luis, on Mar 11 2005, 08:48 PM, said:
mycroft, on Mar 11 2005, 07:31 PM, said:
luis, on Mar 10 2005, 08:59 PM, said:
In one hand I bid 1s over 1c with xxxx, x, xxx, T98xx
[response snipped]
Dude, I didn't overcall 1s, my pd opened 1c and I bid 1s, having 4s and 5 clubs I think that the 1s bid is as sound as it can be, if they have game we can find a spade defense and if pd has a bomb then we should be able to make at least 5c so passing 1c is a losing option in both scenarios.
Now call that a psyche and I will be extremely surprised.
Ah I apologize. "I bid 1S over 1C"...read to me like an overcall.
Okay, this one *is* borderline - and depends on your agreements with your partner.
If *I* did it, it would be a psych - because I have a policy of sound responses, and I've played 1C-1S;2NT-Oh dear too many times. Here, you have a 3C "out", but is it NF? Is partner still going to take you for a good 5? *My* partners always see "oh good my clubs will run" and bid 3NT...
I agree with your logic, by the way - but I'm not sure 5C opposite a balanced 18 is going to be as solid as you make out. And that's what my partners always have...
The same arguments apply, though. If your agreement is that you respond in a new suit on exremely weak hands with a known "rescue" fit, and the opponents are given appropriate disclosure, then you're ok. If not, then if your agreement is that you would bid 1S with (say) QTxx x xxx T98xx, and the opponents are in the loop, then it's probably not a "gross distortion".
If you have this agreement and the opponents aren't in the loop, you still haven't psyched, but if the UI meant that they missed their shot at 4H or 5Cx, they're going to get an adjusted score.
The next response, then from many people - not you, Luis, I know that - is "But it's Standard. Everybody would do that." I don't care what "everybody" would do - it's what the particular partnership would do, and the opponents are entitled to that. If they're not, they get the ruling.
Yes, yes: "general Bridge knowledge" - but people hide many sins behind that, too, like "I don't have to tell you what a minimum opener is, that's general Bridge knowledge" or "Everybody knows that 2NT after a weak 2 could be a preemptive raise". I don't know a good test for "general Bridge knowledge". Maybe ask 4 random people in the game, including any visitor, what they would call on that hand, and if every one of them at least considers the call - not knowing who their partner is, not even their strength, just the system played - then it's probably "gBk". Note there's no "peer" judgement here - general Bridge knowledge doesn't mean "general Expert knowledge" or "general knowledge among Eastern Canada 2/1 players" or...
Again, I apologize. I really did read it wrong.
Michael.
Long live the Republic-k. -- Major General J. Golding Frederick (tSCoSI)