Psych or not

[blackshoe]

"Intent to mislead" may be useful as an indication whether a particular call is a psych or a misbid, I suppose. I also suppose this may become important if psyching the particular call is illegal (e.g., the ACBL's prohibition against psyching artificial openings), but other than that it doesn't seem worthy of discussion.

[gwnn]

What possible alternative motive might a player have to make a deliberate gross distortion if not to mislead? If (as I suggest) there is no alternative motive then the absence of its being expressly required in the laws is not in my view a significant omission.

Perhaps partneship harmony issues? Three possibilities (maybe none of them particularly likely) spring to mind:

-I'm unsure whether partner/I will remember the followups so I will misdescribe my hand

-I refuse to play this stupid convention so I will misdescribe my hand

-My partner just did something stupid last board so I want to do an equally stupid thing now to teach him a lesson

(I am not defending any of these but I have seen all of them in real life)

[barmar]

"Intent to mislead" may be useful as an indication whether a particular call is a psych or a misbid, I suppose.

How does that differ in effect from the existing requirement that it be "deliberate"? I go with the earlier reply that "intent to mislead" is simply an obvious corollary of "deliberate".

[barmar]

Although the EBU's rules imply that the point is what your partner actually does.

Perhaps because it's difficult to peer into the head of your partner. So we infer it from their action: if they field it, it suggests they weren't surprised.

[campboy]

What possible alternative motive might a player have to make a deliberate gross distortion if not to mislead? If (as I suggest) there is no alternative motive then the absence of its being expressly required in the laws is not in my view a significant omission.

I don't understand. Here you say there can be no other motivation, yet in your previous post you seem to be saying that he must have had some other motivation, and that made it not a psyche.

[gordontd]

If (as I suggest) there is no alternative motive then the absence of its being expressly required in the laws is not in my view a significant omission.

It's significant if you're going to view it as relevant to making a ruling.

[barmar]

I don't understand. Here you say there can be no other motivation, yet in your previous post you seem to be saying that he must have had some other motivation, and that made it not a psyche.

In his previous post he doubted whether it was deliberate.

 

Seems like the logic is: there could be no logical reason to try to mislead in this way, it must have been some kind of mistake: a misbid, missorting the hand, etc.

 

Remember, this whole thing is a hypothetical. Has anyone ever made this kind of bid deliberately? We might be able to imagine it if the long suit were a minor, but with the actual hand in question it makes no sense.

 

This is like asking "Is it legal to bid while floating in the air?" There's nothing in the Bridge Laws prohibiting it, by it violates the Law of Gravity.

[nige1]

Is opening 1♠ with ♠ A K x x ♥ A Q J x x x ♦ x x ♣ x considered a psych or not?

Suppose sayc or a similar natural system :rolleyes:

Since many people read too much into this, this hand is a theoretical case and 1♠ is deliberate, not a misbid or a wrong sorting of cards. The question is if this bid on it's own is a psych or not, any possible result or adjustment doesn't matter, but the labeling is what it's all about.

IMO, given Free's assumptions, in most modern natural systems, without Canapé, this is a psych. Although, just a few decades ago, systems guru, Norman Squire recommended a 1♠ opener with

♠ 5 4 3 2 ♥ A K Q J T ♦ K x x ♣ x :)

And nowadays, we're told that some Americans claim as natural a 1♣ opener with

♠ A x x x ♥ A x x x ♦ x x x ♣ A x :)

[blackshoe]

How does that differ in effect from the existing requirement that it be "deliberate"? I go with the earlier reply that "intent to mislead" is simply an obvious corollary of "deliberate".

I don't know that it does differ. Taking the view expressed here, I don't suppose it matters.

[Zelandakh]

Perhaps partneship harmony issues? Three possibilities (maybe none of them particularly likely) spring to mind:

Here's another from my personal collection:

- The opponents are being rude and it is the last hand so I am going to mess the board up to make a point to them.

[c_corgi]

I agree with those posters who believe that, for a call to be a psyche, there must be intent to mislead. Psyches are distinct from deliberate and gross distortions intended to create variance (without the misleading aspect being part of that, as seems likely with the hand in question) or for the other reasons some posters have suggested. The definition accompanying the laws does not support this view, which leads me to believe that the definition is nonsense.

[Cascade]

It is not a psyche if the player believed this was an appropriate way to bid this hand. Even if that belief was mistaken.

[Vampyr]

(e.g., the ACBL's prohibition against psyching artificial openings)

 

Are there penalties attached to misbidding (or leaving in a mechanical error) these openings?

[blackshoe]

I agree with those posters who believe that, for a call to be a psyche, there must be intent to mislead. Psyches are distinct from deliberate and gross distortions intended to create variance (without the misleading aspect being part of that, as seems likely with the hand in question) or for the other reasons some posters have suggested. The definition accompanying the laws does not support this view, which leads me to believe that the definition is nonsense.

Or perhaps it's your view that's wrong. B-)

[blackshoe]

It is not a psyche if the player believed this was an appropriate way to bid this hand. Even if that belief was mistaken.

No, in that case it would be a misbid.

[blackshoe]

Are there penalties attached to misbidding (or leaving in a mechanical error) these openings?

Not by regulation. Handling these is left to the TD's discretion.

 

I once had, as a player, a case involving (at teams) this hand: ♠AKQJ8754 ♥J32 ♦ - ♣ J6. Our opponent holding these cards opened 2♣. They got to ♠ via 2♣-2♦-4♠-AP. One of our teammates defending this hand said that he had misdefended because he expected declarer to have more high card strength. They made 4. We asked for a ruling. The TD said "it's almost a psych, but not quite" and let it stand. Unfortunately, I didn't ask him what small change would have made it a psych. Later, in correspondence with ACBL HQ, I was told that the GCC says this opening must be "strong" and that "strong" means "whatever the player making the bid thinks it means". That's not a paraphrase, it's a direct quote. :(

[Vampyr]

"strong" means "whatever the player making the bid thinks it means". That's not a paraphrase, it's a direct quote. :(

 

Rather a difficult regulation to obey :( . Or maybe easy -- if you consider your hand strong and wish to treat it as such, you cannot be ruled against.

 

A good fix would be for players to disclose on their convention card what non-traditional hand-types would qualify for their strong opening, and any hand that fell outside of these types could be a psyche. If you are allowed to define "strong" for yourself, your opponents are entitled to know how you defined it.

 

Interestingly, in the EBU, where you are allowed to psyche strong artificial openings, you are not permitted to open hands that don't satisfy a prescribed definition of strong (actually you are allowed to do it, you are just not allowed to agree to do it. Which I guess means that after the first occurrence you are supposed to either agree (as a partnership) not to do it again, or add it to your agreements and announce (and otherwise disclose) accordingly).

[blackshoe]

Rather a difficult regulation to obey :( . Or maybe easy -- if you consider your hand strong and wish to treat it as such, you cannot be ruled against.

 

A good fix would be for players to disclose on their convention card what non-traditional hand-types would qualify for their strong opening, and any hand that fell outside of these types could be a psyche. If you are allowed to define "strong" for yourself, your opponents are entitled to know how you defined it.

 

Interestingly, in the EBU, where you are allowed to psyche strong artificial openings, you are not permitted to open hands that don't satisfy a prescribed definition of strong (actually you are allowed to do it, you are just not allowed to agree to do it. Which I guess means that after the first occurrence you are supposed to either agree (as a partnership) not to do it again, or add it to your agreements and announce (and otherwise disclose) accordingly).

Does one swallow make a summer in the EBU, then? I suppose it might, in this case - psyching a strong 2♣ opening is probably more memorable than psyching a one level opening. But the general rule is that a given psych has to be frequent enough that partner begins to expect it before you can call it an implicit understanding.

[fromageGB]

Interestingly, in the EBU, where you are allowed to psyche strong artificial openings, you are not permitted to open hands that don't satisfy a prescribed definition of strong (actually you are allowed to do it, you are just not allowed to agree to do it. Which I guess means that after the first occurrence you are supposed to either agree (as a partnership) not to do it again, or add it to your agreements and announce (and otherwise disclose) accordingly).

My understanding was that you are not allowed to add a non-prescribed version to your agreements, disclosed or otherwise.

[PhilKing]

In Norfolk, if a pair against you psyche, you can commit pretty much any UI atrocity and it will be ruled in your favour. If both opponents psyche, they will be ruled against provided the director doesn't spontaneously combust first.

 

Example:- Partner, the absent minded type passed a 14 count. RHO opened 1♠ I overcalled 2♥ with Jxxxx and a 5 count, P-P-X-P-P-P. The defence fail to lead trumps several times and I make 4 or 5 trump tricks opposite Ax scoring 2♥X= when it should be -3. Director's ruling psyche opposite psyche so must adjust.

 

This was possibly the worst TD ruling ever since he adjusted to 2H=, but to give him some credit I suspect he knew that this was sufficient to still give us a 20-0 VP win.

 

I assume I am being a bit thick, because they would frown upon your partner passing your overcall with a 14 count even in Eastfolk.

[Vampyr]

My understanding was that you are not allowed to add a non-prescribed version to your agreements, disclosed or otherwise.

 

Sure you are. Think about, say, Polish Club. Or things like 2♣ is a traditional Acol 2♣ or a weak two in diamonds.

 

Here is the regulation, which is kind of confusing because...

 

12 G 7

General

Two of a Suit openings may be played as any one or

two of the following:

(a) Strong: Any combination of meanings provided that it

promises a minimum strength of ‘Extended Rule of 25’ (see 10 B 3).

(b) Any combination of meanings which either:

 

(1) includes one specified suit of at least four cards; or

(2) has a specification which does not include holding

at least four cards in the suit bid, and does not include

two-suiters where the suit bid is the longer suit.

 

...Polish Club seems to be all three of these options.

 

Anyway, a strict reading of the regulation tells us that a 2♣ opening can include (a) and intermediate-to-strong hands except one-suiters in clubs or two-suiters with longer clubs.

 

Of course, the hand mentioned earlier -- ♠AKQJ8754 ♥J32 ♦ - ♣ J6 does satisfy (a) above.

[Vampyr]

Does one swallow make a summer in the EBU, then? I suppose it might, in this case - psyching a strong 2♣ opening is probably more memorable than psyching a one level opening. But the general rule is that a given psych has to be frequent enough that partner begins to expect it before you can call it an implicit understanding.

 

I don't mean psyching it -- I mean opening a hand which you are treating as strong but which does not satisfy the "Extended Rule of 25", which is what a pair's "strongest" opening is by default.

[Zelandakh]

What fromage is saying is that if your RA has a regulation that says agreeing to open any hand below 8hcp is not allowed, you cannot describe your third seat 1♠ opening as 5+ spades and 10+ hcp or any 0-2, even if you know that your partner loves to make this psyche. Once it reaches the point of being added to your agreements, you are automatically playing an illegal system.

[blackshoe]

I don't mean psyching it -- I mean opening a hand which you are treating as strong but which does not satisfy the "Extended Rule of 25", which is what a pair's "strongest" opening is by default.

Ah. I see. In contrast to the ACBL's ridiculous "'strong' means whatever the player making the bid thinks it means". Fair enough.

[fromageGB]

What I meant was exactly as Zel put it - and put it better! Your agreement is contrary to the regulation.

 

On the 2♣ point, though, the specification part 2b does mean that you CAN have an agreement that 2♣ is a traditional strong hand or a sub-minimum (ie psyche) hand that will not have long clubs.

 

Whether it CAN have long clubs depends on how you read the regulation. If your specification is "unspecified near game force hand, or any hand less than 10 hcp" then the wording of the specification does not mention a club suit. Does this specification include holding four clubs? I think I would say that hands that conform to the specification might include four clubs, but the specification does not include holding at least four clubs, so any "psyche" is therefore not a psyche, as it is part of a permitted and disclosed agreement.