Pattern of Psyches

[ArtK78]

I didn't want to hijack a thread going on about directors rulings in the case of psyches.

 

I have some friends who have played together for a long time. They know that if the auction goes 1♥ - (X) - 1♠ that, a good portion of the time, the 1♠ bid will be a psyche. So they alert 1♠ and inform the opponents that it is their experience in this partnership that the 1♠ bid is often a psyche.

 

Does anyone have any comments, pro or con, about that?

 

But that is not the point of this post.

 

I have been playing a great deal online in ACBL pair games on BBO. My regular partner and I play a light-initial action system nonvul, and our weak two bids nonvul are extremely aggressive. I find that I am often faced with an auction which begins 2♥ - (P) or 2♥ - (X), and we are white on red. If I hold a short spade holding, I will often psyche a 2♠ bid in these situations. If this were a live game, my partner might alert the 2♠ bid as, by agreement, nonforcing (which it is) but frequently a psyche. In an online game, however, we self-alert. Should I alert my own bid as frequently being a psyche? Suppose it wasn't a psyche - would this be misinformation?

 

I am curious at how others see this situation.

[TimG]

I didn't want to hijack a thread going on about directors rulings in the case of psyches.

 

I have some friends who have played together for a long time. They know that if the auction goes 1♥ - (X) - 1♠ that, a good portion of the time, the 1♠ bid will be a psyche. So they alert 1♠ and inform the opponents that it is their experience in this partnership that the 1♠ bid is often a psyche.

 

Does anyone have any comments, pro or con, about that?

A case can be made that this partnership has an agreement that 1♠ shows either spades or something else. I suspect that in the ACBL this is a legal agreement (defense to their conventional call). They probably should not call it a psyche, because it really isn't. But, other than that, they seem to be doing the right thing and are OK rules-wise (at least in the ACBL).

 

As an aside, this is such a common "psyche" position that most partnerships have a counter to it, don't they? I know that in my regular partnerships, double would show exactly four spades and some values, 2♠ would show 5+ spades and be forcing for one round.

[kfay]

If you two have an understanding that these bids are often psyches then I think alerting the other's bid is basically mandatory. If you know that partner is even 40% or some arbitrary percentage of the time to be psyching and the opps aren't privy to this then this is mininformation. Probably wouldn't make a difference against some opponents but should be done anyways.

 

I'm sure the latter case is the crux of the post, and it's interesting. If you alert you should alert all the time and probably if your partner would alert then you should alert as well. One solution would be to have partner alert the bid by private chat, but I know this doesn't fly well with directors since they can't read such notices. Alerting is probably the right thing to do, imo, but I can easily how this would cause more problems than it resolves. But that's just the nature of the medium you're playing on.

[matmat]

you should certainly alert it as non-forcing, and i think you should also mention that it is frequently a psych.

[kenrexford]

The auction 1x-X-1y would seem to be a "typical" or not an "unnatural" situation to make a psychic call. Hence, the rules seem to suggest that relative frequency of making that psychic, frequency that does not cumulatively exceed 2X per session, is completely allowed.

 

If Opener typically takes precautionary action in this situation because of the call and not because of the opposition exposure of the call, then Opener's actions may be a result of an established principle that 1y does not show what 1y purportedly shows. Hence, 1y has a different meaning.

 

That different meaning is allowed, as well. However, this should be alerted, therefore, as a convention. The definition, however, would not be "natural, but frequently a psychic call." For, as a partnership agreement, it is no longer psychic. It shows what it shows -- spades or weak without spades. Define it that way.

 

"Alert."

 

"What's that?"

 

"Partner either has 4+ spades and 6+ HCP or a hand with fewer than (8?) HCP and 0+ spades. In the latter event, he would have either support for my suit OR a long suit of his own of a different strain."

 

Something like that.

 

The rules, then, might kick in to assess whether this agreement is "purely destructive." The "solution" would be to better define the call so as to enable actual description. For instance, a late raise of partner's suit operates as a super-weak pattern bid (support with a minimum or sub-minimum but shortness HERE) or where certain actions do the same essential thing (partner, with a weak hand and shortness HERE and a long side suit can later show his long suit, thereby having a canape inference about the fourth suit).

 

If, however, Opener acts normally unless and until the OPPONENTS or a strange pass of a forcing bid frees him of the duty to trust, then the bid is allowed even if Opener is wildly on edge.

 

If anything resembling a "psychic control" is used, then the definitional idea makes more sense, converting the "psychic control" into an asking bid.

[Cascade]

In both cases I think you have crossed the line from psychic call to partnership agreement. In which case the agreements are not natural nor standard and so they need alerts.

 

When you alert online you should alert all of the same times that your partner would alert in a face to face game. In addition since there is no Unauthorized Information from alerting in an online game there is no danger in erring on the side of alerting in some situations where partner might not alert in face to face games.

 

Therefore it is correct to alert both your 1♠ and your 2♠ bids in the situations you describe. I would also alert the aggressive style of your 2♥ bids online even if you do not offline.

[kfay]

Hence, the rules seem to suggest that relative frequency of making that psychic, frequency that does not cumulatively exceed 2X per session, is completely allowed.

Totally disagree with this. Doesn't a standard like this refer to psychics in general? If you come up with this psyche 2x+ per session then, by frequency of the first 2 bids of this auction, I'd imagine that you're psyching in at least half of these auctions. This, as a percentage, is way too much to say 'well hey I haven't psyched this bid in 2 sessions so I think alerts are unnecessary' because you and your partner both know that as a matter of pattern this is, in context, an extremely frequent psyche.

[DrTodd13]

You don't alert psyches. You alert agreements. If 40% of the time you bid 2♠ non-forcing with ♠ shortness then you should alert and say exactly that.

[barmar]

You don't alert psyches. You alert agreements. If 40% of the time you bid 2♠ non-forcing with ♠ shortness then you should alert and say exactly that.

So what do you explain? "Non-forcing, doesn't promise spades or any particular suit"? Are you suggesting that they mention the percentage? First of all, do the players actually keep track of how often they make this psyche, so that the percentage is really accurate? And even if it is, is it meaningful to the opponents? Unless they also know how many times you've made the bid recently, they can't judge how likely it is this time.

 

This is a general paradox that frequent psyches run into. By a strict interpretation of the definition, they're not psyches, they're implicit understandings. But unless they show something specific, there's no way to disclose what they mean.

[DrTodd13]

You don't alert psyches.  You alert agreements.  If 40% of the time you bid 2♠ non-forcing with ♠ shortness then you should alert and say exactly that.

So what do you explain? "Non-forcing, doesn't promise spades or any particular suit"? Are you suggesting that they mention the percentage? First of all, do the players actually keep track of how often they make this psyche, so that the percentage is really accurate? And even if it is, is it meaningful to the opponents? Unless they also know how many times you've made the bid recently, they can't judge how likely it is this time.

 

This is a general paradox that frequent psyches run into. By a strict interpretation of the definition, they're not psyches, they're implicit understandings. But unless they show something specific, there's no way to disclose what they mean.

Ken gave a reasonable suggestion. If you always always bid ♠ with the short ♠ and easy rebid type of hand then the percentage is not necessary. If you probabilistically pick whether to bid ♠ with this hand type then I'd say the percentage is needed.

[blackshoe]

"Our explicit agreement is X, but partner has been known to psych in this position, usually with Y".

[hotShot]

If you psych once in 12 boards and usually w/r this means in fact that you are psyching once on the 3 out of 12 boards where your side is w/r. If we assume that half of this 3 boards belong to your side anyway, your partner has to guess about your psyche in somewhere near 1 of 1.5 of the boards. This is very close to a partnership agreement.

 

Lets assume there are 10 kinds of psyches ( psyching a stopper, psyching a control, psyching a suit ....) , at a rate of 1 psyche/ 12 boards you will made all after 120 boards. So in your next bigger tourney with that partner you will have to repeat a psyche. At the third tourney your partner will know all your psyches. And given the above he will be able to pinpoint a low number of boards in which you might be psyching.

[kenrexford]

As an aside, I cannot even imagine keeping up a rate of 2 psychic "initial calls" per session. Whereas a strange session might occur where two psychic call opportunities present themselves (just had two in one 6-board set, strangely), it seems that good psychic opportunities occur maybe once every other tournament, if that.

 

Tactical bids and deviations occur quite frequently, but these are different and treated differently by the rules.

[nige1]

In both cases I think you have crossed the line from psychic call to partnership agreement.  In which case the agreements are not natural nor standard and so they need alerts.

 

When you alert online you should alert all of the same times that your partner would alert in a face to face game.  In addition since there is no Unauthorized Information from alerting in an online game there is no danger in erring on the side of alerting in some situations where partner might not alert in face to face games.

 

Therefore it is correct to alert both your 1♠ and your 2♠ bids in the situations you describe.  I would also alert the aggressive style of your 2♥ bids online even if you do not offline.

I agree with Cascade: it's more of a convention than a psych. IMO you should pre-alert (in the UK, we warn opponents in the system-card section about "Conventiions that opponents should note" to give them a chance to devise an appropriate defence). The convention may also fall foul of (dreaded) system-regulations.