[Chris3875]

Not sure how the bidding progressed after the 2H bid, but N/S got to a 4S contract, making 12 tricks. West's double showed 4 hearts and when asked about the 2H bid West said she thought it was about "8-ish" points. Is this a psych bid - gross misrepresentation of length and strength ?[

---

[gordontd]

Eight points difference does sound like a gross deviation to me, though it's hard to see that West, who has also acted very light, can have fielded it. Were there any other concerns about the auction? Were NS arguing that they might have reached 6S... and made it?

[Chris3875]

No, the only complaint was about the bid - 2H "with a void" I was told - later discovered it was a Yarborough she meant.

[gordontd]

 Chris3875, on 2018-December-05, 02:17, said:

No, the only complaint was about the bid - 2H "with a void" I was told - later discovered it was a Yarborough she meant.

So, if they want it recorded, record it and that's the end of the matter. Apart from explaining to NS that psyching is explicitly permitted by the laws of bridge.

[sanst]

Do NS know how many points there are in a board? S certainly can work out that E must have next to nothing or nothing at all. This isn’t a psych, this is E knowing that EW have a fit in hearts and letting partner know that. The only infraction is W explaing the HCP’s wrong.
It looks like these aren’t experienced players. As a director I would explain that you have to give information about agreements and not guess about partner’s hand and give that as information. S should be told, if necessary, that you should trust your partner.
BTW, this is not a yarborough, since the hand has honours, the tens.

[The_Badger]

 Chris3875, on 2018-December-05, 02:17, said:

No, the only complaint was about the bid - 2H "with a void" I was told - later discovered it was a Yarborough she meant.

These days a Yarborough can be described as any weak hand, though originally it was any hand with a card no higher than a nine. Given that both East and West passed on the first round, East is only bidding to the level of the fit n-1 (both vulnerable, adjusted Level of Total Tricks) to try to disrupt the opponents, A second round double by a passed hand should always guarantee four card (at least) support for both of the unbid suits.

West interpreted her partner's bid innocently, I feel, And as sanst has corrected said it doesn't take much for South to work out that East is bidding on fit level, not values. To me, there's nothing psychic about the bid in today's game. Indeed, a really aggressive East realising that North/South have game values, possibly slam values, might have pushed the boundaries by bidding 3♥ and even that wouldn't be a psychic bid given that players are encouraged to the level of the fit.

[gordontd]

 sanst, on 2018-December-05, 02:48, said:

Do NS know how many points there are in a board? S certainly can work out that E must have next to nothing or nothing at all. This isn’t a psych, this is E knowing that EW have a fit in hearts and letting partner know that. The only infraction is W explaing the HCP’s wrong.
It looks like these aren’t experienced players. As a director I would explain that you have to give information about agreements and not guess about partner’s hand a give that as information. S should be told, if necessary, that you should trust your partner.
BTW, this is not a yarborough, since the hand has honours, the tens.

You assume that the explanation given was incorrect. That may be so, but can't be assumed, especially if they are inexperienced players.

[sanst]

 gordontd, on 2018-December-05, 04:24, said:

You assume that the explanation given was incorrect. That may be so, but can't be assumed, especially if they are inexperienced players.

You’re right. But who would have an agreement that in a balancing situation you will have 8-ish points when bidding? Besides, on this forum we assume quite often since you can’t ask all the players involved the relevant questions. In this case you have to ask both E and W separately what their agreements are, consult their SC and ask W again whether this is really their agreement. I can’t do that so I have to assume or keep quit. I choose the first option.

[hrothgar]

In all seriousness, why do you care whether or not this is a psyche?
Equally important, why do you care about our opinions about whether or not this is a psyche?

FWIW, if you want us to provide an informed answer you need to provide more information, especially regarding

• The skill level of the players
  
• Whether the players have documented agreements about this sequence

[pescetom]

 sanst, on 2018-December-05, 02:48, said:

S certainly can work out that E must have next to nothing or nothing at all.

Should the TD consider whether S was violating law 20G, and if so is the answer here automatically no?

G. Incorrect Procedure
1. A player may not ask a question if his sole purpose is to benefit partner.
2. A player may not ask a question if his sole purpose is to elicit an incorrect response from an opponent.

(SB might reason that he may ask the question if he has both purposes, but that's an aside )

[steve2005]

So what if it's a psyche? Who cares?!
South knows NS have about 30 hcp and west has 10 hcp. That leaves east with 0.
East is just mudding the waters.
Any other conclusion pretty well means you don't trust your partner.

[Chris3875]

So - to hrothgar, I asked the question because I wanted to know whether a general consensus of directors here thought it was a psych bid because, personally, I didn't think it was. Funny, I always thought this site was here to answer ANY question that interested bridge players might have about simple director rulings. And to Steve asking "who cares" - well, a couple of the players at the table DID care, and I wanted to be able to give them an answer based on a poll conducted amongst a better standard of players/directors. Sorry if that offended your sensibilities !

[hrothgar]

 Chris3875, on 2018-December-05, 17:08, said:

So - to hrothgar, I asked the question because I wanted to know whether a general consensus of directors here thought it was a psych bid because, personally, I didn't think it was. Funny, I always thought this site was here to answer ANY question that interested bridge players might have about simple director rulings. And to Steve asking "who cares" - well, a couple of the players at the table DID care, and I wanted to be able to give them an answer based on a poll conducted amongst a better standard of players/directors. Sorry if that offended your sensibilities !

The reason that I asked the question is that I have seen a lot of people post questions like this trying to get support for the claim that

1. Such and such a bid is a psyche
2. Psyches are evil

Perhaps I am somewhat sensitive to this particular line of questioning.

FWIW:

If the pairs actual agreement is that the bid promises 8ish points, then I do consider the 2!H bid to be a psyche.
However, I expect that the real issue is poor disclosure regarding the set of hands that would bid 2!H

[blackshoe]

The purpose of this site is to answer peoples' questions about the laws, and to help players and directors to understand the laws, rulings, and the process of ruling. I would appreciate it if responders to questions would keep these goals in mind.

Whether it's a psych depends on two things: 1. What the pair's actual agreement is as to the meaning of a 2♥ bid in this auction, and 2. Whether East deliberately and knowingly bid it as a psych. The only way to know these things is for the director to thoroughly investigate. IOW ask East what she was doing.

Of "she thought it was about eight-ish points" I think the director should at some point explain that this does not properly answer the question "what is your agreement about the meaning of 2♥", which is really the meaning of the question, however it was phrased.

If EW have no actual agreement about the meaning of 2!H here, then it cannot be a psych, because a psych is a departure from agreement.

Pescetom: "Should the TD consider whether S was violating law 20G, and if so is the answer here automatically no?"

I suppose it might cross my mind if I was the TD, but my answer is "no", though not automatically so. I don't see any evidence that South did violate 20G. Players often do not think through all the implications of the bidding before they do something — as Joe Grue discovered when he bid 7NT a few days ago.

Joost: "Who would have this agreement?" I don't know, but it doesn't matter. The TD needs to find out what the agreement is.

I agree with Gordon that it's a pretty gross deviation if the agreement is "eight-ish points", but that is not in evidence. I also agree that the auction should be recorded, even if the bid is determined not to be a psych.