EBU Psyche Classifications

[Finch]

Let's make it more clear?

 

Pretty much no-one psychs 15-17 NT. But of course, of course, it would be legal.

 

If no-one psychs it, how do you field it.

 

Do try to think it through in a practical way.

 

 

Sorry to be blunt, but you are totally wrong. The three most common psyches (making up about 90% of all recorded psyches) are, in order,

 

1. Inventing a major suit after with a big fit after partner opens and the next hand doubles

2. Psyching a 1NT overcall (and jallerton's poll works just as well with the auction P P 1S 1NT P ?)

3. Psyching a strong 1NT opening

 

in my experience, a 15-17 1NT is psyched much more often than a weak NT.

[RMB1]

in my experience, a 15-17 1NT is psyched much more often than a weak NT.

 

If you psyche a weak NT nobody noticed: he showed a bad hand ... he seemed to turn up with a bad hand (... perhaps it was a bit off shape).

 

I psyched at the weekend and nobody noticed, even when I passed a forcing bid and my hand went down as dummy; I think my fellow players' expectations of light opening bids is lighter than I thought.

[mycroft]

I think that the small "amber" band seen here is simply because the call being psyched is so well-defined.

 

I think if you worked with more wide-ranging calls, you'd find a larger set of calls being looked at as amber - "well we can't say the only way that this could be right is if you had a wire, but the likely way..."

[barmar]

If it's not a gross deviation it's not a psych, so it cannot be anything but "green".

Bidding a strong NT with 6 HCP is clearly a gross deviation, so there's no question about that.

 

What this discussion is about is responder's actions. We're using them to try to judge whether the partnership has a CPU. There's nothing that says that his actions have to be gross deviations for them to be used as evidence of a CPU.

 

But maybe what you're saying is that responder's actions have to be gross deviations to suggest that he's catering to a gross deviation. Passing with a 9 count might just be allowing for a 13 HCP NT, which is only 2 points shy of expected, and not "gross".

[mrdct]

I have no idea what "well beyond fielding" means.

Cheating.

[blackshoe]

What I'm saying, barmar, is in response to the comment that any "gross deviation" (by psycher) seemed to be a red psych, and lesser deviations were at best amber psychs.

 

The EBU treats misbids (deviations other than the gross and deliberate ones, which are psychs) the same way as psychs - they may be judged to have been fielded, and the fielding may be judged to have been red, amber or green. That's fine. All I'm saying is that less than gross deviations are not psychs, and should not be described as such, whatever one may think of the bidder's partner's actions.

[AlexJonson]

Sorry to be blunt, but you are totally wrong. The three most common psyches (making up about 90% of all recorded psyches) are, in order,

 

1. Inventing a major suit after with a big fit after partner opens and the next hand doubles

2. Psyching a 1NT overcall (and jallerton's poll works just as well with the auction P P 1S 1NT P ?)

3. Psyching a strong 1NT opening

 

in my experience, a 15-17 1NT is psyched much more often than a weak NT.

 

Don't worry. For someone who was recently bonkers, just being totally wrong feels like a step towards rehabilitation.

 

I'm still surprised that people grossly deviate from an agreed NT opening range, but you are better placed to know.

 

My actual concern is with the amber class. I normally expect the TD to make a decision on the evidence available to him - so either I have fielded a psych or I haven't -ie either I am judged to have a CPU or not. The amber category seems undesirable to me.

[Trinidad]

Thus, I have no idea what "well beyond fielding" means.

Cheating.

That is a gross overstatement.

 

Last week, I played Cross IMPs at the club with a regular partner. We were not vulnerable and I had a full, but minimum opening bid: 12 HCP and 5=3=3=2 distribution. I was South and the auction started by partner opening:

[hv=d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1hp1sp1n(11-poor%2014)p2c(Checkback)p2h(MIN%20with%203%20spades)p2sppp]133|100[/hv]

I decided to allow for partner to have opened aggressively and to threat my hand as invitational only opposite a balanced hand and we stopped in a part score.

 

Not completely unexpected, saying that this was a minority view is an understatement. The rest of the field was in game, i.e. 0% was agreeing with me.

 

The fact that there was a rest of the field in a similar position already tells you that my partner hadn't psyched his 1♥ opening. But suppose he actually had psyched would you call me a cheat for: staying out of game with an opening and avoiding the heart suit where everybody would have bid game (most were in hearts, some in spades)? Or would I be allowed to use my own (perhaps misguided) judgement on a particular hand?

 

Entirely irrelevant for the discussion, but for those who are interested: Partner had a decent 12 count and the field was right and I was wrong.

 

Rik

[aguahombre]

But you miss the part where responder has a boundary hand, and may as a 100% innocent player of Bridge be branded with strange colours for passing. The normal case for amber(?) I don't know.

As I understand it, the psyche itself is not branded by a color or anything else in EBU or in other jurisdictions. It might be illegal in ACBL if artificial and forcing. It is the partnership continuations or lack thereof which are subject to scrutiny.

 

I see nothing wrong with the EBU's efforts in this area. The only confusion I find is when they are termed colored psyches, rather than colored actions following the psyche.

[AlexJonson]

As I understand it, the psyche itself it not branded by a color or anything else in EBU or in other jurisdictions. It might be illegal in ACBL if artificial and forcing. It is the partnership continuations or lack thereof which are subject to scrutiny.

 

I see nothing wrong with the EBU's efforts in this area. The only confusion I find is when they are termed colored psyches, rather than colored actions following the psyche.

 

I was talking about the responder. I assumed that everyone on this forum understands that, and in fact I repeated many times the statement that psychs are legal.

[mjj29]

Don't worry. For someone who was recently bonkers, just being totally wrong feels like a step towards rehabilitation.

 

I'm still surprised that people grossly deviate from an agreed NT opening range, but you are better placed to know.

 

My actual concern is with the amber class. I normally expect the TD to make a decision on the evidence available to him - so either I have fielded a psych or I haven't -ie either I am judged to have a CPU or not. The amber category seems undesirable to me.

Just as Partnership Understandings (concealed or otherwise) may be built up over time, so it may take several instances for it to be clear whether one exists. One swallow does not make a summer, etc.

 

Some actions following a psych are clear that they were made expecting it to be a psych, some are clearly not. However, there are definitely actions which are arguable. If they just happen once, and on other occasions partner makes reasonable actions, it was probably coincidence. As the number of 'dubious' actions goes up, the chance that they were coincidence goes down (even if you couldn't tell to start with) and hence you can call them a CPU. You have to have some categorization that allows you to record the psychs to check that it doesn't happen repeatedly. Hence, amber.

 

Incidentally, my favourite colour of psych is 'blue' - when your partner takes an action to cater for what actually turns out to be your opponent's psych

[mycroft]

"It might ... in the ACBL ..."

 

I do realize I talk out of my hat sometimes, and that there could be a bit of clarification in the ACBL convention charts and Alert procedures, but really, the information is easy to get to and clear, at least when it comes to *illegal* psychics (as opposed to fielding, which is a little more vague):

 

DISALLOWED, 2:

Psyching of artificial or conventional opening bids and/or conventional

responses thereto. Psyching conventional suit responses, which are less

than 2NT, to natural openings.

 

The second sentence is removed for higher than GCC (replaced with a DISALLOWED: psyching calls with less than 10 HCP not allowed on the GCC section).

 

Nothing about forcing. Nothing about strong. You can't psych a Flannery 2♥, even though it's neither strong nor forcing.

[Zelandakh]

DISALLOWED, 2:

Psyching of artificial or conventional opening bids

 

Nothing about forcing. Nothing about strong. You can't psych a Flannery 2♥, even though it's neither strong nor forcing.

What makes a Flannery 2H opening any more artificial or conventional than a weak 2H opening? It is surely less so than a canape 1H opener - is that also conventional and therefore unpsychable? Perhaps by this reasoning a 1NT opening should also be unpsychable since it is "obviously" conventional not to open your longest suit at the one level with opening points and less than a GF.

[blackshoe]

When I saw the post originally, I suspected that Mycroft was talking about opening 2♥ (rather than 2♦) to show a "Flannery" type hand. I still do.

[WellSpyder]

What makes a Flannery 2H opening any more artificial or conventional than a weak 2H opening? It is surely less so than a canape 1H opener - is that also conventional and therefore unpsychable?

Not at all. A Flannery opening promises spades as well as hearts. A canape 1♥ opener doesn't promise another suit at all - it's just that if it does have a second suit it will be at least as long as the hearts.

[Zelandakh]

So do I, hence my post. When opening your longest suit starts to be treated as an artificial bid we are really not going the right way in the regulations imho...

[bluejak]

Any bid which shows another suit to the suit bid, whether additionally or instead of the suit bid, is deemed artificial.

[Zelandakh]

Really David? Is this new? I remember when Ekrens first arrived the 2D version was quickly disposed of but the 2H version was "natural", having 4+ cards in the suit bid, and therefore could not be banned. What changed? I am still at a loss to work out how opening 1H in a canape system can ever be seen as more natural than opening 2H showing 5 hearts and 4 spades. Presumably 2H as a weak opening with 5+ hearts and 4+ in any other suit would be less conventional...?

[RMB1]

Really David? Is this new? I remember when Ekrens first arrived the 2D version was quickly dispobsed of but the 2H version was "natural", having 4+ cards in the suit bid, and therefore could not be banned.

 

Before 2007, regulation applied to "conventional" calls and if a suit bid had a meaning that related to values in a suit other than the suit bid then it was conventional. So Flannery and Ekrens 2H were conventional and could be regulated.

 

At international level, Ekrens 2H was not Brown Sticker so was allowed in all WBF (and EBL) events.

 

After 2007, regulation applies to "special" partnership agreements, and regulatory authorities can ban anything that is special (which really means they can ban anything).