[glen]

"A psychic call is a deliberate and gross misstatement of high-card strength or suit length."

Not vulnerable vs vulnerable, the bidding goes Pass-Pass-1♥-?

Is Double with:

Scoring: MP

---

a psyche?

After this hand doubled, bidding continued Redouble-Pass-Pass-1♠-2♥-All Pass

Did this following hand catch the psyche or not-psyche?

Scoring: MP

---

I asked that the TD record this hand (i.e. was not asking for damages or saying anything illegal took place - just wanted to record the two actions in case there was a trend).

The TD thought that the double was not a psyche - a light bid not vulnerable opposite a passed hand. This may be quite reasonable, so I wanted to know if these light doubles are psyches or not in the viewpoint of bbo forumers, and if the TD should record such actions or not. Also the 11 point only-pass could be considered a catch, or it could be smart bidding if the player believes the opponent's bidding, although opening light in 3rd seat is not a pysche (or is it if very light?), and/or the redouble could be based more on fit than high card points, so it might be the opponents who have few points.

[Double !]

let's just say this:
the doubler's partner took a very conservative, if not pessimistic, view of his hand in response to a dbl of 1H. It is clear to doubler's partner that someone does not have his/her bid. However, I'm not sure what the implications of assuming that is it partner as opposed to one of the opps is. The primary support that it might be P who is light is the fact that the opps are vul: less likely to psyche a 1-bid or a rdbl.
Even so, 3m seems likely to be a good contract even if P has little more than shape.

DHL

[Flame]

Its depends on thier agreement, if this doulbe according to thier system show something and the player had something else then its a psych.

[helene_t]

I don't think it's a psych. A misstatement, yes, some would even say a gross misstatement, but I think its primary purpose was to encourage partner to fight for the partscore (MP's, nonvulnerable) rather than to mislead opps. So it does not qualify as a psych.

North's final pass was strange, maybe based on a concealed agreement, but it could also be that North just doesn't understand matchpoint bidding. I've seen this before.

I agree with the TD, but psych or not (what's in a name?) it should be recorded.

[aelred]

It is certainly a psyche if it is a gross misstatement of high-card strength or suit length, according to their agreements. Which are ... ?

Do they have a convention card? What does it mention about doubles?

If, say, they'd be playing something along the line of "non-vul, versus passed hand, a take-out double may be very light with classic shape (8+)" - would this bid be alertable in your jurisdiction? For instance, around here NO doubles are alertable.

Are the opponents an established partnership? A casual one? What facts did the TD establish regarding their agreements?

Now, let us suppose they are a casual partnership and double is "nothing special".
The East player may smell that it is his partner that is bidding on very thin cards from the fact that North-South are vul vs not. But that is not all: let us suppose South opened very light in third - at unfavourable! - or even psyched. Is it not an ample chance that South will not pass the redouble, to show a light distributional hand? The abbot taught us to always bid this way when weak.

Bro Aelred

[glen]

It is quite likely this was a pick-up or infrequent partnership, so no concealed agreement, or implicit agreement held.

However 3 boards before, against different opponents, the doubler (on the hand above), opened 1♥ in third seat with:

Scoring: MP

---

The bidding went P-P-1♥-2♣-2♥-All Pass, the 2♥ bidder having:

Scoring: MP

---

On this hand, I wonder how light a third seat hand needs to be to be considered a pysche, if they have the suit opened, and lead directional values in that suit.

It seems to me that it is hard to figure out when a bid is a psyche or not in situations where one would commonly be light. Given this, then:

Scoring: MP

---

in third seat, white vs. red, this would not be a psyche under this guideline. However if this is opened, should the opponents call the TD to record, and should the TD record, and if so as what ("player is active" or "player may open extremely light in 3rd seat and partner xxx knows this - does calling a bid "extremely light" make it a pysche?).

Again I would like to note that we were not damaged on the board given first above, as we were able to have a constructive auction to our best spot, and our bidding would have been the same had the doubler had more points and advancer correspondingly less. Also, given not a regular partnership, there would not be agreements to worry about.

So in situations where light action is common, can anything with the right shape be a psyche? If not, should anything be recorded? Should the TD be called on the 1♥ opening board above, and then later on the light double board, and should the TD record anything, and if so, what? I keep asking these questions because I really don't know the answer at all.

[glen]

To answer a question above, I believe they were playing the default sayc convention card.

[mcphee]

The 2 hands you have shown it seems to me the responding hand to the t/o dble and the 3 hand opening was either a very weak player or he was allowing for a very weak hand.

Personally I feel that recording of psychs is over rated unless the responding hand is fielding the psych which I believe is an infraction.

Generally a psych should not affect how you and partner bid your hands.

[barmar]

I would call both actions by this guy psyches, and his partner's actions seem suspicious.

In the first case, the takeout double is not only weaker than expected, but there's no corresponding distribution. An aggressive bidder would double with 8+ HCP and 4=0=5-4 shape, but not with 2 cards in opener's suit and almost half his values in that doubleton. The redouble may alert his partner to the possibility that the doubler is week, but it still seems like he should bid something to show preference in the minors rather than passing.

In the second case, that is far weaker than what most consider a light 3rd-seat opening. Typically the minimum for this is around 8 HCP, usually with a good suit for the lead direction, or with a ♠ suit for the preemptive value. That hand is significantly weaker than expected, and the suit significantly poorer (Queen high and only 4 of them). The only adjustments up you can possibly make are for the 3-card sequence in ♥ and decent spot cards in the side suits. And then for his partner to make a simgle raise with a hand that many would make a limit raise with raises an alarm with me.

Either of these by itself is only mildly disconcerting, but both of them in the course of a single session would bother me.

[helene_t]

It doensn't really matter if these calls are psyches or not. If they have the partnership understanding that certain bids can be made very aggresively, they should anounce it.

[barmar]

helene_t, on Jul 5 2006, 10:50 AM, said:

It doensn't really matter if these calls are psyches or not. If they have the partnership understanding that certain bids can be made very aggresively, they should anounce it.

But they didn't have such an agreement. officeglen has already said that they were just playing sayc, and it doesn't say anything about super-light bids like these.

[kenberg]

The double is not a call I would make but to my mind it is hardly a psyche. It's matchpoints, he is nv, he has the king of hearts behind the heart bidder, he has four spades. So it is matchpoint agressive no doubt, but not a psych imo.

After the double and the redouble, I think pass is right with the 11 point hand (or re-re-double). He has no real preference for which minor, and passing seems right. The auction will not die here. By his next turn to bid he has a pretty clear picture: Redoubler probably has 10 points or so and exactly three hearts, opener is probably a bit light and has exactly five hearts. So doubler is 4-2 in the majors, and 4-3 in the minors. If he can trust doubler, I supose 3C now, after the initial pass, offers an even up choice of minors. But if they don't play together much he may be leery of such a call and just decide to pass it out.

Looking just at the two hands I can imagine 2H maybe just makes, and 3C is down 1 losing three clubs, a heart and a spade? Of course it depends on the lie, and on the play. Maybe 3C is down a bundle. LOTT gives a trick total of 16, right?

I don't see any real chicanery in evidence. The double isn't my call, but that doesn't make it a psych.

[awm]

Well a psych is defined as a deliberate deviation from agreements. Sometimes it's hard to define a psych without knowledge of the agreements in force (and some such agreements don't require an alert under certain regulations).

Assuming "standard" agreements:

(1) A takeout double of an opening bid by unpassed hand shows opening values, or near-to-opening values. If someone doubles on a balanced 11 that could easily be hand evaluation or an aggressiveness thing. A double on a balanced 8 is a psych -- clearly this is a deviation from the agreement to show an "opening hand."

(2) Opening light in 3rd seat normally still requires something like 8-9 hcp. Obviously you could agree to open lighter, but we are assuming normal agreements. Opening a 1444 6-count with 1♥ is pretty extreme and qualifies as a psych.

So yes, I think both these calls qualify as psychs. Did partner field them? On the first hand, the auction does indicate something fishy going on. We've heard an opening, double, and redouble, and are holding 11 hcp. But the opening was a third seat opening. Wouldn't it be normal to assume a light opener and that we have the slight majority of high cards? I think the pass over 2♥ is playing partner to be the one acting on sub-minimal values rather than LHO, which seems like fielding to me.

On the second hand, a limit raise seems like normal bridge.

This does seem to qualify as psyching and fielding, especially if the pair in question is a semi-regular partnership (otherwise I suppose it could just be blind luck).

[pbleighton]

"This does seem to qualify as psyching and fielding, especially if the pair in question is a semi-regular partnership"

The key point is whether it is a something approaching a regular partnership. This is online bridge, after all. If it is a pickup partnership I just shrug and move to the next hand. Of course, it is hard to know if a partnership is pickup or established.

There are a LOT of weird bids in online bridge.

Peter

[barmar]

pbleighton, on Jul 5 2006, 05:13 PM, said:

The key point is whether it is a something approaching a regular partnership. This is online bridge, after all. If it is a pickup partnership I just shrug and move to the next hand. Of course, it is hard to know if a partnership is pickup or established.

There are a LOT of weird bids in online bridge.

Peter

Either way, something seems wrong.

If they're an established partnership, it seems like there may be a concealed understanding about such light actions.

If they're not an established partnership, it's surprising that the partner of the psycher guessed to pass in both cases.