Alleged psyche in a club

[bluejak]

[hv=pc=n&s=sq74haj3dk83ct542&n=s53h6dt6542ckq763&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=pp1d1nppp]266|200[/hv]

The auction was as shown, and has led to arguments of the type "If you are accusing me of cheating then I shall give up bridge" and so forth.

 

The ruling does not matter, though as always your opinions might surprise me! This is England, so is it a psyche? If so, is it Red [fielded], Amber [not necessarily fielded, but some doubt in partner's choice of action] or Green [not fielded]?

 

But one thing interests me: in the lengthy email discussion over this, someone is quoting an "authoritative source" that says that it cannot be considered a psyche if you have length in the suit bid. Now, this sounds silly to me, but what worries me is that just recently I have heard someone else saying this, not just that it is not a psyche if you have length but that there is a written authoritative source saying so.

 

So my main question is: does anyone know of some paper that says this?

[pooltuna]

If I understand the question correctly then yes IMO the call by North is a psyche. Not that you asked but IMO South has a clear X of 1NT and hence fielded the psyche. As a caveat since I open light I expect partner in 3rd seat to have full values for an opening call. Those who play Drury and 2/1 are more constrained and IMO they probably did not field the psyche.

[CSGibson]

In the ACBL, that would be a psyche IMO, and I think it would be in England, too, based upon what I've read in these forums. I would have X'd as S, especially as a passed hand with a max and a diamond fit, so I'd call what South did at least (and probably at most) Amber.

[Finch]

Yes, it's a psyche.

South's lack of a double is somewhere between amber and red, depending on what their agreements are for third hand openings (it's legal in the EBU to agree to open many 8-counts in third seat, in which case South may not have a completely obvious double)

[Cyberyeti]

Yes, it's a psyche.

South's lack of a double is somewhere between amber and red, depending on what their agreements are for third hand openings (it's legal in the EBU to agree to open many 8-counts in third seat, in which case South may not have a completely obvious double)

This basically sums it up. It would be amber for us given the rubbish we open in first seat let alone third, but for some pairs it would definitely be red.

[RMB1]

But one thing interests me: in the lengthy email discussion over this, someone is quoting an "authoritative source" that says that it cannot be considered a psyche if you have length in the suit bid. Now, this sounds silly to me, but what worries me is that just recently I have heard someone else saying this, not just that it is not a psyche if you have length but that there is a written authoritative source saying so.

 

I am sure the most worrying thing for David is that the "authoritative source" will turn out to be himself. :)

 

As pointed out in a previous thread, the terminology does let us down. If a psyche is deviation from partnership understanding, then this may not be a psyche, because it may be red, because it may be partnership understanding to open this light in third position. This what the traffic-light classification is attempting to capture.

 

Even if it is their (disclosed) agreement to open in third on Kx/x/10xxxx/KQxxx (which would be permitted) then I think this is psyche rather than a deviation. If they do have a (disclosed) agreement to open random 8HCP hands, then failure to double is not red.

[TimG]

I think it very rare that a 3rd seat opening in a suit with length is a psyche. I don't think this one qualifies. In a style where 3rd hand can open light, I do not think south has a penalty double. So, even if it was determined that north did psyche, I would classify it as Green.

[mgoetze]

How can we say whether it is a psyche, and then whether it was fielded, if we have no idea of N/S's partnership agreements?

 

Anyhow, let's say they haven't agreed to open 5 HCP hands in third seat, then yes, it probably was a psyche, but I wouldn't call it a fielded one unless NS were playing a system where 1♦ promised 5+ diamonds (or perhaps 4=4=4=1).

[campboy]

A psyche is "a deliberate and gross misstatement of honour strength and/or of suit length", according to the laws. So obviously having length in diamonds does not stop this being a psyche on grounds of strength. You are not permitted in EBU competitions to, by agreement, open at the 1-level with fewer than 8 HCP, so assuming they are playing legal methods I consider this a gross difference. Even if we consider it a deviation, however, the question of fielding would still apply.

 

It's at least very close to being red. The EBU White Book says:

Whatever the level of the game, it is unacceptable for a player, hearing his partner open third-in-hand at the one-level, and hearing a natural strong 1NT from RHO, to do otherwise than double with 11 HCP.

 

[...]

 

Note This would not apply to a pair that had a disclosed agreement to play very light third-hand openers.

[blackshoe]

As far as "authoritative source" is concerned, I'm from Missouri (meaning someone is gonna have to show me the source).

[BunnyGo]

A psyche is "a deliberate and gross misstatement of honour strength and/or of suit length", according to the laws. So obviously having length in diamonds does not stop this being a psyche on grounds of strength. You are not permitted in EBU competitions to, by agreement, open at the 1-level with fewer than 8 HCP, so assuming they are playing legal methods I consider this a gross difference. Even if we consider it a deviation, however, the question of fielding would still apply.

 

It's at least very close to being red. The EBU White Book says:

 

What does "very light third hand openers" allow? Does this mean you can open less than 8 points if you say so, or is 8 points "very light"?

[barmar]

How can we say whether it is a psyche, and then whether it was fielded, if we have no idea of N/S's partnership agreements?

The opening wasn't alerted. So either it's a psyche (because their agreement is close to standard) or a failure to alert (because they have an unusual agreement). Furthermore, as someone pointed out, an agreement to open a 5 count may not be allowed by the RA, so it would be a failure to alert an illegal agreement.

[RMB1]

... Furthermore, as someone pointed out, an agreement to open a 5 count may not be allowed by the RA, so it would be a failure to alert an illegal agreement.

 

The OP said "England, UK". The regulation (unless the club makes its own rules) is

Allowed at Levels 3 and 4

11 C 9 Minimum opening bid strength in first and second seat

The minimum agreement for opening one of a suit is Rule of 18. However a partnership may not agree to open with 7 HCP or fewer even if the hand is at least Rule of 18.

11 C 10 Minimum opening bid strength in third and fourth seat

The minimum agreement for opening one of a suit is 8 HCP.

[TimG]

The EBU White Book says:

Whatever the level of the game, it is unacceptable for a player, hearing his partner open third-in-hand at the one-level, and hearing a natural strong 1NT from RHO, to do otherwise than double with 11 HCP.

 

Good thing this responder has only 10 HCP!

[bluejak]

As far as "authoritative source" is concerned, I'm from Missouri (meaning someone is gonna have to show me the source).

I did not expect you to be from anywhere where English is spoken if you think 'gonna' is a word. :P

 

Has anyone any idea of the source? Or is it a figment of a couple of people's imagination?

 

My advice was that it was clearly a psyche, since they cannot have an agreement to open lighter than 8 HCP, and that it was Red. I did ask whether they had any disclosed agreement to open light in third and the answer seemed to be No. If so, then it becomes even more clearly a psyche.

 

The person who asked me was more worried about the arguments as to whether it was a psyche. He felt it was Amber.

[nige1]

[hv=pc=n&s=sq74haj3dk83ct542&n=s53h6dt6542ckq763&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=pp1d1nppp]266|200|The auction was as shown, and has led to arguments of the type "If you are accusing me of cheating then I shall give up bridge" and so forth. The ruling does not matter, though as always your opinions might surprise me! This is England, so is it a psyche? If so, is it Red [fielded], Amber [not necessarily fielded, but some doubt in partner's choice of action] or Green [not fielded]?

But one thing interests me: in the lengthy email discussion over this, someone is quoting an "authoritative source" that says that it cannot be considered a psyche if you have length in the suit bid. Now, this sounds silly to me, but what worries me is that just recently I have heard someone else saying this, not just that it is not a psyche if you have length but that there is a written authoritative source saying so.

So my main question is: does anyone know of some paper that says this?

[/hv]

Assuming standard methods, any sane authoritative source would classify North's opening bid as a psych. As a passed hand, South could hardly hold a better hand for a double. IMO South fielded the psych so it is a red psych. Nevertheless, I remember similar past cases, where directors defended such actions, boasting about similar coups they had, themselves, accomplished. Such ploys are easy to rationalise. Directors almost always condone this kind of fielding. In the absence of any realistic sanction, it is hard to persuade players that they have done anything wrong. So cheating implications are ridiculous.

[blackshoe]

I did not expect you to be from anywhere where English is spoken if you think 'gonna' is a word. :P

 

Has anyone any idea of the source? Or is it a figment of a couple of people's imagination?

 

My advice was that it was clearly a psyche, since they cannot have an agreement to open lighter than 8 HCP, and that it was Red. I did ask whether they had any disclosed agreement to open light in third and the answer seemed to be No. If so, then it becomes even more clearly a psyche.

 

The person who asked me was more worried about the arguments as to whether it was a psyche. He felt it was Amber.

 

"Gonna" is a common slang term in the US. Not the Queen's English? Oh well. :P

 

There may be some bit of information I'm missing here, but the evidence presented in your post, David, does not lead me to conclude it was a psych. It may have been. It may also have been a misbid. Granted it may not matter, since both fall under your "traffic light" regulations.

 

I suppose I should go back and read the entire thread, but it's late and I'm tired.

[barmar]

"Gonna" is a common slang term in the US. Not the Queen's English? Oh well. :P

He seems to be on a campaign for "proper English" in online forums. He also blasted someone last night on r.g.b. for the contraction "y'all", which is common synonym for "you" (usually in the plural sense) in the American south.

[TimG]

I thought "all y'all" or "y'alls" were plural while "y'all" was singular.

 

"Gonna", "y'all", and "strat" all coming under fire recently. Maybe we need some kinder, gentler, New Year's resolutions.

[Trinidad]

"Gonna", "y'all", and "strat" all coming under fire recently. Maybe we need some kinder, gentler, New Year's resolutions.

That ain't bad.

 

Happy New Year to Southerners, Yankees, Ozzies, Kiwi's, Canucks, Albionians and everybody else!

 

Rik

[bluejak]

He seems to be on a campaign for "proper English" in online forums. He also blasted someone last night on r.g.b. for the contraction "y'all", which is common synonym for "you" (usually in the plural sense) in the American south.

No, I did not.

 

For a start, I do not blast people: I make occasional fairly humorous comments about such things. Blasting sounds malicious: my efforts are meant to be humorous.

 

Secondly I am not aware of any such post about y'all.

[bluejak]

Assuming standard methods, any sane authoritative source would classify North's opening bid as a psych. As a passed hand, South could hardly hold a better hand for a double. IMO South fielded the psych so it is a red psych. Nevertheless, I remember similar past cases, where directors defended such actions, boasting about similar coups they had, themselves, accomplished. Such ploys are easy to rationalise. Directors almost always condone this kind of fielding. In the absence of any realistic sanction, it is hard to persuade players that they have done anything wrong. So cheating implications are ridiculous.

I consider the clause "Directors almost always condone this kind of fielding" libelous. This sort of psyche is nearly always adjudged to be Red. Your statement is just not true.

[bluejak]

"Gonna" is a common slang term in the US. Not the Queen's English? Oh well. :P

 

There may be some bit of information I'm missing here, but the evidence presented in your post, David, does not lead me to conclude it was a psych. It may have been. It may also have been a misbid. Granted it may not matter, since both fall under your "traffic light" regulations.

 

I suppose I should go back and read the entire thread, but it's late and I'm tired.

I do not understand how opening a hand with five HCP can be labeled a misbid. What did he do, imagine two aces?

[alphatango]

I do not understand how opening a hand with five HCP can be labeled a misbid. What did he do, imagine two aces?

 

Possible misbid thought process:

 

"Both minors, weak hand. Have a bid for that; should I use it? ...[some thoughts later]... OK, I'll bid."

1D, then:

"Oh no, I meant to bid [relevant call showing weak hand with both minors]! Too late now."

 

Stranger things have happened.

[nige1]

I consider the clause "Directors almost always condone this kind of fielding" libelous. This sort of psyche is nearly always adjudged to be Red. Your statement is just not true.

My criticism is directed at rules rather than directors. Criticising a profession is less libellous than repeatedly branding named individuals as liars or worse. Should moderators condone the latter? I write from my own bridge-experience and from what I read in fora like this. Presumably, Bluejak has forgotten endless threads in previous fora, where directors defended light third-in-hand openers that other directors considered to be patently illegal. (David Burn categorised the practice in stronger terms). Bluejak has access to EBU/WBU records. If I'm mistaken about current practice, then Bluejak can tell us how many such red-psychs were recorded and what the sanctions were.