[Xiaolongnu]

Will anyone please give an example of a psychic bid required or protected by system?

[Zelandakh]

There is no such thing as a psyche required by system as, by definition, a psyche is a deviation from system. An example of a psyche protected by system would be opening 2C (strong) with a weak hand and long diamonds in a system where partner is forced to respond 2D. Such occurrences quickly cease to be protected psyches and become implicit partnership understandings.

[FrancesHinden]

As Zelandakh points out, there's a language problem: if a psyche is 'required' by system, or you have some bid that asks partner if they have psyched so it is 'protected' by system, then it can't be a psyche, because the whole point is that a psyche is a something you have no agreement about and must be as unexpected by partner as it is by opponents.

There are some partnership agreements which can idiomatically be described as 'required by system'. For example, suppose you play a multi 2D opening and you agree that, NV vs V you always pass as opener in the auction 2D P 2H P whether or not you have hearts. If you haven't discussed this, but you decide to pass 'for a laugh' that's a psyche, because 2H systemically means "pass if you have hearts, bid 2S with spades". Once you have this agreement, you can't describe the 2H response as 'pass or correct' any more, because it's only that if 4th seat doubles. As I say, this type of agreement can be a 'systemic psyche' in casual usage, but it's not, it's an agreement and should be disclosed.

[jdeegan]

There is one example I know of. The original Kaplan-Sheinwold system (circa 1958) included something they called a "controlled psyche". It was included in their book How to Play Winning Bridge pages 55-61. It was defined as 3 to 6 HCP with no singleton or void or outside ace or king. Its purpose was partly lead directing, so needed a lead value and enough length in your suit to survive after partner's raise. Vulnerability was not mentioned.

[axman]

Xiaolongnu, on 2011-October-18, 13:53, said:

Will anyone please give an example of a psychic bid required or protected by system?

As has been characterized, psyche has been adopted as a legal term that has been frequently abused and misused by those on the legal side of things. I’ll suggest that the word that fits your bill is bluff.

I am aware of one convention that would be known as a systemic bluff. It is known as the Herman Heart and to my knowledge it is practiced by one individual [Herman de Wael]- without, or as the case might be, with the knowledge or blessing of his partner. iirc the convention applies only to opening the bidding 1H third hand holding specifically two hearts and 3-5 hcp [I don’t recollect if there vulnerability constraints]. As I indicated he invokes the ‘convention’ whenever the conditions are met [which works out to once in 20-40 months]. There are no responses to control the proceedings.

Churchill advocates bluffing with Kxxxx and not much else, [but not systemically] for the purpose when the occasions that partner judges in time [and also when he doesn’t judge] you have bluffed then he might better judge a place to land.

After an illegal call not accepted a player is in a position to control his bluff since partner will be forced to pass. This of course has L23 ramifications.

Others have pointed out that some systems lend themselves in certain situation to bluff while you can control the immobilization of partner. One such system is 2/1 which utilizes implicitly the drury convention after 3rd major openings to advise responder that opener has shaded his opening from the minimum starting hand. In such a position third hand can choose to bluff say with the Churchill holding mentioned above without fear of partner getting a bee in his bonnet and thus stay away from intense danger because of the probable 9-card fit.

Personally, I think that drury is a valid method to control such a bluff, but..

…there is immense temptation to employ the method unfairly [cheating] by tipping partner off say by poor tempo and the like. Which leads to perhaps the most common technique for controlling a bluff: tempo/ OBM.

A fast pass by partner can suggest such a pitiful hand that a bluff opening gains attraction because partner likely won’t respond and thus keep the possible disaster low while maybe knocking the wind out of the opponents. Then again, an out of tempo think or gesture can tip partner off that you have deviated, including with deception of the opponents in mind. Even undiscussed such gestures can and do tip the balance frequently enough to make the difference.

And then there are the discussed [secret] signals like pencil signals, touching a wrist watch and such that can be used to tip off that it is safe to bluff or a bluff was made. [this is L73B2 territory]. And in that same group the alert procedure. The presence or absence of an alert can tip a player off that he has misbid thereby putting him the position of judging how to control the disaster of the impending derailment.

It is for these reasons that I suggest that partners that do not have good tempo should not engage in bluffing for the simple reason that they are not in a position to conduct themselves fairly.

[blackshoe]

jdeegan, on 2011-October-18, 16:43, said:

There is one example I know of. The original Kaplan-Sheinwold system (circa 1958) included something they called a "controlled psyche". It was included in their book How to Play Winning Bridge pages 55-61. It was defined as 3 to 6 HCP with no singleton or void or outside ace or king. Its purpose was partly lead directing, so needed a lead value and enough length in your suit to survive after partner's raise. Vulnerability was not mentioned.

This is an "either/or" agreement: the 1 of a suit opening is either a normal opening (whatever that would be in KS, but roughly 12+ points and a couple of quick tricks and however many cards in the suit the system requires), or 3 to 6 HCP, etc. as above. This kind of agreement is now illegal in most jurisdictions, I believe. As it is in fact an agreement, bidding according to it is not a psych.

[Xiaolongnu]

According to the WBF Psychic Bidding Guidelines, it seems like it is brown sticker to agree that in certain situations a psyche is expected. Is this the meaning of a psychic bid "required" by system? I totally agree that the term is a logical contradiction.

For example, in lower levels I am not allowed to define that in the third seat, green against red, my partner or I is expected to psyche, to be exact, an opening of whatever does not necessarily promise an anchor suit. I would appreciate some comments on my understanding of this.

I think the spirit of the law for classifying these bids as brown sticker is cos they don't want people "posing off" their brown preempts and overcalls as psyches. In the sense, in the absence of this rule, I could probably do the following. I claim that my 2S opening is natural weak 6 carded spade. But I agree secretly (and unethically) with my partner that what it really means is that I have either two majors or two minors, which is a (rather common and incredibly useful) brown sticker convention. Then, when I pull it off at the table and opps think my partner has a real spade suit and miss 6S, for example, and call the director, I could argue that we are not playing brown conventions, we have merely psyched, and it is not MI either cos the convention card clearly states that I explained correctly. In other words, players could cheat like this. The purpose of this rule is to disallow such clever and dirty solutions, and we extrapolate to any psyches that are "required" by system in general. Do you guys think I have understood this rule correctly?

[mjj29]

I think a 'psych required by system' is more like the propensity that some (particularly junior players) have for 'never passing in 3rd seat'. There's no specific 'other meaning' for a 3rd seat opening, they just pick whichever opening they feel like if they don't actually have one. Granted, you could say the agreement for every opening bid is "X (normal meaning) or any non-opening hand", but I'm not sure that really counts and given the inherent contradiction between 'psych' and 'required by system' that may be the closest you can get.

Unless 'psych required by system' means 'illegal, undisclosed agreement', in which case that's already illegal for several other reasons.

[WellSpyder]

mjj29, on 2011-October-19, 02:40, said:

I think a 'psych required by system' is more like the propensity that some (particularly junior players) have for 'never passing in 3rd seat'. There's no specific 'other meaning' for a 3rd seat opening, they just pick whichever opening they feel like if they don't actually have one. Granted, you could say the agreement for every opening bid is "X (normal meaning) or any non-opening hand", but I'm not sure that really counts and given the inherent contradiction between 'psych' and 'required by system' that may be the closest you can get.

Unless 'psych required by system' means 'illegal, undisclosed agreement', in which case that's already illegal for several other reasons.

Isn't "never passing in 3rd seat" itself an "illegal, undisclosed agreement" (or, of course, if it is disclosed then merely an illegal agreement)?

[campboy]

I think the regulation is simply there to make it clear that players cannot get around system regulations by describing something as though it were a permitted agreement but requiring a psyche under certain conditions. This should be obvious anyway, as you say, but it can't hurt to reinforce it.

The 1♥ opening in Reese's Little Major system might be the sort of thing they are thinking of (it is a very strong artificial opening with some extremely weak hands included).

[billw55]

What about common "free psyche" situations? For example partner opens 3♦, RHO passes. You hold crap with some diamonds, and choose 3NT. This is pretty ordinary, even though it would also be bid with a good hand.

Is this "just bridge," or an agreement, or a psyche, or something else? If asked, should it be described as "strong, or weak with diamonds" or similar?

[bluejak]

Ever since the K-S "controlled psyches" - and others played controlled psyches at that time - there has always been a problem. While technically a psyche is a gross deviation from the pair's methods, about 65% for people do not actually believe this: they think it is a gross deviation from their own methods.

If you do not believe me, just go and ask at the club what they think of the following sequence:

---

Now, suppose 1♠ was alerted and described as either four-plus spades with five-plus points, or a doubleton spade with fewer than six points. The bid is made on a hand with two spades and two points. How many people will accept this is not a psyche?

I think many regulations to do with psyches are confused by this problem, and the one that started the thread is a typical example. By a "psyche required by system" I believe the regulation actually means something that others will believe is a psyche but is not really. The K-S "controlled psyche" is a great example, and so is the Herman heart.

[blackshoe]

I suspect this would be much less a problem if Don Oakie had never taken up the game.

[FrancesHinden]

Xiaolongnu, on 2011-October-19, 00:20, said:

According to the WBF Psychic Bidding Guidelines, it seems like it is brown sticker to agree that in certain situations a psyche is expected. Is this the meaning of a psychic bid "required" by system? I totally agree that the term is a logical contradiction.

For example, in lower levels I am not allowed to define that in the third seat, green against red, my partner or I is expected to psyche, to be exact, an opening of whatever does not necessarily promise an anchor suit. I would appreciate some comments on my understanding of this.

I think the spirit of the law for classifying these bids as brown sticker is cos they don't want people "posing off" their brown preempts and overcalls as psyches. In the sense, in the absence of this rule, I could probably do the following. I claim that my 2S opening is natural weak 6 carded spade. But I agree secretly (and unethically) with my partner that what it really means is that I have either two majors or two minors, which is a (rather common and incredibly useful) brown sticker convention. Then, when I pull it off at the table and opps think my partner has a real spade suit and miss 6S, for example, and call the director, I could argue that we are not playing brown conventions, we have merely psyched, and it is not MI either cos the convention card clearly states that I explained correctly. In other words, players could cheat like this. The purpose of this rule is to disallow such clever and dirty solutions, and we extrapolate to any psyches that are "required" by system in general. Do you guys think I have understood this rule correctly?

Yes

[FrancesHinden]

billw55, on 2011-October-19, 07:00, said:

What about common "free psyche" situations? For example partner opens 3♦, RHO passes. You hold crap with some diamonds, and choose 3NT. This is pretty ordinary, even though it would also be bid with a good hand.

Is this "just bridge," or an agreement, or a psyche, or something else? If asked, should it be described as "strong, or weak with diamonds" or similar?

I alert the 3NT response and describe it as either save-suggesting with long diamonds, or natural and strong.

It's a psyche if you and your partner have agreed that 3NT is strong and have no partnership experience of doing anything else. (For example, you now play pass as forcing if 4th hand bids.)
It's an agreement if it happens often enough that you know partner might have that hand for 3NT.

[billw55]

FrancesHinden, on 2011-October-19, 14:07, said:

I alert the 3NT response and describe it as either save-suggesting with long diamonds, or natural and strong.

It's a psyche if you and your partner have agreed that 3NT is strong and have no partnership experience of doing anything else. (For example, you now play pass as forcing if 4th hand bids.)
It's an agreement if it happens often enough that you know partner might have that hand for 3NT.

It's interesting. With a long term partner this has probably come up a few times, and should be disclosed. But I would consider this possible with any skilled partner, even playing with him for the first time. So in these two cases I have essentially the same information, but my disclosure obligation is apparently quite different? i.e. in the second case I can simply say "no agreement" and leave it at that?

I gotta admit bridge ethics confuse me sometimes.

[barmar]

Players who make that 3NT bid probably consider it "just bridge". It's a natural bid, because he's willing to play 3NT, and partner is expected to pass. He's generally NOT willing to play 3NT doubled, though, so he bids it with the plan of running if doubled. Is there much difference between this and the "stripe-tailed ape" double? What these have in common is that they're gambles, and if the opponents see through it you'll run away.

As for the notion of "systemic psyches", I think this may come from older, less precise use of the term "psyche". Rather than referring specifically to deviation from partnership agreement, I think it was also used to refer to deviation from "reasonable" bidding. For instance, everyone just "knew" that it made no sense to make 1-level openings with miniscule strength. So any 1-level opening with 0-5 HCP was called a psyche; and if it was part of your system, then it was a "psyche required by system".

Years ago we used to have a player in our club who we called "Martian". He liked to play a system he devised where every 1-level bid was either a normal, natural opening or a "psyche in the next suit", by which he meant a hand that would be a very light weak 2 in the next suit up.

I think it was the proliferation of different systems, and experimentation with systems that included ultra-light openings, that resulted in the narrower definition of psyche that we have today, since it didn't make sense to refer to any universal rules about bidding. But apparently there are still lots of regulations that derive from the earlier terminology.

[Xiaolongnu]

bluejak, on 2011-October-19, 10:17, said:

I think many regulations to do with psyches are confused by this problem, and the one that started the thread is a typical example. By a "psyche required by system" I believe the regulation actually means something that others will believe is a psyche but is not really. The K-S "controlled psyche" is a great example, and so is the Herman heart.

bluejak, I totally agree that this is a confusing problem. In fact, I grew up in such an environment because my master plays Precision with short diamond, which is rather popular in my country. Their 1D opening could be a singleton, some pairs play it even as could be void. Of course it could also mean a hand in the Precision opening range (the Standard minimum opening range) with diamonds as the primary characteristic. But, does this mean, that this is not allowed? Cos from how I understand, such a bid is something that others might believe is a psyche but is not really, which you believe is the meaning of psyche required by system, which is in turn a brown sticker convention, illegal in club games. Or is this a totally different thing?

[bluejak]

What is illegal as an agreement depends on the regulations where you play. Opening 1♦ with no diamonds is legal all over the world assuming it shows opening values, and is not brown sticker. It depends on your club whether you are allowed to play brown stickers.

But if a player will also open 1♦ whenever he has three points and fewer than four diamonds, that is an agreement, not a psyche, must be disclosed, and is an illegal agreement in most jurisdictions.

If on the other hand his agreement is to have 11-16 points and no five card-major [unless he has a longer minor] then if on one occasion he decides to open with three points, that is a psyche and legal.

[mycroft]

While I don't agree with Herr Meck on a lot of what he said years ago about psychics, his example of:
"if you have the agreement that after 1NT (10-12)-(pass-or-X)-2♠ (to play), opener is not allowed to raise, even with ♠KQJx, even if fourth-hand pulls, then *if* you psych 2♠, that agreement is a psychic control." is classic and perfectly sound.

I'm guessing a similar argument applies to 3♦-p-3NT; if opener *must pass* fourth-hand's intervention, even with two defensive tricks (trump Kx and ♦A), then if you bid 3NT "strong" with a "4♦ call, but I'll go 50-a-trick if they let me", then it's a controlled psychic. Of course, since 3NT "to play, either to make or to go -8 undoubled" is a legal agreement, if *that* is the agreement, the "opener must pass" control is also legal (where psychic controls are not legal).

A similar agreement, I guess, over the 10-12, is if 2S is "to play undoubled, could be short with a long other suit" and explained as such, and that is legal, then "opener can't raise" is a legal control of the agreement.