Deviation or Psyche

[jallerton]

Where would you consider the dividing line to be between a deviation and a psyche/misbid?

 

For example, suppose you have agreed to play a 12-14 1NT opener.

 

Presumably opening 1NT with a an average 11-count or an average 15-count would be classed as a deviation, whilst opening 1NT with an average 2-count or an average 24-count would be classed as a psyche, But where would you draw the line?

 

 

(By "average" I mean a hand not worthy of either an upgrade or a downgrade in terms of hand evaluation.)

[helene_t]

For the purpose of what? Opps accused me of fielding a psyche and I say I only fielded a deviation? Something like that?

[trevahound]

These aren't quantifiable things, and our language misleads us into thinking they are quantifiable things. Similarly to polygraphs -- you can't measure discrete quanta of something that doesn't come in discrete quanta, and isn't truly a thing.

 

My judgement on a given hand is not it's point count, or where the honors are located, or what my stated agreements are, or who my opps are, or what their methods are, or the state of the match and or event, or the way qualification is determined, or the fortitude of my partner, etc... but it's all these things and more. So, each affects whether or not I consider it a psyche or just good judgement when I open on whatever, bid whatever, or heck, even pass with whatever.

[steve2005]

There is a big difference between a NT opening where 1 or 2 pts is an acceptable deviation and a suit bid where wide variation possible due to shape.

[sfi]

A key component seems to be matter of intent, since the laws say it is a "deliberate and gross misstatement of honour strength and/or of suit length".

 

The example I'm thinking of works better with a strong NT range, so let's assume 15-17. If someone decides to open a 12 count with a good 6 card suit, there is a fair argument that they genuinely intended to evaluate their hand as strong and balanced. That looks like a deviation to me. However, if they open a featureless 13 count then I would treat that as a psyche (assuming they haven't forgotten their NT range).

[hrothgar]

Duplicate Decisions (one of many ACBL documents with no official standing) includes the following:

 

A deviation was defined by Don Oakie (Feb., 1978, ACBL Bridge Bulletin) as a bid in which the strength of the hand is within a queen of the agreed or announced strength, and the bid is of a suit of ample length or of notrump. He also defined a deviation as a bid of a suit in which the length of the suit varies by no more than one card from the agreed or announced length and the hand contains ample high‐card values for the bid in the system being played. If either of these situations occurs, it is easy to see by repeating the definition of a psych (a deliberate and gross misstatement of honor strength or suit length) that a deviation is NOT a PSYCH.

However, frequent deviations may indicate that the pair has an undisclosed implied agreement acquired through experience. This situation should be dealt with firmly.

[nige1]

Where would you consider the dividing line to be between a deviation and a psyche/misbid?

For example, suppose you have agreed to play a 12-14 1NT opener. Presumably opening 1NT with a an average 11-count or an average 15-count would be classed as a deviation, whilst opening 1NT with an average 2-count or an average 24-count would be classed as a psyche, But where would you draw the line? (By "average" I mean a hand not worthy of either an upgrade or a downgrade in terms of hand evaluation.)

IMO the WBFLC should not have separate psych and deviation categories, for law purposes. And if they must distinguish them then they should, themselves, specify objective criteria. Unfortunately, this seems to be one of the multitude of responsibilities that the WBFLC have delegated to local regulators and failing that to director judgement.

 

FWIW, IMO, a deviation should be at most 1 card or 1 HCP and not both.

[blackshoe]

Don Oakie famously crusaded against psychs, so I would be leery of anything he said in this area even if it wasn't 36 years ago. And Nigel's definition is even more restrictive.

[Trinidad]

Don Oakie famously crusaded against psychs, so I would be leery of anything he said in this area even if it wasn't 36 years ago.

That may be so, but I find his definition of a deviation pretty reasonable.

 

For me the definition would focus around intent, rather than HCPs. For me when a person deviates, he is trying to make the best descriptive call he has available. He may be plugging a system hole and not have an other call available, or the call that the system actually would dictate has some drawbacks for the particular auction that developed.

 

In practice, there is no real grey area. People psyche because they deliberately want to paint a false picture of their hand. Then they do not pick a call that is a mere queen off painting a correct picture of their hand.

 

Rik

[gnasher]

IMO the WBFLC should not have separate psych and deviation categories, for law purposes.

I'm surprised that you think it matters. Although the Laws do define a psych, the distinction between a psych and a deviation is irrelevant as far as the Laws are concerned. They are treated identically for the purposes of establishing implicit understandings, disclosure of those understandings, and rectification for damage caused by non-disclosure.

 

There are only two differences in law between a psych and a deviation:

 

(1) The footnote to 17D, relating to psyching after bidding a hand from the wrong board, and

 

(2) 40B2d The Regulating Authority may restrict the use of psychic artificial calls.

 

But this is irrelevant, because the Laws also say

40B1a In its discretion the Regulating Authority may designate certain partnership understandings as "special partnership understandings"

40B2a The Regulating Authority is empowered without restriction to allow, disallow, or allow conditionally, any special partnership understanding.

So even without 40B2d the Regulating Authority could restrict psychs. Or they could define their own terminology for a particular category of deviation, and then restrict that.

[jallerton]

For the purpose of what? Opps accused me of fielding a psyche and I say I only fielded a deviation? Something like that?

 

Yes, that sort of thing. Some Laws and regulations refer to both terms. On the EBU 'report of hand form' , TDs are asked to classify an action between psyche, misbid, deviation and other.

[helene_t]

But Andy, 40B1A talks about partnership understanding. How can that be used to restrict psyches?

[sanst]

FWIW, IMO, a deviation should be at most 1 card or1 HCP and not both.

At most? How can it be less? You seem to use a rather different definition of gross than most of us.

[helene_t]

Playing 4-card majors, opening a 3-card major usually qualifies as a psyche, doesn't it?

[campboy]

Splintering with two small would also be a psyche, but rebidding a 3-card suit (where the agreement is 4+) or opening a 5-card major with four would likely be a deviation IMO. I agree with Trinidad's view.

[paulg]

I agree with steve2005 that there is a big difference between no-trump and suit bids. For a start, most people use point count to describe their no-trump ranges and they also use point count to evaluate the hands. This means that I think that opening a 12-14 notrump holding Kxx Qxx Kxx Qxxx is definitely a psych rather than a deviation.

 

However opening one of a suit has more subjective upgrade criteria, so a two-point difference tends to be justified by its protagonists. I feel I'm straying into nige1 territory but I wonder whether these are deviations or just misinformation. For example, if a pair says that one heart is 11-15 HCP with at least five hearts, when they always open 1♥ holding x KQxxxx Axxx xx this is not a deviation or psych, they are misdescribing their opening bid philosophy.

 

So whereas I'm happy to give everyone 1 HCP to deviate in their no-trump range, I think it is more difficult to provide the same quantifiable metric for opening suit bids.

[Trinidad]

I don't meet too many psyches, but I fondly remember a stunt a good opponent, playing with his wife, pulled against my wife and me, about 15 years ago. The hand was something like this:

[hv=pc=n&s=saj964hkj7daj5c84&w=s7h854d74cjt97532&n=skqt52haq96dkt92c&e=s83ht32dq863cakq6&d=w&v=n&b=12&a=1s(!)p2cp5cppp]399|300[/hv]

 

I don't think that was a deviation...

 

Rik

[hrothgar]

I'm sure that the following is going to seem kinda "meta", but I think that it best describes the core of my thinking.

 

Start by considering why a player might announce a NT range like 15-17 HCP, but then choose to open 1NT on a 14 count.

 

Being in a "glass half full" sort of mood, let's assume that player's NT description is intended to provide the opponent's with the best practical description of their partnership agreement. While there may be some inconsistencies between theory and practice, the NT description is still "optimal".

 

As a practical example, consider the case in which a zonal authority mandates the use of HCPs for disclosure, while the partnership agreement is based on some very different metric. You're going to have edge cases where the disclosure can NOT match the agreement.

 

The concept of a deviation is intended to handle these sorts of issues.

[Fluffy]

When I open a 13 count in 1NT when our range is16-18 suposedly, I am doing a deviation, my intention is totally to have a sensible constructive bidding into our best possible contract, just that the best possible contract requires a certain member of our partnership to declare. But it doesn't really matter much on the rules.

 

But there are many regulations that forbid a psyche to a strong opening such as 2♣. And I constantly see bids I would call plain psyches from weak players. The day I had a 22 count and saw my RHO open 2♣ I wasn't very happy, but there was nothing I could do.

[hrothgar]

When I open a 13 count in 1NT when our range is16-18 suposedly, I am doing a deviation, my intention is totally to have a sensible constructive bidding into our best possible contract, just that the best possible contract requires a certain member of our partnership to declare. But it doesn't really matter much on the rules.

 

I really hope that this is a joke...

[Trinidad]

When I open a 13 count in 1NT when our range is16-18 suposedly, I am doing a deviation, my intention is totally to have a sensible constructive bidding into our best possible contract, just that the best possible contract requires a certain member of our partnership to declare. But it doesn't really matter much on the rules.

I really hope that this is a joke...

Why?

 

If Fluffy gets paid to make his client win, then he has an excellent bridge reason to deviate. And as long as his partner doesn't know what he is doing, it is only a deviation. For a partnership agreement you need two people.

 

If, however, Fluffy gets paid to give his client a fun time at the table (or to teach) he has no reason at all to deviate. Just let his partner declare the contract, let him score 35% and let him have a good time. Fluffy might even decide deviate into the other direction: downgrade out of a 1NT opening to make his partner declarer.

 

It all depends on your aim.

 

Rik

[hrothgar]

Why?

 

If Fluffy gets paid to make his client win, then he has an excellent bridge reason to deviate. And as long as his partner doesn't know what he is doing, it is only a deviation. For a partnership agreement you need two people.

 

If, however, Fluffy gets paid to give his client a fun time at the table (or to teach) he has no reason at all to deviate. Just let his partner declare the contract, let him score 35% and let him have a good time. Fluffy might even decide deviate into the other direction: downgrade out of a 1NT opening to make his partner declarer.

 

It all depends on your aim.

 

Rik

 

If this is true, then it sounds like a case where Fluffy and his partner are playing different systems and hiding behind the notion of a deviation to

 

1. Conceal an illegal agreement

2. Play an illegal system

[blackshoe]

Or they could define their own terminology for a particular category of deviation, and then restrict that.

They could, but they don't.

[nige1]

IMO the WBFLC should not have separate psych and deviation categories, for law purposes. And if they must distinguish them then they should, themselves, specify objective criteria. Unfortunately, this seems to be one of the multitude of responsibilities that the WBFLC have delegated to local regulators and failing that to director judgement. FWIW, IMO, a deviation should be at most 1 card or 1 HCP and not both.

I mean anything more is a gross deviation. I assume the poll is an attempt to define "minor deviation".

For me the definition would focus around intent, rather than HCPs. For me when a person deviates, he is trying to make the best descriptive call he has available. He may be plugging a system hole and not have an other call available, or the call that the system actually would dictate has some drawbacks for the particular auction that developed. In practice, there is no real grey area. People psyche because they deliberately want to paint a false picture of their hand. Then they do not pick a call that is a mere queen off painting a correct picture of their hand.

I'm surprised that you think it matters. Although the Laws do define a psych, the distinction between a psych and a deviation is irrelevant as far as the Laws are concerned. They are treated identically for the purposes of establishing implicit understandings, disclosure of those understandings, and rectification for damage caused by non-disclosure. There are only two differences in law between a psych and a deviation (MO).

(1) The footnote to 17D, relating to psyching after bidding a hand from the wrong board, and

(2) 40B2d The Regulating Authority may restrict the use of psychic artificial calls.

But this is irrelevant, because the Laws also say

40B1a In its discretion the Regulating Authority may designate certain partnership understandings as "special partnership understandings"

40B2a The Regulating Authority is empowered without restriction to allow, disallow, or allow conditionally, any special partnership understanding.

So even without 40B2d the Regulating Authority could restrict psychs. Or they could define their own terminology for a particular category of deviation, and then restrict that.

On second thoughts, I agree with Trinidad, that intention should be the distinction. The rules should deal with deviations, both minor and gross -- normally without consideration of intent. A deviation would then only be classifiable as a psych (now redefined as any deliberate deviation) by a director who passed the TD mind-reading course. A TD who passed with distinction, should be licensed to reclassify a psych as a pseudo-psych or CPU (i.e. subject to a concealed partnership understanding).

[blackshoe]

Let's keep the discussion to answering the question in the poll, and leave discussion of what the laws "should" be to another thread.