Help
It's a judgement call, not a matter of some specific percentage. Has the player psyched in this way frequently enough that his partner begins to expect it? If so, then it's an implicit agreement, the possibility has to be included in disclosure ("he has A or B", not "he has A or he psyched", because it's no longer a psych).
If you want a more specific guideline I suggest three times in six months, but as I said, it's a judgment call for the TD.
Is this hand strong?
#21
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 17,693
- Joined: 2006-April-17
- Gender:Male
- Location:Rochester, NY
Posted 2018-July-31, 07:39
--------------------
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
#22
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 282
- Joined: 2009-October-07
- Gender:Female
- Location:Australia
Posted 2018-July-31, 18:27
So in the OP it says South asked about the 3S bid and was told "strong, possibly 16 points" - the system card indicates 16+ points and 5+ of the suit to make this call, which is forcing. To me that is not what the 3S bidder held and South passed on the basis of that explanation. Looking at the West hand I did think it held a lot of merit for the call - from memory only 6 losers, but also held heart support for partner. I think players, new players in particular, are entitled to an accurate explanation of a bid if they ask. Anyway, thanks everyone for your comments which were most interesting.
Australia
#23
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 4,022
- Joined: 2014-March-15
- Gender:Male
Posted 2018-July-31, 19:05
Chris3875, on 2018-July-31, 18:27, said:
I think players, new players in particular, are entitled to an accurate explanation of a bid if they ask.
You are entitled to an accurate explanation of how the partner of the bidder understands the bid. The bidder themselves is perfectly entitled to make any bid they like.
#24
- The Abbess
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 17,197
- Joined: 2004-April-22
- Gender:Female
- Location:UK
Posted 2018-July-31, 20:20
What's the point of asking that question? At best, it serves to allow S to double-shoot. If partner made a stupid bid or the splits are horrible, 4♦ can be a good contract, and otherwise they can always ask the TD for a better score.
S has to trust p, not opps. Make a slam try, or at least bid 5♦.
Result stands.
S has to trust p, not opps. Make a slam try, or at least bid 5♦.
Result stands.
The world would be such a happy place, if only everyone played Acol :) --- TramTicket
#25
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 14,197
- Joined: 2009-July-13
- Location:England
Posted 2018-August-01, 02:30
smerriman, on 2018-July-31, 19:05, said:
You are entitled to an accurate explanation of how the partner of the bidder understands the bid. The bidder themselves is perfectly entitled to make any bid they like.
Nitpick - not "how he understands the bid" but "what their agreements are" (matters if undiscussed particularly), and the partner of the bidder can be held to account if he bids as if the bidder doesn't have what he should. In this case the preempter has no bid to make.