[nullve]

A couple of questions motivated by recent threads:

1) Do you regard a 3♣ response to regular/Garbage Stayman as

a) idle, but not undefined
b) undefined, but not idle
c) both idle and undefined
d) neither idle nor undefined (really?)

?

True story: I was thinking about starting this thread yesterday, but spent all day playing Challenge and team matches on BBO instead. Then, as if by black magic, the following hand came up:

---

North was not a regular partner of mine, but good.

2) Can idle bids legally be used as psychic auto-controls?

If the bidding goes

1N-2♣; 3♣,

where

* 1N implies 'I have a legitimate 1N opening'
* 3♣ implies 'I don't have a legitimate 1N opening, as I would then have responed either 2♦, 2♥ or 2♠ to Stayman',

then Opener is obviously contradicting himself. But from a contradiction everything follows, e.g. that Opener has a 3334 yarborough, 13 spades or, most importantly, a hand where 3♣ is the best available spot. So a rational (but possibly immoral or criminal) Responder might pass even on a good hand, turning the 3♣ bid into a kind of psychic auto-control if Opener for some reason wanted to play 3♣.

This post has been edited by nullve: 2016-April-27, 08:46

[barmar]

It's idle and undefined to me -- I don't think I've ever discussed it with any partner, and I can't recall ever seeing a description of it in any instructional material. My guess is partner has 6 clubs and 1NT strength.

What is the legal question about this?

[mr1303]

The only partners who bid 3C here are BBO experts who haven't heard of Stayman.

If you psyched 1nt you pass 2C, not raise to 3.

[mycroft]

I've never seen this outside "EHAA Extended Stayman": "I have both majors, and would accept a balanced game try".

Blind, I would take this as a "misbid control" similar to 1NT-2♣-4♠; "Hey partner, I just found out that my 3=3=4=3 is actually a 0=3=4=6".

Note: we tend to answer 1NT-2♣! Keri; 2♦! "Forced". "What if he doesn't bid 2♦"? with several smart comments, starting with "then he doesn't have a 1NT opener" to "I guess he's walking home".

[Edit: to count to 13]

[blackshoe]

I had a novice partner years ago who, when we initially discussed system, agreed that a 2♣ reply to 1NT would be Stayman. Then she consistently rebid 3♣ over my Stayman inquiry. Every time. After the third time I started alerting her 3♣ bid. "I don't know what she has, but she thinks I have clubs." Her 1NT openings were fine, btw.

[Zelandakh]

In some parts of the world where Stayman is promisary, 3♣ is indeed neither idle nor undefined. If someone made this call my first thought would be that they were used to this form of the convention. To the question about whether it is legal for this rebid to show, for example, (4333) and 0hcp then I would say no. In that case the agreement on the original 1NT includes this hand so MI has already been given. And that meaning may well not be allowed so the system itself would then be illegal. If it is not illegal and properly disclosed then it is fine. What you cannot get away with is calling it a psyche to get around system regulations. And finally, if you have psyched a hand where you think 3♣ is the best spot, follow mr1303's advice and just pass 2♣ - nothing wrong with that!

[nullve]

Zelandakh, on 2016-April-27, 15:34, said:

To the question about whether it is legal for this rebid to show, for example, (4333) and 0hcp then I would say no. In that case the agreement on the original 1NT includes this hand so MI has already been given. And that meaning may well not be allowed so the system itself would then be illegal. If it is not illegal and properly disclosed then it is fine. What you cannot get away with is calling it a psyche to get around system regulations.

I agree with this. Idle bids can acquire meaning with use, in which case they're no longer idle and may even be illegal. But suppose certain idle bids have never been made by the partnership before. When is it legal to pass any of these, effectively turning them into psychic controls available only to the potential psycher? I mean, if the bidding goes

1N-3N
4♣,

just to give another (bad) example, then it's obvious to all non-beginners that something ridiculous is going on, but only Opener can know with certainty if 1N was a psyche. In fact, I remember having had this exact sequence as a beginner. It turned out 1N was systemic (16-18) and that partner intended 4♣ as Gerber.

[Zelandakh]

If as Responder you have no UI then you have free reign to interpret as you like. For example, if the bidding goes P - 1NT; 2♣; P, one can reasonably expect that Opener has psyched. Of course it might just be that they had a brain-freeze and a perfectly normal 1NT opening. This is different from the case where a specific (psyched) hand type is being shown by the idle call artificially. Your specific example highlights the situation perfectly - there was no agreement and therefore the idle call was misinterpreted. If it was (implicitly) agreed that a weak hand with long clubs might be opened 1NT then the 4♣ rebid would presumably not be misinterpreted; but in that case the opps are entitled to know that information too and the agreement itself would in many jurisdictions not be legal. Again, this means that you cannot get around system regulations by calling something a psyche rather than systemic.

Note that pass is often available as a form of psychic control (to use your terminology). Some classics are opening 2♣ with long diamonds, opening 2NT with a ♣/♥ 2-suiter, or 1m with no points and shortish in the minor in 3rd seat. In each case you plan to pass partner's most common response. But pass is not a psychic control in the regulatory sense here, it is merely a reflection that some system structures are more psyche-friendly than others. If you systematically psyched on these hands it would become an implicit agreement with all that that entails.

[TylerE]

3C to me is like a 2-2-3-6 hand or something