[DJNeill]

Hi all,
Someone was mentioning to me how they thought using the license to do whatever you want opposite a limited opening (2/1 on 2 HCP, respond on zero) is too much of a psychic control. Sure, 1M-4M "could be strong" is alertable and good, but it is not "primarily destructive" in intent. You could alert all responses as "could be weak" but that gets us to the point that should it be allowed to be that destructive.

What do you think?

Thanks,
Dan

[TimG]

I don't understand what you're asking.

Is it your suggestion that psyching a strong response over a limited opening is free?

Tim

[awm]

I do not think this is what is meant by a psychic control. There are many auctions where, due to the limited nature of partner's hand, a psych is unlikely to cost. Examples include when partner is a passed hand or opened with a weak two bid or a weak notrump.

A psychic control is more like a call which asks specifically whether partner psyched, or a call (other than passing a forcing bid) in an uncontested auction which lets partner know your prior call was psyching.

[TimG]

A psychic control as Adam describes, really isn't a psyche, or doesn't expose a psyche.

The classic example is the old KS controlled psyche of 1M with exactly 4-6 HCP and a four-card suit f a certain quality. There were ways in which opener could reveal the weak type or that responder could force opener to continue even with the weak type. This wasn't really a psyche, but rather a two-way 1M opening by agreement.

Maybe that is what Dan was getting at: if the partnership does it by agreement, then it's not a psyche.

[dake50]

Do you mean eg. playing Drury, I could psych 1M 3-seat intending to pass 2m? The consensus on that was the system was as it was --so using it as a psych control was ok.

Relay 2C as GF, frees other bids, can I psych them: 2D on 5xD 3hcp? 4-support so psych other Major?

Isn't the suggestion you make is that limiting 1-bids forbids psych responses? Stated baldly.

Bad enough my sanctioning organization (ACBL) won't let me prove my 8hcp distributional hand is above an average hand --thus not a psych!?

[Flame]

I agree that at some point it stops being a psych and stat being a system, however Atleast where I play systems are agreed on most bids, there are only few limitations, so I don't see any problem with it. I dont see the problem with destructive bidding, I think its a very important part of bidding.

[bluecalm]

Yeah I don't see the problem.
If there is no way in the system to show later that you don't have what you promise now it's not psychic control.

Example of psychic control would be:

1♦ - 1♠ = spades
2♠ - 3♦ = I don't have spades afterall.

In precision you don't have it.

[the hog]

I remember this discussion when Drury came up
1H 2C
2D 2H to play, where 2D = max passed hand.

[TimG]

The_Hog, on Jul 25 2010, 11:01 PM, said:

I remember this discussion when Drury came up
1H 2C
2D 2H to play, where 2D = max passed hand.

I doesn't look to me like the 2D bid was made by a passed hand.

[ArtK78]

Clearly, a 4M bid over a limited 1M opening is not a psychic control. The 4M bid is a wide ranging bid based on the definition of a limited 1M opening. It may be constructive or tactical, but since it is not related to any possibility of the opening bid being a psyche, it is not a psychic control.

Many years ago, I read Fred Karpin's classic "Psychological Strategy at Bridge" (I hope I have the title right). In it, Karpin gave examples of the outrageous psyches that were common place in the 1930s and 1940s in tournaments. He also described the creation of psychic controls. As TimG mentioned, part of the original K-S system was a system of "disciplined" psyches. Responder had a number of bids at his disposal which would systemically field the psyches. If I remember correctly, a 2NT response to a 1M bid showed 22-24 HCP, so responder was pretty sure that opener had psyched.

Psychic controls have been banned at every level of bridge for at least 35 years. I remember when I first started playing there was a line on the ACBL convention card (circa 1972) in the psychic bids section for psychic controls. However, I believe that psychic controls were banned at about the time I started playing, if not earlier.

[TimG]

ArtK78, on Jul 26 2010, 09:21 AM, said:

Psychic controls have been banned at every level of bridge for at least 35 years.  I remember when I first started playing there was a line on the ACBL convention card (circa 1972) in the psychic bids section for psychic controls.  However, I believe that psychic controls were banned at about the time I started playing, if not earlier.

This is probably right, the GCC includes in the disallowed section:

Quote

3. Psychic controls (Includes ANY partnership agreement which, if used in
conjunction with a psychic call, makes allowance for that psych.)

But, I would suggest that any systemic uncovering of a psych makes the psych part of the system and thus not strictly a psych. What these controls do is untangle muilti-way bids, and most of these multi way bids would likely run afoul of system regulation without the psychic control clause. In fact, if they did not run afoul of regulations, then a partnership could use them without being subject to the psychic control clause because the bids would be systemic rather than psyches.

Anyway, I think "psychic controls" is sort of an oxymoron.

[ArtK78]

My old friend, David Treadwell (who died this past January), told me about his adventures in the world of psyches. He and his long-time partner, Evelyn Levitt, used to pshche quite frequently in the 1950s and 1960s, with very good results. However, they decided to give up psyching because they would invariably have to appear before various committees after the session, and they decided it was just not worth the aggrevation.

By the way, for those of you who did not have the pleasure of meeting David or Evelyn (who died a number of years back), they were the most ethical of players and the nicest of players.

[the hog]

TimG, on Jul 26 2010, 07:46 PM, said:

The_Hog, on Jul 25 2010, 11:01 PM, said:

I remember this discussion when Drury came up
1H 2C
2D 2H to play, where 2D = max passed hand.

I doesn't look to me like the 2D bid was made by a passed hand.

Obviously if drury was bid, then the first call was a pass. Do I have to dot the "i"s and cross the "t"s?

[TimG]

The_Hog, on Jul 26 2010, 08:40 PM, said:

TimG, on Jul 26 2010, 07:46 PM, said:

The_Hog, on Jul 25 2010, 11:01 PM, said:

I remember this discussion when Drury came up
1H 2C
2D 2H to play, where 2D = max passed hand.

I doesn't look to me like the 2D bid was made by a passed hand.

Obviously if drury was bid, then the first call was a pass. Do I have to dot the "i"s and cross the "t"s?

I'm sorry, I still don't get it. You said the 2D bid shows a max passed hand, but the 2D bidder is opener and opener isn't a passed hand.

[cherdanno]

Lol such a typical The_Hog conversation.

[the hog]

"Obviously if drury was bid, then the first call was a pass. Do I have to dot the "i"s and cross the "t"s? " The 1H opening was clearly in third seat.


Does this help?

P (P) 1H (P)
2C (P) 2D (P)
2H

Anyway apparently Barry Crane used a 2C drury style gadget even over 1st and 2nd set opening bids as a sort of psychic control.

Cherdanno,wenn Du nichts intelligentes zu sagen hast, wuerde ich Dir raten Dein Maul zu halten. Sonst werden Leute denken, dass Du zu viel Gas im Bauch hast.

[Free]

The_Hog, on Jul 27 2010, 04:02 AM, said:

"Obviously if drury was bid, then the first call was a pass. Do I have to dot the "i"s and cross the "t"s? " The 1H opening was clearly in third seat.


Does this help?

P  (P)  1H  (P)
2C (P) 2D  (P)
2H

Anyway apparently Barry Crane used a 2C drury style gadget even over 1st and 2nd set opening bids as a sort of psychic control.

Cherdanno,wenn Du nichts intelligentes zu sagen hast, wuerde ich Dir raten Dein Maul zu halten. Sonst werden Leute denken, dass Du zu viel Gas im Bauch hast.

LOL

You said 2♦ is a max passed hand, while I think you meant 2♥... The 1♥ opener hasn't passed yet, but he has bid 2♦. You're wrong, admit it!

Oh btw: du, dir,... are not with capital letters.

[CamHenry]

My understanding of the rules here is that it's an attempt to (further) prevent concealed understandings. If you play, for example, 1NT is ostensibly 12-14 but may be a weak hand with long clubs, and agree never to use Stayman with game-forcing hands, then 2♣ becomes a control for that psych: and you're either playing an illegal agreement (the 1NT opener in most parts of the world) or a concealed understanding (illegal everywhere).

If you're allowed to play this 1NT opening, then that use of 2♣ is permitted provided you disclose the whole affair properly.

[the hog]

It was quite clear from my meaning that that 2D bidder passed originally - look at the wording of my original post - only nt if you deliberately try not to understand. I know English is not your native tongue.

[gwnn]

English is not my native language (I could say without much exaggeration that my English is on par with that of a cheerful green chicken) but the 2♦ bidder is the 1♥ bidder. The 1♥ bidder had two opportunities of passing (first round and second round) and he did not pass in the first case (instead he bid 1♥) and did not pass in the second case either (he bid 2♦).