psyche response to weak2?

[jillybean]

2♥ (X) 2N (feature ask)

 

Are we permitted to psyche the 2N bid here?

[S2000magic]

Why not?

 

I believe that, with a reliable partner, it's a great tactic. Good opponents might suspect that you're stealing, but if you can steal a bid or two (here, 2♠) from them, it can only help your side.

 

(If there's a rule against such a psyche, shame on the people who enacted it.)

[wyman]

It's less effective in this auction, when RHO has X'd, since LHO knows RHO has values. Certainly psyching a forward-going 2N when partner preempts and RHO passes is common and often effective.

 

In either case, it's legal as long as you don't have an agreement with partner about it. But remember that when you're psyching, you're telling opps (and partner) a story. I guess this might work if RHO had 17-19 and LHO had 6-8, and your call convinces LHO that RHO has 12-14 and RHO that LHO is broke. But that's a narrow target. More likely if you're broke is that LHO actually has a hand, and you won't fool anyone. If you're planning to bid 4H or something, probably it's better to just punt and eat up their bidding room. After all, on 2H (X) 4H (4S), LHO can be really stretching, or he can have a really nice hand. This can make a slam decision tough when it comes back around to RHO's 18 count. Meanwhile, if RHO has the goods, and it goes: 2H (X) 2N (4S), or 2H (X) 2N (X showing cards or something, inviting penalties), RHO will know what's going on, and they'll be able to make better decisions.

[aguahombre]

(If there's a rule against such a psyche, shame on the people who enacted it.)

Yes, I would be interested in the wording which would prohibit such a tactic.

 

The 2NT bidder is not grossly misstating his hand; he is not stating anything about his hand other than he wants opener to answer the question. What if 2NT asks for shortness? Maybe that will help the responder determine how high he wishes to compete.

 

When the police decide what I have to hold in order to find out additional information about partner's opening bid, I will definitely be interested.

[hrothgar]

This is a very tricky subject which involves a number of different issues

 

1. Many jurisdictions have prohibitions against psyching conventional bids. I believe that the ACBL may be one of them.

 

2. There are those who would argue that a feature ask, is a feature ask is a feature ask. You can make an asking bid on whatever hand you damn well please. Hence, a feature ask can not be psyched. If the opponents happen to assume that a feature ask promises a certain amount of strength (say game invitational values) that's their own problem...

 

Others would argue that its unexpected that a feature ask doesn't include a hand that would bid game opposite some hand types shown by the "ask". More significantly, if you are playing a style in which a feature ask is systemic allowed with - hypothetically - a preemptive raise to the three level then there are certain negative inferences that really need to be explained. (For example, I am guessing that the agreements regarding ofrcing passes may need to change)

[paulg]

DISALLOWED

Psyching of artificial or conventional opening bids and/or conventional responses thereto. Psyching conventional suit responses, which are less than 2NT, to natural openings.

Presuming that the two hearts opening bid is a natural weak two, then you are permitted to psych a 2NT response.

[S2000magic]

It's less effective in this auction, when RHO has X'd, since LHO knows RHO has values. Certainly psyching a forward-going 2N when partner preempts and RHO passes is common and often effective.

Agreed, but if they field it they're no better off than if you'd kept silent, and may not be better off than if you'd bid 3♥ or 4♥. I'm all for varying one's tactics in this situation.

[aguahombre]

Many jurisdictions have rules about psyching CERTAIN conventional bids, not conventional bids in general.

[AlexJonson]

I recall there was a post about this subject some while ago. The discussion (I think) centred round the description of the 2NT. If I remember correctly just saying 'forcing' was regarded as too economical with the truth, if the bid can be made on a wide range of values. In some regulations 'forcing' is defined as 'forcing from strength'.

[S2000magic]

2. There are those who would argue that a feature ask, is a feature ask is a feature ask. You can make an asking bid on whatever hand you damn well please. Hence, a feature ask can not be psyched. If the opponents happen to assume that a feature ask promises a certain amount of strength (say game invitational values) that's their own problem...

I think that this is the crux of the matter: who's to say under what circumstances it's appropriate to ask and under what circumstances it's not. It's a psyche only if it's determined that there was no legitimate reason to ask the question.

 

Would a rule that proscribes 2NT in a situation where "someone" deems the question inappropriate apply similarly, to a 2♣ response to 1NT on, say,

 

♠ x x x x

♥ x x x x

♦ x x x x x

♣ ---

 

?

 

(If you argue that this is legitimate, would you argue that passing partner's (artificial) 2♦ rebid is as well?)

 

I recall there was a post about this subject some while ago. The discussion (I think) centred round the description of the 2NT. If I remember correctly just saying 'forcing' was regarded as too economical with the truth, if the bid can be made on a wide range of values. In some regulations 'forcing' is defined as 'forcing from strength'.

Certainly one could (accurately, if not fully) describe Stayman as forcing. Your point is well taken; however, if described as, "asking for a feature", it can still be forcing with a wide (even incredibly wide) range of strength. In response to a 15 - 17 HCP 1NT, Stayman can have a range of 0 - 25 HCP.

[aguahombre]

Re: Alex, above: "Asking for further information". Again avoiding my pet peeve about telling the opponents and partner what you are going to do.

[BunnyGo]

wyman certainly knows about psyching 2NT here. On the first hand in a 9 AM regional pairs event, he got me to a vulnerable 4♥ (when I opened a weak 2) and he had a stiff heart and three points. After shaking the cobwebs out of my brain I realized I just had to hold it to down 5 for a top (they were also vulnerable). Better than a cup of coffee. :)

 

Edit: The opponent hadn't doubled though, so it was much more effective. 4th seat had a 19 count and believed wyman (and me when I showed a maximum pre-empt)

Edited November 29, 2011 by BunnyGo

[S2000magic]

Better than a cup of coffee. :)

And, if you ignore the possible attendant medical bills, more economical.

[pooltuna]

Absolutely!! altho it is a pretty well known psyche

[blackshoe]

I recall there was a post about this subject some while ago. The discussion (I think) centred round the description of the 2NT. If I remember correctly just saying 'forcing' was regarded as too economical with the truth, if the bid can be made on a wide range of values. In some regulations 'forcing' is defined as 'forcing from strength'.

 

You are required to disclose your agreements. If you do that, the opponents get no redress, whether partner psyched or not . If you don't do that, your opponents are likely to get redress whether partner psyched or not.

[bluejak]

What is a psyche? It is a deliberate misstatement of your hand, based on your actual agreements with partner. Now, that may seem obvious, until you realise that there have been an incredible number of threads here, on RGB, on BLML, and so forth, where a lot of the posts assume that is a deliberate misstatement of your hand, based the poster's presumptions of what you have shown.

 

If you agree that 2♥ {any} 2NT asks partner and says nothing about your hand, then it is not a psyche if you do it with no points. It is, however, an absolute requirement of this game that you fully disclose your methods, so you should be telling your opponents that it does not show values.

 

If you agree that 2♥ {any} 2NT shows a game try or better, then it is a psyche if you do it with no points.

 

The difference between these two cases is enormous, and repeatedly ignored. For example, I have seen many many posts that say something like "2NT does not show anything about the hand". Fine: perhaps it does not when the poster plays it, but that does not mean it does not when someone else plays it.

 

When my partner and I play weak twos [as we are forced to in the ACBL except at MC6] and we respond 2NT it shows a game try or better. One of the ways of telling how people play the 2NT can be told by the sequence [for example]

 

[hv=d=n&v=e&b=9&a=2s(Weak)p2n(Ogust)4h]133|100[/hv]

 

What should opener do with a maximum? In my partnership he has to take action - double would be normal. In a partnership with an explicit or implicit agreement that 2NT need not have values they usually pass and pray [or pass slowly :o ].

 

This is also the area where the term "tactical bid" was used, which meant a psyche by an expert against a lesser player: he would not psyche it against another expert because that expert would realise what is going on. This is the essence of a "tactical bid": it occurs frequently enough that the pair play it has an implicit agreement but of course do not disclose it and if challenged say "but it is a tactical bid" :rolleyes: .

 

The whole business is extremely fraught with people deciding something is a psyche or not without finding out the agreements and with lack of full disclosure. But to answer the OP, yes you may psyche 2NT in nearly every jurisdiction, including the ACBL, but whether a 2NT on a weak hand is a psyche is another question.

[Cascade]

In New Zealand there is a regulation restricting psyches of conventional bids that are game tries.

 

"In response to any opening bid, the responder is prohibited from psyching any

bid that:

(a) is conventionally a game try or a game force,

AND (b) neither relates to a specific suit or suits nor shows a

balanced hand"

 

I am not convinced that such regulations are legal in that Law 40 specifically gives players the right to depart from agreements.

 

In any case the regulation seems flawed in that a partnership can simply agree that the bid is not necessarily a game try and the restriction is void.

[campboy]

I am not convinced that such regulations are legal in that Law 40 specifically gives players the right to depart from agreements.

The RA has the right to "allow, disallow, or allow conditionally any special partnership understanding" (40B2a). So it may allow you to play such a method with the condition that you do not psyche it.

 

In any case the regulation seems flawed in that a partnership can simply agree that the bid is not necessarily a game try and the restriction is void.

I don't think that means the regulation is flawed. If you agree it is not necessarily a game try then you have to disclose it differently and once you do it loses most of its power to catch people unawares.

[jillybean]

What is a psyche? It is a deliberate misstatement of your hand, based on your actual agreements with partner. Now, that may seem obvious, until you realise that there have been an incredible number of threads here, on RGB, on BLML, and so forth, where a lot of the posts assume that is a deliberate misstatement of your hand, based the poster's presumptions of what you have shown.

 

If you agree that 2♥ {any} 2NT asks partner and says nothing about your hand, then it is not a psyche if you do it with no points. It is, however, an absolute requirement of this game that you fully disclose your methods, so you should be telling your opponents that it does not show values.

 

If you agree that 2♥ {any} 2NT shows a game try or better, then it is a psyche if you do it with no points.

 

The difference between these two cases is enormous, and repeatedly ignored. For example, I have seen many many posts that say something like "2NT does not show anything about the hand". Fine: perhaps it does not when the poster plays it, but that does not mean it does not when someone else plays it.

 

When my partner and I play weak twos [as we are forced to in the ACBL except at MC6] and we respond 2NT it shows a game try or better. One of the ways of telling how people play the 2NT can be told by the sequence [for example]

 

[hv=d=n&v=e&b=9&a=2s(Weak)p2n(Ogust)4h]133|100[/hv]

 

What should opener do with a maximum? In my partnership he has to take action - double would be normal. In a partnership with an explicit or implicit agreement that 2NT need not have values they usually pass and pray [or pass slowly :o ].

 

This is also the area where the term "tactical bid" was used, which meant a psyche by an expert against a lesser player: he would not psyche it against another expert because that expert would realise what is going on. This is the essence of a "tactical bid": it occurs frequently enough that the pair play it has an implicit agreement but of course do not disclose it and if challenged say "but it is a tactical bid" :rolleyes: .

 

The whole business is extremely fraught with people deciding something is a psyche or not without finding out the agreements and with lack of full disclosure. But to answer the OP, yes you may psyche 2NT in nearly every jurisdiction, including the ACBL, but whether a 2NT on a weak hand is a psyche is another question.

 

Thanks, David. Fabulous, clear and comprehensive reply that I can understand.

[kenrexford]

When the powers that be start getting ridiculous, I like to counter that with ridiculous disclosure. Thus, any time any call is an asking bid or a puppet, I like to alert this and provide full disclosure of exactly what the call promises.

 

The end result is fabulous. Rather than simply one call randomly made that happens to be viewed as psychic-like, I end up with the opponents paranoid on every puppet asking or transfer call that it might be a psychic. More bangt for the buck.

 

1NT-P-2♣("Alert")

 

"What's that?"

 

"We play that 2♣ asks for a four-card major, but it does not promise any strength or any pattern. In fact, as an example, he might bid 2♣ with eight diamonds and 0 points."

 

"Really? Well, I better make some dumb bid and get doubled, then, before your partner's 8-card diamond suit be is bid later."

 

Or, one of my favorites is to alert 1♣ as short. Now, since by "short" I do not mean 4-4-3-2 specifically, but rather anything balanced, this is alertable. When asked, I explain, "Balanced with 11-14 or 18-19 HCP, in which case the respective minor lengths are completely unknown, or unbalanced with 4+ clubs and 10-23 HCP." I sometimes add that 1♦ is unbalanced. However, when the director calls start increasing over stupid nonsense, my explanation for a short club starts to include the possibility of a 5-card or even 6-card major, the possibility that the club is a stiff King, Ace, or even Queen, perhaps nuances about when to start a wak 5-6 major-MINOR canape in the major instead. All sorts of nonsense, to the point where 1♣ as a fairly normal call ends up as the most complicated GCC-legal system imaginable.

[Vampyr]

whether a 2NT on a weak hand is a psyche is another question.

 

I think that it is, since my partner and I play 2NT as forward-going. But we do it without values on occasion, and if asked I add to the explanation, "he has been known to psyche here". Is this appropriate?

[wyman]

I think that it is, since my partner and I play 2NT as forward-going. But we do it without values on occasion, and if asked I add to the explanation, "he has been known to psyche here". Is this appropriate?

 

I usually say something like: this is ostensibly a game try; he's asking me to further describe my hand. But (at w/r, I might add "especially at these colors" ) this could just be tactical as well.

[Cascade]

I think that it is, since my partner and I play 2NT as forward-going. But we do it without values on occasion, and if asked I add to the explanation, "he has been known to psyche here". Is this appropriate?

 

In similar situations in my experience there comes a point when it is no longer a psyche but a partnership agreement. Then it needs to be treated as such. That means it needs to be disclosed as an agreement - which is more or less what you are doing - and subject to system regulations. In some cases the agreement will fall foul of the system regulations. For example, openings one-level bids (in third seat) on very weak values will make your system a HUM (WBF regulations), opening weak twos on 3-counts may put your weak two outside the ACBL 7-point range and you will not be allowed to play conventions, and in this example such a 2NT bid may be deemed destructive (ACBL) and as such illegal. The consequences will vary obviously depending on your jurisdiction. There is a conflict between full disclosure of partnership agreements (explicit and implicit) and system regulation boundaries. Many players hide behind "its just bridge" or the like or the low frequency of the hand type rather than making full disclosure of their methods to make bids that have become and would reasonably be ruled implicit agreements and as such flout the system regulations.

[wyman]

In similar situations in my experience there comes a point when it is no longer a psyche but a partnership agreement. Then it needs to be treated as such. That means it needs to be disclosed as an agreement - which is more or less what you are doing - and subject to system regulations. In some cases the agreement will fall foul of the system regulations. For example, openings one-level bids (in third seat) on very weak values will make your system a HUM (WBF regulations), opening weak twos on 3-counts may put your weak two outside the ACBL 7-point range and you will not be allowed to play conventions, and in this example such a 2NT bid may be deemed destructive (ACBL) and as such illegal. The consequences will vary obviously depending on your jurisdiction. There is a conflict between full disclosure of partnership agreements (explicit and implicit) and system regulation boundaries. Many players hide behind "its just bridge" or the like or the low frequency of the hand type rather than making full disclosure of their methods to make bids that have become and would reasonably be ruled implicit agreements and as such flout the system regulations.

 

But while directors answer these kind of "accusations" with "grow up, guys" or "it's just bridge" or "you might be right, but everybody does it, so just move on," I'll continue to bid (and disclose) as though I'm not running afoul of anything.

 

edit: the regs are fashioned essentially so that all things that the "pros" do (and essentially only those things) are fair game anyway, so while this might not be consistent with the letter of the regulations, it's almost certainly consistent with the (implicit) spirit of the law.

[Cascade]

I am not convinced that such regulations are legal in that Law 40 specifically gives players the right to depart from agreements.

 

 

The RA has the right to "allow, disallow, or allow conditionally any special partnership understanding" (40B2a). So it may allow you to play such a method with the condition that you do not psyche it.

 

There is a clear conflict between L40A3 which allows a player to make "any call" provided there is no agreement and L40B2a which allows the RA to regulation special partnership understandings "without restriction".