[PeterAlan]

EBU (OB Level 4, under which the minimum values for such 1 openings by agreement are both of (i) Rule of 18 and (ii) 8 HCP); Club Mixed Pivot Teams match, thus scratch (one-off) partnerships, both playing Benji Acol. For the avoidance of doubt, there's been no discussion about light openings etc.

E dealer; E-W non-vulnerable, N-S vulnerable.

---

E opens this 1S first-in-hand. After a poor result on the hand, N wants the TD to record this as a psyche (I'm not going into the details of the rest of the auction, play or result, since N was focusing only on the opening bid; also, there's no suggestion that W in any way fielded the bid).

Your views?

[FrancesHinden]

Yup, it's a psyche. Assuming he opened it on purpose, it's a gross misstatement of honour strength.

[TylerE]

Doesn't sound like they have an agreement, so it can hardly be a psyche or deviation to me.

[CSGibson]

Psyche.

[blackshoe]

What is their presumed agreement as to minimum honor strength?

Note: two of three people have called this a psych, so they must have some presumption as to the agreement from which this player is alleged to have grossly deviated.

[FrancesHinden]

Yes, they've agreed to play "Benji Acol". That includes an agreement that 1-level opening bids are generally 12+ HCP if balanced; the minimum for an opening is around a decent 5-5 10-count, or just possibly a 6-4 9-count with a good suit and couple of aces.

While the minimum legal agreement in the EBU is "rule of 18 + at least 8 HCP" if you have agreed to play a form of Acol, you've agreed to play your 1-level opening bids as rather stronger than that.

[FrancesHinden]

TylerE, on 2011-January-29, 12:49, said:

Doesn't sound like they have an agreement, so it can hardly be a psyche or deviation to me.

well, it's either a psyche, a deviation or an illegal method....

[PeterAlan]

Sorry, I should have added that E-W were playing with a standard CC that indicates 10-19 HCP as normal range for 1S opening (though probably none of the players would have checked that detail, instead just relying on general experience of playing club Acol almost all of the time).

I'm interested in where posters consider the boundary lies between psyche and deviation. The incident caused a bit of ill-feeling at the time, partly because some feel that some other players, such as N, use aggressive requests for psyche recording to discourage any psyching / deviation (out-and-out psyches are virtually unheard of). W, for example, took the view that it was just a (very) light opening bid, made in the context of a relatively informal event.

[campboy]

Having a psyche or deviation recorded doesn't mean anyone has done anything wrong. Since we are going to record the hand either way I don't see that it matters which we call it. I would go for psyche, but think it borderline.

[nigel_k]

For me it's borderline whether this is a gross misstatement.

I don't know the EBU rules at all, but if you are recording deviations from agreement (in the literal meaning of deviation) that do not amount to a psyche then you will be recording an awful lot IMO.

[campboy]

nigel_k, on 2011-January-29, 14:59, said:

I don't know the EBU rules at all, but if you are recording deviations from agreement (in the literal meaning of deviation) that do not amount to a psyche then you will be recording an awful lot IMO.

Well, it would be very unusual to record a deviation unless asked to do so, and I don't think you will be asked very often.

The White Book says:

Quote

The TD is expected to record the deals whenever there is a Red or Amber psyche, misbid or deviation.
[...]
In general a TD will also record a deal whenever a player suggests it should be recorded, although this is not a right, so a TD need not do so if he considers it inappropriate.

[FrancesHinden]

nigel_k, on 2011-January-29, 14:59, said:

For me it's borderline whether this is a gross misstatement.

I don't know the EBU rules at all, but if you are recording deviations from agreement (in the literal meaning of deviation) that do not amount to a psyche then you will be recording an awful lot IMO.

One reason for recording deviations is when you suspect that a pair are not playing what they claim to be playing.
For example, there is one pair I know of who claim their systemic agreement is that their 1NT opening is 12-14 and does not contain a singleton, but I suspect that they open with a singleton quite often, and open with many very poor 11s, so I think it's a good idea that all those deviations get recorded to encourage them to disclose their methods properly.

[nigel_k]

FrancesHinden, on 2011-January-30, 05:10, said:

One reason for recording deviations is when you suspect that a pair are not playing what they claim to be playing.
For example, there is one pair I know of who claim their systemic agreement is that their 1NT opening is 12-14 and does not contain a singleton, but I suspect that they open with a singleton quite often, and open with many very poor 11s, so I think it's a good idea that all those deviations get recorded to encourage them to disclose their methods properly.

So who decides whether a deviation has to be recorded and who is responsible for making sure it is done? If you ask some people to do it but not others, is this an implicit accusation of dishonesty?

[bluejak]

Generally the opponents ask for it to be recorded, or not. Of course it is not an accusation of dishonesty.

In the actual case it is obvious that it is going to be recorded - what reason can there possibly be for not recording it? - so who cares whether it is a psyche or deviation anyway? The only difference is that if you field a psyche there is an automatic minimum PP as well as an artificial adjustment: if you field a deviation there is no automatic PP, just an artificial adjustment: since we are told it was not fielded it makes no difference which it is.

Whether a call is a psyche or not depends on the pair's actual agreements. Since they are presumably legal they cannot include 7 HCP.

In practice they have agreed to play Benji Acol without discussion of light openings, so it is a psyche rather than a deviation. But it does not matter.

PeterAlan, on 2011-January-29, 13:44, said:

W, for example, took the view that it was just a (very) light opening bid, made in the context of a relatively informal event.

At least we know that West considers it a psyche.

[Free]

Imo this should be recorded somehow. If you doubt about calling it a psych or deviation, and you only record psychs, then just call it a psych.

[PeterAlan]

Thank you all for the various replies.

[Cyberyeti]

FrancesHinden, on 2011-January-29, 12:45, said:

Yup, it's a psyche. Assuming he opened it on purpose, it's a gross misstatement of honour strength.

How much below standard does it have to be to be gross ? I might open a 544 9 count (treating it as 6-4 for rule of 19 purposes), so I'm a queen shy of what I would consider a normal opening bid at this vul. I claim to play acol on my convention card and my 1 bids are listed as rule of 19.

[bluejak]

There is no figure. It is just a judgement. But this one is fairly obvious.

Anyway, you may play some sort of light openings: this pair had no agreement, remember. You must compare a hand with the pair's agreements, not how you play.

[Gerben42]

Playing Acol, most would agree that there is (at least) a King missing for this to be an opening bid. So it is a gross misstatement of strength and therefore a psych. And it wasn't risk-free either. What would you do after a forcing 2♣ response by partner?