Psychs and Unusual Methods

[awm]

It seems like there's a general problem with psyching in combination with playing non-standard methods. On the one hand, psychs (and tactical deviations from agreements) are very much a part of bridge. It's fairly frequent among expert players to see these sorts of actions.

 

The difficulty comes when the pair in question is playing pretty weird stuff to begin with. It becomes hard for an observer not familiar with the methods in use to distinguish a "psych" from a "secret agreement." In particular some psychs are extremely common and virtually protected by methods. Examples in standard bidding include psyching a response to a weak two bid, or psyching a third seat opening. In each case you are extremely safe (in the first case protected by partner's hand being almost fully described, in the second by drury). In fact these sorts of psychs rarely work against good players, for the very reason that they are so commonplace. But when your underlying agreements are pretty weird, it becomes very hard for opponents (and directors, and committees) to judge which psychs are similarly "protected."

 

Let me give a simple example. My partner and I play a precision-based system, where our 1♦ opening shows 11-15 points, either balanced, three-suited, or a minor-two suiter (in any case denying a five-card major). We play fairly natural first-round responses to this bid. For example, if partner opens 1♦, my 1♥ response is, by agreement four or more hearts and a one-round force. However, suppose I were to psych 1♥ on a gamegoing hand. Partner will never blast to four hearts, mostly because we play a limited-opening system. Whatever partner does, if opponents are passing I can start a sequence of game-forcing relays at my second turn. After a bunch of relay bids, I can sign off wherever I want and partner will respect it (since I have a lot more info than he does). It follows that for me to psych 1♥ with a good hand is extremely safe. However, this is not something opponents will expect. It becomes extremely possible for them to misdefend a hand, or fail to compete in hearts when they could. In effect my 1♥ bid is "either natural or GF relay" but we never disclosed this (and in fact it's not allowed by ACBL rules). Clearly something very wrong is happening here. ((In reality I have never made this particular psych, precisely because this seems unethical, but the ability to do so remains))

 

ACBL has tried to solve this problem by outlawing psychs of "conventional bids." Unfortunately this isn't really a solution (see above, 1♥ was natural) and it's also very questionable whether the laws permit them to make such a restriction.

 

It seems that those of us who play non-standard methods are simply under more of an obligation not to psych than the rest of the world. It's not totally fair, but seems like that's how it has to be. Then again, I know of at least a few established expert pairs who routinely win boards precisely because of sequences like those described, creating even more of a multi-standard. Basically... psychs are allowed, they're part of bridge... unless you play nonstandard methods, in which case you can't psych... unless you're an established "top pair" in which case psyching is okay. It seems like a tough conundrum to resolve.

[joshs]

I agree. I basically do not psych when my methods can serve as a psychic control. Also if I frequently psych in the same situation, it should be alerted. I am not sure how often constitutes frequently.

 

For instance, in my canape system over 1M opening, 2/1's are INV but not forcing. Game forcing hands start with bidding 1N and then bidding a new suit next. This could serve a a psychic control if I decided to psych a 1M opening bid in 1/2 seat. Consequently, I never psych a 1/2 seat 1M opening here.

 

Having said that, over a natural and limited 1H opening I have been known to use from time to time all the standard psychs when, as responder, I hold 4 hearts and a bad hand.... I am unlikely to get buried because partner is limited, but there is still some risk of getting in trouble if the auction becomes competative.

 

E.G. 1H-P-1S(ha ha)-3C(Intermediate)-3S...

[DrTodd13]

I think the problem is that you are calling these things psyches. If it is a situation ripe for "psyching" then the psyche would happen frequently enough that what you have is an agreement and not a psyche. In Dejeuner, we alert situations similar to the one you mention to inform opps that it is occasionally a tactical bid. I think what you have is a lot of people with undisclosed agreements. Everybody may get burned by a psyche in a system they don't know but ints or advs will get burned by well-known "psyches" even in standard systems.

 

The problem is that people can't reveal their true agreements because most dual-meaning bids are banned by ACBL. That is why they ban psyching certain things is that it is easier to ban it outright than try to catch people "psyching" too frequently.

[rbforster]

Just because a certain situation is "safer" to psych in doesn't seem to cause a problem IMO. Depending on your methods, a weak limited partner such as a 10-12 NT opener, a weak 2 bid, etc, are all pretty safe places to psych, mainly because responder is captain. It doesn't seem like anyone considers methods where partner shows a weak limited hand a psychic control... like you say, experts know to use and know to expect psychs in these situations.

 

If you play different but legal methods, such situations will arise in other contexts. If your opponents don't know know your methods well, they will be at a disadvantage certainly, but it's not your fault they didn't prepare for your legal alternative system. They will probably be at a much bigger disadvantage in terms of not gathering the right negative inferences from your auctions too, but that's not your problem if they don't bother to ask. I'm not sure why the directors, etc, would need to judge how protected your psych was. As long as there's no checkback inquiring about a psych and partner bids as expected under your methods, I don't see a problem in terms of psychic controls.

 

The only problem situations I see are when your psych either:

 

(1) becomes common enough it's an agreement, or

(2) that agreement is not allowed.

 

Your example of 1♥ response, natural or any GF, as you say is specifically not allowed in most ACBL events. If someone used this "psych" against me I would report them for playing an undisclosed and illegal relay system and see where that got me. I think that psychs that would constitute illegal agreements ought to be banned*. Otherwise, what's the point in the rule forbidding the agreement in question? (* - I have no idea if this is actually the case in practice, however)

 

In a similar example, I wanted to play a 2NT response to a limited 1M as any strong jump shift hand, after which partner bids 3♣ asking for further description and I show my suit, support if any, etc. An obvious additional use would be a weak signoff in clubs, and since partner is going to bid 3♣ anyway. On one hand, GCC requires conventional responses to guarantee GF or better values so I couldn't have this additional weak club agreement. On the other hand, GCC specifically allows psyching conventional responses of 2NT or higher, so it seems I would be allowed to "psych" this bid with clubs, just not too often that it was an agreement. When I asked someone on my local appeals committee he thought about making the 2NT psych with weak ♣s, he said it would probably be ruled an illegal pyschic control if it came up and we would not like the subsequent ruling. Just one more opinion.

[Gerben42]

I agree that one should not make such psyches. The problem is usually only there when the other option (make it an agreement) is illegal, as in your example.

 

I happen to like opening 2♣ on ♦KQTxxx and out. Luckily for me here a 2♣ opening bid showing either a strong 2♣ OR a weak two in ♦ is allowed.

 

Anyway... I agree with Adam that some psyches are simply "not done". Don't or make it a system. I'll give another example on how psyching in unfamiliar methods may mess things up.

 

Here it is: Suppose I open 2♦ showing a weak two in either major. Now partner bids 2♥ (pass or correct). If I now fail to correct that is of course a psyche, however partner already told me that if I hold ♥ he doesn't want to play more than 2♥, so he is not going to bid again. How convenient!

 

I'm not sure why for an "established top pair" such psyching would be allowed. For example is Rosenberg alerting Zia's cue bids as "could be psyche"?

[Gerben42]

BTW a nice counterpsyche against the Multi 2♦:

 

(2♦) 3♥ when holding ♠.

[cherdano]

I am not sure what is right here. Certainly you can't psych regularly if the implicit partnership agreement would be banned by the CoC.

 

On the other hand, some of the psychs are kind of expected by experienced players. We all know that it is safer to psych opposite a limited opener. Psychs with weak two-multis are also well-known, I don't think it is more evil than 1N-3N opposite a mini NT white vs red on 2 hcp.

 

Btw, I think 1D-1H only shows 3 cards for Meckwell. This is kind of nasty, since it doesn't need to be alerted...

 

Arend

[pigpenz]

i remember old days of playing matchpoint preciscion where 2♣ showed 11-15hcp and no 4 card major, on a hand where you had big club fit and say 2-3 in majors you were pretty safe to bid a major and play the opponents fit.

 

I have seen numerous hand records of wher MeckWell did the same thing and also did the same thing when they were playing 10-13NT.

 

So what is one persons psyche is another persons tactical bid

[rbforster]

Btw, I think 1D-1H only shows 3 cards for Meckwell. This is kind of nasty, since it doesn't need to be alerted...

It seems to me that a 1♦-1♥ psych response under Meckwell should be illegal (not to say that they don't get away with it). If 1♥ promises normal values (say 5+ HCPs) but only 3+♥s , then 1♥ is not a natural bid and instead a convention since ACBL defines "natural" as 4+ cards for majors. Even ACBL Superchart forbids psyching weak conventional responses -

 

DISALLOWED #6: Psyching a conventional agreement which may show fewer than 10 HCP and which is not permitted by the General Convention Chart*.  This includes psyching responses to or rebids of those methods.

* - GCC only allows a conventional 1♦-1♥ response if it promises game forcing values.

[jdonn]

It seems to me that a 1♦-1♥ psych response under Meckwell should be illegal (not to say that they don't get away with it).  If 1♥ promises normal values (say 5+ HCPs) but only 3+♥s , then 1♥ is not a natural bid and instead a convention since ACBL defines "natural" as 4+ cards for majors.  Even ACBL Superchart forbids psyching weak conventional responses -

 

DISALLOWED #6: Psyching a conventional agreement which may show fewer than 10 HCP and which is not permitted by the General Convention Chart*.  This includes psyching responses to or rebids of those methods.

* - GCC only allows a conventional 1♦-1♥ response if it promises game forcing values.

It may not be natural by the ACBL's definition, but it's not a convention either.

 

"Convention: A bid which, by partnership agreement, conveys a meaning not necessarily related to the denomination named or, in the case of a pass, double or redouble, the last denomination named."

 

Even if the 1♥ response to 1♦ promises only three cards, it still conveys a meaning related to the denomination named. That means your quoted regulation about conventional responses wouldn't apply. Which is not to say such an agreement is legal, or illegal, but only to say that the statement you quoted doesn't cover such a bid.

 

Incidentally, I don't think it's such an uncommon treatment by strong club pairs or by weak notrump pairs, for example I believe the system Kokish advocates involves regularly responding in three card majors to a minor suit opening bid. It seems to me, and I say this with no law to back me up, that it 'should' be legal but alertable. Whether it's technically legal, I really have a tough time being able to tell.

[pclayton]

snip

 

ACBL has tried to solve this problem by outlawing psychs of "conventional bids." Unfortunately this isn't really a solution (see above, 1♥ was natural) and it's also very questionable whether the laws permit them to make such a restriction.

 

It seems that those of us who play non-standard methods are simply under more of an obligation not to psych than the rest of the world. It's not totally fair, but seems like that's how it has to be.

 

snip

There is no restriction against psyching an artificial call; only checkbacks for psyches and psyching strong artificial openings.

 

I appreciate your conundrum and think you are doing the right thing by sticking with the spirit of the laws, since your system allows a 'de facto' checkback.

 

I don't agree that psyches do not work against strong pairs.

[pigpenz]

There is no restriction against psyching an artificial call; only checkbacks for psyches and psyching strong artificial openings.

yes i had a hand where I was accussed of psyching after i opened one♣ and rebid 1♥ on akx♥ with xx♠....trying to get one notrump rightsided. To me that is not a psyche but had a hard time convincing an opp of that.

[Free]

Question for awm: do you have similar GF relays after a 1♠ or other responses?

 

My experience is that with artificial methods, you get a whole new style of psychs which are available for you. I've been playing MOSCITO for a while now, and there aren't many ways of psyching there. All bids are so well defined that you just can't screw things up enough. However, in 3rd & 4th seat we play a canapé club system with Herbert relays (next suit bid is a NF relay). So basicly you can open 1X when you have the next suit, planning to pass the relay (if it comes). Also with our overcalls (2-suited starting with 4-4) there isn't much room for psyching. However, as responder we can make a fake suit-preference call, or signoff in the 4th suit with a fit in one of partner's suits,...

 

Imo, because these psychs look even stranger than the 'normal' ones (like bidding 1NT with a long suit in 3rd seat) it gets harder for opponents to understand this. Opponents aren't familiar with your methods, and you're even using them further to psych! :(

[awm]

In response to pclayton: ACBL does in fact restrict psyching of bids other than those which are strong and artificial. In particular:

 

(2) under disallowed on the midchart states: Psyching of artificial opening bids and/or conventional responses thereto. So you can't psych 2♦ flannery for example. This actually has caused a lot of strife because of people who "forget" flannery. :(

 

In fact, on the general chart psyching is even further restricted:

 

(2) under disallowed on the general chart: Psyching of artificial opening bids and/or conventional responses thereto. Psyching conventional suit responses which are less than 2NT to natural openings.

 

This seems to imply that you can't psych drury, nor can you psych an artificial game forcing response to a major suit opening (if below 2NT). However, psyching a bergen raise seems to be okay.

 

Of course, as far as I can tell ACBL never defines "conventional." It would seem to make sense for conventional to be "not natural" but that's far from clear. In any case it seems unbelievable to me that a major-suit response to 1-minor which systemically could be three cards would not be considered conventional. Josh Donn's definition seem a little weird, in that a response of 1♥ which shows "four or more hearts without four spades" would be ruled conventional (it implies something about a suit other than the one named) whereas a response of 1♥ which shows "invitational or better values with any hand including at least one heart" would be ruled "not conventional" because it says something about hearts and has no implications about any other suit.

 

In response to Free: we also have similar game force relays after a 1♠ response. After our natural 2-minor responses, we have some relay-like structures but (in part due to lack of space) they don't have the level of accuracy that our relays after responder's 1M bid have. In part for this reason we generally respond in a "majors-first-always" style. There could be advantages to bidding 1M on strong hands with no four card major as well because of this. However, I don't think this is totally ethical (since we're not alerting that 1M is "natural or GF relay" and such an agreement isn't allowed in some of the events we play) and so I've never actually made this psych (well okay, not on a good hand, there have been occasions where I've bid a three-card or shorter major on a really trashy hand to try to talk opponents out of their fit).

[Sigi_BC84]

I've been playing MOSCITO for a while now, and there aren't many ways of psyching there.  All bids are so well defined that you just can't screw things up enough.

Hmm, what about the game interest relay over 1♦/♥? To me this is a highly controlled psyche (suggesting an inv+ where you could as well hold a bust with fit for opener or a takeout against openers suit with not much in it). The risk is really low and there is no "fielding" because opener has no captaincy.

 

To me this is the equivalent of psyching 2NT over mini-multi or weak-two.

 

--Sigi

[pclayton]

In response to pclayton: ACBL does in fact restrict psyching of bids other than those which are strong and artificial. In particular:

 

(2) under disallowed on the midchart states: Psyching of artificial opening bids and/or conventional responses thereto. So you can't psych 2♦ flannery for example. This actually has caused a lot of strife because of people who "forget" flannery. :(

 

In fact, on the general chart psyching is even further restricted:

 

(2) under disallowed on the general chart: Psyching of artificial opening bids and/or conventional responses thereto. Psyching conventional suit responses which are less than 2NT to natural openings.

 

This seems to imply that you can't psych drury, nor can you psych an artificial game forcing response to a major suit opening (if below 2NT). However, psyching a bergen raise seems to be okay.

 

Of course, as far as I can tell ACBL never defines "conventional." It would seem to make sense for conventional to be "not natural" but that's far from clear. In any case it seems unbelievable to me that a major-suit response to 1-minor which systemically could be three cards would not be considered conventional. Josh Donn's definition seem a little weird, in that a response of 1♥ which shows "four or more hearts without four spades" would be ruled conventional (it implies something about a suit other than the one named) whereas a response of 1♥ which shows "invitational or better values with any hand including at least one heart" would be ruled "not conventional" because it says something about hearts and has no implications about any other suit.

 

In response to Free: we also have similar game force relays after a 1♠ response. After our natural 2-minor responses, we have some relay-like structures but (in part due to lack of space) they don't have the level of accuracy that our relays after responder's 1M bid have. In part for this reason we generally respond in a "majors-first-always" style. There could be advantages to bidding 1M on strong hands with no four card major as well because of this. However, I don't think this is totally ethical (since we're not alerting that 1M is "natural or GF relay" and such an agreement isn't allowed in some of the events we play) and so I've never actually made this psych (well okay, not on a good hand, there have been occasions where I've bid a three-card or shorter major on a really trashy hand to try to talk opponents out of their fit).

News to me.

 

My point of reference is a comment Jeff Goldsmith made in the last Appeals Book about psyching conventional calls. Perhaps he was referring to a conventional call later in the auction. I'll see if I can find his comment.

 

And we all know, Jeff is always right :)

[hotShot]

Seems to me that the 2♦relay over 2♣ is allowed in that ACBL jurisdiction.

So if 1♥ over 1♦ is a forcing relay or 4+♥, it is no psyche. There may be a rule forbidding 1level relays, but it is no psyche.

As fas as i can see, relay systems are banned by the GCC and not single relays.

 

Relay systems (one player tells nothing about his own hand while

interrogating partner about his hand through a series of conventional

calls) are not allowed.

 

As to beeing a convention, if the ACBL does not provide a definition of their own, the WBL defines:

Convention:

1. A call that, by partnership agreement, conveys a meaning other than willingness to play in the denomination named (or in the last denomination named), or high-card strength or length (three cards or more) there. However, an agreement as to overall strength does not make a call a convention.

 

2. Defender’s play that serves to convey a meaning by agreement rather than inference.

This definition is usually published in each book of bridge laws.

 

About bidding 3+ card major suits, i guess you are allowed to rise a 5 card major, with 3card support without alert and without beeing thrown out by the TD. So bidding a 3card major must be, ok.