Psych or not

[mycroft]

So, you're going to deliberately and grossly misdescribe your hand, to partner and opponents, because there's a chance that it might offer a swing when you're behind, and if it doesn't, or if the swing's the other way, it doesn't matter because you were losing anyway?

 

Okay.

 

I wonder what the word defined as a "deliberate and gross misdescription of one's hand" is.

 

Please note that you might not be *wrong*, and (provided your opponents are no less in the dark about it than partner, and you have no extraneous information about the hand that would make doing it more appealing) certainly aren't *illegal* or *improper*.

 

I mean, I'd be willing to buy a shot - of Johnny Walker Blue, even - if you ask people and find anyone who doesn't know the story and who plays 2/1 who opens 1♠ with that hand in the bar. I'd be willing to up it to a bottle, provided for every time you ask and they say 1♥, you pay me a dollar. But I don't gamble, and there's *no way* to ensure that it stays a fair bet on either side, so I won't.

[barmar]

Just because a line of reasoning has flaws or is suboptimal does not mean it was illogical.

And just because the bid is logical doesn't mean it's not a psyche. It's true that if you just bid randomly, that would be considered psyching. But not all psyches are random.

 

Either a bid accurately (or approximately) describes your hand, or it doesn't (assuming it's a descriptive bid, not an asking bid, although in the case of asking bids we might include inferences about the types of hands that would ask the question). If it doesn't describe your hand, and you did it deliberately, it's a psyche -- the logic behind it doesn't change this. Saying "Any expert in my situation would have come up with that bid" just means that it's a very common psyche, but it's still a psyche.

[DJNeill]

I think it's a psyche but not the psyche that is designed to cause random havoc (very frowned upon). So it gets noted by the director and everyone moves on.

 

Thanks,

Dan

[pretender]

And just because the bid is logical doesn't mean it's not a psyche. It's true that if you just bid randomly, that would be considered psyching. But not all psyches are random.

 

Either a bid accurately (or approximately) describes your hand, or it doesn't (assuming it's a descriptive bid, not an asking bid, although in the case of asking bids we might include inferences about the types of hands that would ask the question). If it doesn't describe your hand, and you did it deliberately, it's a psyche -- the logic behind it doesn't change this. Saying "Any expert in my situation would have come up with that bid" just means that it's a very common psyche, but it's still a psyche.

 

I explained how the bid could be made logically because people responding on the thread seemed so bewildered.

 

Regarding "a bid accurately (or approximately) describes your hand", let's look at what the bid means. 1S, for all intents and purposes in the SAYC system, indicates a hand with opening values and 5 or more in the suit. Everyone has agreed that having 4 would be considered a deviation that would not qualify for a psych. Now, you make the inference that the opener does not have a 6 or 7 card other suit because the opener did not open in any other suit. The 1S bid itself does not deny the presence of such an outside suit. Certain negative inferences are no longer even alertable in the ACBL. If you choose a bid that is not a support double in a support double situation, you no longer have to alert and mention that this denies 3 card support. Similarly, bidding something other than a support double when holding 3 card support is not considered a psych.

[hrothgar]

I explained how the bid could be made logically because people responding on the thread seemed so bewildered.

 

Regarding "a bid accurately (or approximately) describes your hand", let's look at what the bid means. 1S, for all intents and purposes in the SAYC system, indicates a hand with opening values and 5 or more in the suit. Everyone has agreed that having 4 would be considered a deviation that would not qualify for a psych. Now, you make the inference that the opener does not have a 6 or 7 card other suit because the opener did not open in any other suit. The 1S bid itself does not deny the presence of such an outside suit. Certain negative inferences are no longer even alertable in the ACBL. If you choose a bid that is not a support double in a support double situation, you no longer have to alert and mention that this denies 3 card support. Similarly, bidding something other than a support double when holding 3 card support is not considered a psych.

 

Where do you come up with this crap?

 

Pretty much any decent beginners book on standard bidding will explicitly state that you open in your longest suit if you hold a 5 card major and your longer minor if you don't have a 5 card major.

The system will also state rules if suit length is tied.

 

I'm sure that you can produce some SAYC document that doesn't do so, however, this is meaningless because the SAYC documents weren't intended to teach a bidding system.

SAYC was designed as a convention card for players who already know standard bidding.

[TylerE]

Hardly. I can think of many hands, maybe even MOST hands, where I'd open a 5 card major before a 6 card minor. Standard North American systems aren't designed to back into a 5-3 fit in the majors.

[aguahombre]

Hardly. I can think of many hands, maybe even MOST hands, where I'd open a 5 card major before a 6 card minor. Standard North American systems aren't designed to back into a 5-3 fit in the majors.

So have we all (Well, a lot of us); but perhaps 5M6m would be a bit differently viewed than 4-7. In any case it all goes back to not really caring what we call it ---psyche or not---unless something else happens in the auction to reveal a CPU or a fielding of some kind.