Is this a psych?

[barmar]

Some versions of Acol permit light openings.

And a 5-card major rather than the 6-card minor with these minimum hands, too?

[aguahombre]

It would be a psych if they were playing Bridge. However, barring (unfielded) psychs is not Bridge, so we might as well accept Opener's opinion that it isn't a psych.

 

It still wasn't fielded, so we don't know and it doesn't matter whether they have a CPU to psych.

[nige1]

[hv=pc=n&w=sk752ht98764dkcj5&e=sqt983hda98543ct3&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=1s(4%2B%20Spades%20Acol)2s(other%20maj%20and%20unspecified%20minor)p2n(natural)ppdp3dp3sppp]266|200|

Context: IMP tourney on BBO in which psychs are barred as a condition of contest.[/hv]

Opener's 1♠ is a psych (by most criteria e.g. more than a king below average in high cards). Responder didn't appear to field the psych -- although he might have raised ♠s earlier.

 

If you enter a competition you should comply with its rules, however stupid -- even if the game is no longer Bridge. If you break the rules you may gain an unfair advantage over other competitors, especially when enforcement is sporadic and lax.

 

In general, the laws of bridge are overly complex and sophisticated. Most local bridge-regulations are chauvinist and unnecessary. You should campaign for reform. But if you should still abide by all the rules, however stupid -- even if infraction is inadequately deterred.

[gnasher]

Does it matter that the TD was NOT asked for ruling on the board (2 of 12) until after board 12 was played???

Not for answering the questions in the original post. If it was a psyhc when it was bid, it's still a psych three days later. Similarly, the question of whether West fielded a psych is unaffected by when you consider that question.

Edited May 25, 2015 by gnasher

[barmar]

It would be a psych if they were playing Bridge. However, barring (unfielded) psychs is not Bridge, so we might as well accept Opener's opinion that it isn't a psych.

Is that your Catch-22 against bridge clubs that try to ban psychs?

 

If seems like the Catch-22 should actually go against Opener. Since they're not playing Bridge, the club gets to set the rules, and they decide what is or isn't a psych. Opener's opinion need not matter.

[Bbradley62]

Since I'm in a small minority here, and I'm confused about it, can someone please explain the definition of a psych that the vast majority believes applies here? The definition I've always heard is shown on the ACBL's website:

http://www.acbl.org/clubs_page/club-administration/club-directors/rulings-faq/psychic-bidding/

a deliberate and gross misstatement of honor strength or suit length

Using this definition, if East believes his hand qualifies as a 1♠ opening, then he has not deliberately misstated the strength of his hand. If his partner agrees with him, then the pair very well may have a concealed partnership understanding. Law 40B1 defines a special partnership understanding as:

... one whose meaning, in the opinion of the Regulating Authority, may not be readily understood and anticipated by a significant number of players in the tournament.

So, if West agrees that East's 1♠ is appropriate, they have a special partnership understanding, and they should be instructed to disclose it in the future (and possibly be punished for not doing so in this case). If West does not agree with East, then East's bid is a misbid, misunderstanding, or mistake and he should be educated, not punished.

 

Do other Regulating Authorities define a psychic bid differently than ACBL does?

[blackshoe]

"Psychic call" is defined in chapter one of the laws. The definition is the one given upthread ("ACBL says"). The definition is the same in both versions of the law book, so is the same the world over.

 

Note: Call, not just bid. If you're dealer, and you have say 13 HCP in some hand, and you deliberately pass, that's a psych in most systems.

[Bbradley62]

So, it's the same as the definition I quoted. Then, why do 81% of poll respondents categorize this as a deliberate misstatement when the bidder made it clear he didn't think it was a misstatement (so, if it is a misstatement it was not deliberate) and he wasn't trying to deceive anyone?

[aguahombre]

So, it's the same as the definition I quoted. Then, why do 81% of poll respondents categorize this as a deliberate misstatement when the bidder made it clear he didn't think it was a misstatement (so, if it is a misstatement it was not deliberate) and he wasn't trying to deceive anyone?

And, furthermore, if West agrees that this is an opening bid, there is a real "catch 22", to quote Barry above. The catch is that if West also values hands that way when deciding to make an opening bid, then sure it is a CPU. However, that pair would undoubtedly have no idea what a CPU or a highly unusual method is; When they learn that the rest of the World doesn't do that, they might then know to alert --- but more likely they will learn that such evaluation is a bad idea.

 

IMO, a PP consisting of anything other than a warning and instruction for the future would serve no purpose.

[blackshoe]

If opening this hand at the one level is a partnership agreement, there's the question whether it's legal. In a BBO tournament you're not likely to be able to point to any written regulation one way or another (unless it's an ACBL tournament) so you'd probably end up with an off the cuff decision by the director. Whether that same director, or another director, would make the same decision at another time I couldn't say.

 

In the ACBL an agreement to open a hand at the one level on six HCP is illegal — see Election # 3 on page 136 of TFLB. Whether it's been concealed is another question. Other jurisdictions may have different rules.

[campboy]

So, it's the same as the definition I quoted. Then, why do 81% of poll respondents categorize this as a deliberate misstatement when the bidder made it clear he didn't think it was a misstatement (so, if it is a misstatement it was not deliberate) and he wasn't trying to deceive anyone?

Did he? That information certainly wasn't given us by OP. If EW's methods are roughly mainstream then it is enough of a misstatement to qualify as a psyche if deliberate, and difficult to see how it could be anything but deliberate. If EW's methods are far enough from mainstream that it isn't a psyche then those methods are probably not permitted anyway.

[StevenG]

I don't play in the Acol club any more, but I checked the hand and I know all four players at the table. I have never seen E/W play together, they have not played together before in that tournament in the last 6 months, and they haven't played together in any other game in the last month.

 

It is highly probable that this was a last-minute partnership desk arrangement, and that East just took a flyer with a distributional hand.

[ArtK78]

I don't play in the Acol club any more, but I checked the hand and I know all four players at the table. I have never seen E/W play together, they have not played together before in that tournament in the last 6 months, and they haven't played together in any other game in the last month.

 

It is highly probable that this was a last-minute partnership desk arrangement, and that East just took a flyer with a distributional hand.

That is consistent with the definition of a psych.

[helene_t]

I think he Acol Club would need to provide its own definition of a "psyche". We can, of course, use the law's definition, but since that definition isn't made for the purpose of tournaments that ban psyches, it may not be adequate for such purpose. How a "psyche" should be defined depends on the reason why the Acol Club decided to ban them.

[nige1]

If it wasn't a misclick, it looks like a psych

Psychs are deliberate actions. Without talking to East, nobody can know whether this call was deliberate.

IMO, on-line, the director shouldn't normally accept such a claim. Anyway, he should be wary of crediting it too readily.

[barmar]

I think he Acol Club would need to provide its own definition of a "psyche". We can, of course, use the law's definition, but since that definition isn't made for the purpose of tournaments that ban psyches, it may not be adequate for such purpose. How a "psyche" should be defined depends on the reason why the Acol Club decided to ban them.

Why do you think the things they want to ban would be any different from what the Laws define as a psych?

 

Psychs make it hard for the opponents to make inferences about your hand. Banning psychs means that players who have read books like "How to Read Your Opponents' Cards" can apply what they learned.

 

Psychs also make players feel like they're playing "random bridge" -- if players don't have their bids, everything is just guesswork.

 

None of this requires any different definition from the one in the Laws.

[barmar]

So, it's the same as the definition I quoted. Then, why do 81% of poll respondents categorize this as a deliberate misstatement when the bidder made it clear he didn't think it was a misstatement (so, if it is a misstatement it was not deliberate) and he wasn't trying to deceive anyone?

We're calling "bullshit" on the player who gives this explanation. He seems to be trying to get away with something, by making this obviously self-serving statement.

 

I suspect that if he were in a game that allows psychs, he would admit that it was one. He only has to "exercise judgement" in a no-psychs game.

[mycroft]

Part of the issue with psychic calls is that things that are psychs for some (if not almost all) pairs are absolutely systemic for others. I reference my usual issues with QT854 K4 83 J842 being not only not a 1st seat psychic 2♠ opener, but a pass *would be absolutely anti-systemic* (playing EHAA); or the K/S death hand 13s (and sometimes 14s) that get passed because they have no rebid - of course they're trivial to rebid playing strong NT or Acol or whatever).

 

The other problem is "if you call it a psychic, you'll probably get away with it; but in fact partner does expect that hand, which means it's not a misstatement, so systemic rather than psychic. It just happens it's a systemic call we have chosen to regulate and make illegal - and I bet you know that, which is why you call it a psych."

 

This particular hand, I can't imagine anyone playing "Acol" who thinks a 6-count, even a 5062 pure 6 count, is a systemic opener. So "I felt it was right at the time", and I would warn East that if you tend to make these judgements more than once in a decade, partner is going to start recognizing them at which point it will be a CPU if not disclosed to the opponents, and an illegal PU whether or not.

[aguahombre]

When we have novices and some teachers out there with point-count and distribution-points methods of deciding what an opening bid looks like that would gag a maggot --- it is very hard to say whether a psych is a deliberate distortion.

 

QXX QXXXX KJX QX= 10 HCP + 1 for the five-card suit, + 1 for the Doubleton=12 :rolleyes: . Forget for the moment that a doubleton or less must exist every time we have a 5-cd suit, it doesn't add any trick value in support of our own suit even if we have a fit.

 

The East hand given in the OP is starting to look pretty good.

[barmar]

Part of the issue with psychic calls is that things that are psychs for some (if not almost all) pairs are absolutely systemic for others.

Which is why psychs are defined in terms of your disclosed agreements, not "standard" bidding.

 

But if your agreement is that you're playing a common system like Acol, and you don't claim to have any other special agreements about opening bids, then I think we are justified in judging the bid based on how it compares with normal bidding under that system.

 

Basically, if you don't consider it a psych, then it should be alerted because it's a SPU.

[billw55]

Psyche? Yes.

Fielded? No. At least, not clearly enough to act on.

Penalty? Yes. Otherwise, no point in having a "no psyche" rule.

Penalty in a normal game? No.

 

 

[Cascade]

And a 5-card major rather than the 6-card minor with these minimum hands, too?

 

I would think that was individual judgement. I certainly have played against some players who routinely with minimum hands open a 5-card major before a 6-card minor.

[Zelandakh]

Funnily enough, the very first time I saw East play on BBO he opened a balanced 6 count 1♦. It was noteworhty enough that I marked his profile. He's a great guy and one of those on BBO I am most fond of. But he is still comparatively new to bridge and his judgement is sometimes a little different from the mainstream, compounded by playing a high proportion of the time with and against GIBs. So I would say that he was exercising personal judgement...but nonetheless I think it has to be ruled as a psyche within the Acol Club tournaments. That said, the direction in Acol Club tournaments is a complete joke and everyone knows it, so I doubt anyone cares very much, especially as the pairs involved came 16th and 22nd from 30.

[Vampyr]

 

Do other Regulating Authorities define a psychic bid differently than ACBL does?

 

In the EBU it is illegal to have an agreement to open on fewer than 8HCP, so the opening on the hand in question is a psyche, no matter what the bidder's opinion is.

 

Of course the EBU regulation is ridiculous, since there are plenty of hands (eg Rof18 with good intermediates) with fewer than 8 HCP which are clear opening bids, but as others have mentioned, when you choose to play in event you are implicitly agreeing to abide by the CoC.

[blackshoe]

In the EBU it is illegal to have an agreement to open on fewer than 8HCP, so the opening on the hand in question is a psyche, no matter what the bidder's opinion is.

 

Of course the EBU regulation is ridiculous, since there are plenty of hands (eg Rof18 with good intermediates) with fewer than 8 HCP which are clear opening bids, but as others have mentioned, when you choose to play in event you are implicitly agreeing to abide by the CoC.

I don't think having an illegal agreement is quite the same thing as making a psychic bid. :unsure: