[helene_t]

I voted psyche but unless the player said that he deliberately deviated from his system I would think of a more plausible explanation since I cannot phantom a reason for making such a call that only serves to mislead partner. It's not like you want to deter a spade lead.

Probably just a misbid.

[gnasher]

 FrancesHinden, on 2013-July-02, 15:43, said:

What so many posters don't seem to realise is that what you call things isn't the point, it's whether your partner is as surprised about your hand as opponents.

Although the EBU's rules imply that the point is what your partner actually does.

[RMB1]

 Cyberyeti, on 2013-July-03, 03:55, said:

I'm not saying it should be, I'm saying that particularly in clubs it IS routinely adjusted.

In some clubs perhaps but I do find this statement incredible.

I have never seen a ruling in a club where both members of a partnership have psyched on the same board. I think there must be few clubs where such rulings (leading to an adjustment or not) can be routine.

[Cyberyeti]

 RMB1, on 2013-July-03, 06:18, said:

In some clubs perhaps but I do find this statement incredible.

I have never seen a ruling in a club where both members of a partnership have psyched on the same board. I think there must be few clubs where such rulings (leading to an adjustment or not) can be routine.

In Norfolk, if a pair against you psyche, you can commit pretty much any UI atrocity and it will be ruled in your favour. If both opponents psyche, they will be ruled against provided the director doesn't spontaneously combust first.

Example:- Partner, the absent minded type passed a 14 count. RHO opened 1♠ I overcalled 2♥ with Jxxxx and a 5 count, P-P-X-P-P-P. The defence fail to lead trumps several times and I make 4 or 5 trump tricks opposite Ax scoring 2♥X= when it should be -3. Director's ruling psyche opposite psyche so must adjust.

This was possibly the worst TD ruling ever since he adjusted to 2H=, but to give him some credit I suspect he knew that this was sufficient to still give us a 20-0 VP win.

[LghtnngRod]

 campboy, on 2013-July-03, 01:54, said:

I think you're making a distinction that is not in the lawbook definition, which says nothing about trying to mislead. IMO so long as he knew bidding 1♠ was a distortion and chose to bid it anyway it is a deliberate distortion, whatever his motivation.

What possible alternative motive might a player have to make a deliberate gross distortion if not to mislead? If (as I suggest) there is no alternative motive then the absence of its being expressly required in the laws is not in my view a significant omission.

[blackshoe]

"Intent to mislead" may be useful as an indication whether a particular call is a psych or a misbid, I suppose. I also suppose this may become important if psyching the particular call is illegal (e.g., the ACBL's prohibition against psyching artificial openings), but other than that it doesn't seem worthy of discussion.

[gwnn]

 LghtnngRod, on 2013-July-03, 10:26, said:

What possible alternative motive might a player have to make a deliberate gross distortion if not to mislead? If (as I suggest) there is no alternative motive then the absence of its being expressly required in the laws is not in my view a significant omission.

Perhaps partneship harmony issues? Three possibilities (maybe none of them particularly likely) spring to mind:
-I'm unsure whether partner/I will remember the followups so I will misdescribe my hand
-I refuse to play this stupid convention so I will misdescribe my hand
-My partner just did something stupid last board so I want to do an equally stupid thing now to teach him a lesson
(I am not defending any of these but I have seen all of them in real life)

[barmar]

 blackshoe, on 2013-July-03, 10:38, said:

"Intent to mislead" may be useful as an indication whether a particular call is a psych or a misbid, I suppose.

How does that differ in effect from the existing requirement that it be "deliberate"? I go with the earlier reply that "intent to mislead" is simply an obvious corollary of "deliberate".

[barmar]

 gnasher, on 2013-July-03, 04:13, said:

Although the EBU's rules imply that the point is what your partner actually does.

Perhaps because it's difficult to peer into the head of your partner. So we infer it from their action: if they field it, it suggests they weren't surprised.

[campboy]

 LghtnngRod, on 2013-July-03, 10:26, said:

What possible alternative motive might a player have to make a deliberate gross distortion if not to mislead? If (as I suggest) there is no alternative motive then the absence of its being expressly required in the laws is not in my view a significant omission.

I don't understand. Here you say there can be no other motivation, yet in your previous post you seem to be saying that he must have had some other motivation, and that made it not a psyche.

[gordontd]

 LghtnngRod, on 2013-July-03, 10:26, said:

If (as I suggest) there is no alternative motive then the absence of its being expressly required in the laws is not in my view a significant omission.

It's significant if you're going to view it as relevant to making a ruling.

[barmar]

 campboy, on 2013-July-03, 11:17, said:

I don't understand. Here you say there can be no other motivation, yet in your previous post you seem to be saying that he must have had some other motivation, and that made it not a psyche.

In his previous post he doubted whether it was deliberate.

Seems like the logic is: there could be no logical reason to try to mislead in this way, it must have been some kind of mistake: a misbid, missorting the hand, etc.

Remember, this whole thing is a hypothetical. Has anyone ever made this kind of bid deliberately? We might be able to imagine it if the long suit were a minor, but with the actual hand in question it makes no sense.

This is like asking "Is it legal to bid while floating in the air?" There's nothing in the Bridge Laws prohibiting it, by it violates the Law of Gravity.

[nige1]

 Free, on 2013-July-02, 08:06, said:

Is opening 1♠ with ♠ A K x x ♥ A Q J x x x ♦ x x ♣ x considered a psych or not?
Suppose sayc or a similar natural system
Since many people read too much into this, this hand is a theoretical case and 1♠ is deliberate, not a misbid or a wrong sorting of cards. The question is if this bid on it's own is a psych or not, any possible result or adjustment doesn't matter, but the labeling is what it's all about.

IMO, given Free's assumptions, in most modern natural systems, without Canapé, this is a psych. Although, just a few decades ago, systems guru, Norman Squire recommended a 1♠ opener with
♠ 5 4 3 2 ♥ A K Q J T ♦ K x x ♣ x
And nowadays, we're told that some Americans claim as natural a 1♣ opener with
♠ A x x x ♥ A x x x ♦ x x x ♣ A x

[blackshoe]

 barmar, on 2013-July-03, 11:06, said:

How does that differ in effect from the existing requirement that it be "deliberate"? I go with the earlier reply that "intent to mislead" is simply an obvious corollary of "deliberate".

I don't know that it does differ. Taking the view expressed here, I don't suppose it matters.

[Zelandakh]

 gwnn, on 2013-July-03, 10:56, said:

Perhaps partneship harmony issues? Three possibilities (maybe none of them particularly likely) spring to mind:

Here's another from my personal collection:
- The opponents are being rude and it is the last hand so I am going to mess the board up to make a point to them.

[c_corgi]

I agree with those posters who believe that, for a call to be a psyche, there must be intent to mislead. Psyches are distinct from deliberate and gross distortions intended to create variance (without the misleading aspect being part of that, as seems likely with the hand in question) or for the other reasons some posters have suggested. The definition accompanying the laws does not support this view, which leads me to believe that the definition is nonsense.

[Cascade]

It is not a psyche if the player believed this was an appropriate way to bid this hand. Even if that belief was mistaken.

[Vampyr]

 blackshoe, on 2013-July-03, 10:38, said:

(e.g., the ACBL's prohibition against psyching artificial openings)

Are there penalties attached to misbidding (or leaving in a mechanical error) these openings?

[blackshoe]

 c_corgi, on 2013-July-04, 04:04, said:

I agree with those posters who believe that, for a call to be a psyche, there must be intent to mislead. Psyches are distinct from deliberate and gross distortions intended to create variance (without the misleading aspect being part of that, as seems likely with the hand in question) or for the other reasons some posters have suggested. The definition accompanying the laws does not support this view, which leads me to believe that the definition is nonsense.

Or perhaps it's your view that's wrong.

[blackshoe]

 Cascade, on 2013-July-04, 04:59, said:

It is not a psyche if the player believed this was an appropriate way to bid this hand. Even if that belief was mistaken.

No, in that case it would be a misbid.