[steve2005]

Just been told by ACBL BBO director that opening a 6 or 7 point hand is not a psyche
as less than 4 pts off legal 10 hcp opening
opening 5 is ok as is a psyche
opening on 6 or 7 an illegal opening.

[TylerE]

BBO director wrong. News at 11.

[hrothgar]

This is wrong on so many levels

First and foremost, there's nothing "special" about a 10 HCP opening

One can open 9 HCP hands by agreement
Or 8 HCP hands

Equally significant, psyches represent deviations from ones agreements, not deviations from the convention charts.

I'd complain to the sponsoring authority demand that they fire the director and refund your money

[johnu]

Basic chart - 1 of a suit have to have average strength.

Average strength is defined as 10+ HCP or rule of 19. So if you are 8-4-1-0 or 7-5-2-0 or 6-6-1-0 and have 7 HCP, you have an allowable 1 level opening. But 9 cards or less in your longest 2 suits requires 10+ HCP.

Basic+ - Natural 1 bids have to show near-average strength or they are a disallowed agreement

Near average strength is defined as a 8+ HCP or meets rule of 17. If you have 9 cards or fewer in your longest 2 suits, you need 8+ HCP. More distribution requires fewer HCP.

Open - Natural/quasi natural opening bids require near average strength or they are a disallowed agreement

Open+ - Natural/quasi natural opening bids require near average strength or they are a disallowed agreement

Assuming you are playing in Basic+ chart or higher event:

Suppose you have a 5332, 5422, 6322, etc where the lengths of your 2 longest suits total 9 or fewer. Can you have an agreement to open with 7 HCP??? This would be specifically a disallowed agreement. What about 6 HCP? Disallowed agreement. What about 5 HCP? Disallowed agreement. What about 4 HCP? Psyche, as this meets the definition of an ace weaker than expected since 8 HCP is minimum expected.

So, IMO the director has the general idea, even if he doesn't have the exact details correct.

[TylerE]

Where I have a problem with that logic is that somehow a psyche plus a random jack ceases to be a psyche. That just doesn't make sense.

[johnu]

TylerE, on 2020-December-31, 01:00, said:

Where I have a problem with that logic is that somehow a psyche plus a random jack ceases to be a psyche. That just doesn't make sense.

It makes a bright line rule so that everybody is playing by the same rules, and directors interpreting the rules can consistently rule, assuming they know the rules. Otherwise, some players could bend or break the rules and then be playing by different rules.

Example: You may hate the ACBL rule requiring 10 (Work/Goren) HCP for a 1NT opening. Some would, and did, say they had a "special" 9 HCP hand that was worth way more than an ordinary 10 HCP. Or maybe it was a fantastic 8 HCP that was worth at least 10 or 11 ordinary HCP. Or maybe they are using a homebrew point count system that values the hand as 10 homebrew HCP and why should they have to use the ACBL's chosen point count system.

[mycroft]

Here's the issue. "We open 8 counts in third seat" is a legal agreement.

AKxxx and out is obviously an 8 count, right?

Well, then Axxxx Kxxx is an 8 count, right?

How about Kxxxx Ax?

QJTxx Ax?

AQJxx and out?

You can see where I'm going here. Eventually we have "not an 8 count" and we disallow that. The way the convention charts are worded, the intent is to avoid this whole slippery slope by saying "if you don't play right to the edge, you get to use judgement. If you do play right to the edge, you *already* have judged to do so, and you don't get to step off the edge at all. Psychics, however, are still fine, but the onus is on *you* to prove that you're not 'using judgement', and that it's a 'gross deviation' from your actual, not just your declared, methods."

And the director obviously believed that your bid was not psychic for your pair - that the deviation was minor and that you were using "judgement" to consider this a "light third seat opener". Whether his way of determining that is too walrusy for you or me is a question, but that's the actual ruling. We don't have the hand, but if it was AQxxx and out or something, you'd be on the defensive from me as well, that *you* didn't think this was a gross misstatement of your agreements ("we play light third seat openings, everyone does. This is a light third seat opening that gets my lead director in.")

But of course, a psychic is a gross deviation from *your* agreements, and if your partnership's idea of "light third seat openings" is AQxxx Kxx x Jxxx, then we're back in psychic territory.

In short, "we have evidence that your partnership thinks this is acceptable. That belief, if it does exist, would be an illegal agreement. There are many players in the ACBL who will, given any chance, claim that their "judgement" means that they can play an illegal agreement; and when told that doesn't fly, will fall back on "psych!" We don't want that game to play either, so the onus is placed on you to prove it here and not just trying to back door your preferred agreement. If you fail to do so, and it isn't in fact your agreement, sorry; you won't be the first or the last to get caught in the backwash."

I usually have issues with the "example" of psychic in the Convention charts ("Generally, 2 cards fewer or an Ace weaker than the minimum expected for a bid would meet the definition of a Psych,...") the other way up, where "it's just judgement" works in the bidder's favour over "it's a psych". But it does cut both ways.

Finally, if in your heart of hearts, you thought your bid was a legitimate light third seat opener, then you know you really want to play this (illegal) agreement, and you can't. If it wasn't - if you seriously in all truth thought this was the time to pull out this call which is totally not what this call means - then you're ethically pure, even if ruled against. Again, not the first or the last time.

[Time for my regular "I sometimes work for the ACBL, even on BBO (but not in the BBO ACBL club). I do not speak for them." disclaimer]