[kiwinacol]

Person playing with another member of same club in a tournament. Unknown what agreements they have but I'm sure the partner would not expect this hand. Person self alerts bid, 2S but has little like described. Is this just tough luck to those who read (N/S) the alert? Of course the partner doesn't see it, only opener and responder. Can you physic (if that's what the bid is) and give alert bid to opponents knowing description is out of range?


Only EW Vul. North deals and opens 1♣

1♣ 2♠ 2NT pass; .... The 2S overcall was alerted as "6-10 6+ suit".

Overcallers hand:

♠ J 10 9 8 5 3 2

♥ 9 6

♦ 6

♣ 8 4 3

[P_Marlowe]

kiwinacol, on 2020-May-26, 00:58, said:

Person playing with another member of same club in a tournament. Unknown what agreements they have but I'm sure the partner would not expect this hand. Person self alerts bid, 2S but has little like described. Is this just tough luck to those who read (N/S) the alert? Of course the partner doesn't see it, only opener and responder. Can you physic (if that's what the bid is) and give alert bid to opponents knowing description is out of range?


Only EW Vul. North deals and opens 1♣

1♣ 2♠ 2NT pass; .... The 2S overcall was alerted as "6-10 6+ suit".

Overcallers hand:

♠ J 10 9 8 5 3 2

♥ 9 6

♦ 6

♣ 8 4 3

Selfalert but misdisribing the hand, is problematic.
If you play with screens, you get 2 meanings of the bid, and you have the chance to crosscheck, if they are in sync,
if yes, all is fine, you only have the right to know, what the corresponding p knowes, without this cross check, ...
I never would do this, it is pretty close to cheating.
Playing on BBO, I only would do it, if I am known to the opponents, knowing, that they trust me, against strangers,
again, it would look too much like cheating.

[Cyberyeti]

It's entirely legal as long as it's as much a surprise to his partner as it is to you. If they have a system card, you can check. The worry with this sort of bid is that they may have done it before, so if there's any decent possibility of his partner raising or doubling your final contract, then they may be in trouble.

[barmar]

Why is someone self-alerting a bid in offline bridge? If they're using screens, only the screenmate will read the explanation, not both opponents.

[barmar]

P_Marlowe, on 2020-May-26, 02:21, said:

Selfalert but misdisribing the hand, is problematic.

Not really. You're allowed to deviate from your agreement, but you should still explain the agreement.

[P_Marlowe]

barmar, on 2020-May-26, 08:35, said:

Not really. You're allowed to deviate from your agreement, but you should still explain the agreement.

But how to verify the partnership agreement? This is my reason, claiming it problematic.

[Gerardo]

It is no different than partner alerting and explaining their agreement when applicable.

People are still allowed to deviate from their agreements, and opps are entitle only to the agreement, not the deviation.

If the deviation is common enough for the partner to pick it up, though, then it should be included as part of the agreement (by whoever is supposed to alert / explain).

[pescetom]

P_Marlowe, on 2020-May-26, 10:43, said:

But how to verify the partnership agreement? This is my reason, claiming it problematic.

Bridge ultimately makes no sense as a game unless the agreements are verifiable.
Unfortunately the laws leave the related mechanisms up to RAs and do not even consider online play, so the whole thing right now is a bit of a mess.
The lowest common demoninator is a system card, however poorly regulated or compiled.

[Bad_Wolf]

Players like this will often have less than advertised. I know many of the characters playing in the New Zealand online events and a couple are fairly dodgy. In practice you should always take the declared point ranges of weak bids with a grain of salt. Of course you can always look up this players previous efforts since its online; this is a huge advantage of online play in my view as all their misdeeds are available for public scrutiny. I would bet anything that the last time this player had a similar hand in similar circumstances he made the same bid. Unfortunately the bridge world is full of players like this who "agree" a range but it comes with an implied wink. They are either oblivious to their implicit understanding with partner or simply don't give a crap - the latter types are just cheats.

[bluenikki]

kiwinacol, on 2020-May-26, 00:58, said:

Person playing with another member of same club in a tournament. Unknown what agreements they have but I'm sure the partner would not expect this hand. Person self alerts bid, 2S but has little like described. Is this just tough luck to those who read (N/S) the alert? Of course the partner doesn't see it, only opener and responder. Can you physic (if that's what the bid is) and give alert bid to opponents knowing description is out of range?


Only EW Vul. North deals and opens 1♣

1♣ 2♠ 2NT pass; .... The 2S overcall was alerted as "6-10 6+ suit".

Overcallers hand:

♠ J 10 9 8 5 3 2

♥ 9 6

♦ 6

♣ 8 4 3

In the circumstance you describe, with no regular partnership, it is unlikely that there is any actual agreement about the point range of a jump overcall. For that matter, in your regular partnerships, do any of you have a explicitly agreed point range? If so, why?

If it is not written down, there should be no alert or self-alert.

[msjennifer]

Sir
the laws fairly fall short in such a case.If I was the director i would have watched this pair by using an observer to sit on their table in the future tournaments.If he had just daid "it is an undefined preempt in Spades " it would not have been misinformation.Yes ,I know that a player may bid 7NT on 0 points. .The problem here is he gave the HCP range which fell short in the 2S bid and it is here that the laws are FEEBLE and Cheaters can escape penalty.

[Lobowolf]

There are two separate potential issues here -

1) The misdescription of the actual hand; and

2) A possible undisclosed partnership agreement.

The (negative to the 2♠ bidder) replies to date have mostly focused on the possibility of an undisclosed agreement, but those replies are not addressing the issue as framed in the OP, which states "I'm sure the partner would not have expected this hand.". That's the very essence and description of a psych, and psychs are perfectly legal. OP's concern - as the post was written - is with the fact that s/he received a description that didn't match the actual hand. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

[miamijd]

I'm afraid I don't understand. Why would this bid be self-alerted? If you aren't playing with screens (and since this was a club, you wouldn't be), you don't self-alert. And even if you did have screens, this isn't an alertable call.

So I am very confused.

[Cyberyeti]

Lobowolf, on 2020-May-27, 10:38, said:

There are two separate potential issues here -

1) The misdescription of the actual hand; and

2) A possible undisclosed partnership agreement.

The (negative to the 2♠ bidder) replies to date have mostly focused on the possibility of an undisclosed agreement, but those replies are not addressing the issue as framed in the OP, which states "I'm sure the partner would not have expected this hand.". That's the very essence and description of a psych, and psychs are perfectly legal. OP's concern - as the post was written - is with the fact that s/he received a description that didn't match the actual hand. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Psyches are legal, but you need to examine the psycher's partner's actions to see if you are entitled to redress.

[P_Marlowe]

miamijd, on 2020-May-28, 14:33, said:

I'm afraid I don't understand. Why would this bid be self-alerted? If you aren't playing with screens (and since this was a club, you wouldn't be), you don't self-alert. And even if you did have screens, this isn't an alertable call.

So I am very confused.

Hi,

my take was / is, that this occurred on BBO, maybe the club decided to go online duuring the corona times.

And I want to make it clear, I dont dispute, that psyches are legal, ... I just find psyches problematic, when the
psych is via a self alert. And again, if you are in a zone of trust, i.e. you know the guys, than this is perfectly fine,
only if you are not in a trust zone, ..., well be aware, that someone my not believe your claim, that your alert decribed
the partnership understanding.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[barmar]

miamijd, on 2020-May-28, 14:33, said:

I'm afraid I don't understand. Why would this bid be self-alerted? If you aren't playing with screens (and since this was a club, you wouldn't be), you don't self-alert. And even if you did have screens, this isn't an alertable call.

So I am very confused.

Alerting rules depend on jurisdiction. The OP is in New Zealand, maybe they alert weak jump overcalls there.

[blackshoe]

P_Marlowe, on 2020-May-26, 10:43, said:

barmar, on 2020-May-26, 08:35, said:

Not really. You're allowed to deviate from your agreement, but you should still explain the agreement.

But how to verify the partnership agreement? This is my reason, claiming it problematic.

One might just as easily say that self-alerting is problematic.

Bad_Wolf, on 2020-May-26, 20:12, said:

Players like this will often have less than advertised. I know many of the characters playing in the New Zealand online events and a couple are fairly dodgy. In practice you should always take the declared point ranges of weak bids with a grain of salt. Of course you can always look up this players previous efforts since its online; this is a huge advantage of online play in my view as all their misdeeds are available for public scrutiny. I would bet anything that the last time this player had a similar hand in similar circumstances he made the same bid. Unfortunately the bridge world is full of players like this who "agree" a range but it comes with an implied wink. They are either oblivious to their implicit understanding with partner or simply don't give a crap - the latter types are just cheats.

"Players like this." You are condemning this player on the basis of one incident. "I would bet anything that the last time this player had a similar hand in similar circumstances he made the same bid." Maybe he did. The question is how frequently this comes up for this pair. That is what leads his partner to expect it, and thus it becomes an implicit partnership understanding. But assuming such an understanding exists without any other evidence than one hand is fundamentally wrong.

Cyberyeti, on 2020-May-28, 15:05, said:

Psyches are legal, but you need to examine the psycher's partner's actions to see if you are entitled to redress.\

No. That's the director's job, not the players'.

Players need to understand the rules here, and the frequency of questions like the OP's tell me that they don't. Here's the deal:

1. Partnership understandings arise via either explicit discussion or mutual experience.
2. Partnership understandings must be disclosed to the opponents.
3. The Regulating Authority, or the fact of being online, specifies how this is to be done.
4. The Alert Procedure, whether f2f or online, is intended to disclose partnership understandings.
5. It is legal in most cases to deliberately deviate from such understandings, provided partner has no more indication than opponents that this may happen.
6. It is legal in most cases to accidentally deviate from such understandings.
7. There should be no stigma attached to such deviations, whether deliberate or accidental, and whether they rise to the level of "psych" or not.
8. The fact that one self-alerts online or behind screens does not change any of the above.

As the song says "paranoia strikes deep, into your heart it will creep". Don't let it.

[Cyberyeti]

blackshoe, on 2020-June-02, 12:42, said:

No. That's the director's job, not the players'.

Players need to understand the rules here, and the frequency of questions like the OP's tell me that they don't. Here's the deal:

1. Partnership understandings arise via either explicit discussion or mutual experience.
2. Partnership understandings must be disclosed to the opponents.
3. The Regulating Authority, or the fact of being online, specifies how this is to be done.
4. The Alert Procedure, whether f2f or online, is intended to disclose partnership understandings.
5. It is legal in most cases to deliberately deviate from such understandings, provided partner has no more indication than opponents that this may happen.
6. It is legal in most cases to accidentally deviate from such understandings.
7. There should be no stigma attached to such deviations, whether deliberate or accidental, and whether they rise to the level of "psych" or not.
8. The fact that one self-alerts online or behind screens does not change any of the above.

As the song says "paranoia strikes deep, into your heart it will creep". Don't let it.

Sorry I was sloppy in my language, I was thinking as a director, but you tend to do it at least mentally as a player to see if it's worth calling the director.

[pescetom]

barmar, on 2020-June-01, 08:34, said:

Alerting rules depend on jurisdiction. The OP is in New Zealand, maybe they alert weak jump overcalls there.

Many if not most jurisdictions alert weak jump overcalls, and weak jump responses too for that matter.
The natural meaning of a jump is strong, as the WBF alert procedures recognise.

[pescetom]

blackshoe, on 2020-June-02, 12:42, said:

Here's the deal:

1. Partnership understandings arise via either explicit discussion or mutual experience.
2. Partnership understandings must be disclosed to the opponents.
3. The Regulating Authority, or the fact of being online, specifies how this is to be done.
4. The Alert Procedure, whether f2f or online, is intended to disclose partnership understandings.
5. It is legal in most cases to deliberately deviate from such understandings, provided partner has no more indication than opponents that this may happen.
6. It is legal in most cases to accidentally deviate from such understandings.
7. There should be no stigma attached to such deviations, whether deliberate or accidental, and whether they rise to the level of "psych" or not.
8. The fact that one self-alerts online or behind screens does not change any of the above.

As the song says "paranoia strikes deep, into your heart it will creep". Don't let it.

I agree 98% and upvoted the post.
But I would say 'always' for #6 and 'in most cases' (coherent with #5) for #7.
Let the stigma be for deliberate deviations where partner might remember.