Psychic Bid

[Chris3875]

[hv=pc=n&s=skjt873hk962d54c8&w=sa4hq74da76cajt53&n=sq5hat53dkj92cq92&e=s962hj8dqt83ck764&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=1npp2spp3cppp]399|300[/hv]

I have a simple question - would the bid by East be considered a psychic bid?

[sfi]

No. They bid clubs and they had clubs.

 

It might be considered a bad bid, but that's a different question and would depend at least in part on East's experience level.

[Chris3875]

Very experienced. It was just purely an academic question. It seems to fit the definition of a psych bid to me.

[mw64ahw]

3♣ - Pick a minor?

[LBengtsson]

its a guess bid that with luck finds a fit. if west is very experienced like partner he should know why partner did not bid 2♠ as a transfer on first round ( and also, by inference, that partner has not bid 2♦ transfer to ♥on first round so is not lto have 5♥ in his hand) so he has some cards but not a long ♣ suit. and east has insurance that there is another suit ♦ that might fit if 3♣ is Xed.

[hrothgar]

[hv=pc=n&s=skjt873hk962d54c8&w=sa4hq74da76cajt53&n=sq5hat53dkj92cq92&e=s962hj8dqt83ck764&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=1npp2spp3cppp]399|300[/hv]

I have a simple question - would the bid by East be considered a psychic bid?

 

This question can not be asked without ascertaining the partnership's agreements.

 

FWIW, I wouldn't want to unilaterally bid 3!C with that hand.

Balancing is not completely unreasonable, however, I'd want to make a bid that showed both minors.

 

For me, this would be 2NT

[mw64ahw]

This question can not be asked without ascertaining the partnership's agreements.

 

FWIW, I wouldn't want to unilaterally bid 3!C with that hand.

Balancing is not completely unreasonable, however, I'd want to make a bid that showed both minors.

 

For me, this would be 2NT

I'm a bit surprised that North didn't take it to 3♠

 

 

 

[mycroft]

We have 21-23 HCP. Double seems to be very risky; and at Matchpoints, 2♠ undoubled will almost certainly be a good score for N-S. I don't have a bid for "both minors" (well, I do - 2NT; but this partnership obviously doesn't). Well, I guess bid the lower one and if we get doubled, maybe suggest the higher one? And maybe they'll bid 3♠ which I can try to double?

 

A psychic bid is a "gross and deliberate deviation from the partnership agreements". Partner will know we don't have 6 clubs or we would likely have done this the first time; so she will expect "cards, not enough to invite, not enough spades to double" (assuming double is penalty). That looks like what we have.

[nige1]

[hv=pc=n&s=skjt873hk962d54c8&w=sa4hq74da76cajt53&n=sq5hat53dkj92cq92&e=s962hj8dqt83ck764&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=1npp2spp3cppp]399|300|Chris3875 'I have a simple question - would the bid by East be considered a psychic bid?

++++++++++++++++++++

It depends on East-West agreements but assuming 3♣ is natural it doesn't appear to be a psych. A flight of fancy :( or a tactical bid :) but not a psych. Psychs are legal so, even if 3♣ were a psych, it wouldn't normally justify a director call :) [/hv]

[blackshoe]

What are EW's agreements, if any, regarding the bid?

[jillybean]

Very experienced. It was just purely an academic question. It seems to fit the definition of a psych bid to me.

"Any call that deliberately and grossly misstates either honor strength or suit length is by definition a psych."

 

I don't think a 3♣ bid by a passed hand, with 4 clubs and 6 points fits the definition of a psyche.

[pran]

"Any call that deliberately and grossly misstates either honor strength or suit length is by definition a psych."

This is a very common misunderstanding of the laws!

 

C. Deviation from System and Psychic Action

1.

A player may deviate from his side’s announced understandings, provided that his partner

has no more reason than the opponents to be aware of the deviation [but see B2(a)(v)

above]. Repeated deviations lead to implicit understandings which then form part of the

partnership’s methods and must be disclosed in accordance with the regulations governing

disclosure of system. If the Director judges there is undisclosed knowledge that has

damaged the opponents he shall adjust the score and may assess a procedural penalty.

(My enhancements)

 

The important question is whether he has called like this before (making it a concealed partnership understanding rather than a psyche), not just how much the 3♣ deviates from their partnership understanding. And this question cannot be answered without analyzing the partnership history.

[blackshoe]

The fact that he has called like this before is not sufficient in itself to make a CPU. It has to have been done often enough and recently enough that partner expects it. Three times in the last month, fine. Five times ten years ago and never since, no.

[pescetom]

The interesting question is your previous 'what are their agreements about this bid?'. The fact that East is experienced does not guarantee that they have discussed this situation and for most pairs this can be taken for granted. So the agreement such as it is is essentially experience of what partner would do or not do with certain hands in a similar situation. As such, it seems to me we are more looking for Incorrect Explanation than a CPU, unless the explanation is intentionally reticent or misleading.

[pran]

The fact that he has called like this before is not sufficient in itself to make a CPU. It has to have been done often enough and recently enough that partner expects it. Three times in the last month, fine. Five times ten years ago and never since, no.

There are no fixed time limits here. Even only once before could in some situations be sufficient.

 

What is important is that the deviation must have been a surprise to his partner at least as great as it was to his opponents.

 

The Director must clarify the facts as best he can and satisfy himself that the caller's partner had no more reason than the opponents to be aware of the deviation.

 

If he finds that the partner in question quite possibly could have had more reason than his opponents to suspect the deviation he shall rule a concealed (implicit) partnership understanding.

[mycroft]

If it is psychic, that is legal, provided it does not rise to the level of a CPU.

 

Obviously, this also depends on agreements, but as I said, this looks to be like "they don't play a happy 2♠ white at matchpoints when we have 21-23 HCP". Doesn't touch agreements at all, just judgement.

 

This strongly looks to me like "you made a bid I wouldn't have thought of making, it must be a psychic". That's a common reaction, and needs to be met (when it isn't psychic, of course) with education. We'd of course ask about agreements, but I bet we'll get "we don't have agreements on this auction, but partner knows I didn't transfer to clubs last round, so he'd obviously scramble if I caught xx".

[blackshoe]

I'm not going to play word games with you Sven. And I defy you to provide a method of inquiry that will accurately assess the precise degree to which someone is surprised about something.

[pran]

I defy you to provide a method of inquiry that will accurately assess the precise degree to which someone is surprised about something.

 

Exactly the same methods the Director uses for his inquiries in order to accurately assess the precise circumstances in other cases of irregularity?

[pescetom]

If it is psychic, that is legal, provided it does not rise to the level of a CPU.

 

Obviously, this also depends on agreements, but as I said, this looks to be like "they don't play a happy 2♠ white at matchpoints when we have 21-23 HCP". Doesn't touch agreements at all, just judgement.

 

This strongly looks to me like "you made a bid I wouldn't have thought of making, it must be a psychic". That's a common reaction, and needs to be met (when it isn't psychic, of course) with education. We'd of course ask about agreements, but I bet we'll get "we don't have agreements on this auction, but partner knows I didn't transfer to clubs last round, so he'd obviously scramble if I caught xx".

 

I'm only partly convinced.

 

I have one partner (fortunately) who reasons "they don't play a happy 2♠ white at matchpoints when we have 21-23 HCP", but others who don't. Is that knowledge of their "judgement" not part of our agreements?

 

A partner who knows my "judgement" would also recognise that I could have a respectable club holding without having transferred last round.

[jillybean]

This is a very common misunderstanding of the laws!

 

(My enhancements)

 

The important question is whether he has called like this before (making it a concealed partnership understanding rather than a psyche), not just how much the 3♣ deviates from their partnership understanding. And this question cannot be answered without analyzing the partnership history.

I somewhat, agree. My comment was in response to the OP calling the 3C bid a psyche.

[blackshoe]

Exactly the same methods the Director uses for his inquiries in order to accurately assess the precise circumstances in other cases of irregularity?

Sorry Sven, I don’t buy it.

[Chris3875]

This pair supposedly play Lebensohl, have (in their words) an "aggressive and combative" style of bidding. I don't play Lebensohl myself but would have thought 2NT would have transferred to clubs whilst 3C would be more invitational although having passed the first round I guess partner can assume few points. This style of bidding is causing a few issues with other players which is why I asked the question - there was no director call at the time.

[sanst]

This pair supposedly play Lebensohl, have (in their words) an "aggressive and combative" style of bidding. I don't play Lebensohl myself but would have thought 2NT would have transferred to clubs whilst 3C would be more invitational although having passed the first round I guess partner can assume few points. This style of bidding is causing a few issues with other players which is why I asked the question - there was no director call at the time.

No one here can decide whether this is a psych or not without asking the pair some questions. You need to know what alternatives they had in their system or whether it was a mispull/missclick or misbid before reaching a decision. From your posts I get the impression that they have ruffled quite some feathers, including yours. The only sensible thing I can say is, if they often deviate from their agreements, they should forewarn their opponents. But with no director present, you should shrug your shoulders and move on to the next game.

[johnu]

This pair supposedly play Lebensohl, have (in their words) an "aggressive and combative" style of bidding. I don't play Lebensohl myself but would have thought 2NT would have transferred to clubs whilst 3C would be more invitational although having passed the first round I guess partner can assume few points. This style of bidding is causing a few issues with other players which is why I asked the question - there was no director call at the time.

 

Maybe it's just semantics, but Lebensohl 2NT or a "natural" 3♣ is not invitational at all, merely competitive. If they had an invitational hand, they wouldn't have passed over 1NT. Given that with 5 clubs they could/would have bid 2NT and then passed the forced 3♣ bid, it makes sense that a direct 3♣ would show only 4 cards in the suit. Should that be alerted? Playing self-alerts online, then I think yes. Otherwise, probably yes? You would have to know they were playing Lebensohl at the time to have a chance of figuring out that 3♣ is likely to be a 4 card suit.

 

I play Lebensohl, but in this auction, I would play 2NT as 2 suited.

[mycroft]

This pair supposedly play Lebensohl, have (in their words) an "aggressive and combative" style of bidding. I don't play Lebensohl myself but would have thought 2NT would have transferred to clubs whilst 3C would be more invitational although having passed the first round I guess partner can assume few points. This style of bidding is causing a few issues with other players which is why I asked the question - there was no director call at the time.

Note that this may not be a Lebensohl auction for them (because they passed first time around). It isn't for my pair, for example (2NT is "scramble", and I would make that call). But that's neither here nor there.

 

So, what we have here is "they don't bid like us, it must be a psych" (or "shouldn't be legal" or "isn't fair"). Please note, I am not denigrating you or saying that you are unusual - this is a very common feeling and response, especially when a new player or pair comes in to a club that is comfortable with all the pairs.

 

However, "they don't bid like us" is (in general) not illegal. Your club may have rights to restrict system in certain ways (although almost never are there concerns after the first round of the auction); and of course the system must be legal to your country's regulations (but this 100% is).

 

They're allowed to be "aggressive and combative" in their bids (not in their behaviour, of course). They must make their system and their style available to their opponents, (which they seem to be doing). It's your responsibility to be able to combat it (or, if it's not capable of being successfully defended against, start playing this style yourselves). The prime way of doing that is doubling them, especially "matchpoint doubles" (doubling at the 3 level with them vulnerable for -1 for +200 beats all partscores). There is a player in my club who bids very aggressively, because he gets away with it, and frequently goes -250 or -300 into game. He isn't quite so aggressive against me, because when I have a decision to make, and one of the options is "double [player]" (or "pass partner's 'do something intelligent' double"), I tend to pick that one. Sometimes it's -530, sure. But it's +1100 or +800, not +250 or +300.

 

If you believe that they have used information they are not entitled to use to make these "aggressive and combative" calls (such as tempo or questions asked), call the director and make sure she is aware. She'll keep track of this, and if there's evidence, it will be dealt with. But if they just make calls nobody else in the field make, and they're right more often than not, then maybe that's just "good bridge".

 

I play Precision occasionally (and open 1M with good 9s NV). In my regular system, I play 1NT overcall for takeout, and play it very aggressively, so we "double" with many hands that the room passes, and we don't let responder bid at the 1 level after our "double". We are known as a pair who "will never let our opponents sit comfortably". We open weak 2s favourable with Jxxxxx. I would not say "combative", but "aggressive", and it works for us. It's legal, your job is to beat us (we frequently stick our neck out, it's the nature of the game) or join us.

 

But to be clear:

• Psychics aren't "bad calls that work" or "calls we don't like", and definitely not "calls *we* wouldn't make"; they're calls that are deliberate and gross violations of their system. This call clearly looks like it is their system ("aggressive and combative") - as I said, I'd have bid 2NT instead, because our agreements have that as "scramble", but we'd end up in the same spot (from the other side). So not a violation at all, so not psychic.
  
• Psychics are legal (Law 40C), provided they do not devolve into concealed agreements. Once they do, then if they explain as required and the agreement is legal, still allowed.
  
• Bridge is a bidder's game. Almost certainly the "right amount of aggression" is significantly higher than you and the rest of your club do, and closer to what this pair plays (even if they're past "right"). This especially applies to strong auctions (overcalling strong 1NT, overcalling strong 1♣ and 2♣), which is one of the reasons why balancing "aggressively"(in defence to this) over interference to 1NT is becoming more common.