[dickiegera]

---

Is 1 psyche or an illegal bid? ACBL


Thank you

[hrothgar]

dickiegera, on 2019-September-07, 14:47, said:

---

Is 1 psyche or an illegal bid? ACBL

Thank you

That depends.

If the game that you are playing is is using the Open Chart or Open+ chart, it would appear to be permissable to have an agreement to open this hand.
If the game that you are playing in is using the Basic or Basic+ chart, this would not appear to be be legal to have an agreement to open this hand.

In either case, there's nothing wrong with a 1!S psyche (unless the player in question does so habitually)

[blackshoe]

dickiegera, on 2019-September-07, 14:47, said:

Is 1 psyche or an illegal bid? ACBL

I presume you mean "is 1!S a psych or an illegal bid?"

I have no idea. What is the agreed meaning of 1!S on this auction? Which of the four convention charts governs the event in which this was bid?

[pigpenz]

idont see anything wrong with 1♠

[johnu]

dickiegera, on 2019-September-07, 14:47, said:

---

Is 1 psyche or an illegal bid? ACBL


Thank you

Definition of Psych in the latest convention charts

Quote

“Psych”: Generally, 2 cards fewer or an Ace weaker than the minimum expected for a bid would meet the definition of a Psych, as would an Ace stronger than the maximum expected.

Under Open/Open+ chart, under disallowed opening bids

Quote

*** A Natural or Quasi-Natural 1-level opening bid in any seat that could contain less than Near-Average Strength.

Near-Average strength is defined as

Quote

“Near Average Strength”: A hand that has at least 8 HCP or meets the “Rule of 17”.

Clearly 1♠ is a natural opening bid if it shows 4+ spades. With 9 cards in spades and hearts, to meet Near-Average Strength requires 8 HCP. This hand contains 6 HCP so this would fall into the disallowed opening bid category.

An ace weaker than the 8 HCP required for this distribution is 4 HCP so this hand isn't a psych.

[hrothgar]

johnu, on 2019-September-07, 19:19, said:

Definition of Psych in the latest convention charts


Under Open/Open+ chart, under disallowed opening bids

I missed that line when I looked at the Open Chart, however, I don't see it under Open+
(It only applies in First / Second seat)

[blackshoe]

The charts govern agreements. You can't have an agreement to open this hand at the one level. That doesn't mean you can't open it.

[pescetom]

blackshoe, on 2019-September-08, 07:47, said:

The charts govern agreements. You can't have an agreement to open this hand at the one level. That doesn't mean you can't open it.

True. But it would be a psyche by the RA to regulate that opening this hand at one level is not a psyche.

[johnu]

blackshoe, on 2019-September-08, 07:47, said:

The charts govern agreements. You can't have an agreement to open this hand at the one level. That doesn't mean you can't open it.

There is conveniently a definition of "agreement" in the new convention charts.

Quote

“Agreement”: Partnership understandings of methods adopted by the partnership that are reached explicitly by discussion or implicitly through the mutual experience or awareness of the players. This applies to all calls, allowed and disallowed.

[barmar]

johnu, on 2019-September-07, 19:19, said:

An ace weaker than the 8 HCP required for this distribution is 4 HCP so this hand isn't a psych.

That's only true if you have an agreement to open hands that meet the rule of 17. While you're allowed to have that agreement, it doesn't mean the pair in question actually does.

With all my partners, we've never discussed specific agreements for 3rd-seat openings, although we know that they can be shaded compared to 1st/2nd seats. In fact, I don't think I've ever even had detailed discussions about 1st/2nd seat, they're just "normal". I have personal standards (e.g. I won't open most 4333 12-counts), but partners may be more conservative or aggressive than me.

[johnu]

barmar, on 2019-September-09, 08:38, said:

That's only true if you have an agreement to open hands that meet the rule of 17. While you're allowed to have that agreement, it doesn't mean the pair in question actually does.

Near average strength is either 8 HCP or meeting Rule of 17. In this example, the longest 2 suits have 9 cards, so you need 8 HCP to meet the Rule of 17. The 8 HCP and the Rule of 17 have the same HCP requirements with a 5-4 hand.

[chrism]

Barry's point is that if your agreement is that, say, 1S shows at least 11HCP, then this hand is a psych. If your agreement is to open all hands of near-average strength and the appropriate shape, then it isn't a psych. What matters is how far it deviates from agreement, not how far it deviates from the minimum allowable agreement.

[pescetom]

chrism, on 2019-September-10, 04:52, said:

Barry's point is that if your agreement is that, say, 1S shows at least 11HCP, then this hand is a psych. If your agreement is to open all hands of near-average strength and the appropriate shape, then it isn't a psych. What matters is how far it deviates from agreement, not how far it deviates from the minimum allowable agreement.

But we should also consider the proportion between the deviation and the promised value.
If the agreement was minimum 11 and you have 2 less, I don't think anyone would call it a psych.
If the agreement was minimum 5 and you have 2 less, then some of us would.

[barmar]

pescetom, on 2019-September-10, 06:51, said:

But we should also consider the proportion between the deviation and the promised value.
If the agreement was minimum 11 and you have 2 less, I don't think anyone would call it a psych.
If the agreement was minimum 5 and you have 2 less, then some of us would.

This seems reminiscent of ACBL's view on upgrading into NT ranges.

If you play 15-17 1NT, there's no problem with occasionally upgrading 14 counts (as long as it's not frequent enough that it would be more accurate to announce 14+-17). But if you play 10-12 1NT, they say that you're never allowed to open 9 counts. The philosophy seems to be that if your system is inherently aggressive, you can't make even more aggressive deviations.

Or ACBL thinks they're doing you a favor "allowing" you to play 10-12 NT, so you shouldn't go beyond.

[pescetom]

barmar, on 2019-September-10, 08:32, said:

This seems reminiscent of ACBL's view on upgrading into NT ranges.

If you play 15-17 1NT, there's no problem with occasionally upgrading 14 counts (as long as it's not frequent enough that it would be more accurate to announce 14+-17). But if you play 10-12 1NT, they say that you're never allowed to open 9 counts. The philosophy seems to be that if your system is inherently aggressive, you can't make even more aggressive deviations.

Or ACBL thinks they're doing you a favor "allowing" you to play 10-12 NT, so you shouldn't go beyond.

They can allow or disallow what they want, but that doesn't seem anything like a pysche in Law terms: a 1HCP deviation from 10 HCP is hardly gross.

Be that as it may, my reasoning is basically just percentages: -25% would be a fair red line to determine a psyche.

[blackshoe]

it might if HCP were an accurate measure of value. They aren't.

[pescetom]

Percentage of whatever is chosen (or mandated by RA) as the measure of an agreement.

[blackshoe]

How do you measure 25% of a trick?

[pescetom]

blackshoe, on 2019-September-10, 17:08, said:

How do you measure 25% of a trick?

A deviation of 2 tricks from 4 exceeds 25%, of 1 trick does not. u.s.w.
If your agreement is based upon self-rating of the expected number of tricks, then you can tell the Director how many tricks you expected and he can compare that to your agreement. If he is not convinced he can always poll your peers to obtain their expectation, or just use his own judgement like they do in most RAs anyway.

[nige1]

dickiegera 'Is 1 psyche or an illegal bid? ACBL'
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
In my experience, holding this hand, in 3rd-seat,
-- A few masochist sticklers for the rules pass but
-- Most players open, routinely.
The 1♠ openers might explain that it's a psych rather than an an agreement because...
-- The partnership carefully avoid discussion of this ploy.
-- It might not even be a psych -- perhaps it's just a deviation.
-- Opportunities for a 3rd-seat opening on 6 HCP occur with insufficient frequency to qualify, legally, as an implicit understanding.

AFAIR, a Spanish team accused an American team of something like this in a world-championship.
Spain was criticized as unsporting and unethical. And it lost the ruling.
AFAIR, facts discovered by the investigation and the reasoning behind the ruling weren't divulged.

Most system-regulations penalize the minority who try to learn and abide by them.

---