[FrancesHinden]

straube, on 2013-July-02, 12:48, said:

Yeah, but they shouldn't get a handicap for that. If I'm in an established partnership and sit down against a new partnership and they feel free to psyche while I don't, then that doesn't seem fair.

Whether I'm exaggerating or not, I don't think they have this tool to the extent that a new pair does. If I'm in an established partnership I have to be concerned with whether partner will recognize my psyche or not...and to what extent he may suspect a psyche. I also will be concerned with how others view our partnership. Even if I catch partner off guard with a "new" psyche, the opponents and others in the community won't know that I gave him the same problem I gave the opponents.

You seem to be tying yourself into knots here. If you know you are ethical, why shouldn't you psyche? I play a lot of boards with the same partner. The last 3 deliberate psyches that we have done in partnership (at least that I can remember- they are quite rare) have been:

3D P 4H on a 2731 3-count (-450 for 9 off against +1430)
P P 1D on a 4333 8-count with KJ10 of diamonds (-500 against nothing)
1NT on a 2227 11-count (showing 15-17) (+180 against a major suit game)

a 2/3 success rate is about normal for us, as we tend to pick them quite carefully.

What I (and the EBU) object to is people bidding, say, 3C P 3NT on a weak hand with big club support repeatedly, but explaining it as 'strong and natural' when asked. (We alert it and say it's one or the other.)

[jogs]

FrancesHinden, on 2013-July-02, 16:01, said:

You seem to be tying yourself into knots here. If you know you are ethical, why shouldn't you psyche? I play a lot of boards with the same partner. The last 3 deliberate psyches that we have done in partnership (at least that I can remember- they are quite rare) have been:

Did you catch the psyche? Are you obligated to tell opponents
of this psyche? This game claims to be full disclosure.
When the Laws were first written, players were unsophisticated.
Today the psyching pair has a huge unfair advantage. The
easiest way to catch opponents' psyches is by partner's BIT.
And that is illegal, against the Law.

[Zelandakh]

What would be nice is if you could disclose a potential psyche without falling foul of system regulations. I think this is the crux of straube's issue here. Say Albert have a pattern of occasionally and randomly opening hands of 0-2hcp in third seat with 1♠ but partner is not expected to compensate or allow for this possibility in any way. If Albert does it with a random partner it is a psyche and no problem. If Albert does it often enough with a regular partner, or discusses this tendency with a partner, then it is no longer a psyche but rather (in most RA regulations) an illegal agreement. So there is an incentive for regular partners not to discuss or disclose. Providing these hands turn up infrequently enough, the CPU is unlikely to be noticed. I think Albert's partner should be able to disclose the psyche possibility without the system being declared illegal (providing there is no fielding) and/or for regulations to be relaxed so that such agreements are allowed and the incentive to avoid disclosure is reduced.

[helene_t]

totally agree with trevahond and cascade.

I see psyching by opps and partners very rarely so it's not like it would make a big change to the game if psychs were to disappear. But I try to avoid bbo tournaments that state a no-psyche policy, because I have heard enough stories about directors who applied the psyche criterion to more or less normal calls that just weren't to the TDs taste.

Of course this wouldn't be the case in events with professional TDs but still I wouldn't be sure where the line goes. I have sometimes bid a 3nt without stoppers in opps' suit, hoping that they would believe me and lead something else. I don't think that is extreme enough to count as a psyche but with a psyche ban I would be scared of those kind of things. Even if TDs were able to enforce the rule in a sensible and transparent way (which could easily be the case), there would still be plenty of issues with opps calling the TD about something they thought would count as a psyche.

[billw55]

FrancesHinden, on 2013-July-02, 16:01, said:

You seem to be tying yourself into knots here. If you know you are ethical, why shouldn't you psyche? I play a lot of boards with the same partner. The last 3 deliberate psyches that we have done in partnership (at least that I can remember- they are quite rare) have been:

3D P 4H on a 2731 3-count (-450 for 9 off against +1430)
P P 1D on a 4333 8-count with KJ10 of diamonds (-500 against nothing)
1NT on a 2227 11-count (showing 15-17) (+180 against a major suit game)

a 2/3 success rate is about normal for us, as we tend to pick them quite carefully.

What I (and the EBU) object to is people bidding, say, 3C P 3NT on a weak hand with big club support repeatedly, but explaining it as 'strong and natural' when asked. (We alert it and say it's one or the other.)

Impressive, only one trick with 7 trumps, how did you pull that off?

(I assume the shape or contract was actually something else - or that I misunderstood)

[wodahs]

I think 'strength' psyches have lost much of their effectiveness (assuming they had any) in the past few years what with 9- and 10- point openings, responding with air, etc. They just get ignored. 'Length' psyches still pack some punch but partner should never be sniffing them out more often than the opps ...

[fromageGB]

billw55, on 2013-July-03, 06:24, said:

Impressive, only one trick with 7 trumps, how did you pull that off?

(I assume the shape or contract was actually something else - or that I misunderstood)

♥AKQJT9 were with RHO

[FrancesHinden]

No, sorry, it was a 7231. He was planning to bid 4S if doubled.

[billw55]

FrancesHinden, on 2013-July-03, 12:23, said:

No, sorry, it was a 7231. He was planning to bid 4S if doubled.

I wonder, if partner passed that holding equal length (or more hearts), would it be ruled fielding? And if so, what adjustment/penalty?

[ArtK78]

billw55, on 2013-July-05, 06:47, said:

I wonder, if partner passed that holding equal length (or more hearts), would it be ruled fielding? And if so, what adjustment/penalty?

There comes a point when bridge logic has to overcome the idea that "He fielded a psyche, he must die!" (Sort of like "If it hesitates, shoot it!")

There is no possible explanation to pulling 4♥x other than it was a psyche. That is not fielding.

[WellSpyder]

ArtK78, on 2013-July-05, 07:53, said:

There is no possible explanation to pulling 4♥x other than it was a psyche. That is not fielding.

I'm reminded of a hand once when I opened a Precision 2♣ (c10-15 HCPs, 6+♣ or 5♣ + 4M). This was passed round to my RHO who doubled for take-out, which was passed back to my partner. He bid 2♦, which RHO doubled. Partner bid 2♥, which RHO doubled. Partner bid 2♠, which RHO doubled....

With something like a 1435 shape, I was pretty happy when partner rescued to 2♦. I was even happier when he took this out to 2♥. What should I do now when 2♠ is doubled???

[aguahombre]

WellSpyder, on 2013-July-08, 09:07, said:

I'm reminded of a hand once when I opened a Precision 2♣ (c10-15 HCPs, 6+♣ or 5♣ + 4M). This was passed round to my RHO who doubled for take-out, which was passed back to my partner. He bid 2♦, which RHO doubled. Partner bid 2♥, which RHO doubled. Partner bid 2♠, which RHO doubled....

With something like a 1435 shape, I was pretty happy when partner rescued to 2♦. I was even happier when he took this out to 2♥. What should I do now when 2♠ is doubled???

Let partner finish being cute. Your passes of 2DX and then 2HX already said you tolerated diamonds and were delighted with hearts. If you pass 2SX and pard ends up with a 9-bagger there, you fielded via common sense.

[ArtK78]

WellSpyder, on 2013-July-08, 09:07, said:

I'm reminded of a hand once when I opened a Precision 2♣ (c10-15 HCPs, 6+♣ or 5♣ + 4M). This was passed round to my RHO who doubled for take-out, which was passed back to my partner. He bid 2♦, which RHO doubled. Partner bid 2♥, which RHO doubled. Partner bid 2♠, which RHO doubled....

With something like a 1435 shape, I was pretty happy when partner rescued to 2♦. I was even happier when he took this out to 2♥. What should I do now when 2♠ is doubled???

Partner is having fun. But he is entirely on his own. Your contribution was your opening bid. You should not bid again.

I would not be surprised if partner had KQJTxxxx of spades, or lots of clubs and his next call would be 3♣ (or possibly 2NT, intending to get doubled there as well).

[ggwhiz]

WellSpyder, on 2013-July-08, 09:07, said:

I'm reminded of a hand once when I opened a Precision 2♣ (c10-15 HCPs, 6+♣ or 5♣ + 4M). This was passed round to my RHO who doubled for take-out, which was passed back to my partner. He bid 2♦, which RHO doubled. Partner bid 2♥, which RHO doubled. Partner bid 2♠, which RHO doubled....

With something like a 1435 shape, I was pretty happy when partner rescued to 2♦. I was even happier when he took this out to 2♥. What should I do now when 2♠ is doubled???

Partner is bidding for the cycle and getting in his way would be like pulling a pitcher in the 9th inning with a no-hitter going because of his pitch (bid) count. That's a firing offence as a partner.

[barmar]

if partner wanted your input, he would have redoubled for SOS the first time. Once he starts pulling, your fate is in his hand. Pray that he knows what he's doing.

[WellSpyder]

aguahombre, on 2013-July-08, 09:17, said:

Let partner finish being cute. Your passes of 2DX and then 2HX already said you tolerated diamonds and were delighted with hearts. If you pass 2SX and pard ends up with a 9-bagger there, you fielded via common sense.

Alas, partner did not have a 9-bagger. He was something like 4450 and apparently hoped to judge the right spot from the eagerness with which opponents doubled. My approach was that endorsed by everyone responding, but 2Sx was not a success! Partner tried to clinch the argument by saying that it was pointless hoping he had psyched with a long spade suit since in that case I would be ruled against for fielding, anyway....

[billw55]

WellSpyder, on 2013-July-09, 05:47, said:

Alas, partner did not have a 9-bagger. He was something like 4450 and apparently hoped to judge the right spot from the eagerness with which opponents doubled. My approach was that endorsed by everyone responding, but 2Sx was not a success! Partner tried to clinch the argument by saying that it was pointless hoping he had psyched with a long spade suit since in that case I would be ruled against for fielding, anyway....

And what did he say when you suggested starting with redouble?

[WellSpyder]

billw55, on 2013-July-09, 05:53, said:

And what did he say when you suggested starting with redouble?

He said he was worried I might misunderstand and leave it in! An extraordinary worry, I thought, since it was 100% clear we would play it as a rescue. But the previous hand, against the same opponents, we had scored 1Nxx+2 or something, and I suppose he wondered if I would think he was trying to repeat our success. Anyway, more or less an average round....

[CSGibson]

WellSpyder, on 2013-July-09, 07:22, said:

He said he was worried I might misunderstand and leave it in! An extraordinary worry, I thought, since it was 100% clear we would play it as a rescue. But the previous hand, against the same opponents, we had scored 1Nxx+2 or something, and I suppose he wondered if I would think he was trying to repeat our success. Anyway, more or less an average round....

This very much reminds me of a story on poorbridge.com

[aguahombre]

WellSpyder, on 2013-July-09, 05:47, said:

Alas, partner did not have a 9-bagger. He was something like 4450 and apparently hoped to judge the right spot from the eagerness with which opponents doubled. My approach was that endorsed by everyone responding, but 2Sx was not a success! Partner tried to clinch the argument by saying that it was pointless hoping he had psyched with a long spade suit since in that case I would be ruled against for fielding, anyway....

billw55, on 2013-July-09, 05:53, said:

And what did he say when you suggested starting with redouble?

Exactly. WellSpyder judged that partner knew what he was doing; WellSpyder misjudged

His partner misjudged what the ruling should be when we "field" because we assume partner knows what he is doing.
"Fielding" in this case would be removing 2Sx because we somehow guessed partner forgot to Rdbl 2CX.