A psych by honour strength?
In a club tournament, South as Dealer opened 1♣ (2+ natural) and West at unfavourable vulnerabilty bid 1♦ (not alerted) holding ♠762 ♥63 ♦JT765 ♣Q82. EW are a regular pair, not very experienced but they have sometimes won. West told the TD that he bid 1♦ intentionally and felt he could show 5 card diamonds. East said that he expected at least 8-9 HCP.
Do you consider this a psych, despite the length in diamonds?
Comments
I suspect that this is likely be a case of partnership disagreement rather than a psyche; my guess is that West thought the bid was acceptable in the partnership but East didn't. As such, the bid would not be a psyche, although there may have been misinformation. (Note that it is legal to have an agreement to overcall on such hands, so there's no issue with a lack of discussion creating an illegal agreement)
I would encourage the partnership in question to discuss how much strength such bids show, and to alert it if the minimum that they agree on is significantly weaker than most opponents will be expecting.
(It's worth noting that something similar can happen in my partnership: I play (1C), 2D as almost any hand with five or more diamonds, unless it wants to say something about the majors or thinks there might be a game. But we have a partnership agreement about it, and take care to alert to the opponents that the overcall could be weak or offshape (or even a normal overcall). So West's position here is not unreasonable, but it's unexpected enough to require an alert if the partnership decides to continue doing it.)
I think the important thing to understand is that the pair have an unusual understand / lack of agreement.
You can tell the pair that it is a psyche but that will probably be less helpful to the opponents. Instead you should tell the pair how they should disclose the bid: whether the club want the bid alerted, and how it should be explained - "natural, no agreement as to strengh, could be weaker the 8hcp" or "natural, active disagreement as strength, X plays it as 2-10hcp, Y plays it as 8-15".
However you classify the bid, you should but on record the auction and the instruction to the pair.
Thanks. I agree with that to some point, but ultimately struggle to see why West thought the bid was acceptable when East didn't and it apparently has little bridge logic. This is a very weak suit shown with no preemptive effect and at unfavourable vulnerability, quite different from your example of jumping to 2D shutting out the 1 level. If he was a weak player or ignorant of the Laws I would be less surprised.
The RA (this is not EBU, just asking as a guest here) wants the bid alerted if it defines unusual conditions of strength: 8-15 or similar would be considered usual.
I agree that this should be recorded. My question was more about whether we all agree that 3HCP is a gross deviation of honour strength given an explanation of 8-15 or similar.
> My question was more about whether we all agree that 3HCP is a gross deviation of honour strength given an explanation of 8-15 or similar.
I do.
Yes. Psyche
A 5 point deviation is 'gross'. It changes the intent of the call from "obstructive or constructive" to "purely destructive"
The definition of psyche says " honour strength and/or suit length." The "or" means 5 diamonds does not preclude the classification of "psyche".
Isn't a psych a deliberate action? So, had West stated something along the lines of, "I know I should have more points for this overcall - typically 8-15 - but I decided to get in the way and possibly have the ops misplace HCP as declarer or to find a possible sacrifice", then it is a psych.
However, West stated that he thought that this bid was okay. So, West didn't consider that this was not 'normal' and so this cannot be a deliberate attempt to misrepresent their hand and so it cannot be a psych.
If these are new players, I would take it on the chin if it worked against me, but I would educate them (being one of the teachers helps in that respect) about expected values and if wanting to overcall with such hands in future to make sure to alert it.