[straube]

Came across this old thread from bridgwinners...

http://bridgewinners...ligatory-psych/

...and one question I would have liked is how 3rd seat gets around the requirement that "1C or 1D may be used as an all purpose bid promising 10 hcps". I put that in quotes but it's from memory. If 1D is 2+ diamonds then it is not natural and has to promise 10 hcps, right? Whereas 1H or 1S or natural 1C or 1D openings require only 8 hcps.

So is it legal to open 1D with Kxx Axxx Jxx xxx? I think it isn't, but do directors allow this?

[hrothgar]

Pity so few of the posters know what the term "fert" means...

[dake50]

Continue on.
** Knowing partner will Drury to my 1M pscch, can 1M be
Sxx, Hxx, Dxxxx, Cxxxxx intending to pass Drury?
** Knowing partner has few strong bids to my 3-seat 1Nt,
can 1Nt(15-17) be Sxx, Hxx, Dxxxx, Cxxxxx intending to
pass Stayman, Jacoby Transfer, any else?
** There seems an endless list of treatments that act as
*PSYCHIC CONTROL*. At least damage controlling for psyches.

[nige1]

 dake50, on 2013-May-07, 19:16, said:

Continue on.
** Knowing partner will Drury to my 1M pscch, can 1M be
Sxx, Hxx, Dxxxx, Cxxxxx intending to pass Drury?
** Knowing partner has few strong bids to my 3-seat 1Nt,
can 1Nt(15-17) be Sxx, Hxx, Dxxxx, Cxxxxx intending to
pass Stayman, Jacoby Transfer, any else?
** There seems an endless list of treatments that act as
*PSYCHIC CONTROL*. At least damage controlling for psyches.

Agree. Also, there are endless streams of players, directors, and rule-makers who won't admit that common psychs, deviations and tactical calls (my favourite euphemism) are effectively controlled by Drury and such subsequent agreements.

[Siegmund]

If we are speaking of the ACBL GCC, then yes, the rules are perfectly clear: you may not open an artificial 1D with fewer than 10 HCP, and if you ever psych 1M openings, you are forbidden to play Drury (at least if your practice is to always use it rather than ever making an immediate raise to the 3-level.)

The former is sufficiently non-controversial that I would expect to see it nearly universally enforced if a director was called. The second is sufficiently controversial that I would expect a majority of directors to laugh at the notion, even though the definition of psychic control is perfectly clear. I don't recall ever seeing such action taken against anyone.

I do recall a fuss some years ago, about psyching forcing new-suit responses to weak two bids... where it was deemed a psychic control if opener had an agreement to never go beyond 3 of his own suit. There had to be at least some risk of opener raising or splintering for the psych to be deemed not controlled.

re dake's second example, partners raise directly to 3NT often enough that psyching 1NT in 3rd seat has never been very popular in the US.... in weak-notrump countries it is an extremely popular psychic because that risk is so much reduced. If you had an agreement that responder was forbidden to ever go beyond the 2-level at his first bid, you could well be accused of having a psychic control. I've not heard of it happening.

[SteveMoe]

I think this area is more grey than black and white. A natural 1 minor opening holds at least 3 cards. Yes, ACBL says 1♣ promising 2 cards is natural when in 4=4=3=2 hands. Finally, ACBL defines a treatment as "A natural call that, by partnership agreement, carries a specific message about the suit bid or the general strength of the hand. Such bids are not conventions and therefore not regulated by the ACBL Convention Chart. Consult the ACBL Alert Chart for those treatments which require Alerts and/or Announcements." It says a non-forcing opening bid of 1♣ or 1♦ with fewer than 2 cards requires an announcement "Might be short", not an alert.

So the Precision 1♦ is a treatment. The ACBL does not define it as artificial. Indeed I have not been allowed to play CRASH or similar strategies over a Precision 1♦ with the rationale that we cannot do that over a natural short ♣. [Some who play 10-12 1NT also play 1♣ & 1♦ promising 2 to cover the stronger NT hands with manageable ranges. This use of the minors goes beyond the 4=4=3=2 pattern for ♣s].

So if I can open 1♣ on 2 cards with 10-21 HCP, and I can open the same pattern in 3rd seat on 8 HCP, the analogous (but admittedly not literally defined) 1♦ should also be permitted.

Rightly or wrongly, I have had several Sectional/Regional directors tell me a short ♦ promising 2 or more cards is natural. Go figure.

Confusing to say the least.

My opinion is a 2-card minor opening that is non forcing should be de facto natural. But it's just an opinion.

[straube]

 SteveMoe, on 2013-May-07, 23:03, said:

I think this area is more grey than black and white. A natural 1 minor opening holds at least 3 cards. Yes, ACBL says 1♣ promising 2 cards is natural when in 4=4=3=2 hands. Finally, ACBL defines a treatment as "A natural call that, by partnership agreement, carries a specific message about the suit bid or the general strength of the hand. Such bids are not conventions and therefore not regulated by the ACBL Convention Chart. Consult the ACBL Alert Chart for those treatments which require Alerts and/or Announcements." It says a non-forcing opening bid of 1♣ or 1♦ with fewer than 2 cards requires an announcement "Might be short", not an alert.

So the Precision 1♦ is a treatment. The ACBL does not define it as artificial. Indeed I have not been allowed to play CRASH or similar strategies over a Precision 1♦ with the rationale that we cannot do that over a natural short ♣. [Some who play 10-12 1NT also play 1♣ & 1♦ promising 2 to cover the stronger NT hands with manageable ranges. This use of the minors goes beyond the 4=4=3=2 pattern for ♣s].

So if I can open 1♣ on 2 cards with 10-21 HCP, and I can open the same pattern in 3rd seat on 8 HCP, the analogous (but admittedly not literally defined) 1♦ should also be permitted.

Rightly or wrongly, I have had several Sectional/Regional directors tell me a short ♦ promising 2 or more cards is natural. Go figure.

Confusing to say the least.

My opinion is a 2-card minor opening that is non forcing should be de facto natural. But it's just an opinion.

I don't think the first part of this is right. A treatment is a type of natural call. In order for a call to be natural it promises 3 cards in a minor (or 4432 specific) or 4 cards in a major. A Precision 1D that promises only 2 diamonds is not natural and cannot therefore be a treatment.

I think the ACBL classifies 2+ diamonds as an "all purpose bid" and requires 10 hcps. I think the reason that overcalls of 1D need to be natural is that the bid is not strong. If the bid were strong (15+) then the opening side is allowed artificial responses...and I think for equity purposes so then is the defending side. 1D as an all purpose bid is a special allowance...subject to the requirement of having 10 hcps. In a sense, it's a gift to strong club players and perhaps others.

I personally think that those folks using an all purpose 1D (2+ diamonds or 1+ diamonds or 0+ diamonds) ought to follow that requirement of 10 points, even in 3rd seat. Now if a partnership doesn't have the agreement to open lighter than 10 hcps and opens a point light on an infrequent basis...such that there is no implicit understanding that this is being done...then the bid is close enough not to constitute a psyche and there is no foul. I don't think one can psyche an artificial opening.

But perhaps I'm misunderstanding something or perhaps I have it right and directors and players are turning a blind eye to the rules. If everyone is going faster than the speed limit, then staying with traffic is perhaps not speeding. So a lot of why I posted this in this forum was to learn what experts are experiencing in the real world. Are the directors enforcing this 10 point rule? Are folks abiding by it?

[rhm]

 Siegmund, on 2013-May-07, 22:36, said:

If we are speaking of the ACBL GCC, then yes, the rules are perfectly clear: you may not open an artificial 1D with fewer than 10 HCP, and if you ever psych 1M openings, you are forbidden to play Drury (at least if your practice is to always use it rather than ever making an immediate raise to the 3-level.)

The former is sufficiently non-controversial that I would expect to see it nearly universally enforced if a director was called. The second is sufficiently controversial that I would expect a majority of directors to laugh at the notion, even though the definition of psychic control is perfectly clear.

This may be so in ACBL land and unfortunately in too many other jurisdictions.

But I admit I do not like it, nor do I like that psyches in the bidding are generally frowned upon, unless name players like Zia make them, when they may be praised in newspaper columns.
I believe in full disclosure including implicit agreements, which come from partnership experience.
Bridge has poker elements and I believe you should be able to use your systems and agreements to the best of your advantage and what fits your personality.
I do not mind having specific rules for novices of the game, as long as these specific rules do not apply to the vast majority of tournaments or club games.
After all the majority of tournament players and club members play Bridge for years and do not need a nanny.
If they can not cope with psyches the above rules may be the reason why.

Rainer Herrmann

[JLOGIC]

From a precisioners standpoint it seems dumb that 1C either natural or could be short would not be a psyche, but 1D precision would be a psyche.

One of the hands in this article was actually a hand I held and "psyched" 1D. Qxxxx Axx xx Qxx. It seems silly to me that if the hand was Qxxxx Axx Qxx xx and I opened 1C could be short, that would be fine but since I opened 1D precision it's illegal.

I think that 1D precision should be treated the same as 1C could be short (maybe it already is).

[JLOGIC]

 SteveMoe, on 2013-May-07, 23:03, said:

I think this area is more grey than black and white. A natural 1 minor opening holds at least 3 cards. Yes, ACBL says 1♣ promising 2 cards is natural when in 4=4=3=2 hands. Finally, ACBL defines a treatment as "A natural call that, by partnership agreement, carries a specific message about the suit bid or the general strength of the hand. Such bids are not conventions and therefore not regulated by the ACBL Convention Chart. Consult the ACBL Alert Chart for those treatments which require Alerts and/or Announcements." It says a non-forcing opening bid of 1♣ or 1♦ with fewer than 2 cards requires an announcement "Might be short", not an alert.

So the Precision 1♦ is a treatment. The ACBL does not define it as artificial. Indeed I have not been allowed to play CRASH or similar strategies over a Precision 1♦ with the rationale that we cannot do that over a natural short ♣. [Some who play 10-12 1NT also play 1♣ & 1♦ promising 2 to cover the stronger NT hands with manageable ranges. This use of the minors goes beyond the 4=4=3=2 pattern for ♣s].

So if I can open 1♣ on 2 cards with 10-21 HCP, and I can open the same pattern in 3rd seat on 8 HCP, the analogous (but admittedly not literally defined) 1♦ should also be permitted.

Rightly or wrongly, I have had several Sectional/Regional directors tell me a short ♦ promising 2 or more cards is natural. Go figure.

Confusing to say the least.

My opinion is a 2-card minor opening that is non forcing should be de facto natural. But it's just an opinion.

This is excellent and logical. It makes sense to me. If precision 1D is being treated this way then the 1D openers mentioned in JWeinsteins article are legal.

I wonder what would happen if someone called the director, I am sure that the top precision US pairs open 1D with less than 10 HCP fairly often against good opps (doubt we are "psyching" vs bad opps), but in my own case I know no one has ever called the director on me. If they do I will use this argument.

[Siegmund]

In my mind there is quite a significant difference between a 1C opening where you may have one more diamond than you do clubs, and a 1D opening where you may be 3-3-2-5 or more extreme.

The wording on the GCC, for better or worse, gives a definition of "natural" that includes 1C CBS and does not include Precision 1D.

Quote

I think the reason that overcalls of 1D need to be natural is that the bid is not strong.

An agreement about strength doesn't turn a bid into a convention. The chart says you may use any (non-destructive) defense to an opponent's conventional call. Either you should be allowed any defense to 1D, or someone has to claim that the 1D bid is not a convention, which brings you to definition #6.

The GCC is still almost identical to how it was in the pre-2007 world when the definition of a convention was in the laws -- and there was, admittedly, a grey area about catchall bids in that definition, where calls like Herbert negatives appeared not to be conventions (because they did not "convey a message other than" a desire to play in the named suit - they conveyed no message at all, except about overall strength). I can imagine someone trying to drive precision 1D through that loophole, but I don't remember hearing that argument made (before 2007.) ACBL's practice then was to treat "not natural" and "conventional" as synonyms, even though they weren't -- so I tend to assume they still do this, and would automatically treat anything not meeting their definition of natural as conventional.

[nige1]

 JLOGIC, on 2013-May-08, 08:39, said:

From a precisioners standpoint it seems dumb that 1C either natural or could be short would not be a psyche, but 1D precision would be a psyche. One of the hands in this article was actually a hand I held and "psyched" 1D. Qxxxx Axx xx Qxx. It seems silly to me that if the hand was Qxxxx Axx Qxx xx and I opened 1C could be short, that would be fine but since I opened 1D precision it's illegal. I think that 1D precision should be treated the same as 1C could be short (maybe it already is).

Players and directors seem to ignore rules that ban psychs of artificial bids or that specify a minimum strength for openers. e.g.

• The bidding quiz in an old Bridge Magazine asked what action you would take, third in hand, holding ♠ x x x ♥ A K Q J ♦ x x x ♣ x x x. Almost everybody bid something, including the UK panellists, none of whom even mentioned the version of EBU rule of 18/19 that was relevant at the time.
• On BBO, a world-champion opened very light in 3rd seat. The commentator explained it was a psych as the rules in force forbade such an opening by agreement. The commentators were inundated by texts from countrymen of the "psycher", explaining that, for this pair, these "psychs" were completely routine.

Such infractions are rarely reported and hardly ever result in redress. Most players rationalize their rule-breaking as "judgement" or "just Bridge".

If all daft system-regulations were scrapped, however, players would probably be happy to disclose their sensible and effective (but currently illegal) understandings.

Like so much of current Bridge law, these restrictions penalize only the diminishing band of masochists who assiduously abide by the rules.

[JLOGIC]

 nige1, on 2013-May-08, 09:24, said:

Players and directors seem to ignore rules that ban psychs of artificial bids or that specify a minimum strength for openers. e.g.

• Bridge Magazine bidding quiz asked what you would you would do, 3rd in hand, with ♠ x x x ♥ A K Q J ♦ x x x ♣ x x x. Almost everybody bid something, including the English panellists, none of whom even mentioned the EBU rule of 18/19 that was relevant at the time.
• On BBO, a world-champion opened very light in 3rd seat. The commentator explained it was a psych as the rules in force forbade such an opening by agreement. The commentators were inundated by texts from countrymen of the "psycher", explaining that for this pair, such "psychs" were completely routine.

Most players rationalize this law-breaking as "judgement" or "just Bridge". If all daft system-regulations were scrapped, however, players would probably be happy to disclose their sensible and effective (but currently illegal) understandings.

Such infractions are rarely reported and hardly ever result in redress.

Like so many of the current rules, these restrictions penalize only the diminishing set of masochists who assiduously abide by the law.

I think you have a strange idea of breaking the law. Opening third seat on a 10 count is not illegal. If you do it often, then you have an implicit agreement that you open light in third seat, and may open 4 card majors in third seat.

Both of those are noted on my convention card. I may open light in third seat, and I may open 4 card majors in third seat. So to me opening with AKQJ of hearts in third seat is not a psyche, it is within the expected realm of my third seat bid.

Psyching is not illegal. If you psyche too much of the same bid, then you have an agreement that you must tell the opponents. If that agreement is illegal, then you cannot do it. However, agreeing to open lighter and play 4 card majors instead of 5 card majors in third seat is not illegal, so what is the problem?

[straube]

 JLOGIC, on 2013-May-08, 08:45, said:

This is excellent and logical. It makes sense to me. If precision 1D is being treated this way then the 1D openers mentioned in JWeinsteins article are legal.

I wonder what would happen if someone called the director, I am sure that the top precision US pairs open 1D with less than 10 HCP fairly often against good opps (doubt we are "psyching" vs bad opps), but in my own case I know no one has ever called the director on me. If they do I will use this argument.

The part about 1D being a treatment is not logical. I think you prefer 1D as 2+ to be treated as natural because you play 2+ and this would allow you legally to open lighter than you are entitled to now. Look at it from the perspective of folks who play that 1D promises 1+ diamonds or 0+ diamonds. Why draw the line between 1 and 2 diamonds and not 2 and 3 diamonds? If we made 2+ natural then I still wouldn't be able to open lighter than 10 (by agreement anyway) while you would. Also, the rule that considers a 1C opening with a 2-cd club suit is a gimme to those who play a natural system and want their 1D opening to promise 4. They can't open any hand with two clubs with a bid of 1C...but only 4432 specific. So this is really a pretty small exception to the natural (3+ for a minor) definition.

[JLOGIC]

Quote

They can't open any hand with two clubs with a bid of 1C...but only 4432 specific.

Ah so people who open 1C 4342 etc play an artificial club?

My point of logical was just that 2+ clubs should be treated as 2+ diamond. You're right, if it's only 4432 that counts as natural then that is certainly different than a precision diamond.

I almost never open 1D with less than 8 points so I don't really care. Even in the example from the USBF, my hand had 8 points it just had 5 spades (I treated it as balanced rather than as 5 spades. Did I psyche?). I am not psyching if I open an 8 count in third seat white so I don't care, I just think it's a joke that 2+ club can be treated as natural and 2+ diamond can't.

If you're right about the exception only being 4432 (which I believe) then thats ok. Then why can people not play special defenses to those clubs and precision diamond? Sounds like the directors just screw up and treat all of those as natural. Given that they are otherwise treated as natural, it seems silly to invoke the psyching an artificial bid case. The ACBL should just make them either natural or artificial (sounds like they're artificial) and enforce it.

[JLOGIC]

ALso apparently according to your OP 8 points is an illegal agreement for a precision diamond and I never knew that. That seems crazy, so I can't open in first seat with Ax xxx AJTxxxx x?

If that is the case, they should just do away with the 10 point rule, some 9 counts are normal openers to deem them an illegal psyche is just nuts. That goes for 0+ 1+ 2+ 3+ whatever.

[nige1]

 JLOGIC, on 2013-May-08, 09:34, said:

I think you have a strange idea of breaking the law. Opening third seat on a 10 count is not illegal. If you do it often, then you have an implicit agreement that you open light in third seat, and may open 4 card majors in third seat.

My examples were potentially illegal, by agreement, in the specified jurisdiction. For example, according to the old EBU regulation for ordinary competition, you were not allowed to agree to open a 4333 10-count and play any convention (e.g. Drury) thereafter.

Few people have the time keep up with the morass of system-regulations (and their weird official interpretations). IMO, they should be scrapped (except for standard system competitions).

[JLOGIC]

On the general chart it says that if 1D is 2+ it must show 10 points.

On the midchart it says that an opening bid must show 8 points. However, it says psyching artificial bids is illegal.

Does that mean in midchart you can play 1D opening as 8+ instead of 10+ even if it's 2+ (or 1+ or 0+)? However, you cannot psyche it (have 7 points)? And does that mean if I play in a general chart event I'm making an illegal psyche by opening 1D 2+ with Axxx x AJT9xxx x?

What a freaking mess. I'm glad I don't play much in general chart lol.

[JLOGIC]

 nige1, on 2013-May-08, 10:04, said:

My examples were illegal, by agreement, in the specified jurisdiction. For example, according to the old EBU regulation for ordinary competition, you were not allowed to agree to open a 4333 10-count and play any convention (e.g. Drury) thereafter.

Fair enough, then I would view everyones vote for 1H as an act of civil disobedience lol. At some point if rules are so dumb where they stop the game being played (and I'm talking about disallowing opening 1H with AKQJ in third seat)....well.

So if I understand it right, in general chart in USA if you play 1C is 3+ you can open Axxx x x AJT9xxx NP. If you play it 2+, you have to play it as 4432 only when it's 2. Otherwise it is ILLEGAL. Similarly, if you play 3 or 4+ diamond you can open 1D with Axxx x AJT9xxx x, but if you play 0 or 1 or 2+ you cannot.

That is madness and giving an unfair advantage to what they deem as a natural system. I suppose this is why the directors ostensibly treat these 1C and 1D bids as natural even though they shouldn't.

In midchart or higher, possibly it's ok to agree that you can open artificial bids 8+ and have them not be a psyche? Or am I misreading. I'll feel pretty bad if that's not true since apparently I've been making illegal bids with some frequency.

[straube]

 JLOGIC, on 2013-May-08, 09:58, said:

Ah so people who open 1C 4342 etc play an artificial club?

That's my understanding.

JLOGIC said:

I almost never open 1D with less than 8 points so I don't really care. Even in the example from the USBF, my hand had 8 points it just had 5 spades (I treated it as balanced rather than as 5 spades. Did I psyche?). I am not psyching if I open an 8 count in third seat white so I don't care, I just think it's a joke that 2+ club can be treated as natural and 2+ diamond can't.

Yes, I think that qualifies as a psyche and it's illegal to psyche an artificial opening.

Quote

If you're right about the exception only being 4432 (which I believe) then thats ok. Then why can people not play special defenses to those clubs and precision diamond? Sounds like the directors just screw up and treat all of those as natural. Given that they are otherwise treated as natural, it seems silly to invoke the psyching an artificial bid case. The ACBL should just make them either natural or artificial (sounds like they're artificial) and enforce it.

I think the reason that they don't allow special defenses to these openings is because these openings are not strong and responder is not allowed to use artificial responses (other than 1D to 1C) so basically the defense and the opening side are on a somewhat level playing field. I mean, they give the opening side the ability to use 1C and 1D artificially as long as it's used to some constructive end. That (I believe) is why they require 10 hcps for these openings while natural openings are 8. Of course in addition to natural overcalls, the defenders have double which may be assigned any meaning.