[pescetom]

Quote

Definitions:
Psychic call (commonly ‘psych[e]’ or ‘psychic’) a deliberate and gross misstatement of honour strength and/or of suit length.

Apparently simple (and to some of us, not only apparently, but then "I know pornography when I see it" hit some rocks too).
While most Directors are able and ready to recognise a gross misstatement of suit length (and some RAs provide related guidance or actual regulations), few are willing in my experience to acknowledge even blatant misstatements of honour strength so long as they are supported by suit length.

I am interested to know your own level of tolerance here: please describe it and specify whether you are or not a certified Director and which RA.

As a case in question (but only as that, I am more interested in your thoughts in general) I poll one specific overcall that occurred recently.

---

South as Dealer opened 1♣ (2+ natural) and West at unfavourable vulnerabilty bid 1♦ (not alerted) holding ♠762 ♥63 ♦JT765 ♣Q82. EW are a regular pair, not very experienced but they have sometimes won. West told the TD that he bid 1♦ intentionally and felt he could show 5 card diamonds. East said that he expected at least 8-9 HCP.

[Cyberyeti]

That's a psyche (convention card or not?), we would overcall 2♦ and it would be systemic, not a director, EBU, more savvy than most of the local club directors

[P_Marlowe]

pescetom, on 2025-June-04, 12:59, said:

<snip>

As a case in question (but only as that, I am more interested in your thoughts in general) I poll one specific overcall that occurred recently.
South opened 1♣ (2+ natural) and West at unfavourable vulnerabilty bid 1♦ (not alerted) holding ♠762 ♥63 ♦JT765 ♣Q82. EW are a regular pair. West told the TD that he bid intentionally and felt he could show 5 card diamonds. East said that he expected at least 8-9 HCP.

A Psych.
i dont care, what East claims to expect, I dont care, that he may not like this kind of stuff, if he has seen the bid more than once, he will start to field it.
As it is, know your customer.

As a matter o fact, I dont like it, if a good pair does this stuff against weaker players, it leads to alergic reactions.

[pescetom]

P_Marlowe, on 2025-June-04, 13:35, said:

A Psych.
i dont care, what East claims to expect, I dont care, that he may not like this kind of stuff, if he has seen the bid more than once, he will start to field it.
As it is, know your customer.

As a matter o fact, I dont like it, if a good pair does this stuff against weaker players, it leads to alergic reactions.

Thanks.
I added the poll now, please vote.

In this case, it was actually against stronger players and the reaction was not against the psyche if explained as such, but in defence of West who is smart but less inexperienced and does not deserve a reputation.

[Cyberyeti]

The only thing that would persuade me this was not a psyche would be a line like "we tend to get VERY fruity with our overcalls over a 2+ card club", we have this line or similar but with the word "jump" inserted

[pescetom]

Cyberyeti, on 2025-June-04, 14:41, said:

The only thing that would persuade me this was not a psyche would be a line like "we tend to get VERY fruity with our overcalls over a 2+ card club", we have this line or similar but with the word "jump" inserted

No such line or history and 90% of the field (including EW themselves) open a 2+ card club (2 only with 4=4=3=2).

[mycroft]

What one expects is one thing - but "what is the expected *minimum*?" is the relevant question.(*)

Axxxx? KQxxx? KJxxx? No, really, we need an 8-count?

Is there a minimum strength requirement for a 1-level overcall in the FIGB? Minimum strength requirement for a non-Alertable 1-level overcall?

I repeat what I *always* repeat: "it's not a psychic if it's a gross misstatement of *your* agreements. Or mine."

If it is a psychic, is there a problem with that? Or are they only allowed when the experienced players do it against the new ones?

Yes, there are issues about "if you do this more than once, partner is going to start expecting it, and you'll have to start explaining your agreements that way" (and Alerting them, if relevant). And if they find out that it doesn't work well if you do it a lot, then hey, that's learning bridge judgement, isn't it?

But depending on what "not very experienced" means, how often is this "they don't know better, now they do"? Again, *if it's not against regulations*, and *if they disclosed properly*, if the experienced pair got caught out by it, well, you don't deserve tops against weaker players. You'll get them, more often than not, but not always.

I've played The Overcall Structure before (and had it played against me). Half+ of 1-level overcalls would be psychics in a normal partnership. But it's legal, and if you're a good player, you can deal with it. Or maybe you're not quite as good as you claim?

(*) I *expect* 5 spades and 13ish HCP for my partner's Precision 1♠ opener. Not vulnerable, KQxxx and an Ace is "an expected minimum". Two very different things.

[jillybean]

---

So the auction is this?

Or was it

P (1C) 1D?

By an experienced player or a newbie?
Online, or at the Club? Did we ask the 1D bidder what he thought he was doing?

[pescetom]

jillybean, on 2025-June-04, 19:07, said:

---

So the auction is this?

Or was it

P (1C) 1D?

By an experienced player or a newbie?
Online, or at the Club? Did we ask the 1D bidder what he thought he was doing?

At the club.
Most of the rest is described in the OP. In particular it was South that opened and West that overcalled, vulnerable vs non.

[pescetom]

For mycroft (to avoid a very long quote, on phone):

FIGB rules about the overcall are minimal but clear:

- it must promise 4+ cards in a known suit

- it must be alerted if it has unusual conditions of strength or is forcing.

As an FIGB Director I would interpret 'usual' as a minimum between 8 and 11 HCP and a maximum between 14 and 18 HCP. I wouldn't fuss if the card says 7 and there was no alert, or about an occasionally stretch to show (say) AQTxx or about minimal style differences between the pair.
My threshold for 'psyche' is about a King less than the agreed minimum, but I am aware that this is more sensitive than many colleagues (some of whom just don't seem to read that 'honour strength' condition at all).

[jillybean]

pescetom, on 2025-June-05, 01:48, said:

At the club.
Most of the rest is described in the OP. In particular it was South that opened and West that overcalled, vulnerable vs non.

Thanks, for some reason I am not seeing the OP

[pescetom]

jillybean, on 2025-June-05, 03:44, said:

Thanks, for some reason I am not seeing the OP

As soon as I reach a PC I'll check and add a diagram.

[EDIT] I added the diagram. The OP was still there but for some reason I was not seeing the Poll, so I had to recreate it: please vote again.

[mycroft]

Okay, so the question re: psych is "Did you think it was 'okay' (within or near your agreements) to overcall with this suit, or did you think it was "much weaker than partner will expect, but I have to/want to get in here"?

If the former, then a discussion with the pair afterward, guiding them to a shared feeling about where the minimum is for them, is appropriate. And if this hand is only a petty misstatement, tell them they must Alert their overcalls, as they have "unusual conditions of strength". If it isn't, warn the bidder about issues around "implicit agreements" and "caught psychics" if they decide to do this again.

If the latter, then do the psychic warning dance, possibly with a "if you and partner decide that after a 2+ minor opener, you are going to overcall very aggressively, you will have to Alert those overcalls (but not the regular-strength ones over 3+ minors)."

Very likely, West has never had this discussion, and has never had anyone explain *why* what they were taught about minimum strength of overcalls is sensible and normal; and has seen people open shapely 9-counts (third seat, NV,...) and claim they open "good 11s", and just figured this is the same. They didn't "know" they were grossly misstating their strength, because they didn't know what "flight A normal" (as opposed to what they were taught) actually is. "I felt I could show the diamonds" doesn't say anything about their agreement or degree of variation from it (in this scenario), West just didn't know how to Bridge here.

As you know, my definition of "gross" for strength is a bit idiosyncratic, probably has no backing but my own logic, and varies *strongly* with the declared range of the agreement. I also believe that there are calls that exist explicitly to take hands *out of* the rest of the system, and if you violate it, even a "small violation", in a way that negates the reason for the convention, I am "very concerned*</Susan Collins>.

I am, shall we say, "amused", by the way the thresholds for psychics are now being used in the ACBL for "nah, not a psych, just 'deviating' into an illegal agreement"; also by the switch of the Usual Suspects from "it wasn't a psych, just a deviation" to "it clearly was a psych" when suddenly the "horrible, immoral, and possibly fattening" psycher label is better, at least, than the "deliberately playing an illegal agreement" (and attempting by poor disclosure to hide it). Of course, the *actual* thing happening is (and always has been) "what we think is correct is obviously Just Good Bridge (if you can Actually Play) and anyone looking at it funny is Just Wrong. But those deviations over there, that we would never play because they're Obviously Bad, are clear Attempts to Win By Confusing us (you know, the polite euphemism for the C- word)." See also "Tactical Bid", qv.

[pescetom]

As mentioned already, literally everybody in this club except the strong club pairs open 1♦ 4+ and 1♣ 2+ with 4=4=3=2. And if that is no longer true in Turin, it's only because 5+ diamonds is all the rage there. So there is no issue of treating 2+ as different, it's the norm and what EW themselves play too.

Unfortunately East is a certified Director, although he ceased directing almost immediately after the exam. So no excuse of unfamiliarity with the laws and regulations, except that it's been a few years.

[blackshoe]

Whether it's a psych depends on the pair's partnership understandings, both explicit and implicit, of the meaning of the call. Given East's "I expected 8 or 9 HCP" and assuming there is no significant previous experience that West might bid this way, it's a psych. Are psychs illegal over this 1♣opening in Italy? If not, I don't see a problem.

[pescetom]

blackshoe, on 2025-June-05, 12:30, said:

Whether it's a psych depends on the pair's partnership understandings, both explicit and implicit, of the meaning of the call. Given East's "I expected 8 or 9 HCP" and assuming there is no significant previous experience that West might bid this way, it's a psych. Are psychs illegal over this 1♣opening in Italy? If not, I don't see a problem.

I have no idea whether West has previously bid this way with East, it was not asked at table although I agree it should have been. West essentially asserted that it was "just bridge" to bid diamonds, but my guess is that he was just trying to avoid the judgement that it was a psych. As it happens this psych is illegal in Italy at this low level of competition (and yes I know there are L40 issues about that, but that's how it is until they ask me to decide). But my question was about lack of honour strength and it looks like we all agree there.

[P_Marlowe]

pescetom, on 2025-June-05, 14:32, said:

<snip>
I have no idea whether West has previously bid this way with East, it was not asked at table although I agree it should have been. West essentially asserted that it was "just bridge" to bid diamonds,
...

This remark would be a red flag for me, that he was doing this on a reg. basis, + they are a established partnership, East may not like it / even hate it, but knowes it.
And I dont want to know the Bridge book that advocates a none preempting bid on an empty suit and calls it just Bridge.

[mycroft]

• I don't think (in fact I would actively discourage) this is something that should be asked at the table, but it is something that should be determined. The opponents do not get to have either more ammunition for "you are bad and you should feel bad" or "but if we had known" interjections. They are entitled to E-W's agreements, and if their agreement is Alertable and they didn't, they are entitled to redress for the failure to Alert, but the director can come back to them later and say that.
  
• I disagree with "red flag" as a description. That tends to imply a lack of ethics. Lack of knowledge (of the Alerting rules or of "usual conditions of strength") is not unethical. Psyching is (usually) not unethical; it's not even unethical if it works against better players. It is certainly evidence; maybe even conclusive evidence. But like the pair that played a 12-14 NT *overcall* and said "yes, we didn't Announce it. We're not supposed to" who just didn't read the Alert Procedure far enough (my response was, "you are correct. You are required to *Alert* it, though" and a trip to the desk to get my Alert Procedures to prove it) - they may find that if they do the RA-mandated thing, their "working system" stops working quite as well and they decide to go back to a more "usual" strength requirement. Or they may not.

So, have the discussion away from the table (maybe even after the round), and if their agreement really is "(against 2+ minors) we overcall unusually aggressively", then that's Alertable, make it clear to them that they'll have to Alert the call in future, and, on this hand, rule Failure to Alert just like any other 75D3 ruling. Which in the world we live in now, should be weighted against "it *could* be this hand, but more often it's the kind of hand that will in fact punish 3NT if they bid it; how often will you take that gamble?" rather than 100% (Remember, they have to Alert *all* their overcalls in this situation, not just the ones that are Very Weak).

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2025-June-05, 12:30, said:

Whether it's a psych depends on the pair's partnership understandings, both explicit and implicit, of the meaning of the call.

If this overcall were according to their agreements, I think an alert would be required in most jurisdictions, because of the extremely unusual strength agreement.

So either it's a psyche or misinformation.

[barmar]

Why does it matter that the 1♣ opening could be short? The only change to agreements I generally make regarding defending short minor openings is whether overcalling in opener's suit is natural or artificial. Is it common to change the aggression style as well? Why, to make it harder for the opponents to find out what kind of opening it was?