[Cyberyeti]

PhilKing, on 2013-July-05, 06:53, said:

I assume I am being a bit thick, because they would frown upon your partner passing your overcall with a 14 count even in Eastfolk.

Sorry, I missed a detail that would encourage you to think that.

It actually went P-1♠-2♥-P(alerted, forcing would you believe)- and partner passed over that to see where it was going.

It was the initial pass of the 14 count and the 2♥ overcall on the 5 count that caused the issue.

[barmar]

Zelandakh, on 2013-July-08, 06:39, said:

It seems to me that misbid is being used in this thread in 2 different ways. First of all there is the official use of the word, as per the EBU regulations. Here a misbid is a call made that is not according to partnership agreements, usually because the player forgot. Then there is the general usage of the word, meaning to make a poor or incorrect bid. So to me you are both right, and both wrong. It just depends on the context.

Yeah. I kind of felt iffy when I was writing my previous reply, since I can probably recall times when I've referred to over- or under-bidding as misbidding.

But context is indeed the crux of it. In the context of normal bidding, a misjudgement can result in a misbid. But in the context of legalities, we need finer distinctions: calls based on incorrect knowledge (forgotten agreements, missorting the hand, misreading the auction), calls based on misjudgement, and intentionally misleading calls.

Dictionaries can rarely reflect the nuances that govern when we choose to use terms like this, and how the context governs which meaning applies. This just comes from experience using the language.

[blackshoe]

We've had this discussion before, but... going back to an early post in this thread:

LghtnngRod, on 2013-July-02, 15:34, said:

IWhatever tortuous logic the bidder had in mind I doubt it was his intention to mislead.

I will grant that intent to mislead is usually an element of a player's decision to psych, but it is not that intent that makes a call a psych, it's the intent to grossly distort the description of one's hand. Per the (edited) OP, that seems to have been the intent of the opening bidder in bidding 1♠ rather than 1♥, so the bid is a psych. I suppose the real question is "if the player doesn't understand that opening 1♠ is a gross distortion of his shape, is it still a psych?" That's a tougher question. I think yes, but my opinion is not set in stone.

[jnichols]

I will allow that if it wasn't the player's intention to distort the description of his shape then it is not a psych. But a player who claims to be playing a natural system will have a quite difficult time convincing me that it wasn't their intention.

[Jack_V]

I think the problem is that part of the bid is a psyche. If I have a bid that conveys one large thing and one small thing, and the large thing is true, and the small thing is false, and I choose this bid deliberately knowing I could have avoided it, then that distortion is a psyche, and if it turns out to matter and someone fields it, that's subject to all the usual penalties.

But if you think the small thing is unlikely to matter, I think it's misleading to describe the whole bid as a psyche, because the overall distortion is small.

Of course, it still matters whether the intent of the bidder was to deliberately make a misdescribing bid, or if he/she genuinely thought "I only have strength for one rebid, better to show spades+hearts even if I conceal my heart length".

[barmar]

mislead: cause someone to have the wrong idea or impression about someone or something.

When you make a call, it gives the other players the idea that you have a hand consistent with the meaning of the call according to your agreements. If you intentionally make a bid that distorts your shape or strength (the definition of a psych), you are also intentionally misleading the other players. I think the converse is also true. If you want to mislead the other players about your hand, can you do it in any way other than by making a call that distorts your shape or strength? You could try to do it with a mannerism, but you're not allowed to do that intentionally.

The only question in either case is whether the distortion is large enough to be considered a "gross distortion". And that's like the SCOTUS definition of pornography: you know it when you see it.

[gbgb_gbgb]

A poor bid is not a psych

[hrothgar]

As I noted in the past, I consider the very notion of a psyche to be highly problematic.
I think that most people use the word psyche to describe mixed strategies.

However, from my perspective, this bid is a pretty good representation of an actual psyche.

It appears to be a completely random violation of system. The fact that no one can understand the logic - if any - behind this opening would seem to support the notion that this is a random violation. (Conversely, the fact that most psyches fall within a small number of well understood categories suggests that these bids are systemic)

[Cyberyeti]

hrothgar, on 2013-August-08, 04:56, said:

As I noted in the past, I consider the very notion of a psyche to be highly problematic.
I think that most people use the word psyche to describe mixed strategies.

However, from my perspective, this bid is a pretty good representation of an actual psyche.

It appears to be a completely random violation of system. The fact that no one can understand the logic - if any - behind this opening would seem to support the notion that this is a random violation. (Conversely, the fact that most psyches fall within a small number of well understood categories suggests that these bids are systemic)

A psyche (in the UK definition anyway) has 2 elements, that the deviation from system is gross and that it's deliberate.

It could be said that this might be neither. How would you view Axxxx, AKxxxx, x, x being opened 1♠ ? (as my partner did at the weekend)

You're a card away from that, which could be deliberate or could be a missort, but if it is deliberate, is a card away gross ?

[hrothgar]

Cyberyeti, on 2013-August-08, 05:20, said:

A psyche (in the UK definition anyway) has 2 elements, that the deviation from system is gross and that it's deliberate.

It could be said that this might be neither. How would you view Axxxx, AKxxxx, x, x being opened 1♠ ? (as my partner did at the weekend)

You're a card away from that, which could be deliberate or could be a missort, but if it is deliberate, is a card away gross ?

From my perspective, the example hand that you provide one where partner is exercising judgement and choosing to open 1♠ as to have a convenient rebid. In ACBL land, I think that this would qualify as a "deviation". (If I adopt the verbiage you're using, I wouldn't label this as a psyche because the deviation isn't gross)

In contrast, the original hand that Free posted is so random that I can't begin to fathom the logic.

[campboy]

Cyberyeti, on 2013-August-08, 05:20, said:

A psyche (in the UK definition anyway) has 2 elements, that the deviation from system is gross and that it's deliberate.

It could be said that this might be neither. How would you view Axxxx, AKxxxx, x, x being opened 1♠ ? (as my partner did at the weekend)

You're a card away from that, which could be deliberate or could be a missort, but if it is deliberate, is a card away gross ?

One card away from a hand your partner happened to open 1♠ isn't really the issue. How far away is it from a hand on which you have an agreement to open 1♠?

[Free]

The "one card away" argument is irrelevant imo. It's actually a 2 card difference because you replace 1 card with another (a ♦ for a ♠). This can have other repercussions. For example, say that a 3-level preempt promises 6+ cards in the opened suit and denies a side suit Major. While xxx-xx-AKQxxx-xx may be considered a normal preempt by this definition, Kxxx-xx-AQxxx-xx is a completely different story. Just like you, I only replaced a ♦ with a ♠.

[pretender]

I voted not a psych. And I have a reputation for psyching so I know one when I see one.

For those claiming this is a gross misrepresentation, check this line from ACBL (probably least lenient jurisdiction on psychs):
http://www.acbl.org/...n/psychics.html
"If you are playing five-card majors and open the bidding with one spade on a four-card holding, that is not a psych."
So assuming you are playing SAYC and 5 card majors, opening with 4 is not a psych according to them.

As for those who then have a problem with opening the spades with the longer heart, note that in the ACBL SAYC booklet:
http://www.acbl.org/...gle%20pages.pdf
They only mention "Open the higher of long suits of equal length: 5–5 or 6–6."
No mention is made of opening the longer of two long suits of different length.

[hrothgar]

pretender, on 2013-August-28, 09:18, said:

No mention is made of opening the longer of two long suits of different length.

It also doesn't say "Don't open 7N with a three count"...

Certain things are so basic as to go without saying
The fact that canape openings on 6-4 hands is not part of SAYC would seem to fall in the same category...

[pretender]

hrothgar, on 2013-August-08, 04:56, said:

As I noted in the past, I consider the very notion of a psyche to be highly problematic.
I think that most people use the word psyche to describe mixed strategies.

However, from my perspective, this bid is a pretty good representation of an actual psyche.

It appears to be a completely random violation of system. The fact that no one can understand the logic - if any - behind this opening would seem to support the notion that this is a random violation. (Conversely, the fact that most psyches fall within a small number of well understood categories suggests that these bids are systemic)

A large part of the discussion seems to revolve around the part where noone can seem to understand the logic of the bid. Here, I'll offer one. Let's say I'm behind and trying to create a swing. I look at this hand and I see slam potential, even if on a finesse. But let's give partner a hand where 6S makes and 6H doesn't. It's not so hard. QJxx Txx AJx xxx or some similar variant. I can make 6S on 3-2S and the heart hook on. But what will happen if I open 1H? Partner will raise to 2H and it'll be next to impossible to get back to slam investigation in spades.

What this hand reminds me most of was of JLOGIC's complaint some years ago: http://www.bridgebas...40621-good-bid/
That was a crazier bid than the one discussed here, but I defended that bid back then. Based on the my experience with the bidder's (former ACBL president with the initials HP) views on bridge, I truly believed that his creativity and his desire to create a swing action that would win many imps resulted in the 6D bid of that thread. To me, opening 1S for the reason I wrote above is not that far-fetched either.

Just because a line of reasoning has flaws or is suboptimal does not mean it was illogical.

[mycroft]

So, you're going to deliberately and grossly misdescribe your hand, to partner and opponents, because there's a chance that it might offer a swing when you're behind, and if it doesn't, or if the swing's the other way, it doesn't matter because you were losing anyway?

Okay.

I wonder what the word defined as a "deliberate and gross misdescription of one's hand" is.

Please note that you might not be *wrong*, and (provided your opponents are no less in the dark about it than partner, and you have no extraneous information about the hand that would make doing it more appealing) certainly aren't *illegal* or *improper*.

I mean, I'd be willing to buy a shot - of Johnny Walker Blue, even - if you ask people and find anyone who doesn't know the story and who plays 2/1 who opens 1♠ with that hand in the bar. I'd be willing to up it to a bottle, provided for every time you ask and they say 1♥, you pay me a dollar. But I don't gamble, and there's *no way* to ensure that it stays a fair bet on either side, so I won't.

[barmar]

pretender, on 2013-August-28, 09:50, said:

Just because a line of reasoning has flaws or is suboptimal does not mean it was illogical.

And just because the bid is logical doesn't mean it's not a psyche. It's true that if you just bid randomly, that would be considered psyching. But not all psyches are random.

Either a bid accurately (or approximately) describes your hand, or it doesn't (assuming it's a descriptive bid, not an asking bid, although in the case of asking bids we might include inferences about the types of hands that would ask the question). If it doesn't describe your hand, and you did it deliberately, it's a psyche -- the logic behind it doesn't change this. Saying "Any expert in my situation would have come up with that bid" just means that it's a very common psyche, but it's still a psyche.

[DJNeill]

I think it's a psyche but not the psyche that is designed to cause random havoc (very frowned upon). So it gets noted by the director and everyone moves on.

Thanks,
Dan

[pretender]

barmar, on 2013-August-28, 10:24, said:

And just because the bid is logical doesn't mean it's not a psyche. It's true that if you just bid randomly, that would be considered psyching. But not all psyches are random.

Either a bid accurately (or approximately) describes your hand, or it doesn't (assuming it's a descriptive bid, not an asking bid, although in the case of asking bids we might include inferences about the types of hands that would ask the question). If it doesn't describe your hand, and you did it deliberately, it's a psyche -- the logic behind it doesn't change this. Saying "Any expert in my situation would have come up with that bid" just means that it's a very common psyche, but it's still a psyche.

I explained how the bid could be made logically because people responding on the thread seemed so bewildered.

Regarding "a bid accurately (or approximately) describes your hand", let's look at what the bid means. 1S, for all intents and purposes in the SAYC system, indicates a hand with opening values and 5 or more in the suit. Everyone has agreed that having 4 would be considered a deviation that would not qualify for a psych. Now, you make the inference that the opener does not have a 6 or 7 card other suit because the opener did not open in any other suit. The 1S bid itself does not deny the presence of such an outside suit. Certain negative inferences are no longer even alertable in the ACBL. If you choose a bid that is not a support double in a support double situation, you no longer have to alert and mention that this denies 3 card support. Similarly, bidding something other than a support double when holding 3 card support is not considered a psych.

[hrothgar]

pretender, on 2013-August-28, 15:06, said:

I explained how the bid could be made logically because people responding on the thread seemed so bewildered.

Regarding "a bid accurately (or approximately) describes your hand", let's look at what the bid means. 1S, for all intents and purposes in the SAYC system, indicates a hand with opening values and 5 or more in the suit. Everyone has agreed that having 4 would be considered a deviation that would not qualify for a psych. Now, you make the inference that the opener does not have a 6 or 7 card other suit because the opener did not open in any other suit. The 1S bid itself does not deny the presence of such an outside suit. Certain negative inferences are no longer even alertable in the ACBL. If you choose a bid that is not a support double in a support double situation, you no longer have to alert and mention that this denies 3 card support. Similarly, bidding something other than a support double when holding 3 card support is not considered a psych.

Where do you come up with this crap?

Pretty much any decent beginners book on standard bidding will explicitly state that you open in your longest suit if you hold a 5 card major and your longer minor if you don't have a 5 card major.
The system will also state rules if suit length is tied.

I'm sure that you can produce some SAYC document that doesn't do so, however, this is meaningless because the SAYC documents weren't intended to teach a bidding system.
SAYC was designed as a convention card for players who already know standard bidding.