[EricK]

Imagine a regular partnership, player A and player B, who play a natural system. In particular the response in the uninterrupted sequence 1♥ 1♠ shows 5+ points and 4+ ♠. When playing together, neither player has ever psyched this response on a weak hand with short ♠ and a ♥ fit, although both are experienced enough to be aware of this possibility and aware that their partner is aware of it.

1. Because they are aware of this possibility, if the sequence crops up, do they need to alert the opposition to the possibility?

I assume not.

Let's say that one day player A opens 1♥ and player B psyches a 1♠ response

2a. In future, does A need to alert the opposition to this possibility whenever he opens 1♥ and B responds 1♠?
2b. In future, does B need to alert the opposition to this possibility whenever he opens 1♥ and A responds 1♠?

3. If not, how often does the psyche have to occur before the opposition should always be warned?

Both players wish to be ethical, and always bid as if their partner hasn't psyched.

4. Are they allowed to use the sequence 1♥ 1♠ 3NT to show a GF raise of ♠, and the further response of 4♥ to be an absolute sign off (but not necessarily showing a psyching hand)?

5. Are they allowed to always respond 1♠ on weak hands with short ♠ and ♥ support as long as they continue to always bid as if the ♠ are a genuine suit?

6. If not, what are the (approximate) limits to how often a particular psyche can be used as a percentage of all hands on which it could be used?

[ArtK78]

I am not going to get into the discussion about how many times a partnership can have a particular psyche come up before the partnership has to alert the auction.

I will say that using 3NT in the sequence 1♥ - 1♠ - 3NT as a game forcing spade raise "smells" like a psychic control. If the ACBL were to agree that 3NT in this context is a psychic control, it is illegal. Similarly for a subsequent pull to 4♥, but if 3NT is not allowed you never get to discussing 4♥.

[blackshoe]

1. No.
2a. No.
2b. No.
3. There is no hard and fast rule. "Often enough that it's likely the player will expect his partner has psyched" is about the closest you can come.
4. Without consideration of the psych, how do they define this 3NT rebid? They can continue to define it the same way. What they can't do is use the bid to control the psych.
5. No. Once the partnership expectation includes the hand with short spades, it's no longer a psych, it's an agreement. Once this happens, the agreement is subject to the usual regulations (is it a legal agreement? Should it be alerted?)
6. See answer #3.

[Cascade]

1. It is possible and the laws talk about it to have an implicit agreement that you have never discussed.

So in theory you could have an implicit agreement to bid 1♠ occasionally on short spades and a heart fit without ever having discussed this possibility and without it ever having occurred.

2a and b. This depends. If it has become part of your agreement then you need to alert. For it to be part of your agreement it needs to be something that both of you do since it seems universal that partners are required to play the same system.

You may need to disclose this tendancy though even if you do not have agreement but have some experience of one partner or the other making this type of bid. "It shows 4+ spades and 5+ HCP. Occasionally my partner has psyched this bid with short(er) spades and a heart fit".

3. Often enough so that you have an agreement. This will vary from situation to situation and from partnership to partnership.

4. If they disclose 1♠ as natural or short then provided that this is a legal method then they can play any legal follow ups they like. In other words if 1♠ is a two-way bid and no longer a simple natural spade response.

5. If they always do it and it is legal then they don't need to continue as if spades is a normal suit.

6. Depends.

[EricK]

With regards to my question 5, why does it matter whether partner expects the psyche? Surely all that is important is that partner doesn't cater for the psyche?

If a bid is a good bid on a particular hand for whatever reasons (and those could include the level of the opponents, the state of the match, or whatever), then it is a good bid whenever those circumstances repeat. Why have rules which means that you can only make the bid which in your opinion is good, on some of those poccasions but not others?

[shevek]

Quote

Let's say that one day player A opens 1♥ and player B psyches a 1♠ response

2a. In future, does A need to alert the opposition to this possibility whenever he opens 1♥ and B responds 1♠?
2b. In future, does B need to alert the opposition to this possibility whenever he opens 1♥ and A responds 1♠?

It wouldn't hurt A to alert. "He's been known to bid this way on shortage and heart support ..." I try to avoid the ps-word. If A has never psyched, why should B start alerting? Maybe to encourage him?
The ACBL/WBF is not fond of psyches, as we know. The problem with this auction is that 1♠ has become a multi-meaning bid "4+ ♠s or occasionally a weakish hand with short spades ..." That may be an illegal agreement under the prevailing TRegs.

The awkward auction is 1♥ - (X) - 1♠, an appealing baby-psyche. The WBF wants you to pre-alert this tendency. Why? Because it could affect North's initial action. Perhaps he was tossing up between 1♠ and double. If he'd known you could pull this one, he'd have bid his suit. "Director! Insoluble, please give me 3 imps."

Quote

4. Are they allowed to use the sequence 1♥ 1♠ 3NT to show a GF raise of ♠, and the further response of 4♥ to be an absolute sign off (but not necessarily showing a psyching hand)?

Roth-Stone featured psychic controls, meaning bids that asked whether partner had psyched. They are mostly illegal now. Don't understand your auction. If
1♥ - 1♠ - 3NT is a spade raise, and responder is expected to bid 4♥ if he psyched (& maybe if he didn't) then there seems to be a control mechanism.

Let's say they don't have this 3NT agreement and the auction goes

1♥ - 1♠ - 4♠ - 5♥.

Either 5♥ is a slam try in spades or it isn't. If opener passes this and says "I guessed that he psyched 1♠" then you are headed for court. I'm on your side but governing bodies are keen to appease the rump of their membership.

[H_KARLUK]

Error - deleted

[H_KARLUK]

How come their opps willl see difference when there are special treatments?

I play :

1♥>1♠ (artificial F1; 0-4 ♠)
1NT rebid by opener (Flannery)

1♥>1NT (5+♠)

So i gain space for 2♦ Multi.

[barmar]

EricK, on Jun 14 2009, 05:52 AM, said:

With regards to my question 5, why does it matter whether partner expects the psyche? Surely all that is important is that partner doesn't cater for the psyche?

Opponents are entitled to know as much about what partner's bid shows as you do. So if you expect the psyche, you have to tell them, even if you don't do anything to cater for it.

[EricK]

But I'm getting mixed messages here. Is it always OK to make a psyche, as long as you tell the opps , and still don't cater for it; or does it cease to be OK, despite taking all these precautions if you do it often enough?

[hotShot]

EricK, on Jun 15 2009, 07:38 AM, said:

But I'm getting mixed messages here. Is it always OK to make a psyche, as long as you tell the opps , and still don't cater for it; or does it cease to be OK, despite taking all these precautions if you do it often enough?

There is a borderline between a legal psyche and cheating by using a concealed (implicit) partnership agreement.

A psyche is legal, if your partner is as surprised about the psyche as opps are. If he is aware that you sometimes psyche, he has to disclose that experience to opps. If your partner knows that you have psyched before, he has an unfair advantage to recognize a psyche during the bidding.

Partner has to bid as if the psycher has the hand he promised until it becomes obvious from the bidding that this is impossible. If a bidding system is designed to cater a specific psyche, the TD will have to assume, that this is not a psyche, but an undisclosed partnership agreement.

[wclass___]

a) ♣ xxxxxxx ♦ xxxxxx I open 2N showing strong balanced hand and pass responders 3♣,3♦ bid.
b ) 1♥-P-1♠-P -//- 4♥ (game forcing ♠ raise) - P - P (1♠ bidder short ♠ with ♥ fit)
Legal?

[gnasher]

EricK, on Jun 15 2009, 07:38 AM, said:

But I'm getting mixed messages here. Is it always OK to make a psyche, as long as you tell the opps , and still don't cater for it; or does it cease to be OK, despite taking all these precautions if you do it often enough?

If you psyche so often that it becomes an implicit agreement, you are no longer playing 1♥-1♠ as natural. You are playing 1♥-1♠ as either natural or a weak hand with short spades.

If you explain to the opponents that that's what 1♠ means, you have met the conditions of the laws about disclosure. However, you also have to obey the regulations of the organisation (such as the ACBL) which runs the event. They may not allow you to play a 1♠ response as this, or they may allow you to do it but then place restrictions on how you're allowed to continue the auction.

[hotShot]

wclass___, on Jun 15 2009, 01:00 PM, said:

a) ♣ xxxxxxx ♦ xxxxxx I open 2N showing strong balanced hand and pass responders 3♣,3♦ bid.
b ) 1♥-P-1♠-P -//- 4♥ (game forcing ♠ raise) - P - P (1♠ bidder short ♠ with ♥ fit)
Legal?

I both of your examples, the psyching opener deviates from the agreements, by passing forcing descriptive bids. In both cases his partner made the systemic bid as if the psyching player had his bid. By passing the forcing bid, the psych is revealed.
That is legal.

Illegal would be, if if responder passed forcing bids, assuming you might have psyched.

[barmar]

EricK, on Jun 15 2009, 02:38 AM, said:

But I'm getting mixed messages here. Is it always OK to make a psyche, as long as you tell the opps , and still don't cater for it; or does it cease to be OK, despite taking all these precautions if you do it often enough?

If you tell the opponents then it's not a psyche, it's part of your agreements. In which case you can also cater for it.

[EricK]

barmar, on Jun 18 2009, 01:58 AM, said:

EricK, on Jun 15 2009, 02:38 AM, said:

But I'm getting mixed messages here. Is it always OK to make a psyche, as long as you tell the opps , and still don't cater for it; or does it cease to be OK, despite taking all these precautions if you do it often enough?

If you tell the opponents then it's not a psyche, it's part of your agreements. In which case you can also cater for it.

I don't think this is true though. if you point out that partner has been known to psyche a certain bid in a certain position, it is still a psyche! But it's still not an agreement as to what the bid means.

[skjaeran]

EricK, on Jun 18 2009, 10:34 PM, said:

barmar, on Jun 18 2009, 01:58 AM, said:

EricK, on Jun 15 2009, 02:38 AM, said:

But I'm getting mixed messages here. Is it always OK to make a psyche, as long as you tell the opps , and still don't cater for it; or does it cease to be OK, despite taking all these precautions if you do it often enough?

If you tell the opponents then it's not a psyche, it's part of your agreements. In which case you can also cater for it.

I don't think this is true though. if you point out that partner has been known to psyche a certain bid in a certain position, it is still a psyche! But it's still not an agreement as to what the bid means.

Wrong.

Excerpt from Law 40C1:

Quote

Repeated deviations lead to implicit understandings which then form part of the partnership’s methods and must be disclosed in accordance with the regulations governing disclosure of system.

[EricK]

Is a psyche a deviation in this sense? I would take a deviation to mean, say, bidding 1NT on a lot of 14 point hand. In which case the partnership is playing 14+ - 17 rather than 15-17, and so on.

How can a psyche can ever be considered part of your methods when most system regualtions do not allow the sort of two way bids which that would entail?

[blackshoe]

If you describe your unbalanced 2C bid as "more quick tricks than losers", which some do, then if your partner opens 2C with AKQJxxxx Jxx - Jx, which I've seen done, then that opening is a psych. In fact, of course, RAs say different things about this - in the ACBL , the requirement for it not to be a psych is that the bidder thinks of this as a "strong" hand, and his card says something like "8+ playing tricks", which was the case when I saw this bid. The TD ruled it was not a psych. But the point is that a 'gross deviation' need not be so gross as to violate system regulations.

[skjaeran]

EricK, on Jun 20 2009, 12:10 AM, said:

Is a psyche a deviation in this sense? I would take a deviation to mean, say, bidding 1NT on a lot of 14 point hand. In which case the partnership is playing 14+ - 17 rather than 15-17, and so on.

Strange way to interpret the word deviation. And it's definitely not the correct interpretation regarding bridge laws.

In the sequence 1♥ (x) 1♠, if your agreement is that 1♠ shows 4+♠s and 6+ hcp, bidding 1♠ on hands with less than four spades is a deviation from your agreements.

Quote

How can a psyche can ever be considered part of your methods when most system regualtions do not allow the sort of two way bids which that would entail?

If you in the sequence above bid 1♠ with some frequency on say 1-2 spades and a heart fit, you very soon have an implicit understanding that 1♠ is either natural or short spades and a heart fit. And you need to disclose this. If this is an illegal method, you're can't make this bid any more.