[ucrman]

I was sitting West in a club game, and partner sitting East raised my 1S opening to 2S. I had enough to bid 4S, but why not “misdescribe” my hand to the opponents. So after showing a help suit game try with a singleton, the opponents’ defense was confused and cost them a trick.

The director was called, and the director’s wife who was sitting North complained about my bidding. The director asked my partner if I had ever psyched like this before, and partner did not think I had. I said that yes I did about 14 years ago with this partner. I said that I have made a similar bid about a dozen times in the 40+ years that I have been playing bridge. The director said that partner should alert such bids in the future. I disagreed saying that I consider it gamesmanship.

Anytime I know where the contract should be played, I like to misdescribe my hand to the opponents. For example, if partner opened 1NT (15-17) and I had 20 good HCP, I might show a suit I don’t hold and then force to 7NT.

Should the help suit game tries be alerted?

[han]

Your partner should alert if you do it frequently enough so that he starts to expect them. Zia's partner probably alerts them as help suit game tries that may be psyches.

[glen]

Say one plays help suit game tries, but never psyches them - what's the answer to the question "Should help suit game tries be alerted?"

As far as I can tell, the answer is yes (some say no if the bid always promises 3 or longer in the suit bid). If so, the question in this thread case should be once the bid is alerted, how should partner describe the bid when asked by the opps.

[matmat]

this is pretty much exactly like the decision that convinced me not to play acbl games anymore. that and the director's complacency at dealing with the opp who essentially accused my p of cheating when he did not alert my help suit game try as a possible psych. ridiculous.

[jillybean]

acbl code of ethics said:

The latest version of the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge defines a convention as a call that, by partnership agreement, conveys a meaning other than willingness to play in the denomination named (or in the last denomination named), or high-card strength or length (three cards or more) there.

So, I’d say the help suit game try does not need alerting.

However,

ucrman said:

Anytime I know where the contract should be played, I like to misdescribe my hand to the opponents

I think this does create an unexpected agreement/understanding and should be alerted.

Damage is another thing..

[Dwingo]

jillybean2, on Oct 20 2007, 10:45 AM, said:

ucrman said:

Anytime I know where the contract should be played, I like to misdescribe my hand to the opponents

I think this does create an unexpected agreement/understanding and should be alerted.

Damage is another thing..

I don't think so. This is no an agreement with partner. It is your personal choice. Sometimes you fool around, sometimes you maynot.

[skjaeran]

Dwingo, on Oct 20 2007, 09:09 AM, said:

jillybean2, on Oct 20 2007, 10:45 AM, said:

ucrman said:

Anytime I know where the contract should be played, I like to misdescribe my hand to the opponents

I think this does create an unexpected agreement/understanding and should be alerted.

Damage is another thing..

I don't think so. This is no an agreement with partner. It is your personal choice. Sometimes you fool around, sometimes you maynot.

But when you do such a thing in a regular parthership you very soon create implicit partnership understandings that need to be fully disclosed, and thus alerted.

[blackshoe]

Not gonna go back and read the entire thread, and maybe I posted in here already, but...

If a help suit game try is not alertable by the regulations in force, then it will not be alerted by the partner of a player psyching that bid, because that partner will not know it's a psyche. (If he does know, then it isn't a psyche, it's an implicit partnership understanding, which must be disclosed).

If the alert regulation requires a player to alert his own calls, then if it is a psyche he should not alert it, since (a) if it's a psyche it violates the partnership understanding, and it is understandings that must be alerted. If the player has reason to believe his partner will expect this "psyche" (from, for example, the fact he's done it several times before), then it is not in fact a psyche, and if he's going to make the bid, he must alert it and explain it according to the implicit understanding. Since this violates the whole purpose of psyching, no rational player will do it (that doesn't preclude a partnership from modifying a "standard" agreement to include possibilities that would be psyches in other partnerships, providing the modification is otherwise legal).

If the question before the board is "how many times can a player make a bid before it becomes an implicit partnership understanding?" well, that's a different question. My answer is "once is never enough, twice is probably never enough, three or more times, it depends on frequency".

As an example of "frequency", I've been playing fairly regularly with a particular partner for three or four years now. Had I perpetrated the same psyche with that partner say five or six times in all those years, I would probably consider that sufficiently frequent to assume we have an implicit understanding. Three or four times in those three or four years would not be enough. Three or four times in one year probably would be enough. Also, it's not absolute - partnering Mrs. Guggenheim, one can almost psyche with impunity, since she'll never figure out what's going on.

[helene_t]

Hannie, on Oct 20 2007, 06:37 AM, said:

Your partner should alert if you do it frequently enough so that he starts to expect them. Zia's partner probably alerts them as help suit game tries that may be psyches.

Right, Rosenberg volunteers the information that Zia's trials can be tactical.

Whether HST should be alerted anyway is a different issue. I presume the real question is if one should volunteer the particular information that it can be tactical.

[DrTodd13]

Yes. If you've done it more than a couple times you should alert that it is occasionally tactical. I'm ambivalent about using the word "tactical" but saying "psyche" is terrible. It is an oxymoron to alert a bid as "occasionally a psyche" because a psyche is a deviation from agreements. You should just say that occasionally the HSGT person is pretending to ask for information when they don't really need it.

[jillybean]

I'd be reluctant to call these bids psyches period. The definition of a psyche as
"A deliberate and gross misstatement of honor strength or suit length" does not fit in this case.

[gwnn]

jillybean2, on Oct 21 2007, 06:01 AM, said:

I'd be reluctant to call these bids psyches period. The definition of a psyche as
"A deliberate and gross misstatement of honor strength or suit length" does not fit in this case.

why not?

if you bid 3♦ which should be xxxx and you have x or AKQxx or et cetera, isn't that a deliberate and gross misstatement?

[helene_t]

I don't think it's a psyche. I think a psyche per definition may mislead p when he's in the position to contribute to the decision on a final contract, and that is probably not the case here.

You may ask where I get this idea from since it's not written in any law. Well, we had a discussion whether a 3NT response to a preempt with zero points was a psyche, and several posters with good bridge and/or law credentials said it was not, because captaincy is 100% with the tactical bidder.

Semantics, sigh. Let's just call it a tactical bid, that cannot be misunderstood I suppose.

[Free]

ucrman, on Oct 20 2007, 05:16 AM, said:

Anytime I know where the contract should be played, I like to misdescribe my hand to the opponents. For example, if partner opened 1NT (15-17) and I had 20 good HCP, I might show a suit I don’t hold and then force to 7NT.

If you claim this, it means you do it regularly ("anytime"!!) and on purpose. Your partner should alert imo, especially if you ignore his signoff.

Example: 1♠-2♠-3♦-3♠-4♠. It's clear that you want to play game weither he has fitting ♦s or not. You may be looking for slam, or you may be psyching. Your partner should know this by now, your opponents are entitled to know.

[Free]

helene_t, on Oct 20 2007, 11:20 PM, said:

Hannie, on Oct 20 2007, 06:37 AM, said:

Your partner should alert if you do it frequently enough so that he starts to expect them. Zia's partner probably alerts them as help suit game tries that may be psyches.

Right, Rosenberg volunteers the information that Zia's trials can be tactical.

Whether HST should be alerted anyway is a different issue. I presume the real question is if one should volunteer the particular information that it can be tactical.

They even alert splinters as possible doubleton!

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

because nobody did state it up to now, assuming you stated it
right, that you make this bid once a year, your partner does
not need to alert the bid.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[jillybean]

gwnn, on Oct 21 2007, 12:07 AM, said:

jillybean2, on Oct 21 2007, 06:01 AM, said:

I'd be reluctant to call these bids psyches period. The definition of a psyche as
"A deliberate and gross misstatement of honor strength or suit length" does not fit in this case.

why not?

if you bid 3♦ which should be xxxx and you have x or AKQxx or et cetera, isn't that a deliberate and gross misstatement?

Perhaps I am getting hung up on the word 'gross' and your example is gross

We do not know the actual hand here. I think there are a number of bids that may not reflect your agreement but I do not consider psyches.

Temporizing after a 1M opener with a hand too weak for a gf or limit raise but too strong for a simple raise.
Bidding X on your way to NT to deflect a X lead

We are all going to have the book thrown at us for excessive psyching.

[DrTodd13]

gwnn, on Oct 20 2007, 11:07 PM, said:

jillybean2, on Oct 21 2007, 06:01 AM, said:

I'd be reluctant to call these bids psyches period. The definition of a psyche as
"A deliberate and gross misstatement of honor strength or suit length" does not fit in this case.

why not?

if you bid 3♦ which should be xxxx and you have x or AKQxx or et cetera, isn't that a deliberate and gross misstatement?

A psyche is a deliberate and gross deviation _FROM YOUR AGREEMENTS_, not from some traditional definition of the bid. If your agreement is that 30% of the time your HSGT is made on a short suit then you can't be violating your agreement by making that bid with a short suit.

[gwnn]

Todd, you're obviously right, as long as responder will explain the 1M-2M-3x bid as "longish weak suit or, in about 30% of the cases, something else". If the agreements are clearly stated and explained, in this case "help suit game try" as OP has stated, using it with a singleton can be indeed described as a psyche.

PS: I'm not saying the TD is right here. I actually think he was wrong. But the term psyche is not really uncalled for I think.

[DrTodd13]

I still don't want to call it a psyche. In the situation you describe, the description of HSGT is _misinformation_. It isn't a psyche because the pair has an undisclosed agreement to bid this way. Nobody should want to call this behavior a psyche because if you do you can't regulate it. Call it what it is, misinformation, and penalize them for failing to adequately disclose their agreements.