Elementary, Watson

[semeai]

Regarding what Kaplan-Sheinwold's psychic controls actually were, here's what I find at the Bridge World's K-S Updated page:

 

1♥-1♠: Ambiguous strength, usually 5-card suit (1 NT with 4-carder unless strong), occasionally psychic.

1♥-1♠;2♠-3♥: Psychic spades - opener must pass

1♥-1♠;3♠: 16-17 points, 4 trumps, nonforcing. Now 4♥ shows psychic spades; opener must pass.

1♥-1♠;4♠: Not allowed. Opener may not rebid 4♠. He must jump shift, then 3♠.

 

Really this seems to be a system in which 1♥-1♠ shows spades or heart support. As to which bids were the "controls," if you like the definitions Blackshoe quoted, then the 3♥ and 4♥ bids are the controls. This is like the Watson 3NT bid, but rather more direct: there's an agreement on the exact auction in which the psychic bid has been made instead of a general agreement which could be useful for a psychic bidder to use but which will also be used in other auctions (or perhaps even the same auctions) by non psychic hands.

 

If you don't like that definition, maybe exercising the restraint never to bid 4♠ is the control? This is similar to requiring a 2♦ response to 2♣ to cater to partner having a weak hand with diamonds.

[mjj29]

From reading this thread then, it would seem that for a call to be not permitted after a psych under the EBU regulation it must be:

1. Made by the player who psyched
   
2. Not a pass
   
3. Actively discouraging partner from an action that would be based on the previous bids by that player (rather than merely suggestion additional suits, for example)
   

 

That seems like a summary which fits the description of the Watson double, but allows a player who has psyched to pass later in the auction - which seems to be what the EBU are going for here.

 

Of course, some more concrete guidence from the Laws and Ethics Committee would be better, unless they believe that psychic controls are like obscenity and they will know it when they see it.

[gnasher]

 

Of course, some more concrete guidence from the Laws and Ethics Committee would be better, unless they believe that psychic controls are like obscenity and they will know it when they see it.

 

Even if they believe that, they should still do their best to provide concrete guidance. The rules exist for the players, not for the administrators. How can we be expected to obey a rule if we don't know what it is?

[bluejak]

A psychic control is a call by a player which allows for partner having psyched and therefore seeks to minimise the effect of a such a psyche.

 

For example, if a 2♠ response to a 1♥ is forcing on a psyche and has a rebid that shows a psyche it is a psychic control.

 

But a 2♦ response to a 2♣ opening which shows a negative - or is a waiting bid - is not a psychic control.

[aguahombre]

A psychic control is a call by a player which allows for partner having psyched and therefore seeks to minimise the effect of a such a psyche.

Sounds good. So, if the partnership has added so many possible meanings to 2C/1NT that it is no longer recognizable as merely Stayman and occurs 90 percent of the time partner responds at all, would that become defacto a psychic control to minimize the effect (because opener only psyches 1NT with long clubs)?

[gnasher]

A psychic control is a call by a player which allows for partner having psyched and therefore seeks to minimise the effect of a such a psyche.

By that definition, a Watson Double isn't a psychic control, because the double doesn't allow for partner's having psyched.

[mrdct]

A psychic control is a call by a player which allows for partner having psyched and therefore seeks to minimise the effect of a such a psyche.

Is there an authoritative source for that definition as it doesn't seem to fit the EBU interpretation?

[blackshoe]

A psychic control is a call by a player which allows for partner having psyched and therefore seeks to minimise the effect of a such a psyche.

 

For example, if a 2♠ response to a 1♥ is forcing on a psyche and has a rebid that shows a psyche it is a psychic control.

 

But a 2♦ response to a 2♣ opening which shows a negative - or is a waiting bid - is not a psychic control.

 

So a Watson double by a player who has psyched a weak 2♥ opening is not a psychic control, since it's not made by psycher's partner.

 

Heh. I see I missed a couple similar replies. :P

[bluejak]

No. Players can always find some psyches that are safer than others because of their system. That does not make such parts of system psychic controls.

[aguahombre]

Post #84 seems to fit as an answer to the question in Post #80. Whether that was the intent, or not, it works for me.

[Trinidad]

I am getting a headache. There is a rule about psychic controls. It uses a Watson double as an example. But, a Watson double is not a psychic control, by the definition.

On the other hand, a lot of people have the agreement that a 2♦ response to a 2♣ opening is mandatory. But the fact that this makes it possible to psyche a 2♣ opening with a weak two in diamonds in a controlled way, does not make it a psychic control.

The reason for the latter is, it seems, that the aim behind the mandatory 2♦ response is for constructive bidding: It allows opener to describe his hand, etc.... It is not devised to control a psyche. That's a valid reasoning.

 

But then... Is a Watson double devised to control a psyche? No, it isn't.

 

Why is this reasoning valid for the 2♦ agreement and not for the Watson double agreement?

 

Rik

[Trinidad]

I find it really odd to speak of implicit agreements with a player that you have never met before. You can have 'general bridge experience' and this may even be similar for both players. But the fact that two payers have similar 'general bridge experience' doesn't give them an agreement. After all, how is one supposed to know that partner has the same 'general bridge experience'.

 

I once played with somebody that I had never played with before or against. We had about 30 seconds to agree on a system. He asked: "What do you think of Marty Bergen?". I replied that I thought he was a fine player and teacher. He said: "Let's play that we act as if we play with Marty Bergen as a partner." In that special case, we had a pile of explicit and implicit agreements in 30 seconds. But I think it is an exception, rather than the rule.

 

Rik