[jillybean]

akwoo, on 2026-October-10, 15:24, said:

There are a few standard psychs that are common knowledge to all advanced players, and it's sometimes hard to tell whether the opponents need an alert, especially when you're an inexperienced partnership that hasn't used or discussed the psych but know that you're both advanced players.

Should one routinely alert and explain that this is a standard psyching situation?

If the bid is an a standard psych that is common knowledge to all advanced players then it appears to be a concealed partnership agreement.
A very serious matter indeed.

[mycroft]

Why? I've made at least two of the common ones in high level events, and they backfired spectacularly when (only) CHO didn't get it. Others have worked well, of course.

I'm sure I've made the other common one more than once (though IIRC never with the same partner). I'm certainly at the point with one partner at least, that against Montréal Relay pairs, we should probably make formal (and Alert) that after 1♣-, and especially after 1♣-p-1♦, one of a major overcall is "that suit or takeout of that suit".

Psyches are legal. There are places, that are in fact "generally known to bridge players" (even if this way of actually taking advantage of them isn't), where logic says you're much safer to fool around, and actions that make it "generally clear to bridge players" that a player has fooled around ("passing a forcing bid", for instance). Where "fool around" becomes "gross distortion" is a place to make judgement, but they exist, and if people were never told (or have forgotten) that psyches are legal, that's their lookout.

I absolutely agree with the ACBL that there are psyches that are made for imProper purposes (whether I land on exactly the published metrics is another question, but I do love pointing out to the "as long as you like to psych never" folks that the published metric for "excessive psyching" investigation is "three or more psyches in a *session*") should be treated like any other attempt to subvert the validity of the competition. But that's not the same as saying that "working out that if there are 50 points in the deck, it is incredibly likely that the person 'fooling around' is the third-seat, white-on-red, 1♥ opener"; or that after 2♥-2♠; 3♠-4♥, responder might not have spades (and if so, probably doesn't have points either); or that after 1♥-X, 1♠ might be "trying to pick off the opponents' suit" (especially if you subscribe to the "advancer's double is takeout, because we can always trust our opponents" system, and have shown that to this pair before) is "concealed partnership agreement" just because partner either *has seen it before* (from opponents or a different partner), or simply because they can count to 40.

[jillybean]

mycroft, on 2026-October-11, 10:42, said:

Why? I've made at least two of the common ones in high level events, and they backfired spectacularly when (only) CHO didn't get it. Others have worked well, of course.

I'm sure I've made the other common one more than once (though IIRC never with the same partner). I'm certainly at the point with one partner at least, that against Montréal Relay pairs, we should probably make formal (and Alert) that after 1♣-, and especially after 1♣-p-1♦, one of a major overcall is "that suit or takeout of that suit".

Psyches are legal. There are places, that are in fact "generally known to bridge players" (even if this way of actually taking advantage of them isn't), where logic says you're much safer to fool around, and actions that make it "generally clear to bridge players" that a player has fooled around ("passing a forcing bid", for instance). Where "fool around" becomes "gross distortion" is a place to make judgement, but they exist, and if people were never told (or have forgotten) that psyches are legal, that's their lookout.

I absolutely agree with the ACBL that there are psyches that are made for imProper purposes (whether I land on exactly the published metrics is another question, but I do love pointing out to the "as long as you like to psych never" folks that the published metric for "excessive psyching" investigation is "three or more psyches in a *session*") should be treated like any other attempt to subvert the validity of the competition. But that's not the same as saying that "working out that if there are 50 points in the deck, it is incredibly likely that the person 'fooling around' is the third-seat, white-on-red, 1♥ opener"; or that after 2♥-2♠; 3♠-4♥, responder might not have spades (and if so, probably doesn't have points either); or that after 1♥-X, 1♠ might be "trying to pick off the opponents' suit" (especially if you subscribe to the "advancer's double is takeout, because we can always trust our opponents" system, and have shown that to this pair before) is "concealed partnership agreement" just because partner either *has seen it before* (from opponents or a different partner), or simply because they can count to 40.

Why? If a psych is considered common and generally known to bridge players, then it seems a very short step from there to the bid having been used more than once and partner recognizing it as a likely psych. Hopefully, if a player is sufficiently experienced to use the "common psych", they are also sufficiently experienced and ethical to use it within the laws.
I'm neither holding my breath nor losing any sleep over it.

[Zelandakh]

 3392627, on 2026-October-08, 12:42, said:

I was directing a vacb game a while back. Player opened 2nt (no alert) with void, KQxx KQJ109xx AK. Was this a legal opener? under open chart

I don't know about Open Chart but according to the rules of bridge, you can open 2NT (no alert) with any 13 cards. The question of what a legal agreement might be for opening 2NT without an alert is something else entirely. As a trained director, you should understand this distinction. Meanwhile the whole thread should be moved to the laws section.

[mycroft]

Ah, so you're an Oakie believer. Fine. The Law and practise doesn't agree with you, but you'll have lots of friends on the circuit.

How are you on "with a known 10 card fit, show the Queen even if you don't have it"? Or "Zia cuebids" (that, unlike Zia, this player has never done before)? Or falsecards - even as far down as "the defender with no points signals honestly; the one with all the points either falsecards or 'pitches low'"? How about misbids or miscounts or forgets?

Or, going down the other path, how about minor deviations? "AJTxx in a balanced 11 is really 6HCP"? "AKJT is a 5 card suit"? "Txxx is a stopper"? ...

If you can *show* that partner, due to "implicit agreements" or "special information conveyed through partnership agreement or partnership experience" or "repeated deviations" (leading to said implied agreements), was able to guess better what happened than the opponents ("more reason...to be aware") - even with the disclosure they made available to said opponents(*), let's talk. Until then, "feelings" or "everybody knows" or even "flight A players, or people who have played against flight A players and have seen it in the past, know" doesn't override "may deviate", even to the point of "gross and deliberate deviation".

(*) Back in The Day, the old old convention card had a space for psychic tendency, with "none, few, moderate, frequent" as checkboxes. Everyone checked "few" in case of a misbid (yeah, I know, but that's what happened. It's also why it hasn't been on cards for 20 years). When a pair of university students show up with "Frequent" checked, circled, and starred and ensure both their cards on the table pointed toward their opponents, and it's clear somebody psyched - "partner" has no *more* reason than you do to be able to guess it was me. The evidence was right there in front of you; if you didn't look, that's not our problem. (Please note: that partnership psyched approximately once per session. In two years, *nobody* successfully made a case about it - because they were all different).

[Zelandakh]

mycroft, on 2026-October-15, 09:28, said:

Ah, so you're an Oakie believer.

In English, please?

[pescetom]

Zelandakh, on 2026-October-15, 12:53, said:

In English, please?

Gemini is working on being able to parse high Mycroftese within 2027

I think the reply was to jillybean, not to you.

[mycroft]

A letter to the editor, in response to an explanation about when you could psych, in the ACBL Bulletin by the then President Dan Oakie, IIRC in the 1950s or early 1960s (absolutely from memory from a story I read from...)

"Thanks for the Bulletin's clever
Clarification endeavour.
It seems you may psych
As much as you like
As long as you like to psych Never."

and yes, absolutely, for Jillybean. Sorry to confuse.

[pescetom]

mycroft, on 2026-October-16, 16:46, said:

A letter to the editor, in response to an explanation about when you could psych, in the ACBL Bulletin by the then President Dan Oakie, IIRC in the 1950s or early 1960s (absolutely from memory from a story I read from...)

"Thanks for the Bulletin's clever
Clarification endeavour.
It seems you may psych
As much as you like
As long as you like to psych Never."

I do love this letter, both for it's elegant prose and timeless damning accuracy

I spent the afternoon playing a tournament of Burracco, a game snobbed by most bridge players, undoubtedly inferior but in some ways more demanding and the same people will win.
One thing that intrigues me about this game is that it has significant space for conventional play, unexplored by all but the very best pairs.
And yet there is no obligation to disclose agreements to the opponents.
I continue to wonder if bridge might be a better or at least more practicable game if played in the same way.
I suggest we should at least experiment it in a controlled setting, given the quandary we are in.

[blackshoe]

Zelandakh, on 2026-October-15, 12:53, said:

In English, please?

Donald Oakie was President of the ACBL in the mid 1970s. He ran a campaign against psyching. My understanding is that he wanted psyching banned, although the linked grokipedia article doesn't support that.

[pescetom]

blackshoe, on 2026-October-19, 17:46, said:

My understanding is that he wanted psyching banned

That's another thing we could experiment, although lower in potential gain (and of course the issue disappears if agreements are secret anyway).