what do you consider a psyche?

[AceOfHeart]

Does opening a 4 card suit at 1 lvl playing sayc with 8 pts and NV v V a psyche? What is the minimum points needed for a opening bid not considered a psyche?

[Sigi_BC84]

Does opening a 4 card suit at 1 lvl playing sayc with 8 pts and NV v V a psyche? What is the minimum points needed for a opening bid not considered a psyche?

If the suit is your longest suit (i.e. you are 4432 or 4333) than with 8 HCP you are certainly way below SAYC opening strength. So such an opener would not be a deviation but a psyche in my eyes.

 

The rule of 18 is considered minimum for a constructive opening by many regulators, so if you have that you are usually not psyching a standard opening bid in my eyes (at least if your methods generally allow these kinds of light openers). Of course it also depends on what your CC says, if it says never with less than rule of 20 fulfilled then you should be prepared for psyching accusations if you open lesser hands.

 

The WBF says 10+ HCP is not weak anymore, but I think that's not flexible enough, so I would rather apply Bergen points (rule of 18) or Zar Points even (26+) if I was a TD and had to decide.

 

Just my two cents, I'm neither an expert nor a TD (but I'm a light opener :-).

 

--Sigi

[luis]

By definition a psyche is a gross distortion between what your bidding shows and what you have in your hand.

If a SAYC 1M opening is 11-21 and 5 cards in spades I would say that 8HCP and 4 cards is not a gross distortion of what you have.

In third position NV vs VUL it will be completely normal, for example:

 

AKJx

xx

xx

T9832

 

Is a "normal" 1♠ opening in third position, I expect any good player to open 1♠ with this hand in third.

 

If the opening was not in third position then it needs to be registered and if that becomes normal for that parnership then they have to pre-alert that they open with very light hands and 4 card majors frequently.

 

So no, it's not a psyche.

 

Luis

[Finch]

Yes, I think it is a psyche. It is a gross distortion of the what the bid usually shows.

 

Even if you believe 'any good player' would open your sample hand 1S, that doesn't make it not a psyche.

 

But so what? Psyches are legal.

[Gerben42]

n third position NV vs VUL it will be completely normal, for example:

 

AKJx

xx

xx

T9832

 

Is a "normal" 1♠ opening in third position, I expect any good player to open 1♠ with this hand in third.

 

Well if you accept that, how about this? A psyche?

 

AKTx

xx

xx

Txxxx

 

If not, then what about:

 

KQJx

xx

xx

Txxxx

 

Is that a psyche?

[luis]

n third position NV vs VUL it will be completely normal, for example:

 

AKJx

xx

xx

T9832

 

Is a "normal" 1♠ opening in third position, I expect any good player to open 1♠ with this hand in third.

 

Well if you accept that, how about this? A psyche?

 

AKTx

xx

xx

Txxxx

 

If not, then what about:

 

KQJx

xx

xx

Txxxx

 

Is that a psyche?

No they are not, you are free to open light in third specially when it is lead-directing, those are so common that I really wouldn't classify them as psyches.

 

Luis

[MickyB]

If your description of the bids mentions that they could be on a 4 card suit with 9 points, then the first hand isn't a psyche. If not, then it clearly is a gross distortion and a psyche IMO.

[Gerben42]

Well Luis, in that case you are playing a HUM in 3rd seat. That's the oddity of the whole thing.

[AceOfHeart]

But so what? Psyches are legal.

no in some bbo tourneys and in some countries thou i beleive. :o

[luis]

Well Luis, in that case you are playing a HUM in 3rd seat. That's the oddity of the whole thing.

No I'm not playing hum because I'm not forced to open

I open because I want, I can have 17 with 5 spades or 7 with 4 that is my problem.

As long as the CC says that 1M in third can be very light and 4 cards it's fine.

 

Luis

[inquiry]

Does opening a 4 card suit at 1 lvl playing sayc with 8 pts and NV v V a psyche? What is the minimum points needed for a opening bid not considered a psyche?

First or second seat, yes

Third seat with good four card heart suit, no, I would consider it a tatical bid to 1) get a heart lead, and 2) make it harder on the opponents. consider it a one level preempt if you like.

[hrothgar]

When I learned Standard American, the system explictly permitted opening a 4 card suit in third or fourth seat. I don't consider this non-systemic

 

Equally significant, SAYC isn't a sound initial action system like Roth Stone or 2 over 1 GF. Playing either of these systems, its often necessary to open light in 3rd/4th to protect partner who might have passed with a good hand. According. 2/1 requires much lighter openings in 3rd/4th. SAYC doesn't have this same requirement.

 

Personally, I wouldn't consider opening an 8 count to be systemic.

[awm]

In order to be a psych, you have to be deviating from agreements. If you and partner have agreed to open light in 3rd seat with a decent suit, or to open four-card majors in 3rd seat with a weakish hand, then it's not a psych. If partner expects full opening values and/or five card suit and has no systemic way to find out you don't have this, it's a psych.

 

Really people who typically open hands like some of the examples should probably alert their third seat opening bids as "could be light with values in the bid suit" or something like this. However, basically no one makes this alert as far as I can tell. Perhaps this is so "normal" as to be just bridge, but the line has to be drawn somewhere for everyone. Surely if I agree to always open a four-card major in 3rd seat if I have one (even with four small and a zero count) this has gotta be alertable... doesn't it?

[han]

Agree with Ben, opening 1M on a 4-card suit and 8 highs in 1st or 2nd seat is a gros distortion of your hand. In 3rd seat it is standard and not a psyche.

[han]

Surely if I agree to always open a four-card major in 3rd seat if I have one (even with four small and a zero count) this has gotta be alertable... doesn't it?

Yes, not only if you always do this but also if you do this frequently.

[joshs]

In order to be a psych, you have to be deviating from agreements. If you and partner have agreed to open light in 3rd seat with a decent suit, or to open four-card majors in 3rd seat with a weakish hand, then it's not a psych. If partner expects full opening values and/or five card suit and has no systemic way to find out you don't have this, it's a psych.

 

Really people who typically open hands like some of the examples should probably alert their third seat opening bids as "could be light with values in the bid suit" or something like this. However, basically no one makes this alert as far as I can tell. Perhaps this is so "normal" as to be just bridge, but the line has to be drawn somewhere for everyone. Surely if I agree to always open a four-card major in 3rd seat if I have one (even with four small and a zero count) this has gotta be alertable... doesn't it?

Opening 1S on AJx xx xxxxx xxx in 3'rd seat, is probably a psych :)

 

Oh, hi adam! :)

[awm]

Opening 1S on AJx xx xxxxx xxx in 3'rd seat, is probably a psych :)

 

Oh, hi adam! :)

Yeah, but if we had the agreement that we do this kind of thing frequently, and that you will never raise me on three cards, and have some kind of "asking drury" in place where the first-step response shows this garbage... then it's not a psych (and should be alerted).

 

If I recall, you did raise me to the three level on three cards when I made this bid, and somehow it still worked out. :)

[joshs]

In Sunday's regional swiss, playing with a partner with which I have few agreements I held: xxx Jxx KQx xxxx

White / White partner opens 2S, RHO xes and I bid 3D. I had no idea if 3D was a suit or a lead direct, but I figured LHO would bid hearts and I wanted a diamond lead... Is it a psych? I don't know, most bids showing length or values are considered natural, so the question is if having less cards in the suit than expected constitutes as a psych....

[joshs]

Opening 1S on AJx xx xxxxx xxx in 3'rd seat, is probably a psych :)

 

Oh, hi adam! :)

Yeah, but if we had the agreement that we do this kind of thing frequently, and that you will never raise me on three cards, and have some kind of "asking drury" in place where the first-step response shows this garbage... then it's not a psych (and should be alerted).

 

If I recall, you did raise me to the three level on three cards when I made this bid, and somehow it still worked out. :)

Yup :) I can't take a joke...

[awm]

A psych is a deviation from agreements. So if you've discussed 2♠-X-3♦ and decided it shows a "real" suit, this is a psych. If it's lead directional, not a psych.

 

If you haven't discussed the specific sequence, I'd base whether it's a psych on what you expect from partner. If partner would never pass 3♦ and never raise to 4♦, then it seems implicit that partner is accomodating hands like this, and so bidding 3♦ on such hands is an implied agreement (and should maybe be alerted) but not a psych. If partner might sometimes "hang" you by assuming you have real diamond length, then it's a psych.

 

Similarly, if you open 1♦ and I respond 1♠ on three cards, I would tend to say that this 1♠ bid is a psych if we have no agreements to bid this way, and you would at least sometimes raise my spades on three cards. If you would never raise my spades without four-card support, this "psych" is protected by system and should probably be disclosed.

[luis]

In Sunday's regional swiss, playing with a partner with which I have few agreements I held: xxx Jxx KQx xxxx

White / White partner opens 2S, RHO xes and I bid 3D. I had no idea if 3D was a suit or a lead direct, but I figured LHO would bid hearts and I wanted a diamond lead... Is it a psych? I don't know, most bids showing length or values are considered natural, so the question is if having less cards in the suit than expected constitutes as a psych....

No it's not a psych it's a tactical bid.

Everybody will understand 3♦ implies some kind of spade support, you may have a diamond suit or just diamond values.

[hrothgar]

No it's not a psych it's a tactical bid.

Love to see a definition of "tactical" bid that isn't inherently subjective

I'll note in passing that without such a definition, the expression is pretty much useless

 

For example, how is one expected to use the following sentence to achieve a decision

 

"No, thats not a psyche its purple"

[Sigi_BC84]

Opening 1S on AJx xx xxxxx xxx in 3'rd seat, is probably a psych :)

 

Oh, hi adam! :)

Yeah, but if we had the agreement that we do this kind of thing frequently, and that you will never raise me on three cards, and have some kind of "asking drury" in place where the first-step response shows this garbage... then it's not a psych (and should be alerted).

 

If I recall, you did raise me to the three level on three cards when I made this bid, and somehow it still worked out. :)

Now I have to echo Gerben: If you agree to do this frequently you are playing a HUM.

--Sigi

[awm]

Tactical bid = a bid which is frequently used for a hand other than the one officially agreed to, such that both partners are aware of this tendency, but we do not bother to inform our opponents.

 

Honestly this seems to fit the vast majority of things people call "tactical bids." In some cases people argue that it's "just bridge" (like lead directional calls in some auctions) and in others people say "well it's not our agreement to do this" (like Rodwell bidding 1M over 1♦ on three cards with problematic hands, or people who open 1NT with singleton honor frequently).

 

Really I think the distinction is mostly an attempt to avoid disclosure.

[Sigi_BC84]

Tactical bid = a bid which is frequently used for a hand other than the one officially agreed to, such that both partners are aware of this tendency, but we do not bother to inform our opponents.

[...]

Really I think the distinction is mostly an attempt to avoid disclosure.

While taking the risk of starting to sound like Claus, I have to say that this is highly unethical if done systematically, if not on the verge of cheating.

 

I think you absolutely must disclose such a meaning to your opps (BTW the "tactical bid" mentioned above over W2-(X) is called McCabe convention and should be noted as such on your CC if you use it at all).

 

--Sigi