[amfnz]

Holding ♥A982 ♥KJ984 ♦ J987 and void and you open 1♥ is this a psyche?

My partner opened the hand. We ended up in 3♥ doubled making 3.

My hand was ♥J54 ♥9532 ♦3 ♣AK1086

The bidding was

1♥ pass 2♥ pas
pass dbl rdbl pass
pass 2♥3♥pass
pass dbl pass pass
pass

One of the opponent must have complained to the TD because the board +530 to us was adjusted to a 40% average.

Both opponents were experts. One (obviously the one who did not complain) mythbuster congratulated partner for his good bid.

Despite his and my protestations to the TD and my partner the director {xxxxx} still believed the bid to be a psyche because he had only 9HCP.

Can anyone give me a definition of a pysche???? IMHO this is a valid light 1♥ opener.

[1eyedjack]

This story is outrageous, on so many levels.

The bid is not a psyche. It is not even close to a psyche.
If it was a psyche it was not fielded.
If it was a psyche it is permitted under the laws.
If it was a psyche no adjustment is appropriate.
If an adjustment is conceivably appropriate it should not be adjusted without consultation with the players.

Presumably the objection was that the hand was too weak for the bid. By implication, had the hand been stronger it would have been OK. It is hard to imagine how the 3H doubled would be easier to defeat if opener was stronger.

[Walddk]

amfnz, on Nov 4 2006, 11:17 AM, said:

Can anyone give me a definition of a pysche????

A psychic bid (also known as a psyche) is a bid that grossly misstates the power and/or suit lengths of one's hand, used deliberately to confuse the opponents.

The 1♥ bid in your example is therefore not a psychic bid.


54
K10532
1053
J83

If you open 1♥ with that hand, however, it is a psyche because that would grossly misstate the power of your hand.

Also, if your partner opens 1♣ and you respond 1♦ with

AQ95
KQ72
72
K105

(perhaps a lead inhibiting bid should you arrive in notrump) it is a psyche because 1♦ grossly misstates the length in diamonds.

Let me finally try to be as diplomatic as I possibly can when I comment on the director's ruling in your case:

Outrageous.

Roland

[paulg]

1997 Laws, on Definitions, said:

Psychic Call — A deliberate and gross misstatement of honour strength or suit length.

This is a subjective assessment and it is up to the sponsoring organisation, in this case presumably the TD, to assess whether a call is a psychic call.

I would not have judged this to be a psych (and know of few that would). However, you now know one TD who does. Of course banning psychic calls of natural calls is against the Laws, but I guess this is irrelevant.

You pays your money (or not) and make your choice of whose tournaments to play in.

Paul

[amfnz]

Thanks Roland and 1eyedjack...I hope the director reads your replies.

The rules of the BBO tourney BBO Fans Indy says no psyches allowed but if this type of hand is ruled and I continue to receive averages then I am afraid my love of good hard fair bridge would be greatly deflated

[P_Marlowe]

1st)
What a psych bid, depends to a large degree,
what a given bid advertises and on the rules
in place.
Assume, that you play Precision, i.e. 1H would
be limited, than the given hand is a standard
opener.

Assume you play Rot-Stone (no one really plays this
any more), a 1H opener is sound, and you are 1 1/2
Ace below opening strength, andI would say, this
fact qualifies to say, 1H is a psych.
Assume you are playing standard, you are in the
middle.

2nd)
A psych bid is not forebidden, unless the local rules say so,
some wont like those rules, put a organisation can stipulate
it, but partner has also to field the psych bid,
one may argue, that your hand constitutes a limit
raise to 3H (unless you play constructive raises), which
means you would have bid 2H instead of 3H to cater for
his very light openers.
It depends on the system you are playing.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[1eyedjack]

cardsharp, on Nov 4 2006, 10:54 AM, said:

1997 Laws, on Definitions, said:

Psychic Call — A deliberate and gross misstatement of honour strength or suit length.

This is a subjective assessment and it is up to the sponsoring organisation, in this case presumably the TD, to assess whether a call is a psychic call.

I would not have judged this to be a psych (and know of few that would). However, you now know one TD who does. Of course banning psychic calls of natural calls is against the Laws, but I guess this is irrelevant.

You pays your money (or not) and make your choice of whose tournaments to play in.

Paul

I had a quick look at the traveller. There were 12 pairs playing in Hearts by N/S at various levels. Of these one opened the hand a weak 2 in Hearts and was allowed to make 4H doubled. This, presumably, is not a psyche.

One other pair opened it 1H and was allowed to make 3H doubled plus 1. Again, not adjusted.

One other pair opened 1H, got to 4 doubled and was set. The others all passed in first seat.

I would reconsider my earlier comment that the bid was not "fielded" by North. 2H is an extremely conservative action opposite a first in hand 1H opener (assuming a natural system based on 5 card majors). But the redouble possible redeems him (I think I would have bid 3C at that point, having chosen 2H).

[Free]

Any expert knows this is a valid opener. I guess you got hit by some fake experts again... Like 1eyedjack says, there were many mistakes on different levels, such TD is clearly not capable of leading a tournament.

I wonder why the name isn't masked by now, but the name certainly sounds familiar. I guess it's not the first time this TD made a huge mistake.

[P_Marlowe]

Free, on Nov 4 2006, 05:42 AM, said:

Any expert knows this is a valid opener.
<snip>

Depending on the system you are playing
and the rest of your agreement.

Dont you think you will feel a littel bit
awkward after a forcing NT response followed
by 2NT?
Or do you intend to pass a forcing NT response?

With kind regards
Marlowe

[kenberg]

Personally, I would not have opened this hand, or at least I I think I wouldn't. That's totally different from saying that someone who does open it is psyching. In bridge as elsewhere there is a type of mind that insists that anyone who does things differently than they do is perverse and needs to be punished, or at least stopped. I am not fond of this approach to life.

On the other hand, people who give of their time to run a tournament should get to run it their way, at least to a large extent. I suspect that few if any bbo directors are doing it for the money. If the director's ruling here reflects the views of the tourney organizers, and these views are incompatible with yours (and mine) then adapt or find another spot to play. There are directors (not that many) I simply avoid.

One of the many joys of bbo is that it really is possible for folks with many different views to happily coexist on the same site.

But no, it's not a psych by any reasonable definition. Your 2H bid is less than I would call, but I don't see it as actionable. By my standards your hand is heavy, your partner's hand light, the combined hands right. Again, you needn't bid the hands my way to be acceptable. If they doubled and you wrapped it, that's their problem. It's a little weird to complain that you were able to make the doubled contract and simultaneously complain that your partner was too light for his opening. They think their result would have been better if your partner held another queen?

[awm]

There is a potential issue on this hand. I don't think a 4540 nine-count is a "standard" opening bid in first seat. Certainly most people do not open it. So there are three possibilities when you do open it:

(1) You typically open nine-point hands with a mild degree of shape. While this is certainly allowed under most sets of rules, the opponents deserve some disclosure.

(2) You're normally a sound opener, but decided for some reason (maybe you're having a bad game, or think the opponents are bad?) to open extra light on this hand. This could easily be seen as qualifying for a psych. I don't know what Roland's criteria is exactly, but this is about a king less than a standard opening bid. It's not a "one point deviation."

(3) Your hand evaluation is very different from most people's, or you just miscounted your points on this hand. In principle this should be okay.

It's virtually impossible for the director to decide which of these is the case, at least without looking at a very large number of hands. But partner's choice of action might be seen as a clue. Perhaps the director felt that partner's conservative single raise indicated that he expected a light opening bid to be within the range of possibilities, and that this might therefore imply an undisclosed agreement (case 1). While it's quite possible that this does not actually apply to you, it strikes me that there are a lot of people who do open shapely 8s and 9s by agreement and without disclosure, and I wouldn't mind seeing a director be proactive about this issue.

[jillybean]

No its not a psyche
In a tournament where the organizers have ‘banned psyches’ you are always going to get this kind of ruling, your opps have nothing to lose calling the TD and suggesting this was a psyche.

I find it interesting that the TD does not discuss the matter with you before making the adjustment.
(Unannounced changes to completed boards is a guaranteed to way annoy your players!)


jb

[1eyedjack]

awm, on Nov 4 2006, 04:28 PM, said:

Perhaps the director felt that partner's conservative single raise indicated that he expected a light opening bid to be within the range of possibilities, and that this might therefore imply an undisclosed agreement (case 1). While it's quite possible that this does not actually apply to you, it strikes me that there are a lot of people who do open shapely 8s and 9s by agreement and without disclosure, and I wouldn't mind seeing a director be proactive about this issue.

The director would still have to establish that E/W were damaged by the infraction (if so he considers it), before considering adjustment. E/W were damaged by East's decision to double. I find it hard to conclude that he would be less inclined to double if he is informed that South is weaker than expectation.

[kenberg]

awm, on Nov 4 2006, 10:28 AM, said:

There is a potential issue on this hand. I don't think a 4540 nine-count is a "standard" opening bid in first seat. Certainly most people do not open it. So there are three possibilities when you do open it:

(1) You typically open nine-point hands with a mild degree of shape. While this is certainly allowed under most sets of rules, the opponents deserve some disclosure.

(2) You're normally a sound opener, but decided for some reason (maybe you're having a bad game, or think the opponents are bad?) to open extra light on this hand. This could easily be seen as qualifying for a psych. I don't know what Roland's criteria is exactly, but this is about a king less than a standard opening bid. It's not a "one point deviation."

(3) Your hand evaluation is very different from most people's, or you just miscounted your points on this hand. In principle this should be okay.

It's virtually impossible for the director to decide which of these is the case, at least without looking at a very large number of hands. But partner's choice of action might be seen as a clue. Perhaps the director felt that partner's conservative single raise indicated that he expected a light opening bid to be within the range of possibilities, and that this might therefore imply an undisclosed agreement (case 1). While it's quite possible that this does not actually apply to you, it strikes me that there are a lot of people who do open shapely 8s and 9s by agreement and without disclosure, and I wouldn't mind seeing a director be proactive about this issue.

I understand this view and have some sympathy for it but it also opens a real can of worms. For instance: I play once a week in the acbl tourney with a partner whose style I know. Vulnerable she opened 2H in second position. She had Qxxxxx and an outside ace. Six hcps total, mostly outside the suit. It would never occur to me to do this. Does this knowledge of her style affect my bidding? I suppose so although I still largely bid as I think I should. (In this case I raised to 4, just making. I had her covered.) It seems about the most I can say of any of my online games is that maybe we know which conventions we play, when they are on and off, and something about partner's tendencies, especially those we disagree with. If we were to play in a more serious venue, no doubt we would be expected to come to some sort of agreement about what constitutes a weak 2 bid. Or a 1H bid. Online, it's more a matter of she does it her way, I do it mine, we hope for the best.

There really is a question as to what we should expect playing online. Possibly there should be prealerts such as "We open light". There is one pair I encounter from time to time who does this. I mostly ignore the information, I just bid my hand. In the play I may take it into account, but that's a good idea even if they don't say so.

I keep thinking it would be great to have someone run a tourney where a large variety of approaches, including the highly artificial, are allowed but with the following conditions: Players would be expected to thoroughly discuss there agreements and post these agreements beforehand, say at least an hour before the tourney begins. In auctions involving substantial hesitations the presumption would be that the person is thinking about his call, not feeding the cat, and appropriate adjustments would be applied when needed. Deviations from their published style would be considered suspect. And so on. But I am not volunteering to run such a game.

[Walddk]

awm, on Nov 4 2006, 05:28 PM, said:

I don't know what Roland's criteria is exactly, but this is about a king less than a standard opening bid. It's not a "one point deviation."

I don't want to put a king or queen less on an opening that I regard as light and not a psyche. You would also open this hand if you add say 2 hcp. Therefore, 1♥ is not a psyche, it's a light opening compared to your partnership agreement.

There is nothing psychic about it as long as it's not a partnership understanding. I do not have enough evidence to determine that responder knows about this 9 count opening.

Roland

[hilou]

cardsharp, on Nov 4 2006, 04:54 AM, said:

1997 Laws, on Definitions, said:

Psychic Call — A deliberate and gross misstatement of honour strength or suit length.

This is a subjective assessment and it is up to the sponsoring organisation, in this case presumably the TD, to assess whether a call is a psychic call.

I would not have judged this to be a psych (and know of few that would). However, you now know one TD who does. Of course banning psychic calls of natural calls is against the Laws, but I guess this is irrelevant.

You pays your money (or not) and make your choice of whose tournaments to play in.

Paul

ACCORDING THE RULES OF THE BBOFANS TOURNEYS A PSYCHOLOGICAL
BID IS FORBIDDEN.
A 9 POINT HAND IN FIRST POSITION CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS
A NORMAL OPENING AND IF YOU USE AS I DO THAT NOT 70ֵPERCENT
OF THE PLAYERS OF THE DECLARERS LEVEL WILL OPEN 1H THEN
THEIR IS NO OTHER CHOICE THEN CONSIDERING THIS AS A PSYCHOLOGICAL BID.
2 POINTS I WANT TO ADD
1. I PROPOSED SEVERAL TIMES TO FORM A BBO APPEAL COMMITTEE
ESPECIALLY FOR THESE SORT OF TD INTERPRETATIONS.
2.I SAW A COMMENT WITH PERSONAL ATTACK AND I THINK THAT IS
NOT THE RIGHT PLACE

[Walddk]

hilou, on Nov 4 2006, 07:03 PM, said:

cardsharp, on Nov 4 2006, 04:54 AM, said:

1997 Laws, on Definitions, said:

Psychic Call — A deliberate and gross misstatement of honour strength or suit length.

This is a subjective assessment and it is up to the sponsoring organisation, in this case presumably the TD, to assess whether a call is a psychic call.

I would not have judged this to be a psych (and know of few that would). However, you now know one TD who does. Of course banning psychic calls of natural calls is against the Laws, but I guess this is irrelevant.

You pays your money (or not) and make your choice of whose tournaments to play in.

Paul

ACCORDING THE RULES OF THE BBOFANS TOURNEYS A PSYCHOLOGICAL
BID IS FORBIDDEN.
A 9 POINT HAND IN FIRST POSITION CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS
A NORMAL OPENING AND IF YOU USE AS I DO THAT NOT 70ֵPERCENT
OF THE PLAYERS OF THE DECLARERS LEVEL WILL OPEN 1H THEN
THEIR IS NO OTHER CHOICE THEN CONSIDERING THIS AS A PSYCHOLOGICAL BID.
2 POINTS I WANT TO ADD
1. I PROPOSED SEVERAL TIMES TO FORM A BBO APPEAL COMMITTEE
ESPECIALLY FOR THESE SORT OF TD INTERPRETATIONS.
2.I SAW A COMMENT WITH PERSONAL ATTACK AND I THINK THAT IS
NOT THE RIGHT PLACE

So your limit is 10 hcp I assume. If you have 9, it is a psyche according to your interpretation. Let me ask you this ...

♠ AK7653
♥ Q10842
♦ --
♣ --

Do I psyche if I open 1♠ with that hand?

And pray tell, how do you know that 70% at the same level as the person who opened 1♥ in your tourney would not do the same? Do you really know amfnz's level that well?

If there is any doubt about this, don't you think that the "offender" should be shown the benefit of that doubt?

.....

2.I SAW A COMMENT WITH PERSONAL ATTACK AND I THINK THAT IS
NOT THE RIGHT PLACE

No, you did not. You saw an attack on your judgement and ruling, and you also saw a view where a poster says that bridge is not the game you direct if you forbid psyches. Exchanging views is what this forum is for whether one likes it or not.

One has got to accept that not everyone shares one's view. No one is saying that you are a bad person or even a bad director. However, many of us think that your judgement was poor in the actual case, that's all.

Roland

[hrothgar]

hilou, on Nov 4 2006, 08:03 PM, said:

ACCORDING  THE  RULES OF  THE  BBOFANS TOURNEYS A  PSYCHOLOGICAL BID  IS  FORBIDDEN.

A 9 POINT HAND IN  FIRST  POSITION CANNOT  BE CONSIDERED AS A  NORMAL  OPENING  AND  IF  YOU  USE AS  I  DO  THAT NOT 70ֵPERCENT OF  THE  PLAYERS OF  THE  DECLARERS LEVEL WILL  OPEN  1H  THEN THEIR  IS  NO OTHER  CHOICE  THEN CONSIDERING  THIS  AS  A  PSYCHOLOGICAL BID.

This posting suggests a deep and fundamental misunderstanding about the Laws.

A psyche is a deviation from partnership agreement. Psyche's have NOTHING to do with your notion of what constitues a "normal" bid with the hand in question. I'm going to report a hand from earlier in the discussion

♠A982
♥KJ984
♦J987
♣ Void

Personally, I would pass this hand playing a system like 2/1 GF or Standard American. However, I might very well open 1♥ playing a system that systemically opens light (Precision would be an obvious example). Before aTD is able to rule whether or not a bid is a psyche, he MUST spend some time and ascertain what the partner's agreement's actually are.

Case in point: Roland states that opening 1♥ on

♠ 54
♥ K10532
♦ 1053
♣ J83

is an obvious example of a psyche. However, lets assume for the moment that the opponents are playing a strong pass opening with a 1♥ "fert". In this case, the 1♥ is systemic. Its entirely possible that that this 1♥ fert is illegal for other reasons. (Many tournaments ban strong pass systems. Alternatively, its entirely possible that the 1♥ is legal, but was not alerted which might lead to an adjustment). However, a systemic bid can't be considered a psyche, nor should rules against psyches be applied to such an opening.

[Note, its pretty obvious that Roland's example was intended to illustrate a psyche for a pair playing a standard system]

[Walddk]

hrothgar, on Nov 4 2006, 07:23 PM, said:

Case in point: Roland states that opening 1♥ on

♠ 54
♥ K10532
♦ 1053
♣ J83

is an obvious example of a psyche. However, lets assume for the moment that the opponents are playing a strong pass opening with a 1♥ "fert". In this case, the 1♥ is systemic.
[Note, its pretty obvious that Roland's example was intended to illustrate a psyche for a pair playing a standard system]

You are absolutely right, Richard (there comes a time when even you and I agree it seems), and your last point sums it up.

If 1♥ shows say 0-5 hcp, any shape, it is not a psyche. However, it can be prohibited for other reasons as you rightly point out.

Roland

[1eyedjack]

hilou, on Nov 4 2006, 06:03 PM, said:

ACCORDING THE RULES OF THE BBOFANS TOURNEYS A PSYCHOLOGICAL BID IS FORBIDDEN.

Fair enough. It is not bridge, but as touney host you can host a game of pseudo-bridge if you wish. And for this purpose you can define a psyche whatever way you wish. It does not have to be in accordance with the definition as set out in the Laws, although the players can be forgiven I think for assuming that you ARE using the Laws definition unless otherwise specified. Certainly if anything approaching 30% or even less of players would seriously consider opening it WITHOUT any intention to deceive, then I would not consider it to be a psyche according to the Laws definition. That is the key: a psyche is intended to deceive all 3 other players at the table, hopefully with the fallout of that deceipt falling in your favour. Here the 1H bidder fully intended (I expect) his partner and others to treat him at his word.

If there is a demand for a game without psyches then I would be the last to stifle it. I would not participate, but hey, it's a free world.

If you adopt that policy, however, you are walking into (at least) two problems:

The first problem is, as highlighted in this thread, the players who bid on the margin of a psyche. Whichever way you rule you are destined to end up with an unhappy pair, in one direction or the other.

The second problem is that you are rather reliant on all psyches being reported. Presumably you did not adjust the other psyches on the same hand in the same direction because they were not reported to you (presumably in turn because their opponents did NOT regard them as psyches). But that does rather turn the score into a bit of a lottery.