[1eyedjack]

---

Context: IMP tourney on BBO in which psychs are barred as a condition of contest.

[ArtK78]

Sure, it is a psych. I don't think anyone would consider the East hand to be anything close to a 1 opening bid.

Fielded? I don't know about that. West apparently did not know what to do over 2♠. He decided that they could beat 2NT (certainly not true given East's opening hand). East decided to run (seems reasonable) and West gave a preference. Do you think that West's hand should bid game? I don't.

[hrothgar]

1eyedjack, on 2015-May-22, 14:40, said:

---

Context: IMP tourney on BBO in which psychs are barred as a condition of contest.

If it wasn't a misclick, it looks like a psych

[blackshoe]

Psychs are deliberate actions. Without talking to East, nobody can know whether this call was deliberate.

[pran]

The Director should never rule (unsolicited) that a particular call is a psyche.

To have a call accepted (by the Director) as a psyche is a privilege granted by the Director on certain conditions.

Given the CoC that was in force I assume that East never claimed his call to be a psyche, so the correct answer to OP's question is NO, it was not (legally) a psyche.

[steve2005]

6 hcp plus 3 pts for either distribution or length that's 9. I hate to pass a 6-5 with all the points in the long suits. West definitely didn't field it if you do consider it a psyche.

[wbaker]

Two factors come to mind that would argue against the bid being a psyche. The first is the expression when 6-5 come alive. Meaning that hands that are 6-5 in length are playing hands and not so good for defense. The 2nd point is that you have a 7 loser hand. Granted you have only 6 high card points but they are found in your longest suit so therefore they are carrying their full weight. The primary problem with opening such hands is that you throw your partner under the bus so to speak. He should respond normally and will not take into consideration such freaky distribution. Thus if he has any type of decent to great hand you may very well get to high especially if the hands are not fitting.

[blackshoe]

From the definitions in the laws:

Quote

Psychic call (commonly “psych[e]” or “psychic”): A deliberate and gross misstatement of honor strength and/or of suit length.

What is the partnership agreement as to the minimum high card strength for a one level opening? Yeah, 6-5 come alive, fine, but that doesn't mean you should open this hand (systemically). Most likely it's a gross misstatement of honor strength. Was it deliberate? "Yeah, I know we agreed at least 10 points. Don't care." Yes, deliberate misstatement. "I thought it was within the bounds of our agreement". That sounds more like a misbid than a psych.

Quote

To have a call accepted (by the Director) as a psyche is a privilege granted by the Director on certain conditions.

A very strange view, IMO.

[pran]

pran, on 2015-May-22, 15:30, said:

To have a call accepted (by the Director) as a psyche is a privilege granted by the Director on certain conditions.

blackshoe, on 2015-May-22, 16:53, said:

A very strange view, IMO.

Who else (and how) can evaluate whether or not the conditions in Laws 40A3 and 40C1 are satisfied? When I say that having a call accepted as a psyche is a privilege is because it implies that the entire Law 40B is exempted on that call.

For instance what I have repeatedly noticed here as the question of "fielding a psyche" is rather a question of evidence that the call was not itself a legitimate psyche since partner apparently had "more reason to be aware of the deviation than have the opponents" (Law 40C1).

[sanst]

1eyedjack, on 2015-May-22, 14:40, said:

Context: IMP tourney on BBO in which psychs are barred as a condition of contest.

I'm with pran on this. It's up to director at the table to decide wether this is a psyche, but to me it doesn't look like one.

More important to me is the question wether we should discuss this at all. Psyches are explicitly allowed (law 40C1), so a ban is in contradiction with the laws. If someone wants to play a game based the Laws of duplicate bridge, but decide to make some changes to these, it's fine with me, but let's not spend time on that.

[blackshoe]

Psychic calls are defined in chapter 1 of the laws. The director is charged to determine whether a particular call is a psych. That's not "granting privilege", it's applying the law.

To determine the answer to the question, we need to ask East why he bid 1♠.

The director is in a tough spot here.

Quote

Law 81B2: The Director applies and is bound by these Laws and supplementary regulations announced under authority given in these Laws.

So at first glance, he has to enforce the "no psychs" regulation. OTOH, the authority to announce supplementary regulations is in

Quote

Law 80B2{f}: to announce regulations supplementary to, but not in conflict with, these Laws. (Emphasis is mine).

The "no psychs" regulation conflicts with Law 40C1, so the TO has no authority to make it. I think that gives the TD an "out". He can refuse to enforce the regulation. OTOH, it's likely the TD is the same person who made the regulation, so he's probably going to enforce it.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2015-May-23, 09:47, said:

Psychic calls are defined in chapter 1 of the laws. The director is charged to determine whether a particular call is a psych. That's not "granting privilege", it's applying the law.

I believe that the privilege thing was a very clumsy way of saying that the director does not rule CPU instead of psyche.

[Trinidad]

Vampyr, on 2015-May-23, 10:09, said:

I believe that the privilege thing was a very clumsy way of saying that the director does not rule CPU instead of psyche.

Or it is a way to say exactly that ... and at the same time emphasize that this is to the advantage of the psycher.

There are perhaps more elegant ways to express this. But for a non-native speaker like pran, I would not qualify this as "very clumsy".

Rik

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2015-May-23, 09:47, said:

The "no psychs" regulation conflicts with Law 40C1, so the TO has no authority to make it.

It also conflicts with 40A3:
"A player may make any call or play without prior announcement provided that such call or play is not based on an undisclosed partnership understanding."

My guess is that TO who made the no psyches rule will also say "Don't care," and ignore the above. If they state the game is not played under the Laws of Bridge, then fine. A well known London bridge club (not North London!) also bans psyches and does not enforce other rules and they get plenty of players!

[pran]

Trinidad, on 2015-May-23, 11:09, said:

Or it is a way to say exactly that ... and at the same time emphasize that this is to the advantage of the psycher.

There are perhaps more elegant ways to express this. But for a non-native speaker like pran, I would not qualify this as "very clumsy".

Rik

Would it have been better language to say that having a call accepted as a psyche is a favour granted by the Director?

And to those who might wonder: If I reject a call as psyche because I find that partner apparently had "more reason to be aware of the deviation than have the opponents" the alternative ruling is indeed CPU.

[Bbradley62]

Was this a pairs event or an individual? Isn't the question whether the bid is a significant deviation from the partnership agreement? If so, shouldn't we start by asking the partner whether this hand conforms to the partnership agreement of an opening 1♠?

[pran]

Bbradley62, on 2015-May-23, 15:51, said:

Was this a pairs event or an individual? Isn't the question whether the bid is a significant deviation from the partnership agreement? If so, shouldn't we start by asking the partner whether this hand conforms to the partnership agreement of an opening 1♠?

Law 40A3 said:

A player may make any call or play without prior announcement provided that such call or play is not based on an undisclosed partnership understanding (see Law 40C1).

and

Law 40C1 said:

A player may deviate from his side’s announced understandings always provided that his partner has no more reason to be aware of the deviation than have the opponents. Repeated deviations lead to implicit understandings which then form part of the partnership’s methods and must be disclosed in accordance with the regulations governing disclosure of system. If the Director judges there is undisclosed knowledge that has damaged the opponents he shall adjust the score and may award a procedural penalty.

My Enhancement.

So a fact that a call significantly deviates from relevant partnership agreements is itself not sufficient to make it legal in an auction. The critical condition is what I have emphasized in my quotation from Law 40C1 above.

And for this question the nature of the event (pairs or individual) is completely irrelevant.

[blackshoe]

To the bidder's partner:

"What is your agreement as to the meaning of your partner's bid?"
"How 'seasoned' is your partnership?"
If a 'seasoned' partnership (new partnerships are not likely to have much relevant partnership experience): "Has your partner does this before?" "How often?"

[barmar]

wbaker, on 2015-May-22, 16:08, said:

Two factors come to mind that would argue against the bid being a psyche. The first is the expression when 6-5 come alive. Meaning that hands that are 6-5 in length are playing hands and not so good for defense.

If you're going to bid the hand based on "6-5, come alive", don't you usually open the 6-card suit first? Even if you consider this an opening hand, you surely can't consider it good enough to open 1♠ and rebid 3♦ after partner or opponents bid 2♥.

Bbradley62, on 2015-May-23, 15:51, said:

Was this a pairs event or an individual? Isn't the question whether the bid is a significant deviation from the partnership agreement? If so, shouldn't we start by asking the partner whether this hand conforms to the partnership agreement of an opening 1♠?

The explanation in the bidding diagram says "4+ Spades Acol". I don't play Acol, but my understanding is that its strength requirements are mainstream.

[Cascade]

barmar, on 2015-May-24, 00:45, said:

The explanation in the bidding diagram says "4+ Spades Acol". I don't play Acol, but my understanding is that its strength requirements are mainstream.

Some versions of Acol permit light openings.

Skid Simon in Design for Bidding when talking about 5521, 5530, 6421 states "We are now reaching the realms of the freak and here practically anything is good enough. In fact the worse the hand the more urgent for you to start talking at once so as to give yourself the best chance of taking a look at the possibilities before opponents push you too high to look wiht safety."

His example is reasonably good

♠ Axxxxx
♥ Axxx
♦ xx
♣ x

he describes as "practically compelled to bid". So one may presume that something a little lighter is certainly a possible opening bid.