[pokerbids]

Scoring: MP

---

I wanted some assistance with a bridge ruling that had me a little perplexed. I am seeking this as a learning example for myself and would be grateful for any help on the rules aspect for this

North dealt and opened 1 Spade East Passed South responded 1 NT and West bid 3Hearts that was passed all round.
Result was 3HW -2

As a TD this was my essential interaction with the players
Player West called me after hand was over and move was over and said the following

Player West objection was that relevant part of North CC is standard opening 5 card majors, best minor and 13+ points. Objection is "North opened a 3 card major suit and that denied us game in that suit. I was forced to bid an alternative suit and that wrong opening misled us in bid and final contract and we were denied game of 4 Spades that is our natural bid with an 8 card fit and 21 points in my hand."
Me you may not reach a game of 4 S as your partner had 0 points.
Player "Yes but in a natural sequence my partner would have no choice as bidding would either go as a takeout X on their natural Diamond suit and on partners 2 S response (we show 5 card majors first over 6 card minors) I jump to 4 S direct or I bid my Heart suit and partner having no tolerance for hearts is again forced to 4 C and we sign off in 4 S. Alternatively if opps pass I open 2 NT and partner is forced to 3 C (having no tolerance for NT and a 5 card major) I respond 3 H and partner is forced to show 5 card Spade suit as no tolerance for H contract and we sign off in 4 !S – Anyway, you look at it without that false opening indicating 5 !S with North we reach our natural game as I have a bumper 21 point hand and will force to game contract at the risk of going down. Worst unimaginable case is we end in 3 spades or 4 C and make that bid instead of going down 2."

Next I asked player North who was at another table now if he could explain his bid. His explanation is that it was a tactical bid that was not a psyche call but a call made specifically to deny opps a game is a major suit done with no partnership pre understanding.

My questions with help from some knowledgeable person(s) are
1. Did west have a genuine grievance and objection. Player west did say that she could have maybe bid the hand better herself but that was not the point at issue. Issue was objection at bid of west that destroyed their chance of finding a fit.
2. Specifically I had an issue on the question of damage and how a TD actually would rule. My reasoning is that to allow East /West 4 Spade = as damage would be unfair since East/West had not mentioned that suit once in bidding and to allow them game may not quite be right. On the other hand they were damaged and stopped from exploring the Spade due to that 3 card opening bid that was not as per CC.

Thanks in advance for helping me advance my learning with refernce to the rules of the game

[Echognome]

I refer you to Laws 40A and 40B which reads:

Law 40 - Partnership Understandings said:

A. Right to Choose Call or Play

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.

B. Concealed Partnership understandings Prohibited

A player may not make a call or play based on a special partnership understanding unless an opposing pair may reasonably be expected to understand its meaning, or unless his side discloses the use of such call or play in accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring organisation.

As you can see, making a psychic bid is perfectly legal as long it is not based on a special partnership understanding. From seeing your explanation above, it does not seem as if South bid strangely in any way after his partner's 1♠ opening. Thus, I would rule that there has been no irregularity whatsoever and hence no issue of damage.

I would like to add that North's explanation of his actions were very poor. This is by all means a psychic call. There is no definition of tactical bid in the laws, but the laws do clearly define what a psychic call is:

Definitions said:

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

And isn't that exactly what North did?

[FrancesHinden]

As echo says, North has confused matters by saying he didn't psyche, because a "a call made specifically to deny opps (anything) done with no partnership pre understanding" is exactly what a psyche is.

Unless NS have the understanding that they might open 1S on hands like this - and there's no evidence that this is the case - then North has psyched, which is perfectly legal, and EW have only been "damaged" in a perfectly legal, bridge sense.

No reason to adjust the score.

p.s. that's one of the most bizarre psyches I've seen for a while - first seat, vul against not with enough high cards that you don't know whose hand it is.

[Walddk]

I agree with echo and Frances. North psyched, he struck gold and EW must live with the poor result. However, I am not fond of North's explanation. Perhaps he doesn't like the word "psyche".

West could have bid his hand a little better, but I don't think EW would have found their spade game anyway.

Roland

[jtfanclub]

I disagree with everyone...nah, just kidding.

That's just a garden variety psyche. I see no reason to think that South fielded it (he made the bid he would make if partner really had 13+ hcp and 5+ spades), so unless they've been doing it on a regular basis, no adjustment.

[jillybean]

pokerbids, on Mar 15 2007, 12:03 AM, said:

Next I asked player North who was at another table now if he could explain his bid. His explanation is that it was a tactical bid that was not a psyche call but a call made specifically to deny opps a game is a major suit done with no partnership pre understanding.

This is a may be a player who has been playing in too many 'no psyche' games, the other response you hear is 'it was a misclick'

Had North been asked about the 1♠ bid the correct and only response is to describe his partnership agreement (eg 5♠+ 11+ points) He does not have to tell the opps he has psyched or what he has is in his hand. Some people have a hard time understanding this.

[Sancho]

Generally, I agree with everything that has been said.

But this psyche is so weird that I would certainly ask North to clarify why he thought that it was a good idea to bid 1♠ in first position, vulnerable, with a hand that has opening strength.

As long as he does not say anything exceptionally stupid, the score will certainly stand, but I find this procedure important to let people know that if they, for example, overhear something about a board and use that information in a very strange, yet effective matter, they can't easily get away with it without being questioned or the incident being remembered for the future.

I am not suggesting that North did actually know something about the hand. But given that I have hardly ever seen such a weird psyche and that it really stroke gold here, the least that I can do is show that I care about the problem in general.

[helene_t]

As a TD I wouldn't even record this case. Weired bids happen all the time. If I had to make notes on them all, I'd get RSI and drown myself in information.

EW specualte about what would have happened in the absense of the 1♠ opening but that can never be relevant. The only thing that could form a basis of a score cprrection is if NS have the agreement to open 1♠ on a 3-card and forgot to alert. In that case the first question the TD should try to answer is what would have happened if the 1♠ opening had been alerted and correctly explained.

[barmar]

I also find West's bidding very strange. Regardless of what he thinks NS have, 3♥ hardly seems like the right call with that monster. Unless EW have agreements to the contrary, that's a preemptive bid, not a strong bid. Double followed by some number of ♥ would be the bids I'd plan on making.

[jikl]

That is a very strange psyche. I am tempted to ask if there were kibitzers. As others have said, with no other evidence he lucked out and EW keep their score.

Sean

[jillybean]

Realistically I think you will drive yourself crazy trying to track this type of bidding, mis bidding or psyche.. If you suspect someone of cheating possibly the best action is to take a look at myhands to see if there is a pattern. If you still believe the player is suspect send a case with a number of hands to abuse. Likewise for players who are convinced their opps are using MSN, I don’t get involved, I don’t have time for a start.

I’m sure we have all been on the receiving end of some terrible bidding or unbelievably "lucky" play that gets a pair a top board. Lucky or cheats, beginners or experts, Misclick or misbid ?

[pokerbids]

Just a quick note to thank everyone for responding and also the unanimity of the decision. I think echogames original explanation was so crystal clear with the actual quotes of the rules that it is difficult to find any ground of appeal for East/West. Though someone did say it was a really weird psyche cause of the opening strength of North hand. That also confused me at first and actually made me post the hand for clarification as one doesnt see too many psyches that arent really gross misstatements of points just of length of suit and at first I wondered if 3 cards was really "Gross" but when cc says 5 then i guess it is Gross enuff.

Thanks again all for responding

poker

[mycroft]

Poker:

The only problem with North is his idea that bids that are made to confuse everybody, and are totally antisystemic, are "not psychic calls". He must be disabused of this notion.

I've heard the "it wasn't a psych, it was a tactical call" too many times. In response, I quote (I don't have attribution, I just know I didn't make it up):

"A tactical bid is a psych an expert makes. A psych is a tactical bid made against that same expert."

But North, as has been said before, has almost certainly played in many "no psych" games, or been berated by the opponents and the TD for doing so (Kaplan's "as long as you like to psych never" treatment), and hasn't worked it out yet. Please note that this also applies to other "ominous" words - relay, as an example (I was once told, in all seriousness, that LHO's bid "wasn't a relay, it was just a meaningless bid asking me to further describe my hand". But that's because there's a stigma in relation to "relay systems" in the ACBL where I play. I mean, the two "everyone plays" conventional calls - 2C Stayman and 4NT Blackwood, are relays :-).

Having said that, don't look at cards or points as the primary consideration of a psychic call. If you can find nobody playing the system of the potential psycher who believes that the systemic call is what was made - if you can't believe, in fact, that anyone would consider it as the systemic call - it's a gross enough deviation to be a psych (the other half, of course, has to be that it was deliberate, and not a mispull/misclick/braino like forgetting transfers are off in <auction>).

Here, I challenge you to find anybody who would argue that the correct opening bid according to any 5-card-major system for that hand is 1S. It's a psych.

It happens to be a silly psych, but those are the ones with the most chance of working spectacularly, because nobody is ever going to think 'psych'. Of course, it has the most chance and most frequency of failing spectacularly...

Michael.

[mycroft]

Please note that I am not suggesting the definition I gave applies in the negative - just because some nutcase would consider the call part of a system doesn't mean it isn't a psychic for the player. "Sufficient, but not necessary", I seem to recall from my University days.

Michael.

[Rossoneri]

EW has no case. Simple.

North made a psyche (regardless of what he himself calls it). It may or may not have been a stupid psyche, but fact is, he broke no law so case closed.

[Codo]

I belive that North had heard about this hand- or that he had is messenger open on BBO- or that he from time to time makes really silly things and more often then not fails and this was his lucky one.

But who cares what I belive?

The rules are easy and I hope I had been good enough to follow them Sanchos way.

But if West had so many thoughts about his bid as he had about his reasons why he failed to reach 4 Spade, he may had found a better bid at the table anyway.

[blackshoe]

Rossoneri, on Jul 6 2007, 05:13 AM, said:

EW has no case. Simple.

North made a psyche (regardless of what he himself calls it). It may or may not have been a stupid psyche, but fact is, he broke no law so case closed.

I have not gone back and read the previous messages in the thread, but I do have a comment about the quoted statement.

A psyche is deliberate. That means that if a player unintentionally makes a call that is a gross deviation from system, it is not a psyche. It's a misbid, perhaps, but as was said, it's not illegal.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on Jul 6 2007, 09:19 AM, said:

Rossoneri, on Jul 6 2007, 05:13 AM, said:

EW has no case. Simple.

North made a psyche (regardless of what he himself calls it). It may or may not have been a stupid psyche, but fact is, he broke no law so case closed.

I have not gone back and read the previous messages in the thread, but I do have a comment about the quoted statement.

A psyche is deliberate. That means that if a player unintentionally makes a call that is a gross deviation from system, it is [b]not[/]b a psyche. It's a misbid, perhaps, but as was said, it's not illegal.

Did you at least read the original message?

Quote

His explanation is that it was a tactical bid that was not a psyche call but a call made specifically to deny opps a game is a major suit done with no partnership pre understanding.

Sounds deliberate to me.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on Jul 6 2007, 10:09 AM, said:

Did you at least read the original message?

If I had, I would have said so.

Given the player's statement you quoted, I conclude that he doesn't know a psyche from a hole in the ground.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on Jul 6 2007, 02:33 PM, said:

barmar, on Jul 6 2007, 10:09 AM, said:

Did you at least read the original message?

If I had, I would have said so.

Given the player's statement you quoted, I conclude that he doesn't know a psyche from a hole in the ground.

Yes, THAT I agree with.

This is basically true of anyone who tries to make a significant distinction between psyches and "tactical" bids. The best distinction is that it's a psyche when someone does it to you, it's a tactical bid when you do it to them (and it works to your advantage).