[wank]

From the White Book...

"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 have bid (‘Watson’), you may not make such a double if the earlier suit bid was a psyche."

this seems like a terrible example. this isn't controlling the psyche. the non-psyching hand can still raise and go for a penalty. a psyche control should be something like precluding the responding hand from raising directly and forcing it through some kind of filter bid first.

[Poky]

wank, on 2015-July-23, 09:48, said:

this seems like a terrible example. this isn't controlling the psyche. the non-psyching hand can still raise and go for a penalty. a psyche control should be something like precluding the responding hand from raising directly and forcing it through some kind of filter bid first.

I still don't understand this "systemic psyche" concept.

Let's say I play:
1NT (9-11) - 2M (to play, mostly with 5+M)
2NT (any 4M raise)

Is 2NT "controlling a psyche" in the very rare cases when responder bids 2M with 2-3 cards in M?

[weejonnie]

Poky, on 2015-July-23, 13:42, said:

I still don't understand this "systemic psyche" concept.

Let's say I play:
1NT (9-11) - 2M (to play, mostly with 5+M)
2NT (any 4M raise)

Is 2NT "controlling a psyche" in the very rare cases when responder bids 2M with 2-3 cards in M?

If it has been designed to cater for those 'very rare cases when responder bids 2M with 2-3 cards in M' then Yes! as the partnership has a CPU. The alternative is to alert opponents that 2M might (rarely) be bid on 2-3 cards, in which case 2N will be passed.

However 'controlling a psyche' is different from a 'systemic psyche'. A systemic psyche means that the psycher can alert his partner to the fact that they have made a psychic bid and prevent their partner from carrying on bidding.

The following is guidelines from the ACBL

RISK‐FREE PSYCHES
Psychic controls are not permitted. If a pair is using methods that enable them to make risk‐free psyches, they are in essence playing psychic controls. For example, in playing a
10‐12 NT, many pairs have the understanding or the agreement that the NT opener may not bid again (except in forcing or invitational situations). If the pair were to psyche a non‐forcing or invitational response, the agreement would be a psychic control. For example,

1NT‐Pass‐2Hearts‐3Clubs,

if the opener is prohibited from bidding 3 hearts with a maximum and a fit, then a risk‐free environment is created. To pass without the interference would not be a problem as there is still risk involved (your partner could have a maximum real 2heart bid), but to pass in competition gives your partner room to maneuver with the knowledge that you will not interfere.
Since psychic controls are illegal, when a player does psyche one of these responses, the pair is playing an illegal agreement. WE should lean heavily toward issuing a procedural penalty or adjustment for the pair's illegal use of this agreement as a psychic control.

Another example is a 2spade response to a weak 2heart or 2diamond bid that opener is not permitted to raise. This becomes a psychic control when the 2Spade bid is a psychic. While it would be legal to have the agreement that a 2NT rebid shows spade support, the agreement would be illegal (a psychic control) if responder were to psyche the 2spade response.
Therefore, a legal agreement that creates a risk‐free psychic environment (that is an environment where the psycher knows his partner is under control ‐ this does not include hands where we know because of our particular hand that we have an answer to most things that our partner can do to us) becomes illegal if the pair psyches.
(Office Policy ‐ 08/1995)

So basically - if you find yourself in a position where partner is going to pass your bid (by agreement) - then you must not make it a psychic bid.

[Poky]

weejonnie, on 2015-July-24, 02:05, said:

If it has been designed to cater for those 'very rare cases when responder bids 2M with 2-3 cards in M' then Yes! as the partnership has a CPU. The alternative is to alert opponents that 2M might (rarely) be bid on 2-3 cards, in which case 2N will be passed.

1NT-2M-2NT is a 4-carder raise for the same reason why 1M-2NT is a 4-carder raise - to save room. Although I don't know why is this important.

If the sequence:
1NT 2M
2NT pass
happens, opener knows responder doesn't have 5M - because it is obvious, not because of something you call CPU.

My question is - which bid "controls" the psyche here and what does it mean exactly? Because I see only two players trying to make the best bid on every round, with their independent thought processes.

weejonnie, on 2015-July-24, 02:05, said:

So basically - if you find yourself in a position where partner is going to pass your bid (by agreement) - then you must not make it a psychic bid.

Since psyches are legal, such regulative would be clearly illegal.

[barmar]

Poky, on 2015-July-24, 02:49, said:

1NT-2M-2NT is a 4-carder raise for the same reason why 1M-2NT is a 4-carder raise - to save room. Although I don't know why is this important.

If the sequence:
1NT 2M
2NT pass
happens, opener knows responder doesn't have 5M - because it is obvious, not because of something you call CPU.

If you alert and explain 2M as "Either 5+M or a balanced hand with enough strength to play 2NT", and 2NT as "Pass or correct", then 2M is not a psychic and 2NT is not a psychic control.

This assumes that the 2-way response is a legal agreement in your jurisdiction.

[mycroft]

It is a terrible example. It is, however, a great example of the limit to which the EBU wishes to regulate psychic controls.

"Watson is a psychic control if used in conjunction with a psychic call (as is Drury...), even though it doesn't reduce the risk of the psychic call except in one, only moderately common, situation. Therefore, anything more controlling than that is clearly a psychic control."

Obviously the controls on K/S's, for example, (unconcealed) systemic psychics are psychic controls and would be a better example to explain the concept. But I believe the regulators assume they don't have to explain the concept, they have to clarify what they mean by "any agreement".

[FrancesHinden]

There are three sorts of psyches

- Genuine psyches which are as much a surprise to partner as to opponents and are not anticipated. These are completely legal.
- Positions where a partnership have a systemic agreement, but it is psyched often enough that they (in effect) have an agreement that the bid is two-way: either as the system states, or a psyche. These split into two different types

a) Ones where the two-way agreement is entirely legal
b) Ones where the two-way agreement is not legal

In case (a) it's not psyche, it's an undisclosed agreement. If you disclose it, you can have whatever agreements you like
In case (b) you have an illegal concealed partnership agreement and the score will be adjusted

Nearly all the examples given here would fall under case (a). If you have the agreement that partner must pass your bid whatever, then you can 'psyche' it as long as you disclose your agreement fully e.g. 1NT P 2M to play alerted as 'usually a weak take-out, but may be a random psyche; partner is forced to pass it'

If you play that 2H P 2S cannot be raised by opener, that's also fine as long as 2S is alerted appropriately.

"Systemic psyching" is of course a contradiction in terms; it doesn't exist by definition.

[barmar]

FrancesHinden, on 2015-July-24, 14:47, said:

"Systemic psyching" is of course a contradiction in terms; it doesn't exist by definition.

I think that oxymoron derives from archaic definitions of "psychic". Back when there wasn't so much system variation from pair to pair, and we didn't have alerting, I suspect that the term was used to refer to bids that deviated from the common conventions, not just the partnership agreements.

When I first started playing (late 80's), there was a pair in our club who played a 2-way overcall structure. IIRC (and I'm not sure I do), (1♣) 1♦ was described as "either a normal diamond overcall, or a heart psych". By the latter, they meant a very weak hand with hearts.

[nige1]

Quoted from another thread...

FrancesHinden, on 2015-July-23, 15:07, said:

We alert many major suit responses in the auction 2X dbl 2M or 3X dbl 3M as 'either natural, or lead directing with a fit, or a pysche'

I played with an expert pick-up partner, in a playful mood. After a few boards, I started alerting his calls as "probable psych". He protested that my alerts were illegal, because you must not have an agreement about psychs.

barmar, on 2015-July-24, 16:11, said:

I think that oxymoron derives from archaic definitions of "psychic". Back when there wasn't so much system variation from pair to pair, and we didn't have alerting, I suspect that the term was used to refer to bids that deviated from the common conventions, not just the partnership agreements. When I first started playing (late 80's), there was a pair in our club who played a 2-way overcall structure. IIRC (and I'm not sure I do), (1♣) 1♦ was described as "either a normal diamond overcall, or a heart psych". By the latter, they meant a very weak hand with hearts.

Agreeing...

• System-regulation complicates the psych malaise. Suppose you play "the Herman Heart": in third seat, you open 1♥ whenever you hold less than 5 HCP. In many jurisdictions, such an agreement would be illegal, because you aren't allowed to agree to open at the one-level, on less than 8 HCP. Without system-regulations, there would be less of a problem.
• Paradoxically, with no explicit agreement, the Herman Heart might not be frequent enough to be classified as a CPU, in some jurisdictions.
• Pattern and frequency become important when judging whether a psych is a CPU. Most frequent psychers have favourite contexts, in terms of particular auctions, as well as vulnerability, position, state-of-match, and so on. Regular partners cannot help but recognize these. Currently, however, there is no global recording system, so provided you don't repeat the same psych too often in the same event, you are likely to be OK.
• Finally, there is a whole range of relatively safe "expert" psychs. e.g. Psychic cue-bids, trial-bids, exclusion. Are these controlled psychs? And what about alleged psychic controls like Drury?

[Cascade]

nige1, on 2015-July-24, 18:16, said:

Quoted from another thread... I played with an expert pick-up partner, in a playful mood. After a few boards, I started alerting his calls as "probable psych". He protested that my alerts were illegal, because you must not have an agreement about psychs. Agreeing...

• System-regulation complicates the psych malaise. Suppose you play "the Herman Heart": in third seat, you open 1[HE[ whenever you hold less than 5 HCP. In many jurisdictions, such an agreement would be illegal, because you aren't allowed to agree to open at the one-level, on less than 8 HCP. Without system-regulations, there would be less of a problem.
• Paradoxically, with no explicit agreement, the Herman Heart might not be frequent enough to be classified as a CPU, in some jurisdictions.
• Pattern and frequency become important when judging whether a psych is a CPU. Most frequent psychers have favourite contexts, in terms of particular auctions, as well as vulnerability, position, state-of-match, and so on. Regular partners cannot help but recognize these. Currently, however, there is no global recording system, so provided you don't repeat the same psych too often in the same event, you are likely to be OK.
• Finally, there are a whole range of relatively safe "expert" psychs. e.g. Psychic cue-bids, trial-bids, exclusion. Are these controlled psychs? And what about alleged psychic controls like Drury?

There are many anomalies with system regulations that try to restrict judgement. So many that I think it is flawed to do so especially when the restrictions are so close to expert (or anyone's) practice and the boundaries are either unclear or not administered as if they are clear.

Some examples:

Many North American experts open 1NT with a singleton from time to time --- 4441s with a stiff honour etc in range. Practically it seems a sensible way to bid such hands given that opening a minor is also fraught with danger on some auctions. The ACBL state that a singleton is allowed so long as it is a rare exception, 1% is their threshold for rare. When you count up the hands with a stiff honour and 4441 you get way more than 1%. So essentially expert practice is outside the system regulations but rarely if ever punished.

A few years ago when I was commentating on a World Championships Geir Helgemo opened 1[He] in third seat with a seven count. I commented on this and a Norwegian kibitzer sent me a private message saying "they do that in Norway". If this is so then it seems highly likely that such an opening is or has become a partnership understanding. The problem is they cannot disclose that they open 7 counts or worse because then their system would become a HUM and they would be restricted in when and how they play it. To be clear I am not trying to pick on Geir and what he did is not so far out of the ordinary. I have played with and against other world class players who frequently open light in third and they pass it off as "just bridge" with scant regard for the system regulations.

The regulations are further flawed when there is not an objective measure for when a partnership practice becomes an implicit partnership understanding. This is especially the case where the actual hand type is very low frequency like the Hermann 1♥ referred to by Nigel.

My view is if a particular hand that is outside the system parameters you would open then your system is illegal. I would go further and say even if only some of the time you, your partnership, would open a hand outside the system parameters then your system is illegal. The way the laws are written, but not administered, only if you can establish there is no agreement, explicit or implicit, are you allowed to open, as a psychic or a deviation, a hand that violates the system regulations.

By not enforcing the rules as written the directors create an uneven playing field where some players gain an advantage or attempt to gain an advantage by flouting the laws whilst others place themselves at a disadvantage by playing carefully to the laws. Moreover it because very unclear where precisely the boundary is and an ethical player therefore has a great deal of difficulty playing to the rules.

[johnu]

Cascade, on 2015-July-24, 21:32, said:

Many North American experts open 1NT with a singleton from time to time --- 4441s with a stiff honour etc in range. Practically it seems a sensible way to bid such hands given that opening a minor is also fraught with danger on some auctions. The ACBL state that a singleton is allowed so long as it is a rare exception, 1% is their threshold for rare. When you count up the hands with a stiff honour and 4441 you get way more than 1%. So essentially expert practice is outside the system regulations but rarely if ever punished.

Actually 4441 with a stiff honor is well within 1%. 4441 hands occur 3% of the time. If you counted jack as an honor, 4/13 * 3% < 1%. Most will only bid 1NT with a singleton Q or better, some K or better, so well under 1%. If you start to include 5431 hands, then you can get over 1%.

[campboy]

johnu, on 2015-July-25, 00:00, said:

Actually 4441 with a stiff honor is well within 1%. 4441 hands occur 3% of the time. If you counted jack as an honor, 4/13 * 3% < 1%. Most will only bid 1NT with a singleton Q or better, some K or better, so well under 1%. If you start to include 5431 hands, then you can get over 1%.

I think the issue is that it needs to be <1% of 1NT openers, not <1% of all hands.

[Cascade]

campboy, on 2015-July-25, 01:19, said:

I think the issue is that it needs to be <1% of 1NT openers, not <1% of all hands.

This is the wording on the ACBL site:

Quote

Players may use their bridge judgment to open or overcall a notrump with a singleton provided that: It is a rare occurrence (no more 1% of the time, partner expects you to have at least two cards in each suit, and there are no agreements which enable the partners to discover a singleton.)

I interpret that as you do as less than 1% of 1NT openings.

[nige1]

I agree with Cascade. System-regulations tempt players into CPUs. For example, suppose your experience with a long-term partner indicates that he is Herman Heart convert. If the Herman Heart were to comply with system-regulations, you could alert his 3rd-seat 1♥ opener, explaining "Usually normal and natural but when he holds a hand with 0-4 HCP, then he opens 1♥". And you could declare it on your card.

More typical examples:

EBU system-regulations permit a 1N opener with a singleton, as long as you announce the possibility. Hence, in this instance, the EBU avoids the anomalies suffered by conscientious ACBL players.

Some partners have a propensity to overcall 1N with few points and an escape suit. Others sometimes reply 1♠ on 3 or fewer spades, when their RHO doubles your 1-opener.

Frances Hinden points out that If such agreements are permitted by system-regulation, then you can alert opponents to the possibility.

An unfortunate aspect of this kind of regulatory mess, is that it inhibits and handicaps the few players who know and try to abide by the rules.

[blackshoe]

In one of Rosenkranz's Romex books, his character Godfrey says "we treat a singleton ace or king in a 4441 as if it were a doubleton". Of course, the only natural NT opening in Romex is 2NT.

[barmar]

Cascade, on 2015-July-24, 21:32, said:

Many North American experts open 1NT with a singleton from time to time --- 4441s with a stiff honour etc in range. Practically it seems a sensible way to bid such hands given that opening a minor is also fraught with danger on some auctions. The ACBL state that a singleton is allowed so long as it is a rare exception, 1% is their threshold for rare. When you count up the hands with a stiff honour and 4441 you get way more than 1%. So essentially expert practice is outside the system regulations but rarely if ever punished.

Do they open all 4441's with a singleton honor with 1NT (when in range, of course?). Or just some of them, perhaps depending on vulnerability, seat, which suit the singleton is in, table feel, etc? They might only do it with a singleton A or K, not lower honors. These factors are probably enough to bring the frequency down to the acceptable range.

Also, what seems to be most important is that they have no way to tell partner that they've done this, nor does partner cater to the possibility in his response. They still transfer to a 5-card major, and opener accepts even if it's his singleton.

So no matter how often he does it, it's likely that partner is just as surprised as the opponents whenever it comes up.

[Zelandakh]

barmar, on 2015-July-25, 23:05, said:

So no matter how often he does it, it's likely that partner is just as surprised as the opponents whenever it comes up.

If an opponent were to play a squeeze or endplay based on a count of the hand assuming a doubleton, would that not be evidence that this was untrue? I am with Nigel that the rules should either be enforced or changed. Rules that read one thing but are in practise another are useless and unfair.

[barmar]

Zelandakh, on 2015-July-26, 07:07, said:

If an opponent were to play a squeeze or endplay based on a count of the hand assuming a doubleton, would that not be evidence that this was untrue?

Not if the partner also defends on the assumption that opener has a doubleton. "I didn't try to give you a second-round ruff because you opened 1NT".