BBO Discussion Forums: Is this a psych? - BBO Discussion Forums

helene_t, on 2015-May-26, 08:09, said:

Why do you think the things they want to ban would be any different from what the Laws define as a psych?

Psychs make it hard for the opponents to make inferences about your hand. Banning psychs means that players who have read books like "How to Read Your Opponents' Cards" can apply what they learned.

Psychs also make players feel like they're playing "random bridge" -- if players don't have their bids, everything is just guesswork.

None of this requires any different definition from the one in the Laws.

Bbradley62, on 2015-May-25, 20:53, said:

We're calling "bullshit" on the player who gives this explanation. He seems to be trying to get away with something, by making this obviously self-serving statement.

I suspect that if he were in a game that allows psychs, he would admit that it was one. He only has to "exercise judgement" in a no-psychs game.

Part of the issue with psychic calls is that things that are psychs for some (if not almost all) pairs are absolutely systemic for others. I reference my usual issues with QT854 K4 83 J842 being not only not a 1st seat psychic 2♠ opener, but a pass *would be absolutely anti-systemic* (playing EHAA); or the K/S death hand 13s (and sometimes 14s) that get passed because they have no rebid - of course they're trivial to rebid playing strong NT or Acol or whatever).

The other problem is "if you call it a psychic, you'll probably get away with it; but in fact partner does expect that hand, which means it's not a misstatement, so systemic rather than psychic. It just happens it's a systemic call we have chosen to regulate and make illegal - and I bet you know that, which is why you call it a psych."

This particular hand, I can't imagine anyone playing "Acol" who thinks a 6-count, even a 5062 pure 6 count, is a systemic opener. So "I felt it was right at the time", and I would warn East that if you tend to make these judgements more than once in a decade, partner is going to start recognizing them at which point it will be a CPU if not disclosed to the opponents, and an illegal PU whether or not.

When we have novices and some teachers out there with point-count and distribution-points methods of deciding what an opening bid looks like that would gag a maggot --- it is very hard to say whether a psych is a deliberate distortion.

QXX QXXXX KJX QX= 10 HCP + 1 for the five-card suit, + 1 for the Doubleton=12 . Forget for the moment that a doubleton or less must exist every time we have a 5-cd suit, it doesn't add any trick value in support of our own suit even if we have a fit.

The East hand given in the OP is starting to look pretty good.

mycroft, on 2015-May-26, 10:39, said:

Which is why psychs are defined in terms of your disclosed agreements, not "standard" bidding.

But if your agreement is that you're playing a common system like Acol, and you don't claim to have any other special agreements about opening bids, then I think we are justified in judging the bid based on how it compares with normal bidding under that system.

Basically, if you don't consider it a psych, then it should be alerted because it's a SPU.

Psyche? Yes.
Fielded? No. At least, not clearly enough to act on.
Penalty? Yes. Otherwise, no point in having a "no psyche" rule.
Penalty in a normal game? No.

barmar, on 2015-May-24, 14:27, said:

I would think that was individual judgement. I certainly have played against some players who routinely with minimum hands open a 5-card major before a 6-card minor.

Funnily enough, the very first time I saw East play on BBO he opened a balanced 6 count 1♦. It was noteworhty enough that I marked his profile. He's a great guy and one of those on BBO I am most fond of. But he is still comparatively new to bridge and his judgement is sometimes a little different from the mainstream, compounded by playing a high proportion of the time with and against GIBs. So I would say that he was exercising personal judgement...but nonetheless I think it has to be ruled as a psyche within the Acol Club tournaments. That said, the direction in Acol Club tournaments is a complete joke and everyone knows it, so I doubt anyone cares very much, especially as the pairs involved came 16th and 22nd from 30.

Bbradley62, on 2015-May-25, 18:49, said:

In the EBU it is illegal to have an agreement to open on fewer than 8HCP, so the opening on the hand in question is a psyche, no matter what the bidder's opinion is.

Of course the EBU regulation is ridiculous, since there are plenty of hands (eg Rof18 with good intermediates) with fewer than 8 HCP which are clear opening bids, but as others have mentioned, when you choose to play in event you are implicitly agreeing to abide by the CoC.

Vampyr, on 2015-June-07, 20:10, said:

I don't think having an illegal agreement is quite the same thing as making a psychic bid.

blackshoe, on 2015-June-08, 05:14, said:

No, in fact it is the opposite, in a way.

Hm. So you're thinking that because it's illegal to agree to open on fewer than 8 HCP, opening with fewer than 8 HCP is automatically a psych? I'm not sure that follows. Or maybe I'm just misunderstanding.

blackshoe, on 2015-June-08, 10:08, said:

I believe you are. I think she was agreeing on you, since "the opposite [of a psych], in a way" is not a psych. I thought he meant "No" as in "No, it's not the same", not "No, you're wrong".

barmar, on 2015-June-08, 13:15, said:

Vampyr is a lady, Barry! And I also took this statement to read that having an illegal agreement is the opposite of making a psychic bid.

FWIW I don't know the context of the situation (and don't really care).

East's opening bid is certainly crazy but I've done worse.

West's pass over 2S at favourable is pretty suspicious, pass wouldn't be a logical alternative for any sound player.

So the combination of actions looks a bit dubious.

Zelandakh, on 2015-June-09, 08:40, said:

Sorry about that -- I didn't even notice who I was referring to, so didn't think about their sex.