[blml] A Psyche Classification

[David Burn]

[TWM]

Any talk of a "red psych" is the work of a drivelling idiot.

[DALB]

It is a curious fact that people who are vehemently opposed to the notion
that failure to raise spades with four of them does not deserve a
classification above green are people who are, on many occasions, known to
hold hands that do not very much resemble the bids they make.

[TWM]

*If* it is determined that the pair has an agreement to play 2S as
showing "H support or S" or "A useful card in S + H support" or indeed
*anything* else that agreement is 100% legal according to OB regulations.

[DALB]

It wasn't. The pair in question were not playing FNJs at the table, only in
the appeals committee. It is frankly inconceivable that a pair who actually
play that 2S in this sequence might be KQ10, or Ax, would fail to disclose
such an agreement at the table or on their convention card.

[TWM]

If no such agreement is deemed to exist then it's a green psych.

[DALB]

Nonsense. If West is not going to support spades with this hand, when is he
going to support spades? And if he is never going to support spades, then
his partnership has an understanding that was concealed from the opponents
at the time, and may well be concealed from other opponents at other times.

[TW}

FWIW I'd incline towards the player having taken a view based on his
general experience rather than partnership knowledge.

[DALB]

This means that the player's "general experience" is that people who bid
spades in this auction don't have them. Perhaps he plays a lot of his bridge
against the likes of West-Meads and Probst, but I assure you that such
experience is very far from "general".

David Burn
London, England