Blue Book 7E2
Players reviewing hands recently came across a sequence: Pass - (1D) - 1H where the overcaller held
S 8 3 2
H K Q 9 8 6
D 9 7 5 3
C 6
They asked me (A) whether the 1H should be classed as a psyche and (B) whether it was allowed at Level 4.
The latter took me to Blue Book 7E2 which says "Any bid which shows at least four cards in a specified suit is permitted. The quality of the suit and the strength of the hand must conform to the standards generally played for a natural call at the minimum possible level".
I'd welcome an answer to (A) and (B) and an explanation of 7E2, especially of the words "standards generally played". Also, would the answers be any different if the 1H bid had been in second seat i.e. 1D-(1H) [cf 7E2]
Many thanks
David Dunford
Comments
(A) You can never say whether a call is a psyche or not without knowing what the partnership's agreement is. (The agreement may not be legal, but that isn't the point.)
If the partnership's agreement is e.g. to require at least opening values to overcall at the 1-level, then it's a psyche. That's a pretty unusual agreement.
it their agreement is to overcall at the one level on any hand with a decent 5+ card suit (say 2 of the top 3 or 3 of the top 5 honours) then that's obviously completely in line and isn't a psyche.
Based on what I know of 'normal' overcalling style amongst tournament players, I would say that this is light but not unusual if not vulnerable, and perhaps unusually light vulnerable, although not so much so I'd call it a psyche rather than a deviation. It's more of a deviation when partner isn't a passed hand.
If the partnership regularly overcalled vulnerable on hands like this I think they should disclose that they like to overcall extremely light.
(B) I think it is intended to be allowed at Level 4 as it's a natural bid on a 5-card suit with decent honours.
I see that 7E2 is slightly confusing in how it is written. The original intent (which I agree is not actually what it say) was that
However, what's actually written applies to all overcalls. But personally I'd still allow this one at Level 4.
Both sides were vulnerable and this was in club play on BBO.
Your comment that "You can never say whether a call is a psyche or not without knowing what the partnership's agreement is" gives me concern. At club level, it's rare for someone to have a system card, so it becomes difficult to determine whether or not it is part of the partnership agreement.
However, can we apply Blue Book 2A1 & 2 ? From your comment that, being vulnerable, it would be unusual at tournament level then it should be disclosed/alerted. Therefore, if the opponents were disadvantaged, then the score could be adjusted?
Of course, that just 'kicks the can down the road' as players can merely claim it is a deviation and avoid the adjustment. So a club needs to keep a record of deviations to uncover undisclosed partnership agreements.
I agree that not having convention cards is a problem at club level so would need to have a different approach than with congresses and tournament play. In the more social club environment, I would say that anything that is relatively non-standard should be alerted, even if when playing with cards they are not.
I go to great pains to ensure that I do not gain an advantage due to the opposition not knowing what I am doing - this means that I will announce at the start any unusual things that we do and will offer advice such as 'you will probably want to ask about that'.
For me, the onus is on the pair playing unusual systems to be really careful about disclosing their methods.
As an example, with one partner we bid a weak jump-shift response in a lower ranking suit as showing 6+ cards and 0-5 points (such as 1H - 3C). It is alerted when we play in county events, but at club level against weaker ops/newer players, I will alert and say, you will probably want to know what that it, rather than just alert it and hoodwink them.
As for this instance, I would start by asking the question about what their overcalls show... if it shows just a reasonable suit, then this would be a systemic bid, not a psych or deviation. It should be highlighted on their card, but in the absence of card should be announced at the start of the round and/or alerted (natural but unexpected strength). If this did not happen, I would adjust the score if the non-offending side were harmed. I would also point out the requirement for full disclosure of their system
If they say that vul overcall shows 8+ points, then I would count this as a deviation and no probs
If they say that vul overcall shows opening values, then I would count it as a psych and make a note... I would only go further if their partner took (or failed to take) actions that appear to be fielding that psych.
Interesting that you accept three points as a deviation. I can't find a figure in the White Book. Has the EBU evolved an agreed range for a deviation? Alternatively how big does a deviation have to be to be gross? (I guess we might have moved on from the days of Don Oakie.)
I recall previous mention of a King difference or less being a deviation (though I don't think it has ever been quantified - the problem with quantifying this to a value, such as 3 points is that this introduces second level deviation... if the agreed opening bid of 1H shows 12-19 points, then is is really 9-22 that has to be expected as deviations are just part of the game... so opening 1H with 8 or 23 points now looks like a deviation from the expected range of deviations)
Opening a strong 1NT with 14 points and a 5-card minor is not a psych, it is a deviation from the agreement. Similarly, I have seen people open a weak 1NT in 4th seat with a 15 count.
So I am not sure that a specific point range would be needed, but about a King difference in point values shown sounds about right to me.
So, opening a strong NT, showing 15-17 with a 14 or 18 count looks like a deviation to me, opening the same 1NT with a 4 count is clearly a different beast.
I suppose another way of looking at it is the purpose behind the bid - evaluating a good 14 count as better than normal and punting an opening bid of 1NT showing 15-17 is still trying to find a sensible contract for your side and you are happy to go to game with a normal game raising hand from partner (say with a flat 10 count).
In the instance of opening 1NT with a 4 count, clearly you are trying to cause problems for the opposition, taking their bid away or whatever, so is clearly a psych.
Just because an action is called a deviation rather than a psyche, it doesn't mean there is / is not a (concealed) partnership understanding.
If 1H in third shows 5+ hearts and 8+ HCP, and is bid on a 2 count with 2 hearts, we would start from the assumption that it was a psyche and examine the partner's actions.
If 1H in third is "natural" and "could be very light" and is bid on 6-count with 4 hearts, then we would start from the assumption that there was an agreement to open this hand, and that agreement is illegal. If the pair said their agreement was 8+ HCP, we would not necessarily say "ok - it just a deviation".
Most deviations do not cross the line from legal to illegal agreement - in the cases where the apparent agreement is legal, we could so "ok - its just a deviation - but it should be included in your disclosure in future'.