[Chris3875]

---

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]

Chris3875, on 2021-July-27, 23:56, said:

---

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]

hrothgar, on 2021-July-28, 05:15, said:

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]

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

---

[blackshoe]

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

[jillybean]

Chris3875, on 2021-July-28, 01:17, said:

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]

jillybean, on 2021-July-28, 23:59, said:

"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!

Law 40C said:

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]

blackshoe, on 2021-July-29, 08:12, said:

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]

blackshoe, on 2021-July-29, 14:12, said:

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]

mycroft, on 2021-July-29, 09:22, said:

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]

pran, on 2021-July-29, 00:43, said:

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.