[blackshoe]

 Vampyr, on 2013-July-04, 06:49, said:

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

Not by regulation. Handling these is left to the TD's discretion.

I once had, as a player, a case involving (at teams) this hand: ♠AKQJ8754 ♥J32 ♦ - ♣ J6. Our opponent holding these cards opened 2♣. They got to ♠ via 2♣-2♦-4♠-AP. One of our teammates defending this hand said that he had misdefended because he expected declarer to have more high card strength. They made 4. We asked for a ruling. The TD said "it's almost a psych, but not quite" and let it stand. Unfortunately, I didn't ask him what small change would have made it a psych. Later, in correspondence with ACBL HQ, I was told that the GCC says this opening must be "strong" and that "strong" means "whatever the player making the bid thinks it means". That's not a paraphrase, it's a direct quote.

[Vampyr]

 blackshoe, on 2013-July-04, 07:24, said:

"strong" means "whatever the player making the bid thinks it means". That's not a paraphrase, it's a direct quote.

Rather a difficult regulation to obey . Or maybe easy -- if you consider your hand strong and wish to treat it as such, you cannot be ruled against.

A good fix would be for players to disclose on their convention card what non-traditional hand-types would qualify for their strong opening, and any hand that fell outside of these types could be a psyche. If you are allowed to define "strong" for yourself, your opponents are entitled to know how you defined it.

Interestingly, in the EBU, where you are allowed to psyche strong artificial openings, you are not permitted to open hands that don't satisfy a prescribed definition of strong (actually you are allowed to do it, you are just not allowed to agree to do it. Which I guess means that after the first occurrence you are supposed to either agree (as a partnership) not to do it again, or add it to your agreements and announce (and otherwise disclose) accordingly).

[blackshoe]

 Vampyr, on 2013-July-04, 12:01, said:

Rather a difficult regulation to obey . Or maybe easy -- if you consider your hand strong and wish to treat it as such, you cannot be ruled against.

A good fix would be for players to disclose on their convention card what non-traditional hand-types would qualify for their strong opening, and any hand that fell outside of these types could be a psyche. If you are allowed to define "strong" for yourself, your opponents are entitled to know how you defined it.

Interestingly, in the EBU, where you are allowed to psyche strong artificial openings, you are not permitted to open hands that don't satisfy a prescribed definition of strong (actually you are allowed to do it, you are just not allowed to agree to do it. Which I guess means that after the first occurrence you are supposed to either agree (as a partnership) not to do it again, or add it to your agreements and announce (and otherwise disclose) accordingly).

Does one swallow make a summer in the EBU, then? I suppose it might, in this case - psyching a strong 2♣ opening is probably more memorable than psyching a one level opening. But the general rule is that a given psych has to be frequent enough that partner begins to expect it before you can call it an implicit understanding.

[fromageGB]

 Vampyr, on 2013-July-04, 12:01, said:

Interestingly, in the EBU, where you are allowed to psyche strong artificial openings, you are not permitted to open hands that don't satisfy a prescribed definition of strong (actually you are allowed to do it, you are just not allowed to agree to do it. Which I guess means that after the first occurrence you are supposed to either agree (as a partnership) not to do it again, or add it to your agreements and announce (and otherwise disclose) accordingly).

My understanding was that you are not allowed to add a non-prescribed version to your agreements, disclosed or otherwise.

[PhilKing]

 Cyberyeti, on 2013-July-03, 06:20, said:

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.

I assume I am being a bit thick, because they would frown upon your partner passing your overcall with a 14 count even in Eastfolk.

[Vampyr]

 fromageGB, on 2013-July-05, 05:29, said:

My understanding was that you are not allowed to add a non-prescribed version to your agreements, disclosed or otherwise.

Sure you are. Think about, say, Polish Club. Or things like 2♣ is a traditional Acol 2♣ or a weak two in diamonds.

Here is the regulation, which is kind of confusing because...

Quote

12 G 7
General
Two of a Suit openings may be played as any one or
two of the following:
(a) Strong: Any combination of meanings provided that it
promises a minimum strength of ‘Extended Rule of 25’ (see 10 B 3).
(b) Any combination of meanings which either:

(1) includes one specified suit of at least four cards; or
(2) has a specification which does not include holding
at least four cards in the suit bid, and does not include
two-suiters where the suit bid is the longer suit.

...Polish Club seems to be all three of these options.

Anyway, a strict reading of the regulation tells us that a 2♣ opening can include (a) and intermediate-to-strong hands except one-suiters in clubs or two-suiters with longer clubs.

Of course, the hand mentioned earlier -- ♠AKQJ8754 ♥J32 ♦ - ♣ J6 does satisfy (a) above.

[Vampyr]

 blackshoe, on 2013-July-04, 16:34, said:

Does one swallow make a summer in the EBU, then? I suppose it might, in this case - psyching a strong 2♣ opening is probably more memorable than psyching a one level opening. But the general rule is that a given psych has to be frequent enough that partner begins to expect it before you can call it an implicit understanding.

I don't mean psyching it -- I mean opening a hand which you are treating as strong but which does not satisfy the "Extended Rule of 25", which is what a pair's "strongest" opening is by default.

[Zelandakh]

What fromage is saying is that if your RA has a regulation that says agreeing to open any hand below 8hcp is not allowed, you cannot describe your third seat 1♠ opening as 5+ spades and 10+ hcp or any 0-2, even if you know that your partner loves to make this psyche. Once it reaches the point of being added to your agreements, you are automatically playing an illegal system.

[blackshoe]

 Vampyr, on 2013-July-05, 06:58, said:

I don't mean psyching it -- I mean opening a hand which you are treating as strong but which does not satisfy the "Extended Rule of 25", which is what a pair's "strongest" opening is by default.

Ah. I see. In contrast to the ACBL's ridiculous "'strong' means whatever the player making the bid thinks it means". Fair enough.

[fromageGB]

What I meant was exactly as Zel put it - and put it better! Your agreement is contrary to the regulation.

On the 2♣ point, though, the specification part 2b does mean that you CAN have an agreement that 2♣ is a traditional strong hand or a sub-minimum (ie psyche) hand that will not have long clubs.

Whether it CAN have long clubs depends on how you read the regulation. If your specification is "unspecified near game force hand, or any hand less than 10 hcp" then the wording of the specification does not mention a club suit. Does this specification include holding four clubs? I think I would say that hands that conform to the specification might include four clubs, but the specification does not include holding at least four clubs, so any "psyche" is therefore not a psyche, as it is part of a permitted and disclosed agreement.

[barmar]

 blackshoe, on 2013-July-04, 07:15, said:

No, in that case it would be a misbid.

"Misbid" is usually used to refer to either misreading your cards (you had a club mixed in with your spades), misremembering your agreements (you forgot you're playing Multi), or mechanical errors. Misjudgement (you think a 4333 13 count is worth upgrading to a string NT) is not generally included.

[FrancesHinden]

 Vampyr, on 2013-July-05, 06:55, said:

Sure you are. Think about, say, Polish Club. Or things like 2♣ is a traditional Acol 2♣ or a weak two in diamonds. Here is the regulation, which is kind of confusing because......Polish Club seems to be all three of these options.

Polish Club isn't a 2-level opening, the regulation doesn't apply to it.
(There is a separate regulation on 1-level openings)

[FrancesHinden]

 Cyberyeti, on 2013-July-03, 06:20, said:

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.

If I saw one member of a pair make a 2-level overcall with a 5-count and Jxxxx in the suit, and their partner pass it with a 14-count with Ax support, I would also consider that strong evidence of either (i) an undisclosed partnership agreement or (ii) a breach of law 74 B 1 and either way you aren't keeping all your matchpoints.

[Vampyr]

 FrancesHinden, on 2013-July-05, 16:06, said:

Polish Club isn't a 2-level opening, the regulation doesn't apply to it.
(There is a separate regulation on 1-level openings)

LOL that was pretty silly of me!

[Vampyr]

 fromageGB, on 2013-July-05, 10:31, said:

On the 2♣ point, though, the specification part 2b does mean that you CAN have an agreement that 2♣ is a traditional strong hand or a sub-minimum (ie psyche) hand that will not have long clubs.

A sub-minimum of any sort will rarely, if ever, be considered a "psyche", because it is not a gross misstatement of anything. Also if it is part of your properly disclosed agreements it is not a psyche either.

[blackshoe]

 barmar, on 2013-July-05, 15:30, said:

"Misbid" is usually used to refer to either misreading your cards (you had a club mixed in with your spades), misremembering your agreements (you forgot you're playing Multi), or mechanical errors. Misjudgement (you think a 4333 13 count is worth upgrading to a string NT) is not generally included.

No? Then what do you call it?

Many years ago, I overcalled a 1♠ opening with 2♦ on a balanced hand and five diamonds to the KQ. In the subsequent discussion, people started talking about psychs. In my naiveté I asked "oh, did I psych then?" A very knowledgeable player told me "no, because a psych is deliberate. You just didn't know what you were doing. You misbid." Do you suggest he was wrong?

[barmar]

 blackshoe, on 2013-July-05, 20:25, said:

No? Then what do you call it?

Many years ago, I overcalled a 1♠ opening with 2♦ on a balanced hand and five diamonds to the KQ. In the subsequent discussion, people started talking about psychs. In my naiveté I asked "oh, did I psych then?" A very knowledgeable player told me "no, because a psych is deliberate. You just didn't know what you were doing. You misbid." Do you suggest he was wrong?

I would call it "bidding poorly" or "misjudgement".

We have a (poor) player in our club who makes a takeout double whenever she has opening bid strength and no biddable suit. It's not a misbid, it's just a poor choice, IMHO.

[blackshoe]

 barmar, on 2013-July-07, 15:58, said:

I would call it "bidding poorly" or "misjudgement".

We have a (poor) player in our club who makes a takeout double whenever she has opening bid strength and no biddable suit. It's not a misbid, it's just a poor choice, IMHO.

From The Bridge World's Glossary:

Quote

misbid
(1) (noun) a bid that is inappropriate because it is of the wrong kind, or is misdescriptive to partner (as opposed to an underbid or an overbid).
(2) (verb) to err by making a misbid (1).

Quote

underbid
(1) bid less than one's cards warrant;
(2) bid less than can be made.

Quote

overbid
(1) (verb) bid more than one's partnership can make;
(2) (verb) bid unwarrantedly high (result aside);
(3) (verb) overcall;
(4) (noun) the bid made in (meaning 1), (meaning 2) or (meaning 3).

Apparently an overbid or an underbid is not a misbid ("as opposed to…") and my 2♦ was an overbid - but it was also of the wrong kind, since the right call with my hand was "pass". So I think there's inconsistency here. I'm not sure whether your view is consistent with these definitions or not.

Hm. My dictionary says

Quote

mis- 1 |mɪs| prefix
(added to verbs and their derivatives) wrongly: misapply

That would seem to indicate that an overbid or underbid is a misbid - which is how I would define them.

I don't suppose it's an earth shattering problem.

[Fluffy]

A player introduces a long suit into the bidding thinking it is the best available way to start description of his hand, this is the ***** opposite of a psych!

Haven't you seen beginners opening a shorter or equal minor in order to be able to reverse? this is exactly the same.

[Zelandakh]

It seems to me that misbid is being used in this thread in 2 different ways. First of all there is the official use of the word, as per the EBU regulations. Here a misbid is a call made that is not according to partnership agreements, usually because the player forgot. Then there is the general usage of the word, meaning to make a poor or incorrect bid. So to me you are both right, and both wrong. It just depends on the context.