Must Psyches be part of a mixed strategy?

[EricK]

Here is a hand:

 

1. ♠xx ♥AQxxx ♦xxxx ♣xx. NV v V What do you bid after 1♥ (dbl)?

 

If I asked these question on RGB or here, I am sure that some people would answer that they would reply 1♠, but Hrothgar would reply along the lines of "I would bid 1♠ 20% of the time; 4♥ 65% of the time; 5♥ 10% of the time; P 5% of the time." (I just made these percentages up - I doubt they accurately reflect his judgement).

 

I will assume that the people who say they would bid 1♠ are being totally truthful (i.e. they would never bid anything other than 1♠). Are these people actually psyching, or is this then implicitly (and possibly illegally, depending on the SO) part of their system?

 

In other words, is a psyche still a psyche if you would always (or maybe even nearly always make it)?

 

Eric

[pigpenz]

I cant remember for sure but I think in Aces Scientific Bobby Goldman recommends this bid almost all of the time. At worst is sows some seeds of doubt in the opponents mind.

[hrothgar]

There was a VERY ugly argument on the Bridge Laws mailing list that focused on precisely this same topic:

 

In third/fourth seat, Herman de Wael 1H opening shows either

 

1. A normal 1H opening bid

2. A balanced hand with 0-3 HCP and 3-4 Hearts

 

Herman states that he opens 1H on 100% of hands that qualify for the "weak" hand type. Herman claims that the relative frequency of the weak hand type is sufficiently rare that his practice is not systemic. He claims instead that he is exercising his legally protected right to psyche.

 

I claim that Herman is using the concept of a "psyche" to circumvent the Belgian System regulations. I also claim this practice constitues cheating. The original thread is available at:

 

http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml...May/023284.html

 

Returning to the original question: From my perspective, any bid that is made 100% of the time is systemic...

[DrTodd13]

If you make a bid enough such that when the situation occurs again the thought pops into your partners head that you might have done it again then you have an agreement and it is no longer a psyche. Your agreement now becomes, e.g., "partner bids 1♠ around 20% of the time and 2♥ otherwise." If you don't alert this, you are failing to inform your opponents of a special agreement. If having such a multi-meaning bid is outlawed by the sponsoring organization then you can't get around this regulation by claiming it is a psyche. I'd go so far as to say that position of most sponsoring organizations is inconsistent in this regard. In some circumstances, they'll bust you for this behavior for something that is unique to your system. However, take the 1♥-(X) scenario. It is "common knowledge" that many experts will "psyche" 1♠ here, at least some of the time, when they really have a ♥ raise (or perhaps on other types of hands). This is so common that it is really an implicit agreement amongst experts and not a psyche but at least the ACBL doesn't require an alert here because people are somehow supposed to know that this is a "frequently psyched" position. Yet another example of sacrificing consistency of rules in order not to upset the apple cart.

[mikeh]

If you 'always' or 'often' psyche 1♠ here, and you have done it before with this partner, then you have either an explicit or implicit agreement, depending upon whether you have discussed it. While I am not an expert on the laws, it has always been my understanding that such agreements must be alerted. Otherwise you are not being honest with the opps.

 

BTW, I strongly doubt that 'expert' practice is to routinely bid 1♠ with this hand, at least not in good competition. Very few good opponents will ever be fooled by this baby psyche. Maybe you can get away with it against poor opps, but experts will rarely be fooled, and in the meantime you have lost all chance of preempting.

 

For example, every experienced pair should know what double means of 1♠ (if you play it as takeout, then you are going to be suckered by this psyche, so don't) compared to a bid of 2♠. For me, double says that I have 4+ ♠ and sufficient strength to be sure of beating 1♠ opposite a minimum takeout double with 3+♠, and sets up a low-level force. 2♠ shows a decent 5+♠ suit with limited values: less than invitational.

 

A bid is a psyche even if you would always do it. Whether a bid is a psyche depends not on frequency of use, but on distortion of hand. I suspect what you are really asking is whether it is still a psyche when partner knows you may hold the distorted hand. The answer is yes, but partner has two obligations: the first is to alert the opps and the second is to bid as if you had the real hand. And this is where we really get into problems with implicit agreements: when can opener legitimately claim that the psyche was revealed by opp action as opposed to an understanding of partner's tendencies? That is a whole other thread, and one I suspect has been around before.

[EricK]

If you 'always' or 'often' psyche 1♠ here, and you have done it before with this partner, then you have either an explicit or implicit agreement, depending upon whether you have discussed it. While I am not an expert on the laws, it has always been my understanding that such agreements must be alerted. Otherwise you are not being honest with the opps.

 

BTW, I strongly doubt that 'expert' practice is to routinely bid 1♠ with this hand, at least not in good competition. Very few good opponents will ever be fooled by this baby psyche. Maybe you can get away with it against poor opps, but experts will rarely be fooled, and in the meantime you have lost all chance of preempting.

 

For example, every experienced pair should know what double means of 1♠ (if you play it as takeout, then you are going to be suckered by this psyche, so don't) compared to a bid of 2♠. For me, double says that I have 4+ ♠ and sufficient strength to be sure of beating 1♠ opposite a minimum takeout double with 3+♠, and sets up a low-level force. 2♠ shows a decent 5+♠ suit with limited values: less than invitational.

 

A bid is a psyche even if you would always do it. Whether a bid is a psyche depends not on frequency of use, but on distortion of hand. I suspect what you are really asking is whether it is still a psyche when partner knows you may hold the distorted hand. The answer is yes, but partner has two obligations: the first is to alert the opps and the second is to bid as if you had the real hand. And this is where we really get into problems with implicit agreements: when can opener legitimately claim that the psyche was revealed by opp action as opposed to an understanding of partner's tendencies? That is a whole other thread, and one I suspect has been around before.

Mikeh,

 

I chose the example I did not becasue it was a particularly good example of a psyche but becasue it was the first one that came to mind. My question is really one of principles, so the example is immaterial.

 

But let me take another example: P (P) to you holding some 11-12 point 3-1-6-3 hand playing a weak NT, so you open 1NT (planning to complete a transfer to ♠ or ♣ or pass a transfer to ♥). It is a farily safe psyche, quite useful (in a pre-emptive sense) and possibly not expected by the majority of players - and even if they know about such a psyche, they will not have methods prepared to deal with it.

 

Now suppose partner knows from past experience that I am liable to do this and discloses this to the opponents, is there a difference between I sometimes do it when I have this hand and I always do it when I have this hand. It is probably rare enough that partner won't be able to tell the difference for certain if he is just relying on partnership experience rather than explicit agreement.

 

The thread Richard pointed out on BLML was very interesting BTW.

 

Eric

[Clinch]

 

Now suppose partner knows from past experience that I am liable to do this and discloses this to the opponents, is there a difference between I sometimes do it when I have this hand and I always do it when I have this hand. It is probably rare enough that partner won't be able to tell the difference for certain if he is just relying on partnership experience rather than explicit agreement.

Mixed strategy will not necessarily avoid an ethical breach, imho.

 

I know of a partnership (now defunct) which regularly abused Drury in a similar way. One of the players would routinely open 1♥ or 1♠ in third seat holding weak hands with long clubs. The partnership (on his suggestion) had the agreement that all raises had to go through Drury, facilitating the highly-controlled psyche.

 

OK, that is clearly illegal (isn't it?), but to complicate matters the same partnership would also sometimes open these hands 3♣, just like everyone else.

 

So there was a mixed strategy, but it still had a liberal sprinkling of red psyching in there. Once any psyche becomes a validated strategy, then it is theoretically to be disclosed. Maybe a tool like Full Disclosure will make this less cumbersome to achieve, as past psychic tendencies can be noted there without superfluous alerts.

 

Peter.

New York, NY.

[helene_t]

Clinch's example is about controlled psyches. Those are clearly illegal (except if they can be treated as conventions: but a 1♥ opening showing either hearts or clubs is a HUM). The question was about non-controlled psyches which are not part of a mixed strategy.

 

I think if you have the special agreement to psyche frequently in specific situations, you must alert them. They are, then, not psyches anymore. Whether they are allowed or not depends if they adhere to whatever system restrictions (BSC, HUM etc) are in force.

 

I don't see the laws refering to mixed strategies anywhere so I suppose that's irelevant.

[awm]

I think the issue is more what the odds are given the bid, than given the hand. For example, it might be that I would always open 1NT in third seat holding:

 

Kxx

x

KQJTxxx

xx

 

That, in itself, may not be a problem. The question is, given that I opened 1NT in third seat, what are the odds that I actually have our normal agreement (15-17 balanced). It seems like there are issues if any of:

 

(1) There is a substantial probability, say more than 1%, that I do NOT have the agreed hand.

 

(2) Partner bids in such a way, as to give me extra leeway in case I do not have the agreed hand.

 

(3) Our methods permit us, in a non-competitive auction, to check back in some way for a non-agreed hand.

 

So even if I would always psych certain hands, as long as every bid I can make is "almost always" systemic, and we have no special agreements (or special actions taken by partner) to protect a possible psych, there shouldn't be a problem.

 

In the case mentioned, if the auction goes 1♥-X-1♠, it's okay if there exist hands on which I would always psych 1♠. The issue is... do I usually have spades (if I would frequently psych 1♠ on any hand with a heart fit, then this hand is probably almost as likely as actual spades)? Will partner raise spades aggressively, or does he pursue a style that protects the psych (i.e. never raise on three, raise only one level on a good hand with four, etc)? BTW, this psych is actually quite effective in the auction 1♥-PASS-1♠, much more so than after the double where any decent partnership has a penalty double readily available. :)

[slammer]

>>Now suppose partner knows from past experience that I am liable to do this and discloses this to the opponents, is there a difference between I sometimes do it when I have this hand and I always do it when I have this hand. It is probably rare enough that partner won't be able to tell the difference for certain if he is just relying on partnership experience rather than explicit agreement.<<

 

If you always do it then it is a private understanding and not allowed (in ACBLand)

 

If, however you do it sometimes, it is a psyche and partner MAY NOT take ANY inference that you might, indeed, hold this hand--that would be VERY unethical. He must always BID his hand in response to YOUR BID in the context of your system agreements. And in ACBLand, atleast, systemic psyches are not allowed. He may not conjecture you have diamonds. The mere suggestion to the opponents damages them and they would be entitled to seek redress. Further psyching a NT opening repeatedly with a small singleton WILL get you into trouble. The recorder keeps notes!

 

How would you feel if an opponent opened and his partner then alerted and began a spurious and rather bizarre explanation of “a hand” his partner might have? That would be really bad form.

 

In this context then re-examining your original question, a "psychic 1♠" if done so systemically,ie, the bid is expected whether or not partner has spades, is ILLEGAL. It is a systemic psyche. Therefore it is moot if one should alert it. So partner must bid his hand as if you had spades even to the detriment of the partnership. In fact if you were then to jump to 4♥, he would be expected to "hang you" with a 4♠ bid, if his hearts were weak and spade holding strong. It would be highly questionable if he did otherwise and passed. In some situations he might be expected to drive to a slam—why cannot his LHO have made a “psychic double”?

 

If you are known to occasionally do a “tactical psyche”, the opponents are expected to have “some knowledge of these situations" but again, partner must not mention that you might be psyching and must act accordingly. Tactical psyching from time to time IS part of the game. Your opponents are expected to understand you don’t always tell them the truth. But partner can only infer your psyche when it is obvious to all. The example below comes very close. Indeed partner was 1=5=2=5 and couldn’t prefer. Would I do it again--No. Bidding "in tempo" like that was extremely difficult. And besides I rarely psyche; its destroys partnership confidence. Will I psyche? Ask me if I falsecard!

 

*************************************

 

To the person that doesn’t think experts can be fooled (or better screwed) consider the following from the second day of a NABC LM pairs.

 

♠ xx

♥ AQxxxx

♦ xxxx

♣ x

 

Partner deals (NV v. V)

Partner [space] [space] RHO [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] Me [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] LHO
1H [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]P [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] 1S(!) [space] [space] [space] [space]DBL
2C [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]P [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] 2S(!) [space] [space] [space] [space]P
P [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] DBL [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] 3C(!) [space] [space] [space] [space]DBL
P [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] P [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] 3H [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] P
P [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] DBL [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] P [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]P(long hesitation)
P

+540 with E-W cold for 5S

[mike777]

>>. To the person that doesn’t think experts can be fooled (or better screwed) consider the following from the second day of a NABC LM pairs.

 

S: xx

H: AQxxxx

D: xxxx

C: x

 

Partner deals (NV v. V)

 

Partner RHO Me LHO

1H P 1S(!) DBL

2C P 2S(!) P

P DBL 3C(!) DBL

P P 3H P

P DBL P

 

+540 with E-W cold for 5S

I am confused by the bidding? This is second day of LM pairs?

 

Your RHO cannot overcall 1H and your LHO says I have a takeout double of hearts and spades? If x is penalty and says the opp are psyching then how do they lose spades?

 

edit btw1= is this a common psyche after p opens 1h and is it winning bridge at this level?

btw2=is it not standard to play 2s as spades and x/1nt as takeout?

[luke warm]

i'd love to have seen it go all pass after the 2S bid...

[slammer]

Hey, even down 8 undoubled is a mere 400 and most of the Matchpoints! Not bad against 650. You take your chances. They ain't gonna let you play this undoubled! You turn their feeding freezeny into your advantage.

 

WHO SAID MATCHPOINTS IS BRIDGE??

[slammer]

To Mike777,

 

The NABC LM Pairs is a six session event: two one-day qualifiers and a one day final.

 

On this hand I was able to exploit the fact that, they were playing all low-level doubles were for takeout. (Support doubles can similarly be exploited.) Then the confusion set in. LHO had full suspision something was up but my second spade bid planted just enough doubt. Once I bid a spade, I am committed on this auction to do it again, right? I mean how hard is it if I prefer to 2♥ over pard's 2♣? And once the doubling began they couldn't stop. There are no "fish" in the LM pairs the second day...only sharks.

[mike777]

To Mike777,

 

The NABC LM Pairs is a six session event: two one-day qualifiers and a one day final. 

 

On this hand I was able to exploit the fact that, they were playing all low-level doubles were for takeout. (Support doubles can similarly be exploited.) Then the confusion set in.  LHO had full suspision something was up but my second spade bid planted just enough doubt. Once I bid a spade, I am committed on this auction to do it again, right? I mean how hard is it if I prefer to 2♥ over pard's 2♣? And once the doubling began they couldn't stop. There are no "fish" in the LM pairs the second day...only sharks.

ok I understand all of that but if x is takeout and rho could not overcall spades, where are the spades? LHO is short in spades with x? Again if LHO has spades why x if they are sharks?

[slammer]

Contrast this auction my son and I had against wryly opponents:

 

2H--P----2S---DBL

3H--3S--P-----4S

P---5S---P-----6S

All Pass

 

Who’s zooming who?

Where’s the double?

[slammer]

What don't you understand? If RHO can't overcall spades--so much the better! LHO was trapped because he had a huge hand and SPADES! Could he pass?

 

Then the bidding would have gone:

 

1♥--P--1♠--P(?)

2♣--P--4♥--???

 

What WINNING call can he make now? Double? 4♠?

 

What are your agreements on this auction especially if I double? By my bidding and re-bidding spades it planted doubt that his partner had a fit.

It was a SYSTEM failure. I just exploited a flaw in their system.

 

Actually, it could have been much worse! Had he passed then imagine

 

1♥--P--1♠--P

2♣--P--5♥--?

 

What now? How to tell partner they have stolen the auction? Impossible!

Especially after a P--P--REDBL--?

 

What now? 5♠? Vulnerable? It does take a tremendous amount of testicular fortitude to do that. Nes pas?

[mike777]

ok, as I asked I thought 2s shows spades is standard with spades. btw if LHO has spades what did x of 2s by rho mean, confused still but thank you for feedback. Must admit as an intermediate level player I would be too afraid to psyche 1s after partner opens 1H and RHO passes. congrats.

[mikeh]

To the person that doesn’t think experts can be fooled (or better screwed) consider the following from the second day of a NABC LM pairs.

 

♠ xx

♥ AQxxxx

♦ xxxx

♣ x

 

Partner deals (NV v. V)

Partner [space] [space] RHO [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] Me [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] LHO
1H [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]P [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] 1S(!) [space] [space] [space] [space]DBL
2C [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]P [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] 2S(!) [space] [space] [space] [space]P
P [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] DBL [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] 3C(!) [space] [space] [space] [space]DBL
P [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] P [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] 3H [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] P
P [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] DBL [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] P [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]P(long hesitation)
P

+540 with E-W cold for 5S

I was the 'person' :P But I did not say that experts could not be fooled: I said that it would be rare that they would be fooled, and that in my view the psyche would usually cost more in lost preemption than it gained from (rare) success.

 

BTW, if you think that all of the players in the second day of an LM are sharks: you must swim in a small and friendly pool. The competition by then is usually tough, but there are still a number of less than expert pairs: after all, how good do you need to be to be a LM today :) And the event is big enough that some not-so-great players get by the first cut.

 

On another point, if your opps were good players, then I suspect that your 1♠ bid had no direct impact on the result. All experts of my acquaintance use 2♠ over 1♠ as natural, but it is ordinarily a limited hand. It may well be that LHO held a hand he considered to be too good to bid 2♠ on, and he intended to double and then make a natural ♠ call. If so, then it was your 2♠ bid that did him in.

 

As it is, what did your LHO think was going on with the double of 2♠ by a partner who could not bid over 2♣? Did he think that it was a one-suit takeout for the ♦ suit that partner cold not show over 2♣? :) I don't know who they were, but the evidence on display does not suggest that they were experts (my apologies in advance should either EW read this... I am commenting only on one hand, and even the best pairs look foolish on some hands).

[pclayton]

Fwiw the life mstr pairs at the Summer nabc's have 6 sessions and the Fall are only 4 sessions.

 

At ATL this year, the field started with about 320 pairs and got trimmed to 156 for the 2nd day and 78 for the 3rd.

 

Now that getting LM involves attending some bracketed KO's for a few years, the field isn't that great, although having the 0-1500 and 0-5000 alongside has thinned the herd a little.

 

OTOH, the Blue Ribbons Pairs is a really tough event to play in.

[EricK]

I think the issue is more what the odds are given the bid, than given the hand. For example, it might be that I would always open 1NT in third seat holding:

 

Kxx

x

KQJTxxx

xx

 

That, in itself, may not be a problem. The question is, given that I opened 1NT in third seat, what are the odds that I actually have our normal agreement (15-17 balanced). It seems like there are issues if any of:

 

(1) There is a substantial probability, say more than 1%, that I do NOT have the agreed hand.

 

(2) Partner bids in such a way, as to give me extra leeway in case I do not have the agreed hand.

 

(3) Our methods permit us, in a non-competitive auction, to check back in some way for a non-agreed hand.

 

So even if I would always psych certain hands, as long as every bid I can make is "almost always" systemic, and we have no special agreements (or special actions taken by partner) to protect a possible psych, there shouldn't be a problem.

Assuming partner always bids and plays as if I had a 15-17 NT (until it becomes obvious that I don't) why does it matter how often I might have the "psyching" hand?

 

Eric

[jdeegan]

:) Just an historical note. The original Kaplan-Sheinwold system, circa 1963, included a controlled psychic opening bid with a very weak hand. It was not manadatory and was fairly disciplined as to its composition. Many pairs played K-S in ACBL tournaments without any comment by anyone.

[han]

addition to historical note: and then it was banned.

[slammer]

MikeH,

 

Yes, all you said is true. But what happens at the table versus theory is quite different. As I said, would I do it again--No. To psyche effectively one must have a table feel. It doesn't come often. Nor is it effective: witness the psychic splinter bid in the finals of the NABC team event.

 

My point is it can be done! And one has to exploit EVERY opportunity. Would you not false card? They are many obligatory situations. "Play the card you are known to hold" But psyching is a much deeper, fascinating and not much understood or discussed subject!

[Elianna]

But psyching is a much deeper, fascinating and not much understood or discussed subject!

Not much understood or discussed? There is at least one book written on the subject!