[Gerardo]

You can't overrule the Laws when setting such conditions, and 40A says psyches are lawful.

[mycroft]

A tactical bid is a psych made by an expert against a non-expert, who, however, "should be able to work it out" (of course, after seeing it a couple of times, she will).

A psych is a tactical bid made against that same expert by a non-expert.

And do remember that "gross and deliberate misstatement" relates to the agreed meaning of the bid for that partnership, not for the real world. Opening 853 AK 742 97532 2C is psychic in pretty much every system I've seen, but not only not a gross misstatement, but absolutely mandated by system, if playing EHAA. Similarly, 2H-p-2NT with a bust and hearts is psychic if 2NT by system guarantees invitational values; if it simply is "asking" with no promise of strength *in that partnership*, and that agreement is freely and completely disclosed, then it doesn't matter if that's the only pair that plays it that way, it's not a psychic.

One of the problems I have with "tactical bids" is that they're deliberate and gross misstatements that are common enough that their partner is going to expect them - and that makes them an implied partnership understanding requiring disclosure and system regulation. The expert that says "that's not a psych, it was just tactical" is likely to get into more trouble with concealed partnership understanding and illegal agreements than he was trying to get out of for the psychic (which is, of course, legal; provided it doesn't get to partnership understanding or frivolous levels).

Hog - I'm assuming that you mean Foster Echo in the Australian sense rather than the bridge sense; the Canadian equivalent being the Molson Echo, no (not as much fun that way, though, especially as here, Foster's is made by Labatt, not Molson)?

Michael.

[blackshoe]

pokerbids, on Jun 5 2007, 04:48 AM, said:

I had actually thanked all for their views and sort of closed this posty but suddenly I had one final query. While I fully understand that members mostly were against the concept of disallowing psychic calls in a tourney I was a bit taken aback when a few said disallowing this was against the laws of the game. Am I reading or interpreting the law in an erroneous manner cause Law 80 (E) states that it is part of a sponsoring organisation right and power to establish special conditions in bidding and play. So isnt disallowing psychic calls for a tournament a "special condition in bidding" for that event or am i getting this all wrong?

Laws 80E and F said:

A sponsoring organisation conducting an event under these Laws has the following duties and powers:

E. Special Conditions
to establish special conditions for bidding and play (such as written bidding, bidding boxes, screens - penalty provisions for actions not transmitted across a screen may be suspended).

F. Supplementary Regulations
to publish or announce regulations supplementary to, but not in conflict with, these Laws.

Law 80E has to do with how you bid, not what you bid. Since Law 40A allows psyches, a regulation regarding them would be "supplementary to" that law. IOW, the governing law here is 80F, not 80E

Law 40A said:

A player may make any call or play (including an intentionally misleading call - such as a psychic bid - or a call or play that departs from commonly accepted, or previously announced, use of a convention), without prior announcement, provided that such call or play is not based on a partnership understanding.

So a regulation banning psyches would conflict with Law 40A, and therefor would not be legal under Law 80F.

[barmar]

mycroft, on Jun 8 2007, 01:18 PM, said:

Similarly, 2H-p-2NT with a bust and hearts is psychic if 2NT by system guarantees invitational values; if it simply is "asking" with no promise of strength *in that partnership*, and that agreement is freely and completely disclosed, then it doesn't matter if that's the only pair that plays it that way, it's not a psychic.

Isn't there an implication that an asking bid means that the answer makes a difference? This isn't a matter of partnership agreement, but simple bridge logic. Can you really make an asking bid with the intent of bidding the same thing no matter what the response is?

[blackshoe]

barmar, on Jun 9 2007, 12:37 PM, said:

Can you really make an asking bid with the intent of bidding the same thing no matter what the response is?

Of course you can. Whyever not?

It may not be a good idea, of course, since it will give opponents information they might not otherwise get, at least until dummy is faced.

Easy example: you play four suit transfers over 1NT, so your 2NT response is a transfer. You have a balanced 8 count with no four card major. You bid 2 ♣, Stayman, an asking bid. You don't care what opener replies, your next call is going to be 2NT.

[jdonn]

blackshoe, on Jun 9 2007, 01:39 PM, said:

barmar, on Jun 9 2007, 12:37 PM, said:

Can you really make an asking bid with the intent of bidding the same thing no matter what the response is?

Of course you can. Whyever not?

It may not be a good idea, of course, since it will give opponents information they might not otherwise get, at least until dummy is faced.

Easy example: you play four suit transfers over 1NT, so your 2NT response is a transfer. You have a balanced 8 count with no four card major. You bid 2 :c:, Stayman, an asking bid. You don't care what opener replies, your next call is going to be 2NT.

Or maybe you hope the answer will let you rightside the contract but you are bidding the same contract either way (often true in relay auctions). Or maybe you simply want to mislead the opponents (often done by asking for the trump queen after blackwood when you already have it and know where you want to play). As SJ Simon said in that book of his everyone loves so much (this is just from memory but pretty close), if the opponents have the right to benefit from the sound of the auction, then I have the right to make the auction sound however I please.

[blackshoe]

Well, via the calls you make, sure. At least if there's no law or regulation making the call illegal.

[nige1]

An attempt to map the mine-field...

• Deviation: departure from disclosed methods. A deviation may be ...
  • Minor or gross.
    
  • Deliberate or accidental.
    
  • Expected or unexpected by partner (if the latter it is a concealed partnership understanding - a CPU). Partner fields a deviation when he takes some unusual or non-systemic action that appears to be intended to mitigate adverse effects. This may be regarded as evidence of a CPU.
    
  • Controlled or unfettered. A deviation is controlled when partner has a systemic way of avoiding ill-effects. He may have a convention to find out whether you have the values for your call (For instance, IMO, the Drury convention is often used to control third hand openers).
    
  • Baby or tactical. (IMO, a tactical bid is a controlled deviation by an expert).
  
  
• Psych: deliberate gross deviation. Some claim that, by definition, a psych cannot be subject to a CPU (but IMO it can) Most jurisdictions forbid psychic controls (but IMO they don't enforce that regulation). In the past, the EBU (effectively) banned the psyching of strong artificial bids. Nowadays, more and more legislators abide by the letter and spirit of Law 40A which explicitly permits psychs.
  
• Baby psychs: common examples are
  • Ultra-weak third hand openers.
    
  • Responding to partner's opener in a nonexistent suit. especially after RHO's T/O double.
    
  • Overcalling a comic 1 N (on a a long suit and few points]
    
  • Forcing or asking for aces with a weak hand and a massive fit
  
  
• Tactical bids: we're "spoilt for choice" here..
  • Cue bid without a control
    
  • Trial bid in a strong suit.
    
  • Splinter without a shortage.
    
  • Exclusion Blackwood without a void.
    
  • Opening a strong artificial 2 ♣ with a diamond preempt (IMO this is patently a controlled psych)
    
  • Responding to partner's weak two-opener with a "GF 2N relay" but no values.
    
  • Escaping into a short suit with the intention of redoubling for rescue

Some players (like Danny Roth) hate psychs. It hard to avoid a pattern in psyching behavior (hence: IMO most long-standing partnerships who regularly "psych" enjoy CPUs; IMO tactical bids are especially prone to CPUs). Remember, however, that some secretary birds quibble that if a call is subject to a CPU then it cannot be a psych).

[blackshoe]

What's in a name? Call me a secretary bird if you like, Nigel, I really don't care.

A psyche is, by definition, a departure from partnership understanding. If you have an understanding, concealed or otherwise, then bidding according to that understanding can hardly be a psyche.

You know, I used to hang around in Jerry Pournelle's Forum on GEnie, and later Bix. (These places predate the internet). Jerry is a smart guy (for those who never heard of him, he's an award winning science fiction author) and he attracted smart people to his forum. The denizens did not put up with unsubstantiated claims. A common acronym seen there was PPOR. It stands for "provide proof or retract". Maybe I should start using it here.

[nige1]

blackshoe, on Jun 10 2007, 12:48 AM, said:

What's in a name? Call me a secretary bird if you like, Nigel, I really don't care.

A psyche is, by definition, a departure from partnership understanding. If you have an understanding, concealed or otherwise, then bidding according to that understanding can hardly be a psyche.

You know, I used to hang around in Jerry Pournelle's Forum on GEnie, and later Bix. (These places predate the internet). Jerry is a smart guy (for those who never heard of him, he's an award winning science fiction author) and he attracted smart people to his forum. The denizens did not put up with unsubstantiated claims. A common acronym seen there was PPOR. It stands for "provide proof or retract".  Maybe I should start using it here.

I didn't call Blackshoe a secretary bird. In my post, I used the abbreviation IMO -- the web acronym for in my opinion -- to distinguish my views from accepted facts. It is hard to prove an opinion.

Although I can't provide absolute proof, there is ample evidence that different authorities use the word psych with different meanings. Blackshoe seems to prefer the definition "deliberate gross departure from agreed methods" whereas I prefer "deliberate gross departure from disclosed methods" A seemingly trivial difference but the latter seems more useful in practical discussion.

For instance, The EBU defines a psych as

Orange Book 2002, on 1 Glossary of terms, said:

  Psyche, psychic call A deliberate and gross mis-statement of honour strength and/or suit length.

The EBU goes on to color-code psychs from green to red. At one extreme ...

Orange Book, on 2002, 6.2.2, said:

A partnership's actions on one board may be sufficient for the TD to find that it has an unauthorized understanding and the score will be adjusted (for example, 60% to the non-offending side and 30% to the offending side is normal in pairs). This is classified as a Red psyche.

IMO, this kind of classification is useful (even if others criticize the EBU for reaching conclusions on insufficient evidence). Notice that a fielded psych (including a red psych) would seem to be a contradiction in terms under Blackshoe's definition.

[blackshoe]

"My" definition of a psych, if you want to call it that, is the one in the law book. Same as the one you quoted from the EBU. The word "misstatement" is what leads to my "departure from agreements" corollary, since a correct statement of the agreement is what the psyche departs from (or misstates, if you like).

"Fielding" is, as I understand it, taking an action that caters for the possibility of a psych, and thus may provide evidence of a CPU. By the OB passage you quoted, when the TD classifies the psych as "red", he's saying there was (probably) a CPU. So IMO "red psych" is an oxymoron, but hey, if the EBU finds it useful, that's fine with me.

You seem to be comparing me with the EBU. I'm hardly an authority, just a guy who's read TFLB.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on Jun 9 2007, 01:39 PM, said:

barmar, on Jun 9 2007, 12:37 PM, said:

Can you really make an asking bid with the intent of bidding the same thing no matter what the response is?

Of course you can. Whyever not?

It may not be a good idea, of course, since it will give opponents information they might not otherwise get, at least until dummy is faced.

Easy example: you play four suit transfers over 1NT, so your 2NT response is a transfer. You have a balanced 8 count with no four card major. You bid 2 ♣, Stayman, an asking bid. You don't care what opener replies, your next call is going to be 2NT.

That's not a good example. In this case, 2♣ is not just an asking bid, it's also the systemic way to start a sequence that shows a balanced invitation. And ACBL even requires an alert to warn the opponents that the usual expectation of a Stayman bidder may not apply.

While most bids are explicit in what they show (e.g. a major response to Stayman promises at least 4 cards in that suit), my feeling is that an asking bid implicitly "shows" a type of hand for which the answer would be useful. If your hand is nothing like that, then the question can be considered a psyche.

[blackshoe]

If you can come up with a better example to illustrate my point, feel free.

The ACBL does not require an alert of this 2♣ bid. The 2NT rebid is alertable, though.

I don't think there's any hand with which I would show 4 cards in a major suit in response to Stayman if I didn't have that many. Nonetheless, I dislike the word "promises" in the context of the meaning of bids. IMO it goes too far.

If your feeling is the definition of an asking bid, then yeah, if you don't really care about the answer, it's a psych. Or at least a deviation. But AFAIK, an asking bid is just that - it asks a question. It doesn't necessarily show anything.

Say your partner makes an asking bid, you alert it, and opponents ask what it means. Do you include in your explanation the kinds of hands that partner must (according to your definition) hold? If not, then you're not practicing full disclosure.

Nigel: If you have no agreement as to strength and shape in respect of a particular bid, then you cannot misstate your hand's strength and shape by making that bid. If you have an agreement, and fail to disclose it, you are in violation of both 70A and 70B. I don't see how your definition of psych, rather than the law's, makes any difference.

[barmar]

I have no problem with using "promises"; sometimes you have break your promises, though. Is "show" really any better? Maybe the proper wishy-washy term would be "claims". "Suggests" seems to go too far in the other direction.

Getting back to asking bids, I don't think you need to explain anything other than what they ask, unless you have specific agreements about what kinds of hands will use them. But I think opponents are entitled to infer, by general bridge logic, what kinds of hands would make such asking bids. If you have an agreement to use the bid on other types of hands, then I think you should disclose it. And if you don't have such an agreement, but you make the bid anyway, then it's a psyche.

What I think I'm saying is that bridge logic is implicitly assumed in everyone's system. If you intentionally violate bridge logic, it's either by partnership agreement (which must be disclosed) or a psyche (which may become a partnership understanding if you do it enough).

Here's another variant on this. The McCabe Adjunct is a new suit bid after partner opens a weak 2 and RHO doubles. This is a lead-directional raise of partner's suit; if the next player passes, partner is supposed to bid 3 of his suit, and if he eventually ends up on lead he's requested to lead the suit you bid. But suppose you have no intention of letting him be on lead, you're planning on sacrificing over whatever the opponents bid. You could then bid any suit just to confuse the opponents, with no concern about confusing partner. Something about this smells wrong.

[nige1]

blackshoe, on Jun 12 2007, 12:04 PM, said:

Nigel: If you have no agreement as to strength and shape in respect of a particular bid, then you cannot misstate your hand's strength and shape by making that bid. If you have an agreement, and fail to disclose it, you are in violation of both 70A and 70B. I don't see how your definition of psych, rather than the law's, makes any difference.

I reckon that Blackshoe understands full well the differences between our interpretations of the definition of psych.

Orange Book, on 2002, 1 Glossary of terms, said:

  Psyche, psychic call A deliberate and gross mis-statement of honour strength and/or suit length

Anyway, here is an attempt at a practical example to highlight the differences.

First in hand, at pairs, not vulnerable, partner opens 1N.

What I disclose about a call is what is on my convention card and what I reply when opponents ask. Suppose opponents ask about the range and and I tell them that our agreement is 12-14 HCP. If partner has opened on 10 HCP, deliberately, a gross departure from our stated agreement, then 1N is a psych (according to my preferred interpretation)

Further, suppose that we have an implicit agreement that, at this scoring, vulnerability and position, we rarely have 14 HCP and often have as few as 10 HCP. That is we have an illegal concealed partnership understanding (CPU), contravening law 75. 1N is not a departure from our concealed agreement, so, according to Blackshoe's definition, it is no longer a proper psych. Blackshoe speaks for many.

Suppose further, that I pass 1N with 12 HCP because I judge that with our implicit agreement, game is against the odds. Then, according to the EBU, I have fielded the psych.

Finally, if suspicious opponents report this incident to the EBU director, he may, after investigation, judge this to be a red psych

According to Blackshoe's definition, however, it is not even a psych. I don't know which interpretation is right but, to me, the EBU's seems more practically useful.

[paulg]

nige1, on Jun 14 2007, 09:54 AM, said:

According to Blackshoe's definition, however, it is not even a psych. I don't know which definition is right but, to me, the EBU interpretation seems more practically useful.

I think there is no practical differences between these two views.

It appears that blackshoe believes that a concealed partnership understanding is a more serious offence than fielding a psych. I happen to agree. But if you cannot determine that there is a CPU, then the case will drop into nige1's scenario.

The end result is likely to be the same.

Paul

[nige1]

cardsharp, on Jun 14 2007, 05:09 AM, said:

It appears that blackshoe believes that a concealed partnership understanding is a more serious offence than fielding a psych. I happen to agree. But if you cannot determine that there is a CPU, then the case will drop into nige1's scenario.

As I understand it, apparent fielding of a psych may be innocent or may be evidence of the use of unauthorized information or a concealed partnership understanding. I was responding to Blackshoe's earlier request to "prove" my interpretation of the word "psych", which seems the same as the EBU's. I'm unsure what cardsharp is implying

Orange Book, on 2002, 6.2.2, said:

  A partnership's actions on one board may be sufficient for the TD to find that it has an unauthorized understanding and the score will be adjusted (for example, 60% to the non-offending side and 30% to the offending side is normal in pairs). This is classified as a Red psyche

The EBU seems to agree that CPUs are serious. FWIW, so do I.

[blackshoe]

Quote

I think there is no practical differences between these two views.

Precisely.

Whether you wish to follow the general opinion that when a CPU exists, bidding according to that CPU is not a psych, or to make Nigel's minority a minority of two and say it's still a psych, if you bid according to that CPU, and you get found out, you're in trouble.