[blml] Clarification... [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Nigel]

[Herman de Wael]
What's with this word "repeatedly"? Yes, I've said that I always do
it, but what does that matter? Over and above 1000 third-in-hand 1He
openings, there are maybe 4 that qualify for the H1H. I know I've said
I always open them, but sometimes you just don't feel the urge, and I
pass anyway. So I open 3 out of 4. That means that in 1003 times I
open 1H, 3 times it's psychic. Now of course it is possible that my
current partner remembered that last time, and that is why I believe
this must be revealed, but you cannot treat me any different from
another player, who opened 2 out of 4, or even one who opened 4 out of
4. Because our psyching frequency (3 out of 1003 or 2 out of 1002) is
exactly the same (and I doubt if we open all 1000 same hands !)

So even if there is "automatic" psyching, to the rest of the table it
is just a freak occurence.

And I repeat, if you are going to call my psyches illegal for none
other reason than because I said I "always" did them, then I'll no
longer say I always do them. I'll just let you figure it out for
yourself, and admit to 3 psyches without revealing whether I had 3 or
30 suitable hands in that period.

[nige1]
IMO, it would not matter whether Herman has an undisclosed implicit 
agreement to open 1H third in hand with...

(A) 0-3 HCP and any shape or
(B) 0-1 HCP and 0-3 hearts.
(B) 0-11 HCP and any shape or even
(C) 50% (say) of such hands.

IMO there are *two* reasons why this agreement is likely to be illegal 
under current law.

I.  It is a concealed partnership understanding. Surely even Herman 
will concede that it is daft to rule that an agreement that comes up 
once a month is legal but if it comes up twice a month it is not?

II. In many jurisdictions, it is illegal to open by agreement with 
substantially below opening values.

It would be legal according to criterion I, IMO, if you adopt a slight 
change in the rules: that if partner made no attempt to *field* the 
pseudo-psych, then it would be OK.

Such a rule change would make lots of concealed agreements legal (in 
particular, the so-called "tactical bids" used by many experts).

Some may regard this is a can of worms that they would rather keep 
sealed.

I believe, however, that this is just one of many changes that are 
necessary because so many clever directors repeatedly demonstrate that 
they do not understand the rules of Bridge, as currently formulated.

If so few directors correctly interpret the rules, how are ordinary 
players like me expected to cope?