[blackshoe]

Found this definition on wikipedia. Not sure I like it. What do you think?

Psychic control: A bid that, by partnership agreement, announces that the player's previous bid was a psychic.

From the ACBL GCC:

Psychic controls (Includes ANY partnership agreement which, if used in conjunction with a psychic call, makes allowance for that psych.)

Not sure I like this one either. First, it implies that other things, not stated, are or may be psychic controls. Second, it's not really a definition, is it?

I would argue that Drury does not, per se, make allowance for a psych. Also, by the first definition, the psychic control in P-1♥-2♣-P is opener's pass, not the Drury 2♣ bid.

The EBU doesn't define the term, but does say "A partnership may not use any agreement to control a psyche. For example, if you play that a double of 3NT asks partner not to lead the suit you’ve bid (Watson), you may not make such a double if the earlier suit bid was a psyche." By this rule, a player who psyched his third seat 1M opening is not permitted to pass 2♣. This makes sense to me, though it's unclear what he should do.

Can we come up with a better definition?

[awm]

I'd go with:

A call which would be nonsensical if partner has the hand described by his previous actions, but which could succeed if partner psyched.

Some examples:

Pass - Pass - 1♠ - Pass - 2♣ (drury) - Pass - 2♠ (less than full values) - Pass - Pass!

where the 1♠ opening is described as 8+ points/5+ spades and the person making the final pass holds ♠xxxxx ♥x ♦xx ♣AKQxx.

Pass - Pass - 1NT - 2♠ - Pass

where 1NT is announced as "15-17" and the person passing holds ♠xx ♥AKxx ♦Kxxx ♣xxx.

1♣ (16+) - 1♠ - Pass - 2♠

where the 1♠ bid is described as natural 5+ spades and the 2♠ bidder holds ♠AKxxx ♥x ♦KQxx ♣xxx.

In each case the action taken seems illogical if partner holds the described hand (since even a minimum partner offers good play for game). Yet these actions could succeed if partner psyched. In most places psychic controls are illegal, and if partner actually did psych and one of these situations comes up, there should be an adjustment and possible penalty.

[aguahombre]

I believe Adam's NT example is "fielding" a psyche, not a control of one...unless that pass after pard opens 1NT is forcing upon a normal NT opener.

Drury is used to control a psyche by the definition provided. Opener's rebid (or pass) is used in conjunction with the convention to control the psyche.

That Wiki definition makes no sense. A pass of (say) a forcing bid of course lets the cat of out the bag, but it is not a "psychic control".

[nige1]

As I understand the term, psychic control is a misnomer:

In the past, partnerships sometimes opened one of a suit on ultra-weak hands (for instance, a five card suit and less than 7 HCP) and passed any reply. There could be a problem, however, when responder picked up a mountain. A partnership might designate responder's strong jump-shift as a so-called "psychic control" to cater for the possibility of an ultra-weak opener. They could reserve one rebid by opener (e.g. a simple rebid of the suit) to admit to such a hand. Then responder could lower his sights. Of course, arguably, such ultra-weak openers aren't really psychs at all; and should be declared. AFAIR, William Hannah and Douglas Steen described such a convention in their Bulldog System.

Another example: Eric Murray says that Douglas Drury invented his eponymous 2♣ convention
"for the express purpose of mitigating the losses suffered by my partners because of my uncontrollable mania for opening balanced Yarboroughs in third or fourth position with one spade."

Drury might be a useful convention, even if partner never "psychs". If he does have such a propensity, however, then it can function as a "psychic control".

[aguahombre]

I am not big on using names for things. But I do wonder how calling a convention which is used to control the damage from a psyche a "psychic control" would be considered a misnomer.

[blackshoe]

aguahombre, on 2013-June-28, 21:34, said:

Drury is used to control a psyche by the definition provided. Opener's rebid (or pass) is used in conjunction with the convention to control the psyche.

That Wiki definition makes no sense. A pass of (say) a forcing bid of course lets the cat of out the bag, but it is not a "psychic control".

By which definition?

Why is the pass of a forcing bid not a psychic control? I open 1♠ in third seat on x-xxx-xxx-KQxxx. Partner bids 2♣ (Drury, forcing) and I pass. Have I not controlled my own psych?

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2013-June-29, 00:14, said:

By which definition?

Why is the pass of a forcing bid not a psychic control? I open 1♠ in third seat on x-xxx-xxx-KQxxx. Partner bids 2♣ (Drury, forcing) and I pass. Have I not controlled my own psych?

You have indeed, and even legally so - except if by partnership understanding there is an answering call available to the 2♣ bid that says your 1♠ opening bid was a psyche.

Such a partnership understanding (whether express or implied) is a CPU and therefore a violation of Law 40A3 unless it is disclosed. And if it is disclosed it is (probably in all jurisdictions) illegal because it makes the psyche no longer a psyche but part of the partnership understandings.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2013-June-29, 00:14, said:

By which definition?

Why is the pass of a forcing bid not a psychic control? I open 1♠ in third seat on x-xxx-xxx-KQxxx. Partner bids 2♣ (Drury, forcing) and I pass. Have I not controlled my own psych?

You have, but partner has done nothing to cater for a possible psyche.

[campboy]

blackshoe, on 2013-June-29, 00:14, said:

Why is the pass of a forcing bid not a psychic control? I open 1♠ in third seat on x-xxx-xxx-KQxxx. Partner bids 2♣ (Drury, forcing) and I pass. Have I not controlled my own psych?

By the definition you posted, no. The pass of 2♣ certainly indicates that you have psyched, but it does so by bridge logic, not by partnership agreement. There is no possibility that it can mean anything else, because it commits you to playing in a contract you can't possibly want to play in if both partners have their bids.

[trevahound]

Setting aside Drury, as I understand a psychic control this would be an example. Pretend we have the agreement that when you preempt and I bid spades naturally (and forcing), you make your spade fit raise via another non-spade call (say 2nt if available, or alternately "cheaper minor"). So, 2h - (p) - 2s - (p) - 2nt^ - (p) - 3h - all pass. In this auction, the artificial 2nt call is a psychic control. Basically, anytime partner's spade raise is not spades can function as a psychic control. Similarly, if you preempt, I raise you to 3nt, and opp bids, and you have the agreement never to double them in that situation, that is a psychic control as I understand the term in acbl-land.

I had an auction with a friend on BBO where I bid michaels showing ♥+ a minor as a psyche holding only lots and lots of ♥s. The auction timed out perfectly where partner got a chance to ask for my minor, I said my minor was hearts, and partner kept bidding minors... Sigh.

[hrothgar]

It might be useful to review what the expression "Psychic Control" meant back when these laws were written.

Many systems including Roth Stone and Kaplan Scheinwold included systemic "Psyches".

These were typically two way opening bids in which an opening showed either a normal sound 1M opening OR systemically showed some like a three card suit and 3-5 HCPs.
KS included psychic controls so responder could ask opener which of the two hand types he held.

I think its silly to broaden this expression to include conventions like Drury whose primary purpose is to distinguish between sound and light opening bids.

[aguahombre]

However, when the conventions themselves are extended to allow for pysches, it is no longer "silly" to label them as such.

Drury is one of those, where in the OP case Resonder held 5 Spades...or when Responder will include strong passes without a fit for the major in the Drury bid.

Bidding Stayman opposite a 3rd chair NT opener with a hand which would not normally have done so is another example of a partnership understanding (probably CPU) whose purpose is to allow for a psyche.

[crazy4hoop]

Sorry if this isn't what you need or is redundant (from ACBLscore):
CONTROLLED PSYCHS
This item is defined on the "ACBL Limited Conventions" chart:
Psychic controls (bids designed to determine whether partner has
psyched or to clarify the nature of the psyche) are not allowed.

Having bids available (jump shifts in K-S) which allow opener to make
a rebid which by agreement exposes a psyche cannot be allowed.

RISK-FREE PSYCHES
Psychic controls are not permitted. If a pair is using methods that
enable them to make risk-free psyches, they are in essence playing
psychic controls. For example, in playing a 10-12 NT, many pairs have
the understanding or the agreement that the NT opener may not bid
again (except in forcing or invitational situations). If the pair were
to psyche a non-forcing or invitational response, the agreement would
be a psychic control. For example, 1NT-Pass-2Hearts-3Clubs, if the
opener is prohibited from bidding 3 hearts with a maximum and a fit,
then a risk-free environment is created. To pass without the
interference would not be a problem as there is still risk involved
(your partner could have a maximum real 2 heart bid), but to pass in
competition gives your partner room to maneuver with the knowledge
that you will not interfere.

Since psychic controls are illegal, when a player does psyche one of
these responses, the pair is playing an illegal agreement. WE should
lean heavily toward issuing a procedural penalty or adjustment for the
pair's illegal use of this agreement as a psychic control.

Another example is a 2 spade response to a weak 2 heart or 2 diamond
bid that opener is not permitted to raise. This becomes a psychic
control when the 2 spade bid is a psychic. While it would be legal to
have the agreement that a 2NT rebid shows spade support, the agreement
would be illegal (a psychic control) if responder were to psyche the 2
spade response.

Therefore, a legal agreement that creates a risk-free psychic
environment (that is an environment where the psycher knows his
partner is under control - this does not include hands where we know
because of our particular hand that we have an answer to most things
that our partner can do to us) becomes illegal if the pair psyches.

[nige1]

aguahombre, on 2013-June-29, 00:02, said:

I am not big on using names for things. But I do wonder how calling a convention which is used to control the damage from a psyche a "psychic control" would be considered a misnomer.

Because, nowadays, a psych is an unexpected departure from partnership understandings. Hence, if you agree a convention to cater, specifically, for a particular kind of "psych" then it is no longer a psych -- it has become an integral part of your methods

[nige1]

hrothgar, on 2013-June-29, 12:01, said:

I think its silly to broaden this expression to include conventions like Drury whose primary purpose is to distinguish between sound and light opening bids.

Some may argue that its purpose has changed but when Douglas Drury devised his convention, Eric Murray says its primary purpose was to control psychs.

[barmar]

Psyches are difficult to discuss and define precisely. Consider the paradox: if a pair psyches frequently, they actually psyche infrequently, because most of their psyches have likely become implicit partnership understandings. And of course there's no objective threshold for when a psyche becomes frequent. Determining whether two psyches are the "same" is difficult -- is a 1♥ psyche the same as a 1♠ psyche, do the vulnerabilities have to be the same, etc.?

That said, the ACBLScore page about risk-free psyches seems like the closest thing to an answer to this question.

[hrothgar]

barmar, on 2013-June-29, 19:35, said:

That said, the ACBLScore page about risk-free psyches seems like the closest thing to an answer to this question.

Aside from the fact that the ACBLScore booklet has not legal standing and contains factually incorrect information about other regulations...

[aguahombre]

nige1, on 2013-June-29, 19:10, said:

Because, nowadays, a psych is an unexpected departure from partnership understandings. Hence, if you agree a convention to cater, specifically, for a particular kind of "psych" then it is no longer a psych -- it has become an integral part of your methods

Then call it a CPU if you want. But, a psyche is a psyche when it misstates the suit length and/or values of the bid within the partnership's disclosed methods. Whether partner expects a psyche is not relevant to whether it is one.

[nige1]

aguahombre, on 2013-June-29, 19:56, said:

Whether partner expects a psyche is not relevant to whether it is one.

Again, we agree to differ

[barmar]

aguahombre, on 2013-June-29, 19:56, said:

Then call it a CPU if you want. But, a psyche is a psyche when it misstates the suit length and/or values of the bid within the partnership's disclosed methods. Whether partner expects a psyche is not relevant to whether it is one.

The definition in the Laws doesn't say "within the partnership's disclosed methods". Law 40C1 covers this pretty well:

Quote

A player may deviate from his side’s announced understandings always provided that his partner has no more reason to be aware of the deviation than have the opponents. 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 award a procedural penalty.

This essentially says "If you've done it enough that partner would expect it, it's a part of your methods, not a psyche." The infraction is improper disclosure, and possibly use of an illegal agreement.