Is it an "amber" psyche?

[Cascade]

I suppose it depends on what the hand is. People have argued here, on BLML, on RGB and elsewhere that light third in hand openers are deviations. But, typically, a player will pass

 

Jxx

T9xxx

KQJ

KJ

 

in first seat because it is a filthy opening bid [i would] then open

 

Jxx

T9xx

KQJ

Qxx

 

in third and claim it is a deviation. It is not: it is a psyche. It is gross.

 

Furthermore, there is no excuse in the EBU which has a method on the SC for showing light third in hand openers. So, if players do not fill it in, they do not play it, and 8 to 10 is gross.

 

;)

 

The real reason it is Red is that, despite fancy arguments of what can go wrong, if partner has his opening - and perhaps an opponent has not - you are throwing 500 or 800 away. I do not believe you are doing so because the hand might go poorly: you are doing so because you believe based on your experience that partner has psyched.

The examples depend on method. On which the opening post is relatively silent.

 

Natural rule of 19 is all that was given. Other useful information like 4-card or 5-card majors is not included.

 

Not vulnerable I often play a style in third seat where a minimum balanced hand is frequently opened in a four-card major - even a poor suit. While I almost certainly wouldn't open your example shift a small spade to a minor or even hearts and it gets close enough to my minimum standard that I wouldn't consider it gross.

 

For example this would be in range and it meets the rule of 19 quoted in the opening post.

 

Jx

T9xx

KQJ

KJxx

 

+800 is a pipe dream. I just finished looking at 40 hands in detail and I didn't find one potential 800 and there were only two +500.

 

A double dummy analysis opposite a real (sound) 1♥ opening - 4 card majors weak NT - showed that +800 was available against 1NT around 2% and +500 around 20%.

 

However even those numbers are inflated as when those numbers were available against 1NT the opponents had a safer resting place at the two-level almost always. 90% of the time they could do better than -500 at the two-level in their best fit. 30% of the time that 1NT was -500 or worse they could actually make a contract at the two-level.

[campboy]

In fact (going back and looking at the auction), I think it is ridiculous not to double 1NT. Partner knows you are a passed hand, and you are happy to hear him pull if he has rubbish, as you would still expect to make 2H.

Do you expect him to pull to a five card suit?

 

What about an ordinary 5-4?

If he has an ordinary 5-4 then he has at least 10 HCP according to the agreements given, so I don't mind my chances of defeating 1NT.

 

Anyway, I imagine bluejak's post talking about getting 500 or 800 was in reference to doubling 3NT, not 1NT.

[bluejak]

It is also due to the fact that I am not presuming partner is operating, which Cascade is. If you spend your bridge playing career trusting opponents and not partner, you will not be successful.

[Cascade]

Absolutely not. The numbers I produced above were based on an real (but aggressive) 1♥ opening - opening 11 HCP with 5 hearts and 10 HCP with 6 hearts and 5/5 - and on the opponent having 15-18 HCP balanced with a stopper.

 

Perhaps you would like to assume a sounder opening style but on the other hand the opponent won't necessarily overcall with all 15s (nor maybe with some 16s) opposite a passed hand.

 

If there is even a minute chance that opener has less which is a normal 3rd seat opening style for some pairs then the numbers no doubt will be much worse for doubling. And this is with a ten count that will almost certainly prove useful to partner if your side declares and on defense if you do 'catch' them.

[cherdanno]

I can't believe anyone would not double 1NT with the West hand. You may have 500, and you are describing your hand very well (maximum pass, balanced). I can only see an upside to doubling.

[jdonn]

FWIW it is WAY more suspicious to not double 1NT (when it's not that risky and shows your hand) than it is to not double 3NT (by that point the auction makes no sense and you can't be forced to assume the opponents are insane).

[Siegmund]

Yes, it's mostly the not doubling 1NT that feels strange.

 

It feels red to me - and its just about the ONLY red psych I've ever seen posted in one of these EBU threads, in which all sorts of ordinary regular psychs get punished.

[bluejak]

Absolutely not.  The numbers I produced above were based on an real (but aggressive) 1♥ opening - opening 11 HCP with 5 hearts and 10 HCP with 6 hearts and 5/5 - and on the opponent having 15-18 HCP balanced with a stopper.

Why are you assuming the 1NT overcaller has 15?

 

Because you assume partner is operating, not the opponent, and that's illegal. It is quite common for a 1NT overcaller to have a suit, a few points, and hope.

[Siegmund]

Because you assume partner is operating, not the opponent, and that's illegal.

 

Eh?

 

It's illegal to make use of knowledge about your partner's psyching tendencies that your opponents don't have access to, yes.

But it's certainly possible to know that an opponent has never psyched in his life (about half the players at my home club are on that list!) and conclude, completely legally, that IF anyone is operating, it must be partner. It's also certainly possible to have an auction occur which makes it clear to all that SOMEone at the table MUST be operating (or misbidding or very badly misevaluating his hand.) In such a case you have to make a judgment about who is most likely to be operating -- and there's nothing illegal about judging partner is more likely to be operating than your opponent, if that's what the AI indicates.

 

On this particular hand, I think that on the 1st round, the failure to double is strange and caters to the possibility that 3rd hand psyched - while on the 2nd round, the bidding has made it abundantly clear that either 3rd hand psyched or NS are having a bidding accident (e.g. long weak clubs for the 3C bidder), and I can legally judge how likely I think those two possibilities are.

 

If West doubled 1NT but passed 3NT this would be 110% green IMO.

 

It doesn't look to me like Cascade assumed anybody was operating at all - he said that if East and South BOTH had the legal minimum for their bid, he wasn't convinced double was a winning move. That's a view, a minority view, but I think he spelled it out pretty clearly.

[bluejak]

If you assume an opponent has not psyched because he does not do so, but therefore partner has psyched, because he might do so, that is fielding, a breach of Law 40. Sure, you are allowed to use knowledge of the opponent, but you are basing this on knowledge of partner also, and you have concealed that knowledge.

[aguahombre]

Blue, I agree with everything you have (tried to have) said. Just a question: when should partner of the one who psyched have done something so that he wouldn't be "concealing" the knowledge? (If you mean not doubling 1NT is concealing, then my question is moot.)

[blackshoe]

If you assume an opponent has not psyched because he does not do so, but therefore partner has psyched, because he might do so, that is fielding, a breach of Law 40. Sure, you are allowed to use knowledge of the opponent, but you are basing this on knowledge of partner also, and you have concealed that knowledge.

At my local club, there are one or two players who have a reputation for occasional psyches. The other 198 or so players never psych. I haven't partnered either of the two who do, but it sounds to me like you're saying that should I ever do so, and it becomes clear that somebody psyched, I'm not allowed to conclude it was partner. I don't buy it. Disclosure is a problem, particularly in NA, because we aren't supposed to put psyching tendencies on the SC anymore. I'm not sure how or if we are supposed to disclose them. Perhaps the rule is "if there's a psych, and the TD is called, he's gonna shoot somebody". Yuck. :(

 

Suppose everybody and his brother knows that partner may psych occasionally. Am I still in violation of the law if I don't mention at some point that I think he psyched?

 

This whole can of worms makes my head hurt. :blink: :(

[mjj29]

Blue, I agree with everything you have (tried to have) said.  Just a question:  when should partner of the one who psyched have done something so that he wouldn't be "concealing" the knowledge? (If you mean not doubling 1NT is concealing, then my question is moot.)

If this were a two-level opening you could describe it as "6-10 points, 6 card suit, but occasionally he opens it a lot lighter in 3rd or with fewer cards", which would be a legal agreement. Unfortunately, it's not legal to have an agreement that a 1 level bid can be made on two kings and out, even in 3rd (minimum in the EBU is 8).

 

IMO, if you _do_ have a partner who psyches then should anything in the auction suggest that he might have done so you should treat this as UI and try to avoid selecting any LAs which are based on that UI. In this case, clearly doubling 1NT and 3NT are LAs. Pass may or may not be an LA, but it's certainly suggested by the fact that partner sometimes psyches, so you should double, to ensure there is no question of fielding.

 

I also think this is the approach the TD should use when ruling, but the EBU disagrees with me on this point.

[iviehoff]

At my local club, there are one or two players who have a reputation for occasional psyches. The other 198 or so players never psych. I haven't partnered either of the two who do, but it sounds to me like you're saying that should I ever do so, and it becomes clear that somebody psyched, I'm not allowed to conclude it was partner. I don't buy it. Disclosure is a problem, particularly in NA, because we aren't supposed to put psyching tendencies on the SC anymore. I'm not sure how or if we are supposed to disclose them. Perhaps the rule is "if there's a psych, and the TD is called, he's gonna shoot somebody". Yuck. :(

 

Suppose everybody and his brother knows that partner may psych occasionally. Am I still in violation of the law if I don't mention at some point that I think he psyched?

 

This whole can of worms makes my head hurt. :blink: :(

Law 40C1: "A player may deviate from his side’s announced understandings always

provided that his partner has no more reason to be aware of the deviation than have the opponents."

 

You may be aware that you are partnering one of the only two players in the club who psyches. Your opponents have no reason to be aware of that. So I don't think you are allowed to make use of that information. It is of course always possible that today is the day that one of your opponents has decided to psyche for the first time, or in fact you were unaware of the fact that actually he does occasionally psyche.

 

A psyche ceases to be a psyche when it becomes a disclosed agreement. So disclosing psyching tendencies can be a contradiction. An agreement that you occasionally make a call with a totally different hand may well not be a legal agreement.

[blackshoe]

You may be aware that you are partnering one of the only two players in the club who psyches. Your opponents have no reason to be aware of that.

Sure they do. The first sentence of my previous post was

At my local club, there are one or two players who have a reputation for occasional psyches.

By "they have a reputation" I mean that it is well known in this club that these players occasionally psych.

 

As to the rest of what you said, ivie, I know all that — intellectually, at least. But there I am at the table, the auction has gone wonkie, I'm convinced it's my partner who has psyched, and... what? I'm supposed to carefully avoid taking what may be the only action that prevents us getting a bottom, on the assumption that if I do anything at all that seems to help our situation, the TD will rule against us? Will partner ever play with me again? Besides, if the situation does come up, it's gonna take me about thirty minutes to figure out which of my possible actions might be "fielding", so I can avoid them — and now I've put partner in a bind.

 

The other side of the coin is that those who don't understand this whole psyching thing are likely to feel cheated if someone psychs against them, playing with a regular partner, and the psyching side gets a good result. Call the director every time? Sure, that'll go over well.

 

Either psyching is legal, or it's not. Making it damn near impossible for the partner of a player who psychs to avoid an adverse ruling seems to me tantamount to making psyching illegal. Some people are quite happy with that, I suppose. :blink: :(

[Mbodell]

Absolutely not.  The numbers I produced above were based on an real (but aggressive) 1♥ opening - opening 11 HCP with 5 hearts and 10 HCP with 6 hearts and 5/5 - and on the opponent having 15-18 HCP balanced with a stopper.

Why are you assuming the 1NT overcaller has 15?

 

Because you assume partner is operating, not the opponent, and that's illegal. It is quite common for a 1NT overcaller to have a suit, a few points, and hope.

This doesn't seem obvious to me merely from the auction and hand. If we add more information to the circumstances and find out that one of the reasons the E/W partnership has no history of psyching is because they have no history at all. E/W met at the partnership desk and this is the first time they've played in the same field, let alone as partners. Would it still be a red psych in that circumstance?

 

Don't we need more information than just the auction and hand. And isn't there common bridge knowledge that lots of people, even unknown partners, are much more flexible in their 3rd seat bidding. There might well be a hand similar to this one that is on the boundary of what I'd X with. And in such situation I'm more likely to X if I'm in 4th seat than 1st seat because, even playing with someone I've never heard of before, I'd trust their 2nd seat bidding more than their 3rd seat bidding and for marginal calls where I could go either way between pass and X I'd use things like seat and how much I respected the opponents to influence which call I'd choose.

[gnasher]

If you assume an opponent has not psyched because he does not do so, but therefore partner has psyched, because he might do so, that is fielding, a breach of Law 40. Sure, you are allowed to use knowledge of the opponent, but you are basing this on knowledge of partner also, and you have concealed that knowledge.

Suppose that my partner and I have just met, and I know nothing about him at all - we didn't even have time to agree upon a notrump range. My opponents, on the other hand, are well known to me as people who never psyche. May I now field partner's psyche without penalty?

[bluejak]

Yes, in theory.

 

:)

 

As to the psyching thing being unfortunate and probably unsound, yes, I believe it is. The rules do not make psyching illegal in effect, they make it dangerous because {a} you might go for 1700, and {b} you might put partner in an unfortunate position.

 

Sure, it may be unfortunate occasionally. But it is a cross regular psychers have to live with. Some of the time they are lucky - I psyched a 1♠ overcall recently. Even when LHO banged her 6♠ card on the table hard after bidding 5♠ meaningfully the round before, her partner still did not get the hint!

 

But I could have got a bad board easily enough in certain situations. Now, in the current situation, if responder knows his partner psyches, his pass is not just possible fielding, it is entirely stupid: if he doubles, his partner pulls it, and now if the opponents bid 3NT he has no reason to double.

[hotShot]

I would say, that if it's common knowledge in your club, that these 2 psyche occasionally, you're off the hook since you don't know more than opps.

[iviehoff]

You may be aware that you are partnering one of the only two players in the club who psyches.  Your opponents have no reason to be aware of that.

Sure they do. The first sentence of my previous post was

At my local club, there are one or two players who have a reputation for occasional psyches.

By "they have a reputation" I mean that it is well known in this club that these players occasionally psych.

You may think that, but can you rely on it? Does it mean that you would have to bid differently if your opponents were, on that hand, a couple of occasional visitors, or new members? Or what happens if in the director call you assert this "common knowledge", and your opponent disputes it, for example "I'm not aware of that reputation" or "It may not have come to your attention, but actually I do psyche occasionally too."

[Cascade]

Now, in the current situation, if responder knows his partner psyches, his pass is not just possible fielding, it is entirely stupid: if he doubles, his partner pulls it, and now if the opponents bid 3NT he has no reason to double.

That is completely illogical.

 

Are you saying that they have a partnership understanding that if partner pulls a penalty double they are showing a psyche. I would think such an understanding was illegal.

 

I would expect partner to pull the double on many minimum distributional but normal openers not simply when the original bid was a psyche. And further sometimes when the bid was a psyche partner will have nowhere to run so will minimize his losses by sticking it out in 1NT.

[mycroft]

Now, in the current situation, if responder knows his partner psyches, his pass is not just possible fielding, it is entirely stupid: if he doubles, his partner pulls it, and now if the opponents bid 3NT he has no reason to double.

That is completely illogical.

Not necessarily.

Are you saying that they have a partnership understanding that if partner pulls a penalty double they are showing a psyche.  I would think such an understanding was illegal.

Yes, it would be illegal. But after 1NTx gets pulled, I *don't have to hit 3NT* to show interest in defending opposite a possible flat minimum/understrength third-seater. I already have - by being willing to defend 1NTx opposite a reasonable minimum, or normal-range third seater. Partner psyched? Well, he knows what to do now. Partner had a 9-count with a bad suit that had a good chance opposite a maxpass of taking 5 or so tricks in NT? Yep, he knows what to do now.

 

I would think that doubling 3NT (without 5 tricks in my hand) would be treated as an accusation that my partner has lost his mind. I would agree with them - since the other options are "caught up in the doubling rhythm" or "how dare you bid game", somebody has.

 

[Edit: defending 1NT *doubled*, not just defending 1NT]

[lamford]

It just isn't a level playing field IMO when no action is taken on this sort of hand and it happens to coincide with partner having opened on complete tram tickets.

I agree. This hand seems very similar to one I had maybe 15 years ago with a former partner - I think at the National Swiss Teams. There the bidding had gone (Pass) - Pass - (1D) - 1NT - (Pass) - 3NT - All Pass. The dealer had, as I recall, Kxx xxx Qxx AJxx, and the 1D bidder had xxx Jxx K10xx xxx. The result of the hand was 3NT+1 which was +630. I recall reporting the psyche which the TD classified as amber, but I appealed against this and the score was adjusted to +800 for 2DX-4 by the non-vulnerable opponents, with the psyche being reclassified as red, which was only worth 3 IMPs against the other room, and only 1 VP, but it was the principle.

 

I recall one argument of the psycher, as to why the 10 count did not double, was that our side had just made a thin 6S on the previous board after my partner had mistimed the play and been forced to drop the stiff king of trumps offside, and therefore a psyche might be more likely than normal.

[Finch]

I think all the people saying it's a red psyche haven't played enough against bad players.

 

The reason the very light/psychic 1NT overcall is so popular is because people don't double on hands where they clearly ought to. It's more common to see requests for a ruling after P P 1S 1NT (7-count) and the opening side miss game, because it doesn't occur to them to double for penalties.

 

For me, the standard of the EW pair is extremely important in deciding how to classify the psyche.

[lamford]

For me, the standard of the EW pair is extremely important in deciding how to classify the psyche.

I am sure that some Wests would not even consider that their partner might have psyched, and West's answers to the TD were plausible, but is it not right to have the same benchmark for fielding for all players? It is a little different to UI, but I would suggest that when West passes throughout where most people would act, this is fielding.

 

Are you saying that there should be different requirements for different strengths of player?