold, and 6♥ makes on the actual layout with anything but a diamond lead, and even that lead only fails because the spade hook fails.

So, the "strange and unexpected problem" on this particular hand was whether a person should consider making the passable call that caters to a high-possibility psychic as the slam move or game try or lead-director. Whether this is an ethical problem, or whether this might simply be legitimate tactical thinking.

If I was "afraid" of a psyche I wouldn't make a passable call. Not so much on ethical grounds (which is important too though), but rather to teach partner a lesson. I strongly dislike partner having psyching tendencies where a psyche is frequent enough as to be anticipated. And I'll avoid "fielding" these if at all possible.

[kenrexford]

skaeran, on Jul 21 2007, 08:39 AM, said:

If I was "afraid" of a psyche I wouldn't make a passable call. Not so much on ethical grounds (which is important too though), but rather to teach partner a lesson. I strongly dislike partner having psyching tendencies where a psyche is frequent enough as to be anticipated. And I'll avoid "fielding" these if at all possible.

The soapbox does give one the ability to claim the higher ground, but I believe that you are making two errors here and missing one huge point here.

First, you seem to be assuning that partner needs a lesson, because he presumably makes psychic bids enough to be able to smell them and field them. As it turns out, this psychic was the only psychic ever made in this partnership. No history. No precedent. Completely out of left field. So, no punishment needs to be issued, unless your view on psychics is way more conservative than you suggest. No need to get hostile with your incorrect assumptions.

Second, you seem also to assume that you are improperly fielding a psychic if the only way to spot it is to know partner. As you yourself noted, this is a "baby psychic," which means one that anyone might predict, including the opponents. It is my opinion, perhaps not shared, that partner is entitled to smell a rat if the auction suggests a rat. Acting on that blatantly might not be called for, but why would pure tactics be an impediment? Is it unethical to select between plausible alternatives, selecting one that happens to have tactical benefits if partner had made a psychic call, simply because you believe that a psychic might be contextually more likely, albeit remotely?

The third thing that you are missing is the "one huge point." This is a club game where the hands are stacked by the playing director. Everyone paying attention should have noticed that every hand this evening is leading to a five-level decision. Partner trying to pick of spades early is much more likely than in usually conditions. Sure, this is an ethical problem tossed into an unreasonable scenario (which is why this was the first and only psychoic of the partnership). However, the strained situation caused me to wonder whether Opener, in a real game, would be unethical for making a slam try in such a way that he would bid hearts at some point, allowing partner to pass if he had made a psychic.

[skjaeran]

kenrexford, on Jul 21 2007, 05:36 PM, said:

skaeran, on Jul 21 2007, 08:39 AM, said:

If I was "afraid" of a psyche I wouldn't make a passable call. Not so much on ethical grounds (which is important too though), but rather to teach partner a lesson. I strongly dislike partner having psyching tendencies where a psyche is frequent enough as to be anticipated. And I'll avoid "fielding" these if at all possible.

The soapbox does give one the ability to claim the higher ground, but I believe that you are making two errors here and missing one huge point here.

First, you seem to be assuning that partner needs a lesson, because he presumably makes psychic bids enough to be able to smell them and field them. As it turns out, this psychic was the only psychic ever made in this partnership. No history. No precedent. Completely out of left field. So, no punishment needs to be issued, unless your view on psychics is way more conservative than you suggest. No need to get hostile with your incorrect assumptions.

Second, you seem also to assume that you are improperly fielding a psychic if the only way to spot it is to know partner. As you yourself noted, this is a "baby psychic," which means one that anyone might predict, including the opponents. It is my opinion, perhaps not shared, that partner is entitled to smell a rat if the auction suggests a rat. Acting on that blatantly might not be called for, but why would pure tactics be an impediment? Is it unethical to select between plausible alternatives, selecting one that happens to have tactical benefits if partner had made a psychic call, simply because you believe that a psychic might be contextually more likely, albeit remotely?

The third thing that you are missing is the "one huge point." This is a club game where the hands are stacked by the playing director. Everyone paying attention should have noticed that every hand this evening is leading to a five-level decision. Partner trying to pick of spades early is much more likely than in usually conditions. Sure, this is an ethical problem tossed into an unreasonable scenario (which is why this was the first and only psychoic of the partnership). However, the strained situation caused me to wonder whether Opener, in a real game, would be unethical for making a slam try in such a way that he would bid hearts at some point, allowing partner to pass if he had made a psychic.

Ken, if you read my first post you can see that I've got nothing against psyches at all. And if this partnership have no psyching history at all, there can never be a problem. And I'd bid whatever seemed natural to me at the table in your position.

I'd not be expecting a psyche here at all, and unless something strange happened in the bidding I'd be clueless about a possible psyche. I can't see that I'd ever be making a slam move by rebidding my empty ♥'s at any point, but see no problem whatsoever if you did either.

However, if I was playing against you and your partner, knowing nothing about his psyching tendencies or your history as a partnership, I'd be very sceptical if you at some point bid 6♥ with this hand catching your partner's psyche.

If you then told me in a friendly and seemingly honest way that you've never seen your partner make this psyche before, I might believe you. But not knowing you or your partner it's hard to say how I'd react. Of course, the setup and all would most probably make me just shrug my shoulders and pick up the next board.

[Halo]

I'd like to take action if available that shows a club void and interest in slam/Grand Slam.

If I can't do that I would bid 6S.

Unless it's the Christmas Party I am not interested in a variant of Bridge where I guess the hand setups and double guess partner.

If partner's psych is an 'agreement' (can't remember if I alert that?) then I do exactly what I would do if it was not.

4C is a perfectly good idea in real life and sidesteps the question on the forum.