[barmar]

Are you saying that a psychic control is a call whose ONLY purpose is to determine if partner psyched? If a call can serve two purposes, one of which would cater to the psyche, it's not a psychic control?

Some partnerships play that a 2♦ response to 2♣ doesn't show anything in particular, it's a required waiting bid to allow opener to clarify his hand (perhaps responder is allowed to break this with a freak, but 99% of the time he'll just bid 2♦). This makes it extremely safe to open 2♣ with a weak 2 in diamonds. This has long been considered a classic example of a psychic control.

[blackshoe]

bluejak, on 2011-October-12, 20:04, said:

A psychic control is a call that is designed to find out whether partner is psychic.

Then a Watson double, made by the player who allegedly psyched, is not a psychic control.

[mrdct]

bluejak, on 2011-October-12, 20:04, said:

A psychic control is a call that is designed to find out whether partner is psychic.

That would exclude a Watson double then as that convention is "designed" to direct partner to a better lead not to find out if partner psyched. But we know that the EBU explictly defines a Watson double as a psychic control when used by a player who has psyched earlier in the auction.

The point is that under O B 6 A 3, even if a convention was "designed" for a purpose unrelated to psychic control, you are not allowed to use such a convention as a psychic control. It all comes down to what you use a convention for not what it was designed for.

[gnasher]

semeai, on 2011-October-12, 17:54, said:

No mention is made of the call being conventional, merely an agreement. (You don't need an agreement on passing Stayman in the auction 1N-P-2C-P;P though, which is why I suggested 1N-P-2C-X;P as the auction in my post above, since you would have an agreement there. It doesn't completely expose the psychic bid, but neither does a double of 3NT on any old auction.)

I'm not claiming that this is actually what the rule is, just trying to identify the difference between the example in the Orange Book and the examples that apparently are allowed.

Quote

But all right, how about 2H X P P; XX? An SOS redouble is an agreement and it's conventional. Is it allowed if we've psyched? You wouldn't do this on the OP hand, but maybe some two-suited or suicidal three-suited psychic bid would like to redouble here.

Yes, that seems to be in the same category as the "Watson double" example - the psycher uses an existing general agreement in a way that makes the meaning on this deal be "I have psyched".

[Zelandakh]

barmar, on 2011-October-12, 20:35, said:

Are you saying that a psychic control is a call whose ONLY purpose is to determine if partner psyched? If a call can serve two purposes, one of which would cater to the psyche, it's not a psychic control?

Some partnerships play that a 2♦ response to 2♣ doesn't show anything in particular, it's a required waiting bid to allow opener to clarify his hand (perhaps responder is allowed to break this with a freak, but 99% of the time he'll just bid 2♦). This makes it extremely safe to open 2♣ with a weak 2 in diamonds. This has long been considered a classic example of a psychic control.

Once partner has done this twice, perhaps even only once, does it not become an implicit partnership understanding and therefore disclosable? It is the same as bidding Stayman (agreed as INV+) and passing - once you have done this your agreement has changed and so should your disclosure. The difference is that 2C as strong or a weak 2 in diamonds may be an illegal agreement in a given jurisdiction. If it is not then just alert it as such and stop pretending it is a psyche! If it is not allowed then I would expect the TD to given them the appropriate penalty for an illegal agreement.

[bluejak]

barmar, on 2011-October-12, 20:35, said:

Are you saying that a psychic control is a call whose ONLY purpose is to determine if partner psyched? If a call can serve two purposes, one of which would cater to the psyche, it's not a psychic control?

Some partnerships play that a 2♦ response to 2♣ doesn't show anything in particular, it's a required waiting bid to allow opener to clarify his hand (perhaps responder is allowed to break this with a freak, but 99% of the time he'll just bid 2♦). This makes it extremely safe to open 2♣ with a weak 2 in diamonds. This has long been considered a classic example of a psychic control.

Not by me. Psychic controls are illegal: are you trying to tell me that a waiting 2♦ bid is illegal?

[blackshoe]

Are we not getting into territory where "<whatever> is not a psychic control, even if it's used to control a psych, because <whatever> is legal, and psychic controls are not"? Can you use a legal call to control a psych? Or is the definition of "psychic control" such that legal calls are never psychic controls?

The EBU does not appear to define "psychic control", but both The Bridge World and wikipedia do:

Quote

The Bridge World: psychic control: a call that indicates that an earlier call by the same player was a psychic.

Quote

wikipedia: Psychic control: A bid that, by partnership agreement, announces that the player's previous bid was a psychic.

Note that the "controlling" of the psych is done by the player who psyched, not by his partner. One could argue (and some here have) that there is use of a psychic control in the auction 1NT-2♣-P, where opener has psyched 1NT with a weak hand and a long club suit. But that discussion centered on the 2♣ as the control, and looking at the definitions above it looks to me like the "control" is the pass (okay, it's a call, not a bid, but I suspect that the wikipedia article's use of "bid" instead of "call" is just sloppy writing or editing, and not intentional).

Note also "by partnership agreement" in the wikipedia definition. The Watson double example would not ordinarily fit this definition because there would not ordinarily be a partnership agreement to use it in this way (at least not the first few times). I suspect that the wikipedia author was thinking of systemic controlled psychs, à la Kaplan-Sheinwold.

Is fielding (by the psycher's partner) always an example of use of a psychic control? If so, the definitions quoted here are incomplete. If the definitions, or at least the Bridge World one, is complete and accurate, then it seems psycher's partner cannot "control" a psych, the psycher himself has to do it. Is it possible for psycher's partner to "use a psychic control" but not to have "fielded" the psych?

[mrdct]

bluejak, on 2011-October-13, 07:45, said:

Not by me. Psychic controls are illegal: are you trying to tell me that a waiting 2♦ bid is illegal?

No, only the use of the waiting 2♦ bid to control a psych would be illegal in the EBU. It is fine to use it as the usual/expected response to a GF 2♣ opening.

[bluejak]

So when you bid 2♦ which are you doing, making the system bid or controlling a psyche?

The definitions given above by the Bridge World and Wikipedia are barking. So there idea of a psychic control is 1♠ - 3♥ [strong jump shift] - pass? Of course such calls show psyches, but they are not controls, and how on earth are you meant to control them? That is the most pointless definition I have heard - and it is at complete variance with the psychic controls played legally in the fifties and sixties.

[AlexJonson]

I happen to think the EBU position on psychs is, overall, a complete mess.

When I see a variety of posts on this international forum, it seems to support my view.

However, I have to admit that I see no-one describing a recipe for allowing and handling psychs.

I deduce from that, everyone (including me) is happy to criticise, but unable or unwilling to offer anything better or even suitable for discussion.

[mrdct]

AlexJonson, on 2011-October-13, 14:24, said:

I happen to think the EBU position on psychs is, overall, a complete mess.

When I see a variety of posts on this international forum, it seems to support my view.

However, I have to admit that I see no-one describing a recipe for allowing and handling psychs.

I deduce from that, everyone (including me) is happy to criticise, but unable or unwilling to offer anything better or even suitable for discussion.

I agree that EBU position on psyching is messy (don't get me started on this green, amber, red stuff) but a discussion on how to fix it would be a matter for the "Changing Laws and Regulations" forum, not here where we are trying apply the Laws and Regulations as written to lamford's problem.

On-topic here are the issues of:

- Can an implicit agreement fall within the scope of OB 6 A 3?

- Do the EBU restrictions on psychic controls extend to agreements and conventions of a non-nefarious nature (such as a Watson double, stayman or a waiting 2♦ response to a GF 2♣) when such agreements and conventions are used to control a psyche?

- Does it matter if the agreement or convention used to control a psyche is used by the psycher or the psycher's partner or is it a partnership matter?

I've certainly reached the conclusion that by explicitly banning the use of a Watson double to control a psyche, the EBU has the most intolerant regulations in relation to psychic controls of any jurisdiction that I've seen and I can't really see how it could be argued that if it's not OK to use a Watson double to reveal your psyche that it could be somehow OK to reveal your psyche of a GF 2♣ opening by passing the 2♦ waiting bid response.

[bluejak]

Not everyone is willing to criticise but not offer improvement: having seen what they do in other jurisdictions I think the EBU approach is the best and is perfectly adequate.

There is a rule about Watson doubles: there is no basis for extending it to disallowing 2♦ responses to 2♣ in case partner passes them.

[gnasher]

bluejak, on 2011-October-13, 17:00, said:

There is a rule about Watson doubles: there is no basis for extending it to disallowing 2♦ responses to 2♣ in case partner passes them.

No, there is a rule about psychic controls, which uses the Watson Double in an example. That doesn't tell us which categories of agreements are covered by this rule and which are not.

[mrdct]

gnasher, on 2011-October-13, 17:17, said:

No, there is a rule about psychic controls, which uses the Watson Double in an example.

Moreover, the EBU regulation for psychic controls uses very strong language in its prohibition. Have another look at OB 6 A 3 (my emphasis added):

"Systemic psyching of any kind is not permitted. A partnership may not use any agreement to control a psyche. For example, if you play that a double of 3NT asks partner not to lead the suit you’ve bid (Watson), you may not make such a double if the earlier suit bid was a psyche".

This regulation has one "not permitted" and two "may nots" and uses an example of a convention which is quite legitimate in non-psychic circumstances which is prohibited in psychic circumstances. I am at a loss to understand how this regulation could be interpreted any differently than, "if you have a partnership agreement (special, conventional or otherwise) which is permitted in the level of event you are playing, your partnership may not make use of that agreement to control a psyche".

gnasher, on 2011-October-13, 17:17, said:

That doesn't tell us which categories of agreements are covered by this rule and which are not.

It actually does as the regulation refers to "any" agreement so all agreements are covered. You are not allowed to use any partnership agreements as a psychic control in the EBU. If the intent had been to allow benign conventions such as stayman and drury to still be employed as a psychic controls, surely the regulations would've provided some counter-examples to Watson so that users could understand where the line is drawn.

[blackshoe]

bluejak, on 2011-October-13, 13:33, said:

So when you bid 2♦ which are you doing, making the system bid or controlling a psyche?

The definitions given above by the Bridge World and Wikipedia are barking. So there idea of a psychic control is 1♠ - 3♥ [strong jump shift] - pass? Of course such calls show psyches, but they are not controls, and how on earth are you meant to control them? That is the most pointless definition I have heard - and it is at complete variance with the psychic controls played legally in the fifties and sixties.

I posted those definitions because they were the only ones I found. If you have another, pray provide it.

Do I understand you correctly that pass is never a psychic control? IAC, I do not understand "how are you meant to control them?" Could you elucidate?

It may be "at complete variance" as you say - I wouldn't know. But my understanding is that the current regulations regarding psychic controls grew out of the systemic "psychic" controls of those days, and the desire not only to prohibit such systemic controls, but also to bring the hammer down on pairs (or individual players) who use systemic agreements designed primarily for other purposes to try to limit possible self-inflicted damage caused by their own side's psych. Am I wrong?

[semeai]

Regarding what Kaplan-Sheinwold's psychic controls actually were, here's what I find at the Bridge World's K-S Updated page:

Kaplan-Sheinwold Updated said:

1♥-1♠: Ambiguous strength, usually 5-card suit (1 NT with 4-carder unless strong), occasionally psychic.
1♥-1♠;2♠-3♥: Psychic spades - opener must pass
1♥-1♠;3♠: 16-17 points, 4 trumps, nonforcing. Now 4♥ shows psychic spades; opener must pass.
1♥-1♠;4♠: Not allowed. Opener may not rebid 4♠. He must jump shift, then 3♠.

Really this seems to be a system in which 1♥-1♠ shows spades or heart support. As to which bids were the "controls," if you like the definitions Blackshoe quoted, then the 3♥ and 4♥ bids are the controls. This is like the Watson 3NT bid, but rather more direct: there's an agreement on the exact auction in which the psychic bid has been made instead of a general agreement which could be useful for a psychic bidder to use but which will also be used in other auctions (or perhaps even the same auctions) by non psychic hands.

If you don't like that definition, maybe exercising the restraint never to bid 4♠ is the control? This is similar to requiring a 2♦ response to 2♣ to cater to partner having a weak hand with diamonds.

[mjj29]

From reading this thread then, it would seem that for a call to be not permitted after a psych under the EBU regulation it must be:

• Made by the player who psyched
  
• Not a pass
  
• Actively discouraging partner from an action that would be based on the previous bids by that player (rather than merely suggestion additional suits, for example)

That seems like a summary which fits the description of the Watson double, but allows a player who has psyched to pass later in the auction - which seems to be what the EBU are going for here.

Of course, some more concrete guidence from the Laws and Ethics Committee would be better, unless they believe that psychic controls are like obscenity and they will know it when they see it.

[gnasher]

mjj29, on 2011-October-14, 02:20, said:

Of course, some more concrete guidence from the Laws and Ethics Committee would be better, unless they believe that psychic controls are like obscenity and they will know it when they see it.

Even if they believe that, they should still do their best to provide concrete guidance. The rules exist for the players, not for the administrators. How can we be expected to obey a rule if we don't know what it is?

[bluejak]

A psychic control is a call by a player which allows for partner having psyched and therefore seeks to minimise the effect of a such a psyche.

For example, if a 2♠ response to a 1♥ is forcing on a psyche and has a rebid that shows a psyche it is a psychic control.

But a 2♦ response to a 2♣ opening which shows a negative - or is a waiting bid - is not a psychic control.

[aguahombre]

bluejak, on 2011-October-14, 11:17, said:

A psychic control is a call by a player which allows for partner having psyched and therefore seeks to minimise the effect of a such a psyche.

Sounds good. So, if the partnership has added so many possible meanings to 2C/1NT that it is no longer recognizable as merely Stayman and occurs 90 percent of the time partner responds at all, would that become defacto a psychic control to minimize the effect (because opener only psyches 1NT with long clubs)?