Psych or not

[BillHiggin]

[hv=pc=n&w=s3ht643dt753cj852&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=1np2cp2sp3sp4sdppp]133|200[/hv]

[ArtK78]

Of course this is a psyche. But it is not insane. The doubler heard the auction - the opps struggled to get to 4♠ and appear to be in a 4-4 fit. The doubler assumes that the opponents have minimal game values and knows that spades are not breaking. He doubles to mislead the declarer about the lie of the cards.

[Zelandakh]

I used to do this sort of thing (doubling on partner's "known" length and values) quite a lot as a junior - not so much these days.

[gwnn]

Why would it be a psych? Double does not promise or deny anything, except that the doubler thinks that defending 4Sx is a better idea than defending 4S.

[billw55]

I can't even call it a psyche. Double says: I think we can set this. It does not say: I hold anything in particular.

[ArtK78]

I can't even call it a psyche. Double says: I think we can set this. It does not say: I hold anything in particular.

What do you want to call it? A tactical call?

 

Yes, the double is merely an expression of the doubler's belief that 4♠ is going to fail, and I agree that the double of 4♠ does not promise trick taking ability. If you wanted to be technical about it, the double doesn't say anything at all - it merely increases the undertrick penalty for a failed contract and increases the score for making the contract and for overtricks. But I am sure that everyone and his grandmother would believe that the doubler is basing the double on his own trick taking ability rather than his partner's presumed trick taking ability. It would be naive to say that anyone would not expect the hand that doubled to be far different in strength and/or shape than this hand. In that sense it is a psyche - a gross misrepresentation of his strength and/or shape.

 

If the contract fails, and the reason for the failure was that declarer was dissuaded from taking a winning line because of the double, I will give the doubler a standing ovation. But it is still a psyche.

[billw55]

What do you want to call it? A tactical call?

 

Yes, the double is merely an expression of the doubler's belief that 4♠ is going to fail, and I agree that the double of 4♠ does not promise trick taking ability. If you wanted to be technical about it, the double doesn't say anything at all - it merely increases the undertrick penalty for a failed contract and increases the score for making the contract and for overtricks. But I am sure that everyone and his grandmother would believe that the doubler is basing the double on his own trick taking ability rather than his partner's presumed trick taking ability. It would be naive to say that anyone would not expect the hand that doubled to be far different in strength and/or shape than this hand. In that sense it is a psyche - a gross misrepresentation of his strength and/or shape.

 

If the contract fails, and the reason for the failure was that declarer was dissuaded from taking a winning line because of the double, I will give the doubler a standing ovation. But it is still a psyche.

And if declarer asks the partner of the doubler what the double shows, what do you think the answer will be? That it promises thus-and-such many points, or so-and-so many trump tricks? I rather think it will be simply, he thinks we can beat it. Anything else that declarer chooses to believe is his problem. I would bet that precious few pairs will have an agreement about the content of such a double.

 

Furthermore, I would expect most advanced players to understand things like auction clues, planned defenses, favorable position of cards, etc, which can lead to inferential penalty doubles. Those who wait to have a contract cold down in their own hand don't double enough.

[Free]

This is quite common after invitational sequences. You know partner has around 15HCP and he'll have 3-4 trumps. Your Dbl creates the impression that you have values, but all it says is that you think you'll defeat the contract. Moreover, by doubling you probably improve your chances of defeating the contract because declarer may misplay the hand completely.

 

No it's not a psych, no it's not insane, if you want to label it I'd probably describe it as a tactical call.

[CSGibson]

I don't think its a good call - if I'm reading the auction right, then all of our sides points are sitting in front of 2/3 of their sides points - but it certainly can work very well, and its definitely not a psyche, since you have no agreement to deviate from other than that you think you will get a better score by doubling 4♠.

 

I do agree that the call is deceptive, but I do not think deceptive and psyche are synonymous - I'd treat this more like a falsecard in the play.

[straube]

Not a psyche. The double doesn't advertise anything about the hand. Declarer should consider a layout like this before his play.

[billw55]

I do agree that the call is deceptive, but I do not think deceptive and psyche are synonymous - I'd treat this more like a falsecard in the play.

An excellent way to put it IMO.

[barmar]

Psyches are deceptive, but not all deceptive calls are psyches.

[gwnn]

An excellent way to put it IMO.

I think it's even less than a falsecard, since there is a partnership agreement on what high-low (say) means in play but there is no partnership agreement on what this double means.

[Trinidad]

I would like to vote for D): "The correct call assuming decent opponents".

 

Rik

[32519]

[hv=pc=n&w=s3ht643dt753cj852&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=1np2cp2sp3sp4sdppp]133|200[/hv]

Seems like you created quite a stir here. Post the full hand and the result for us.

[nige1]

[hv=pc=n&w=s3ht643dt753cj852&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=1np2cp2sp3sp4sdppp]133|200[/hv]

Cunning! Probably not a psych but depends on your partnership understandings :)

[gwnn]

Seems like you created quite a stir here. Post the full hand and the result for us.

Why??? What makes you think that there was a full hand to begin with and what would it have to do with anything anyway? Was your account infected by a virus demanding for the full hand in every possible thread?

[BillHiggin]

Seems like you created quite a stir here. Post the full hand and the result for us.

I do not have a record of the full hand! It seems that most replies here are very close to my own thinking.

One extra fact that is of some relevance - my partner was clearly the weakest player at the table, and I thought it quite likely that either a BIT or double by him might provide declarer with the insight to make the hand (followed by thinking "well, if you are going to read that much into his double, deal with mine instead :) ).

 

Since I do not have the hand record, I cannot say whether there was a legitimate or even long shot chance at making. Declarer did take hook, line and sinker. Declarer even refused a winning finesse, electing to try to end play me (with that fine hand, I was able to avoid being thrown in :) ). The final result of down 3 certainly suggests that something other than the best line of play was employed. Declarer did immediately express the opinion that option A was appropriate!

[jillybean]

Was this a BBO hand? I find BBO players tend to label any action that they don't understand, is unusual or unexpected and gets a good result, a psyche.

Then they call the director and have a good chance of having the board adjusted.

[BillHiggin]

Was this a BBO hand? I find BBO players tend to label any action that they don't understand, is unusual or unexpected and gets a good result, a psyche.

Then they call the director and have a good chance of having the board adjusted.

No, it was played on another site.

There was nothing at stake, so no real accusations were made other than the suggestion that I seek help for mental conditions (and all in fun).

 

Actually, I have wondered what would happen in one of the "psych free" torneys, but the majority of the participants in this forum are probably not inclined to that sort of restriction anyway.

[mycroft]

I did this once, playing with a very pleasant Life Novice against a pair of boorish drunks (who, to their credit, admitted to both). My partner kept ending up on lead with cards she never thought would take tricks, exited passively, and declarer kept finessing against what had to be in my hand. I'm sure it would have been -1; it was -4. She sure wouldn't have doubled.

 

It's not a psychic - you expect to set this contract; it's not insane - you expect to set this contract. It is deceptive, as several above have said, and you do hope to set it more because of that. But why would you pass out this hand when you're reasonably certain it's going down from the auction and your hand?