Psyche book entry number 24

The traveller:

The hands:

The bidding:

Description:

West’s opening of 3H was alerted and described as ‘transfer pre-empt’ showing a seven-card spade suit. It was subsequently acknowledged by all that this was a psyche – all be it an exceptionally unusual psyche, given that the implied suit is FIVE cards short, but the high card strength is greatly HIGHER than implied. East dutifully bid 3S (i.e., didn’t initially field the psyche).  Doubts were cast about East’s pass of the 3NT rebid – with a seven card suit opposite, and given that East has three-card support and is wide open in two side suits, why not make the obvious conversion to 4S?

In practice the hand was played out in 3NT. The explanations led North to choose a non-spade lead, and ten tricks were made; the contract clearly fails by one trick on a spade lead.

West’s explanation was that he wanted to play the hand in 3NT and that was the only way he could bid it because on their style an opening bid of 3NT would be a transfer to 4C.

THE PLAYERS:

North: Catriona Lovett, South: Mike Harbour; West David Piper, East Les Curtis

COMMENT:

Psyches are part of the game – so long as it is not a regular occurrence. Psyches are formally recorded in case a pattern becomes evident. A ‘Mountnessing Club Rule’, previously established by Lionel Wernick, is that a second reported psyche by the same player within six months would be viewed as suspect. David Piper had no previous psyche recorded at the club. The score does not require adjustment on the basis of a ‘frequent psycher’.

VERDICT

The original judgement was that this situation constituted a RED psyche, and hence that a score adjustment was appropriate.

The hand went to appeal, and the appeal committee (Bill West, Ian Moss, and Mike Graham) overturned the original ruling, judging it to be an AMBER psyche, on the basis that there was significant suspicion, but not clear-cut evidence, that by passing out the 3NT East had fielded the psyche. The EBU guidelines say that for an AMBER psyche no score adjustment is appropriate, so the original score of 430 to EW stands.

All three panellists and the director expressed the view that North / South had been ‘hard done by’. Given the very unusual nature of this psyche a full reproduction of the panellists’ comments are included within this report.

EXTRACTS FROM THE EBU’S ‘ORANGE BOOK’

TYPES OF PSYCHES

• A Red psyche is one where the psyche is judged to have been fielded, and in those circumstances an adjustment to the score in favour of the innocent party is normal practice.

• A Green psyche is where there has been no fielding and in those circumstances no adjustment to the score is made; sometimes the psycher gains, sometimes they come a cropper. Usually there will be sympathy for the innocent party, but the result stands

• An Amber psyche is one where there is significant suspicion, but not clear proof, that the psyche was fielded.

The following comments are taken directly from the 'Orange Book':

6 PSYCHIC BIDDING

APPEAL

West lodged an appeal against the original ruling on the following grounds:

• The bid of 3H was a psyche, designed to prevent a spade lead. The point should be made that whilst 3H ostensibly is a transfer into a pre-emptive 3S, the bid was made in the 4th position after an initial 3 passes. There is, of course, no need to pre-empt in the 4th position. It must be something different, this should be apparent to all.

• When I bid 3NT after 3S by my partner, this bid has no meaning in our system. Afterwards my partner explained that he did not know what was going on, why I had pre-empted in 4th position and then made a bid with no meaning but thought that I probably had a strong-ish hand with spades and the other suits covered with the lead coming up to me and that I was trying for the pairs result by playing in 3NT, which he went along with. Given that a pre-empt in the 4th position cannot be real, this is not an unreasonable supposition

• The truth of the matter is that I equally confused all by my bidding, which is not unfair. My partner did not know what was going on and as we were playing pairs, not teams, he took a punt at the suggested pairs score.

THE PANELLISTS' DETAILED COMMENTS:

Panellist 1 - Original comments

• It can never be described as a mis-bid - as he said it was deliberate.

• West could have bid 3C then 3NT - East can then pass 3NT

• West's 3H bid is a Psyche, and with 3 card support East must convert 3NT to 4S.

• East's claim that he could pass 3NT as partner had not bid 4D is not valid as he could have Spades AKxxxxx, which you would surely want to play in spades, with 3 card support.

• Did you enquire if this had happened before?  In my opinion this is very near to systemic agreement to Psyche. Amber near Red 

• Adjusted score stands

Panellist 1 - Follow-on comments (1)

• I still feel East has fielded a psyche and N/S should be given a corrected score. The benefit of any doubt should go to the non offenders.

• If a partnership is going to bid in this manner their subsequent bids have got to be snow white, or you have a system to cater for psyches.

Panellist 1 - Follow-on comments (2)

• I believe I said earlier that I thought this was amber.

• I would not have lead a spade given my standard of play, and I suspect nor would the majority of NS of similar standard playing the same system etc.

• As the benefit of any doubt should go to the non offenders then the score should be +50.

• I would be very impressed with those who found a spade lead in those circumstances, but I can see the point being made.

Panellist 2 - Original comments

• I don't understand any of this. West's bidding is so completely off the wall that it renders any judgement issues irrelevant.

• If 3H shows seven spades and a pre-empt (fourth in hand?) then it certainly meets the classic definition of a psyche. 3S is OK. What 3NT means I can't determine. However, as EW have presumably discussed their continuations after (transfer pre-empt)-(Step 1 response), the meaning of the 3NT bid should be somewhere on their CC - but I'll bet it isn't.

• About the bidding: I don't understand it, I think it's completely barmy, and it has all the aura of a pair trying to randomise things by agreeing to play a fancy method without having any idea of what they are doing. However, that is their privilege. Why West wants to play 3NT when East might hold Jx of clubs is beyond me. West asserted that "he wanted to play the hand in 3NT" - obviously he is such a good player that he knows exactly what the final contract should be as soon as he picks up his hand. Kxxx, Axxx, xxx, x opposite makes 6D lay-down.

• Enough of the "bidding". North has to lead, and here I am afraid that I have the opinion he made a serious error. Even on the EW auction I think a spade lead is a stand-out. South had the opportunity to make a third-in-hand opening, and declined to do so; he is unlikely to have a decent suit, which he might have opened with a lead-director if light. So his values are probably scattered bits and pieces. Thus, I think North should have led a spade; however, I can understand why he didn't.

• As to the adjudication: I am afraid that I don't like it, but I would let the result (3NT+1) stand. I don't like the EW bidding - so what? You are allowed to psyche. If you get a good board by so doing, you are allowed to keep it, so long as there is no hint of fielding. If you get a bad board, you keep that as well. There is a (very slight) possibility of a field by East's pass of 3NT as opposed to going back to 4S.

• However, whilst I would be inclined to let NS keep their -430, I have doubts about EW scoring +430. 3H was announced as a transfer pre-empt. Whatever valuation yardstick you apply, the West hand is not a pre-empt. So I am suspicious about the description of the EW 3-level openings - why West did not open 3C and then bid 3N is a mystery. I think EW are playing transfer 3-level openings, not 3-level transfer pre-empts. I feel - and this is just a feeling - that there is something smelly about the EW bidding style, and I would like to award EW -50. But I think that is an emotional reaction, and I am not sure that it is justified.

• Sorry to have gone on so long.

Panellist 2 - Follow-on comments (1)

• This is clearly a difficult and emotive issue. I see from the comments that I am the only person who thinks that the score should stand.

• There are a number of issues here; Panellist 3 summarises them well. It is all very well to say that the 3H bid was a simple psyche in order to bar a spade lead, but it is far too convenient when you know that partner will pass 3NT because "he doesn't know what's going on". This is bordering on a private understanding.

• I find the comments from West to be self-serving in the extreme.

• However, I do feel that North should have found the spade lead. In this case, the psyche worked. East either passed (a) because he is aware that his partner indulges in these flights of fancy (in which case there is a private understanding that a "transfer pre-empt" might not be all that it seems to be) or (b) he didn't have the faintest idea what was going on.

• I don't like the EW bidding, but then I am not required to. West is entitled to bid his hand in any way that he sees fit. In this case, it worked. I think the result should stand.

• What I will say is that I think EW are on quite dangerous ground.

Panellist 2 - Follow-on comments (2)

• Panellist 3 makes a good point about East's actions.

• The only illegal psyche is a psychic Multi 2D in a level 3 or lower event.

Panellist 2 - Follow-on comments (3)

• I am inclined to agree that it is possible that East has fielded the psyche; I also think it is possible that East passed 3NT as he didn't have the faintest idea what was going on.

• However, if West had AKJ8652, KQJ, 7, A3, then they are in 3NT with Qx opposite x in diamonds, unlikely to be a success, and 4S will be solid.

• However, there is also the "tolerance factor". If East thinks West has spades, then 4S is the obvious correction. If he doesn't, then pass is ok.

• North was entitled to ask about the meaning of the 3NT rebid.

• I would rule NS -430, EW -50.

Panellist 2 - Follow-on comments (4)

• Psyches are always an emotive issue.

• I asked a few London players about this and the reply was always the same: EW must be a regular pair and East has fielded.

• What puzzles me about the whole thing is why West felt the need to open a psychic fourth in hand.

• I'd go along with Amber.

Panellist 3 - Original comments

• I believe we are concerned with sophisticated systemic agreements between two very experienced players in a very long standing partnership.

• It is unusual to open a pre-empt in fourth position.

• It would be clear-cut for East to bid 4S facing a seven card pre-empt, however in this situation East may suspect the opening to be a bit (note a "BIT") stronger as both opponents have already passed. Even so a bid of 4S would still be reasonable as there is likelihood of a side fit in a minor suit.

• Presumably an opening 3S is equivalent to opening 3NT, if so it's the obvious choice if West wants to play in 3NT (unless East can correct to 4minor, again 4th position variant may apply), or he could have tried an "innovative" 1D.

• West admits to psyching, not in itself illegal, however I am not sure if psyching transfer pre-empts in particular is legal (check Orange Book). I think in this case pleading "psyche" is a convenient excuse for, to be blunt, fooling around.

• East has a clear-cut correction to 4S opposite a "strong" pre-empt, he cannot be expected to judge if 3NT is better and if he automatically passes every time this auction, or similar, comes up his partnership have a very handy controlled psyche to wheel out. An opening 3H has effectively become an undeclared two-way bid.

• It is difficult to prove fielding but in this case the distortion from East and West is so great that NS should be compensated.

Panellist 3 - Follow-on comments (1)

• I stand by belief that East is fielding, he knows his partner too well methinks. He must err on side of common sense i.e. play in "known" 10 card fit. Failure to do so permits both E and W to operate in this way ad lib. West's argument that he was trying to inhibit a Spade lead is errant nonsense in view of the singleton Club. West also argues that as he would not pre-empt in 4th his bid "must be something different"...not this different mate! West is exploiting the luxury of knowing his partner will not "correct" back to 4S. I think E/W are trying to pull the wool over our eyes.

• North had a case for leading a Spade but I don't see why he should be punished for believing what he was told.

• Panellist 1 and I see this as fielding, Panellist 2 thinks it maybe.

• Over to you... (did anyone check on legality of psyching a transfer pre-empt?)

Panellist 3 - Follow-on comments (2)

• I agree Amber. This time. Far too easy for East to plead "taking a view". On the auction 1S-1NT-3NT there would be no argument as East would likely pass with 3 spades even if it is their style to bid like this sometimes with 6 good spades. If West had spades he could bid this way, when he does something peculiar his partner will be alert to some kind of operation.

• As far as NS score goes, it seems to me that if NS hands are reversed it is not so obvious. With North's holding if we expect him to diagnose the psyche perhaps he should lead his low card to avoid promoting say Txxx in dummy when S holds Ax.  In this case he has gained an advantage over defenders leading to 3Nt after a 1D opening.  Too many ifs and buts.

• I don't see how NS can get adjustment in law but am sorry for their predicament. -50 to EW.