[blml] psyches, rule of coincidence

[Adam Beneschan]

> Ciao! Many years ago I directed a tournament in which a player opened 1 
> in a major.  According to the conv. card (and the players) they played 
> "limit raises", with adequate support in suit and 8 losers they raised 
> to 3.  But, in this case the partner bid 1NT (with adequate trump 
> support and 8 losers), which the opener passed for a decent score. 
> Opener had something like 3 HCPs and a doubleton in his bid suit.  Do 
> you allow the score to stand?  

You haven't given us enough information.  The hand may have had
"adequate" support and 8 losers, but that doesn't mean the correct bid
is automatic.  In a recent thread on BLML, someone wondered whether
those who use LTC would treat Qxx Qxx Qxx Qxxx the same as Axx Axx Axx
Axxx, even though both hands have the same number of losers (8).  So
perhaps this pair is too experienced to think that LTC or any other
evaluation system is something to be followed slavishly.  

Similarly with your second example.  You say that responder failed to
make a limit raise with an "ideal limit raise" bid, but can you say
for sure that someone might not evaluate it differently?  Some limit
raise hands should bid a side suit to help partner evaluate his
holding in that suit.  Perhaps the player in question actually
considered the hand to be too *good* for a limit raise.

I have some sympathy with the idea that if a player fails to make an
absolutely 100% clearcut bid, we can suspect him of fielding a psych.
But you'd better make damn sure the bid is 100% clearcut---and that
has to be more than just "that's what the director would have bid
without giving it much thought".  Specifically, rough evaluation
formulas that reduce hands to a single number, like point count or
loser count or Zar points or Kaplan-Rubens or whatever, can probably
never, by themselves, make a certain bid clearcut or automatic enough
to make this sort of ruling.  And if the only thing you remember about
the hand in the first case is that contained adequate support and "8
losers", then perhaps that means that's the only thing you based your
ruling on.  And if so, your ruling was likely wrong.  But reality,
there's no way any of us can legitimately judge your cases without
seeing the exact hand of the player accused of fielding.

                                -- Adam



> (I didn't, but then I rather approve of 
> the law of coincidence, even when it has only happened once as in this 
> case.)  (Naturally I asked why the responder didn't make a limit raise 
> but was not convinced by his explanation.)  Later, another pair (from 
> the same country) had a fairly similar bidding sequence. Opener psyched 
> 1 in major, partner with an ideal limit raise bid 2 in a minor (normally 
> forcing) which opener passed.  Again decent score.  Again, the first 
> time it happened with this pair.  Again I adjusted the score.  Ciao, JE