[mycroft]

This is all over the map, sorry. It's also mostly a rehashing of statements I have made before.

A Psychic call is "a deliberate and gross misstatement of honour strength or suit length". In the ACBL, there's a guideline in the convention chart definitions (which I think is - vaguely applicable, most of the time, with wide-ranging calls at least).

If you would do it (deliberate) and your partner would expect it (not a gross misstatement), it is not a pyschic for your partnership, no matter what it might be for anybody else.

And as Mike says, psychics are legal (provided "that partner has no more reason than the opponents to be aware of the deviation" (40C1) and it's not an SPU that is allowed provided you don't psych it.) But note that that Law continues: "[r]epeated 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." [mycroft clarification: "this includes ensuring this understanding is an allowed agreement"]

Would I do it? Probably, especially playing Precision, where partner will have a great deal of trouble hanging me. Would I expect it of partner? Well, when I saw the hand, I'd say "yeah, I can see that", but I wouldn't bid as if "zero and void in your suit" was a possibility - it just doesn't happen often enough to warrant missing the games that "partner has her normal 8 this time" would lead to.

As Mike also says, the P word has a very bad reputation, partly because of a long campaign by a number of players to give it one(*) ("well, yes, it's *legal*, but ..." being the nicest and least accusatory); partly because of the use of "psych" as part of a pattern of avoiding full disclosure (for example, by the not-Zias (he famously owns up to it!) who have made the "Zia cuebid" more than once); partly because of the use of "psych" as part of a pattern of avoiding system regulations ("well, Everyone knows that it's Just Bridge to do this here, but the directors say it's Not Legal, so I'll claim it's a psych"); and partly because some psychics are just not fair (the ACBL's categories of "Excessive", "Frivolous", "Unsportsmanlike", and "Risk-free", for instance).

I reiterate my standard line that a "tactical bid" is a psychic made by an A player against a weaker opponent that worked, and a "psych" is a tactical bid made by a weaker opponent against that same A player (that worked). Again, used to avoid the P word.

I find it amusing with the new Convention Charts that that stigma is lessened, because now that you can't "use judgement" to "deviate" and make a call that, were it not a deviation, would be an illegal agreement, the same people who used to call this "good judgement" are now calling it "a psychic". It's still the same attempt to "but the rules can't apply to me, I can Play Bridge" it was before, though.

Having said all of this, note that *there is no minimum honour strength requirement for a Natural one-over-one response* in the ACBL convention charts; *there is no minimum honour strength that makes a Natural one-over-one response Alertable*; if you agree that "with a decent suit and sub-minimal support for partner's, we will respond even with zero or minimal eyeballs" - provided you do what is required to disclose this (which, frankly, is nothing unless they ask), you are being legal, ethical, and proper. Frankly, In the opinion of the C&CC, this *is* Just Bridge, deal with it.

Do I agree? Well, I'd do it, as I said...but I also see the repeated incredulous threads here and FtF when "newer" players first get hit by it from experienced players. And "well, now you know" doesn't seem to help, the way it does the first time they get squeezed or the first time the opponents use Italian cuebids and Exclusion Blackwood to get to that grand.

Do I think this is the right decision, however? Yes. Absolutely yes. This, and the "well, if you're going to treat as ludicrous any minimum we put for third seat openers, then fine. There is none. Deal with it", and the "we have no idea what constitutes an 'unexpectedly light preempt' any more. If you care, ask", and the "if you play a non-Natural system, you can't expect the opponents to understand what is Alertable, so now nothing is. If you care, ask", and all the rest. The downsides come from the fact that we haven't made it clear that these are situations where "if you care you have to ask" (and in many cases, we haven't made it clear to "newer" players that "hey, the 'safe minimums' we teach newbies aren't a requirement. Players are allowed to be unsafe. If you care, you have to ask") so when people stub their toe on one of them, it hurts.

As I frequently say, "It's an education issue".

(I'm using "newer" players in quotes here, because frankly, many of them have been playing for 20 years. Life Novice is a derogatory term, but, as far as "This is standard in Real A games" is concerned, you can go a *long way* in your bridge career and be a "real A" novice.)

(*) I am reminded of a response to an editorial in the Bulletin (before my time) that read:

Quote

Thanks for the Bulletin's clever
clarification endeavour.
It seems you may psych
as much as you like
as long as you like to psych Never.

The fact that that was before my time gives some idea of *just how long* this campaign has been going on.

[mikeh]

Given mycroft’s post, with which I pretty much agree, I thought I’d add: don’t psyche if your partnership is distinctly better than the opps. While irs legal to do so, imo it’s bad for the game. Most weak players resent psyches. Yes, that’s an incorrect reaction on their part but you’re not likely to change it by psyching. You really don’t need to psyche…by definition you rate to beat them by playing down the middle, so there’s not often much gain, plus bridge is a game….why ruin their enjoyment by doing something that causes resentment.

However, there are exceptions. The OP hand is one. Psyches are usually done for destructive reasons. Responding 2S here, even if technically a psyche (I don’t think it is one for me, but if my response ‘promised’ 6 hcp or so, then it would be) isn’t because I want to screw the opponents…it’s because I think that bidding 1S probably…not by any means certainly…offers us a chance to find a better contract than 1H. Yes, there may be a collateral benefit from bidding, but that’s simply a bonus factor, albeit an important one.

Finally….I will psyche against weaker players I know to be trying hard to improve…if they are friends. It can be a learning experience.

[mycroft]

I would also note that despite my poetry reading above, that in the ACBL's document on "Psychic behaviour you should crack down on", "Excessive" is described as (my emphasis) "when *three or more* psychic initial actions by members of a partnership have been reported in any *one session* *and* are called to the attention of the Director" - and even then, "the Director should *investigate the possibility* that excessive psyching is taking place" (with, granted, "the presumption of inappropriate behaviour exists; the players must demonstrate [otherwise]").

I am a frequent psycher (though not as much any more as I only tend to play against players I also direct at tournaments, and it can get uncomfortable), but even I might get to three *a year*, and I can't remember the last time (though I know it's in the last 10 years) I did two in a session.

Similar explanations exist for "Frivolous" and "Unsportsmanlike"; while they're closer to what "most people" would expect, they are still clearly more lenient.