[P_Marlowe]

blackshoe, on 2012-March-02, 13:24, said:

Obviously not telling the truth? Well, I don't know about that. The hands on which psychs are appropriate are rare, true. That doesn't mean that two such hands cannot come up in the same session. It would certainly be surprising, but it's not impossible. It's quite likely to be two different psychs, as well.

Most likely you are right.
What I stated was very shorted, ..., I just mentioned the section of the
sentence, that gave a number.
There is also a part, which refers to frequent psychs in the same session,
whatever frequent means.
I am not a certified TD, I just direct tournaments on club level, and my
training was a long time ago, I need a refresher.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2012-March-02, 13:24, said:

Obviously not telling the truth? Well, I don't know about that. The hands on which psychs are appropriate are rare, true. That doesn't mean that two such hands cannot come up in the same session. It would certainly be surprising, but it's not impossible. It's quite likely to be two different psychs, as well.

The quote says "at most twice". So the probability we're interested in is three times in a session. While nothing is impossible, this seems to be close enough.

And the regulation specifically says "the same psych". So you're presumably OK if you psyche two 1-suit openings and a 1NT.

[P_Marlowe]

For those, who can read German
http://www.bridge-ve...egelseite:to_16

[Asoroth]

blackshoe, on 2012-March-02, 06:24, said:

Sounds to me like the German regulations are crazy.

They aren't, but I can understand you thinking so after what has been posted here - but that's just not right for the most part.

It is perfectly ok to psyche more often than once in germany, even in the same session and even it is the same psyche. All §16 TO says that doing so creates an implicit partnership understanding, so if the situation occurs again your partner should alert and disclose both the meaning of the bid according to system AND that you have psyched in that situation more than once. Personally I think that is quite reasonable.

And contrary to what has been written here, it is perfectly fine to open 1♠ in 3rd hand with ♠AKQxx and out. While it is forbidden to have a partnership agreement to open hands that don't satisfy the rule of 18 (HCP + nr. of cards in the two longest suits >=18), everyone would agree that opening with AKQxx xxx xxx xx is hand evaluation and perfectly ok. If you open Qxxxx Kxx xxx Ax you might get in trouble though.

Opening a weak 2 with it is obvioulsy allowed as well. It is even allowed with a 4 card suit.

[Fluffy]

Congrats to everyone, I never got a thread so hijacked as this one in 10 years on BBF

[blackshoe]

Yes, but did we answer your question?

I think the first sentence of post #2 is correct: your RA should write a regulation specifying what should happen. Absent that, if they're playing an illegal agreement (because the frequency of their psychs has established an implicit agreement, and that agreement is illegal) tell them so, and tell them to stop. If they don't stop, disqualify them from the event. The hand where you tell them to stop should probably draw an ArtAS, A- to the OS, A+ to the NOS. I wouldn't go hunting through the records to find other incidences in this tournament. You might also consider whether they are guilty of "frivolous psyching", if there is a regulation about that.

[aguahombre]

Two problems I see:

--Michael asks about more than one psyche, and finds answers about more than two psyches.
--What about the CPU caused by the regulation itself, when a partnership knows it has used up its psyches for the session, but the opponents don't?

[blackshoe]

If a problem is caused by a regulation, and people are following the regulation, they can't IMO be faulted for that. The complaint must be taken to the TO or RA on the grounds that the regulation is flawed, but there would be no redress for the incident at hand.

[mgoetze]

P_Marlowe, on 2012-March-02, 12:42, said:

TO § 16: you can make the same psych at most twice in the same section.

Uhm, well it says if you repeat a psyche more than twice in a set (i.e. 30 boards or so), or otherwise quite regularly, then it becomes an implicit partnership agreement. If this implicit partnership agreement is legal, you may continue to play it, but must inform the opponents according. If your implicit partnership agreement is an illegal one then you must change it. This seems perfectly reasonable to me. I agree that the wording could be better to prevent ambiguity between "a particular psyche" and "any psyche whatsoever", and no doubt there has once upon a time been a horrible tournament director who misinterpreted it as it is being represented by you and Zelandakh, but that is really a rather weak complaint if you ask me.

Really, the German alerting regulations are so horrible I could go on all day about what is wrong with them, so there is no need to pick this bit of the regulations for something to complain about.

[Zelandakh]

I have to admit that I thought this was in the "Turnierordnung 2008" but when I look there now I see it says something else. I know I saw the "einmal pro Durchgang" restriction in a document via the DBV website not very long ago. I had checked because I thought this limit had been removed when the rules on weak twos and 1NT openings changed a few years ago but (apparently) found it still in place. The one psyche per tournament has been given to me by different Directors in different clubs, the last time only a few months ago. It may well be that they are still playing by older (house) regulations in my local of course. I honestly do not mind this so long as people there are friendly (so far, so good).

I would tend to agree with you about the alerting regulations too although, quite frankly, most players do not even obey the current ones so better regulations would not help with that (1♣ = 2+ is routinely not alerted, et al). Yes, I am guilty of this too; I quite blatantly alerted 1NT - X - XX on Saturday knowing I should not. It seems to me completely unfair that the LOLs in the club who only know strong NT should have to protect themselves from XX being a run-out over our weak NT. I would prefer not to "win" because of system unfamiliarity, although playing Acol there certainly does give us an unfair advantage (not as big as strong club would though).