[glen]

Partner opens 3♣ in first seat, next hand doubles, and you have:

Scoring: MP

---

Playing standard preempts (could be a very nice 6 card suit or often a seven card suit, no special responses), what do you bid?

Would you bid 3♠ to get a ♠ lead against the final contract (if partner is on lead), or raise in ♣s to some level (which?). If you bid 3♠ is this a psyche, or a tactical bid, or both?

[DrTodd13]

Tell me what your definition is of a "normal" 3♠ bid and I'll tell you whether this is a psyche. If you define 3♠ solely as a good hand looking for game in ♠ if partner has a spade fit then yes this is a psyche. It is a gross misstatement of both points and length in ♠s. A tactical bid is just a particular category of psyche and is not relevant. However, if you define 3♠ as "either a strong hand looking for game in ♠ or potentially weak and lead directing" then no this wouldn't be a psyche. It might be an "illegal" agreement depending on where you live but that is another story.

[luke warm]

i would bid 7♣

[helene_t]

If the issue is whether to record this or not, I think it's not necesary since 3x-(dbl)-? is such a classic psyche position that even a pick-up partner won't be surprised, and ops should be prepared as well.

[P_Marlowe]

5C.

Kill space, if you think that is
not enough bid 6C.
You have at best 3 tricks for
partner, this assumes he holds
xxx in spade and diamond.

More likely are 2.

Since 3C will already fail by
2/3 tricks, I dont see any reason to
bid higher.

Maybe they find their fit at the 5 level,
maybe they find their slam, ... maybe not.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[glen]

The complete hand was:

Scoring: MP

---

Of the twenty tables in play, only two played in ♣s, once 6♣ doubled down two, the other 5♣ doubled down three.

Most hands did not have a 3♣ opening. Only two slams bid by NS, one table reached 6♠ (undoubled), and one table reached 6♦, both down 1.

At my table I bid 3♠, normally natural but here was trying to get a ♠ lead. Advancer bid 4♦, opener bid 4♠ and the opponents ended up in 5♦.

The TD was called at the end of the board, and 3♠ was recorded as a psyche. I stated I had valid bridge reasons for the bid (and also noted partner raised the "suit"). I felt that xx or xxx or x in ♠s would be a psyche, while here it was intended to get the right lead showing something in ♠s, although normally the suit would be a lot longer. I also felt that 3♠ would be a bid made very often at expert levels, and was not made for destructive purposes, so didn't seem to fit my view of psyches. However the TD, who has lots more expert experience than I do, didn't buy this view one bit, so I wondered what others felt about it.

Thanks to those who replied to this thread and the last one.

[hrothgar]

Classic example why I think that the definition of a psyche is so problematic...

We'd all be much better off if we used more appropriate vocabulary.

[rbforster]

officeglen, on Jul 5 2006, 04:23 PM, said:

Would you bid 3♠ to get a ♠ lead against the final contract (if partner is on lead), or raise in ♣s to some level (which?).

If the appropriate level of clubs you judge to be 5♣, why not bid 4♠ instead of 3♠? Uses up more space and you can run just as easily to 5♣. Plus 4♠ is occasionally bid to make on this sequence so they might be more reluctant to double you (in general, not on this hand where somone has 5 spades).

[Double !]

In my opinion, 3♠ with the given hand is a psych by definition as well as a tactical bid. The problem, as I see it, is the fact that such a tactical bid is and has been so relatively common that alerting the possibility that the bid might not show a spade suit if the hand has good club support but is still forcing probably should be alerted. Pre-emptor is not proscribed from raising and/ or competing in spades, but pre-emptor will become very suspicious when responder runs back to clubs. Does this constitute fielding the psych, would it be showing location of some cards so that pre-emptor might know what to do in a competitive situation, or would it be considered to be so obvious (to all at the table and on the moon) that responder didn't have spades? If the partnership has engaged in such bidding in the past or has discussed the possibility of such action, then a precedent for the partnership has been set, and IMO the 3S bid should be alerted. My question is how to alert the bid without creating a potential UI situation. "Alert. My partner might be lying."

Legal eagles will probably tell me where my logic fails here.

DHL

[pclayton]

If 3♠ isn't defined as a lead director, or fit showing there is no doubt in my mind that its a psyche.

How can it be natural?

[SoTired]

3S is a psyche, pure and simple.

You never alert a potential psyche.

[neilkaz]

I guess my opinion that 3S is a standard type of lead director after the takeout double is off base ?

.. neilkaz ..

[the hog]

3S is a psyche, but it is soooooo common. My bid depends on who the opps are - any of 4,5,6 C, 3NT, 3S, are possible.

[helene_t]

SoTired, on Jul 7 2006, 06:09 AM, said:

3S is a psyche, pure and simple.

You never alert a potential psyche.

Depends. If it's a special partnership agreement that this bid is likely to be a psyche, you have to alert it.

Maybe you can't (per definition) have a special partnership agreament about psyches, since a psyche is a deviation from your agreements. In this case, 3♠ is a convention (and alertable).

[Gerben42]

So it was a psyche. What is the problem? You also don't need to have a valid reason for it other than "I felt like it". What point are you trying to make? You are treating a psyche as a crime which it isn't.

[Free]

I agree with what people say:
- If you have the agreement that it's lead directing, it should be alerted and it's no psych. Otherwise it's a clear psych. It's a good idea to play any bid lead directing in this situation, so make it an agreement with your partner and you won't have these troubles again.
- So what if it's recorded as a psych? What's the problem?

[barmar]

Many partnerships actually have an explicit agreement about bids like this over a double of a weak 2 opening. It even has a name, the McCabe Adjunct (it includes additional gadgetry to allow responder to show various types of hands). If you play McCabe over weak 2's, it seems like it would make sense to parallel it over higher preempts.