[VixTD]

---

A stand-in director at the club said he had been called to deal with this situation at an evening's duplicate, and asked my advice.

West asked for an explanation of the 3NT opener and was told: "A running 7-card minor with no outside ace". This is exactly what it says on NS's convention card. NS are a regular partnership, but never venture outside the club. EW are an experienced pair who often play in tournaments. I don't think they had any agreed system to defending 3NT openers.

Result: 5♠X(E)-2, NS +300.

This was a good result for NS, as most pairs finished in 4♠-1.

EW wanted the hand recorded as a psyche. North argued that it was a deviation rather than a psyche. I didn't learn what South said about his own opening bid, I suggested to the TD it would have been a good idea to ask him, but if he just assumed that this hand was likely to end up in 3NT so he might as well bid it now and not reveal anything about the hand, what should the TD do? Is recording the hand enough?

[blackshoe]

Looks like a green psych to me, in EBU terms, but I could be wrong. IAC, I'd record it, but the table result should stand.

[hrothgar]

VixTD, on 2011-May-03, 07:28, said:

what should the TD do? Is recording the hand enough?

The agreement was "A running 7-card minor with no outside ace"

This hand

• Doesn't have a running minor
  
• Has two outside Aces
  
• Has a protected QJ as well

Unless the expression "Deviation" means something very different in the EBU than in the US, the suggestion that this is a deviation is ludicros.

You should

1. Record the hand
2. Tell North to familarize himself with the definition of deviation before trying to use it in sentences

What else would you consider?

South made an effective psyche.
This is perfectly legitimate.

[gordontd]

hrothgar, on 2011-May-03, 07:41, said:

The agreement was "A running 7-card minor with no outside ace"

This hand

• Doesn't have a running minor
  
• Has two outside Aces
  
• Has a protected QJ as well

Unless the expression "Deviation" means something very different in the EBU than in the US, the suggestion that this is a deviation is ludicros.

You should

1. Record the hand
2. Tell North to familarize himself with the definition of deviation before trying to use it in sentences

What else would you consider?

South made an effective psyche.
This is perfectly legitimate.

A psyche is a deliberate deviation. We don't know enough to know if it was.

[ArtK78]

I found this definition of a psychic bid by Don Oakie, who served as president of the ACBL in the 70s.

"A bid that deliberately and grossly misstates the bidder's high card values or suit length."

In my opinion, the key word in this definition is "grossly." Certainly the 3NT bid on the hand above is a gross misreprentation of what one would expect for a 3NT bid. At least, it is in my opinion. Apparently that opinion is not shared by North.

So, in my opinion, it is a pysche.

Not that there is anything wrong with that.

[blackshoe]

Ordinarily I would take anything Don Oakie said about psychs with a pound or two of salt, since he crusaded long and hard against them. However (and this may be his influence) the definition you quote is virtually identical to the one in the laws.

A psych is a gross and deliberate deviation, so it's still a deviation. That said, common usage is that "deviations" aren't gross, usually, and may not be deliberate, I suppose.

Gordon makes a good point: we know what North said about this bid; we don't know what South said. If South psyched, he'll know it.

In England, you can record misbids as well as psychs, I presume (since there is a fielded misbid regulation very similar to the fielded psych reg). So if South says he didn't psych, I'd still record it.

[gordontd]

ArtK78, on 2011-May-03, 08:35, said:

I found this definition of a psychic bid by Don Oakie, who served as president of the ACBL in the 70s.

"A bid that deliberately and grossly misstates the bidder's high card values or suit length."

In my opinion, the key word in this definition is "grossly." Certainly the 3NT bid on the hand above is a gross misreprentation of what one would expect for a 3NT bid. At least, it is in my opinion. Apparently that opinion is not shared by North.

So, in my opinion, it is a pysche.

Not that there is anything wrong with that.

You quote a definition and then ignore one of the words - "deliberately" - contained in it.

But more relevant than your quotation (though not much different) is the definition given in the Laws:

Quote

Psychic call (commonly ‘psych[e]‘ or ‘psychic’) – a deliberate and gross
misstatement of honour strength and/or of suit length.

[campboy]

In the EBU, "deviation" and "psyche" are mutually exclusive according to the definitions in the Orange Book:

Quote

A Psyche or Psychic bid is a deliberate and gross mis-statement of honour strength and/or suit length. A Misbid is an inadvertent mis-statement of honour strength and/or suit length. A Deviation is a deliberate but minor mis-statement of honour strength and/or suit length.

Since this was a gross, rather than minor, misdescription, it is either a pysche (if deliberate) or a misbid (if not). It seems unlikely to be a misbid, firstly because N/S did not suggest that it was anything other than deliberate and secondly because there is no plausible misapprehension North could have been under to think that that hand is a 3NT opener.

[gordontd]

campboy, on 2011-May-03, 11:34, said:

It seems unlikely to be a misbid, firstly because N/S did not suggest that it was anything other than deliberate and secondly because there is no plausible misapprehension North could have been under to think that that hand is a 3NT opener.

Nor did N/S suggest that it was deliberate - we just don't know on the information we were given.

There is a perfectly plausible misapprehension North could have been under - that 3NT shows a hand that wants to play in 3NT.

[mycroft]

Actually, North could very easily be putting his metaphorical head in the noose with that "just a deviation, not a psychic" comment.

"Really? That's close to what you'd expect? Say, without one of the Aces? Well, then..."

Seriously, though, anyone who doesn't immediately claim this is an outright psychic (or forget - it looks like an Acol 3NT to me, and maybe South plays that with other people) needs to have the history of 3NT calls investigated for CPU - no matter why the claim. Note: not saying ruling, saying investigation.

If it is a psychic - it worked. Nicely done. If it is a "deviation", then would West, with a better knowledge of N-S real agreement (as opposed to how they explain it), do something different? If it is a misbid, well, then, the Rabbit strikes again, I guess.

If it is in fact a psychic, but North has been scared off by the P-word brigade into trying to limit the "damage" by claiming it's just a deviation, then it's time he learned that the Laws and what people actually believe they are are somewhat different.

Oh, by the way, after this spectacular result, there's definitely partnership experience. Don't try this one again with this North, South.

[campboy]

gordontd, on 2011-May-03, 11:42, said:

Nor did N/S suggest that it was deliberate - we just don't know on the information we were given.

North did -- he said it was a deviation, and deviations are deliberate -- and South did not disagree with him so far as we know.

[Bbradley62]

Is there some reason why NS should object to having the hand recorded? Looking only at this hand, NS did nothing wrong: South made a legal bid and North did nothing that could possibly be interpreted as indicating that he knew what was going on. But, if recording this hand means putting it in a folder along with several other instances in which South took similar actions, there might be a problem...

[mycroft]

gordontd, on 2011-May-03, 11:42, said:

There is a perfectly plausible misapprehension North could have been under - that 3NT shows a hand that wants to play in 3NT.

That one, I think, we can discount. West asked, and North answered "7-card running minor, no outside A", according to the OP. If that's "I want to play in 3NT", then they pass a lot more gambling 3NTs than I would. If what North thinks 3NT is is "I want to play in 3NT", then that should have been the explanation, as above.

[campboy]

mycroft, on 2011-May-03, 12:12, said:

That one, I think, we can discount. West asked, and North answered "7-card running minor, no outside A", according to the OP. If that's "I want to play in 3NT", then they pass a lot more gambling 3NTs than I would. If what North thinks 3NT is is "I want to play in 3NT", then that should have been the explanation, as above.

Sorry, I meant in my earlier post "that South could have been under", and Gordon realised what I meant but quoted what I said.

[bluejak]

It's a psyche [no, Gordon, I don't believe it was a misbid, sorry]. For some reason there is a stigma attached to the word psyche. Tell North not to be silly and record it as a psyche.

Of course, you ask South why he opened it. But I do not expect an answer to change my views.

[mrdct]

Does the EBU have any rules about psyching a conventional opening?

On my understanding of the ACBL rules, south would not be allowed to make this sort of psych; whereas in Australia he would be OK as the prohibition on psyching conventional openings only applies to bids which are unequivocally forcing and are systematically indicative of the strongest possible opening hand.

[mjj29]

mrdct, on 2011-May-03, 22:02, said:

Does the EBU have any rules about psyching a conventional opening?

On my understanding of the ACBL rules, south would not be allowed to make this sort of psych; whereas in Australia he would be OK as the prohibition on psyching conventional openings only applies to bids which are unequivocally forcing and are systematically indicative of the strongest possible opening hand.

The only prohibited psyche in the EBU is psyching a multi 2D in a level 3 event (which the EBU doesn't run any of)

[VixTD]

mycroft, on 2011-May-03, 12:12, said:

That one, I think, we can discount. West asked, and North answered "7-card running minor, no outside A", according to the OP. If that's "I want to play in 3NT", then they pass a lot more gambling 3NTs than I would. If what North thinks 3NT is is "I want to play in 3NT", then that should have been the explanation, as above.

Their convention card lists under responses: "Pass = side cover, 4♣ = no cover". I'm not sure if this means that responder needs a stop (or half a stop) in all three side suits to leave 3NT; it would be good if they could clarify this for the sake of full disclosure, but I don't suppose they really know themselves.

[ahydra]

Looks like a psyche, but a perfectly legal one. Table result should stand IMO.

ahydra

[VixTD]

My only concern about this was whether NS are disclosing their methods adequately, and I expect I'll have to talk to them about this, just to check that they don't make a habit of deviating from their agreement. I did also check the Orange Book to see what restrictions there are on opening 3NT. This is what I found:

Quote

11 K 2 General
Allowed at Levels 2, 3 and 4
Three no trump openings may be played as any one of the following:
(a) a balanced or semi-balanced hand with a defined range, minimum 18 HCP; alternatively may be played so that on occasion it may contain a singleton
(b) an unspecified solid minor without high cards outside
© an unspecified solid minor with high cards outside
Allowed at Levels 3 and 4
11 K 3 General
Three no trump openings may be played as any one of the following:
(a) an unspecified solid suit with high cards outside
(b) an unspecified solid suit without high cards outside
© a specified one-suiter
(d) a one-suiter, one of two specified suits

Those of us who play a more-or-less traditional gambling 3NT with a solid minor are presumably covered by 11K3(d), as the minor is obviously one of two specified suits. We can then add in whatever agreements we like about having or not having high cards outside that suit.

Anyone who plays it as any solid suit (I've met one or two) have to specify whether it has high cards outside the suit or not. They cannot agree that it might or might not have an outside ace or king. (Likewise those playing a minor-only 3NT at level 2.)

What constitutes a "high card" for the purposes of this regulation? Is it an ace or king? Would a queen do?