[glen]

Tonight playing in an ACBL BBO tourney, I psyched a board – I opened with two points white vs red in 1st seat with a 4-3-3-3 shape. After the hand was over, the director gave us an average minus, and the opponents an average plus.

The reasoning provided was that I was recorded to have pysched 6 times over the last 4 months with my regular partner, my wife. The director deemed that my 6 recorded psychs over a 4 month period had established an implicit agreement to psych.

In reply I pointed out that:
1) I don’t psyche frequently relative to the number of boards we play, which is in the 1000s over the last 4 months.
2) My psychs are different – that is I don’t psyche the same way each time.

This reasoning was not sufficient to overturn the ruling.

During the same tournament, the lead director (“ACBL” without a number) joined our table and after confirming with me that my wife was my regular partner, asked that I curtail my psyching bids.

From my point of view, this is a virtual ban on my psyching in ACBL BBO tournaments, since I only play with my wife for the vast majority of tournaments, even though psyching is considered part of the bridge game.

In the NABC Summer 05 bulletins, Mike Flader, Associate National Tournament Director, wrote about psychs in a two part article:

NABC Summer 05 Bulletin 1 - See Page 4

NABC Summer 05 Bulletin 2 - see page 4

ACBL regulates psyches as per this statement in the first article:

Mike Flader said:

An agreement to psych, either explicit or implicit, is illegal. A pattern of frequent psychs suggests an agreement, as do calls made by the psycher’s partner in an auction when partner has made a call that is a psych. When a director deems that a pair has such an agreement, he may award an adjusted score if he believes that the opponents have been damaged as a direct result of the illegal agreement. He may, in addition, assess a procedural penalty against a guilty pair even if there is no damage to the non-offending side.

I argue that 6 recorded hands over 1000s of hands played are not a pattern of frequent psychs, and that we do not have an illegal agreement.

My questions for forum members are:

1) Do we have an illegal agreement, whether by Flader’s article, and/or by ACBL policy?

2) Should I write a letter to the ACBL bulletin, providing my viewpoints on this concern?

Besides these questions feel free to comment, even quite harshly. Thanks in advance!

[jillybean]

Could you post the hand please..

[glen]

Scoring: MP

---

Bidding was 1♦-1NT-Double-3♣-Pass-3NT-All Pass

Since North had already doubled 1NT for penalty, she passed 3NT to allow partner to decide what to do - since the contract went down it would have been better to double, assuming no score adjustment.

North led a low diamond showing that she liked diamonds. I won the queen when West ducked, and shifted to a heart which West won with the Ace. The club King was won with the ace and North cashed her three other winners for down one.

[Echognome]

I personally don't think the hand is that relevant for the basis of the ruling you received. Looking at the hand alone, I wouldn't say that the psyche was fielded.

I also personally think that the ruling was absurd. I had a scan through the EBU White Book (the TDs supplement) and it states:

Quote

In August 2000, the WBFLC said
"a partnership understanding exists when the frequency of occurrence is
sufficient for the partner of a psycher to take his awareness of psychic
possibilities into account, whether he does so or not."

So as long as the psyche is as much a surprise to your partner as it is to opponents, then it is a lawful bid.

6 psyches over 4 months seems to be relatively infrequent! Playing with the juniors we have will have that many psyches over 4 team matches.

Now one thing that wasn't clear was this. Was it that you were recorded 6 times or was it that you psyched many times and were only called on it 6 times? My inclination would be to write a letter of complaint. But I'm sure if you do that, then they might be scrutinizing more of your deals to see if there really was a pattern.

I hope you get some vindication though Glen. To quote our Orange Book:

Quote

A psychic bid is a legitimate ploy as long as it contains the same element of surprise for the psycher's partner as it does for the opponents.

Would be a shame to start losing this part of the game.

[jillybean]

My unqualified view on this:.

I think there is reason to believe north fielded the psyche, evident in the pass of 3nt. You did say ‘North had already doubled 1NT for penalty, she passed 3NT to allow partner to decide what to do.’ I’m not sure if this is a ‘standard’ agreement holding opening points opposite an opener (I wouldn’t pass but I'm also not expert ) or perhaps this is an implicit agreement with a partner who is known to psyche?

Second question: was there damage?: NO

No adjustment but I would keep an eye on NS in future.

jb

[helene_t]

The damage was caused by West's undiciplined 3NT bid. It might be true that North fielded the psyche (hard to say what the difference is between pass and dbl by North, I doubt that many pairs have agreements about this) but even then I see no reason to adjust the score.

[luke warm]

this sounds like a good one to write to the bulletin about, let flader decide... from my viewpoint (and remember, it's just an opinion), i believe that if my partner psychs as often as you say you do, i couldn't help but be aware of it.. a small part of me would always be saying "this could be a psych" even tho i'd bid as ethically as i know how

i remember every psych any of my bbo partners has made, whether it occurred once or more often..

[Gerben42]

North is allowed to think and wonder why EW are attempting 3NT on a combined 15-count.

Only logical explanation - someone has psyched. It wasn't the 1NT overcaller, he bid 3NT. It wasn't the person with the ♣ either, why else would he jump? Leaves partner.

[inquiry]

Psyches are legal of course, in any seat. There is a problem with online bridge of course and psyches, what with yahoo and aol and messenger and phone, some people (not you, of course Glen) can psyche with impunity (for get past history, they can just tell their partner they psyched, and they can psyche at the "opportune" time). Thus, as an online director, I would love it if no one psyched. But the rules of bridge simply don't allow for this. Sigh (I myself pyche about once every 50 hands, so I would have had a LOT MORE than 6).

A couple of issues:
1) Are all your psyches when non-vul versus vul, even if they themselves are different?
2) If the director knew of 6 psyches, how many more where there?
3) are you playing a weak notrump (I think you play weak notrump in your excellent ETM system). -- If weak nt, north would "know" you have 15+ and this has to be a psyche as nothing else makes sense -- north looking at 5 diamonds and 13 hcp, so there would not be enough points for WEST to overcall 1NT natural.

But regardless of the answer to these questions, EW did not protect themselves. North doubled 1NT for penalty. If you could have made 3NT, EAST would not be jumping to 3♣. WEST 3NT bid is so non-systemic that it deserves whatever it gets without director influence. North could work out the psyche as soon as 3NT was bid, but that was based upon his cards ... a legal "catch" as it were. Add to that a pass by north here does allow South to crack 3NT. If his partner watned to double 1NT, south can not pass 3NT with a "real opener".

Therefore I disagree with the directors ruling, but on BBO we don't have appeal committees, so the best you can do is send an email to bridgebase.com address of the user named ACBL and get a clear ruling on the BBO-ACBL rules on psyching.. .and confirm that you are allowed to continue to psyche.

Ben

[glen]

Another, older, article that discusses the ACBL position on psychs is at:

ACBL: Dealing With Psychic Bids

dealing with psychic bids said:

Clearly the Laws permit psychs. Psychic bidding is a part of the game. Excessive psyching leads to implied and concealed partnership understandings and such  understandings are serious offenses — they erode the very basics on which the game of bridge are built. Pairs that regularly use psychs soon learn the type of psychic calls their partner makes and are prepared for them.  The opponents do not have this same information, although the rules of the game call for complete disclosure of bidding methods.

When does psyching become excessive?  It becomes excessive when your partner can accurately work out what you’re doing because of past experience. A series of tactical bids that are also psychs that occur over a period of time might not be excessive because partner is as unaware of what you are doing as are the opponents.

Let’s use this as a guideline:

echognome said:

So as long as the psyche is as much a surprise to your partner as it is to opponents, then it is a lawful bid.

So, since as the ACBL notes that the Laws permit psychs and that psychic bidding is a part of the game, players can expect to face psychic bidding at some point – so it’s mere occurrence is not a surprise. Also since I vary the nature of my psychic bidding and it is not frequent or excessive relative to the number of boards we play, my psychic bidding on any particular hand will be as much as a surprise to my regular partner as it is to my opponents.

In other terms, since the Laws permit psychs, knowing that I can psych is not an illegal agreement for our partnership. However knowing the types of psychs and when I psych would form an illegal agreement, which would be established by repetitive use of the same psyches in the same situations.

Thus for a log of psyches to be used in banning a player from psyching, it should either show:

1) An excessive number of psyches, as a percentage of boards played over a certain period of time.

2) A certain type of psych used with the same partner.

I don’t believe the ACBL BBO tournament director logs show this, and thus I believe it is unfair to ban me from psyching in these tournaments at this time.

Some follow-up points I would like to make:

If the opponents are under the assumption that psychs will not occur, then they will be more surprised than my partner when a psychic bid does occur. Is it the fault of the psychic side that some opponents have made this assumption?

If a partnership has an agreement never to psych, isn’t this an illegal agreement – they have a non-disclosed agreement that their opponents would not know? Thus should I pre-alert opponents that I have been, in effect, banned from psyching?

For the actual hand, I believe the subsequent bidding after the psychic bid, and the end result, had nothing to do with the director ruling. From what I was told, the ruling was based solely on the fact that I had psyched a number of times before with this regular partner. Also if I psyched again, I was led to believe that a similar ruling would be imposed regardless of subsequent bidding after the future psychic bid.

Note on the actual hand, if I was North playing with a regular expert partner, I would have doubled 3NT since it is going down, even if partner had psyched with a weak hand and long diamonds, or opened with a very distributional opening bid (“rule of 20” 7-6 hand for example – this latter example is not part of our style). I would not double with the North hand if I had no club stopper and not much in quick tricks. The style my wife and I play is more straight-forward – we don’t make a bid that doesn’t show something else not already known – that is she would not double 3NT for penalty since she had already doubled 1NT for penalty and her partner still had a bid to make. However if her RHO had passed 3♣ she would have bid again, likely choosing from 4♦ or Double – she would not just bid 3♦ since that would not be forcing. Also if her LHO had bid 3NT instead of 3♣ and it had come around to her, she would have doubled in a flash (too bad, so sad if I had psyched), since a pass would close out the auction.

[hrothgar]

From my perspective, there are a few different issues that need to be discussed here:

The first issue is the Director's specific ruling: The Director has made the claim that six recorded psyches has established a pattern of frequent psyching. It should be noted that this is very different than a ruling based on a concealed partnership agreement. Were the director claiming a CPA, it would be appropriate to look at whether there was a pattern of consistently making the same psyche or whether the psyche was fielded. In this case, the primary issue that needs to be considered is whether the overall frequency of pysches is sufficiently high to be considered frivolous. (For what its worth, the only example hand provided featured a 1♦ pysche on a flat 2 count. Personally, I don't see the logic behind this bid. It strikes me as purely an attempt at randomizing the results and I don't think that the odds are in your favor. Thic could bias people to believe that you are making frivlous bids)

Having established a possible cause for a ruling, it seems appropriate to examine whether your actions are actionable... I think that most of us would agree that six psyches across thousands of boards falls woefully short of being "frivolous". With this said and done, its far from clear that this is the appropriate number that should be used for comparison: Where does the figure "thousands of boards" come from? More specifically, did the ACBL recorder proceedure extend to cover the same set of boards? Lets consider an extreme example: Assume that you have played in a grand total of four tournaments (48 boards) where the ACBL used a recorder. Coincidently, every single one of your 6 pysches occured during these four events. You might claim that that you and your partner played an additional 10,000 boards without ever once psyching, however, there is no way to evaluate the veracity of that claim.

I'm as skeptical as most regarding many of the rulings that crop up in online tournaments. However, you haven't provided the right information to evaluate this dispute: From my perspective, the burden of proof should be placed on the accuser (in this case the ACBL director). I would want to see the following information:

Hand records for the six recorded psyches
The total number of of hands played during which the recorder process was used

If the director is unable to provide this information, this strongly suggests that the Director's ruling was based on subjective issues (personal distaste for psyches) rather than any objective process. Equally significant, if the director is unable to demonstrate that they had this information available at the time which the ruling was made this also suggests that the process is highly subjective (ergo problematic).

[Echognome]

I went back and read the bridge bulletins Glen posted above. I found one part of the articles quite disturbing. Mike Flader suggests for club owners:

Quote

2. Policy implementation
• Require that all psychs be reported – twice.  Once by the victims and once by the offenders. A notice to this effect should be posted in the club’s playing area. All directors in the club should be aware of the policy and its purpose – to increase
everyone’s enjoyment of the game.

and later

Quote

3. Policy enforcement
• Be consistent! If pairs fail to comply with your regulations in reporting of psychs committed by their side, assess a penalty against the pairs in the games in which the psychs occur. You will have to do this only once or twice for perpetrators to know that you mean business.

Does anyone else find this troublesome? Now, when I psyche or am psyched I have to report it. It seems as though I have to make a written report by the twice comment (else why wouldn't a simple director call be sufficient?). That seems completely outside the rules of the game.

The regulations in the EBU (from the White Book) are as follows:

Quote

Recording deals
The TD is expected to record the deals whenever there is a Red or Amber psyche, misbid or deviation. He also records Green psyches if there is a particular reason to, for example if a well-known psycher is involved, or if they are not completely obviously Green, so an Appeals Committee or the L&EC might see it differently. See #40.1.5.

The TD also records other deals where there is some matter of interest for the L&EC, for example if a completely incredible bidding sequence comes to his attention which could possibly suggest some problem, even if he is not sure what the problem is.

In general a TD will also record a deal whenever a player suggests it should be
recorded, although this is not a right, so a TD need not do so if he considers it
inappropriate.

Although it is long, I thought it appropriate to include what the EBU consider to be Green, Amber, and Red psyches. This is taken from the Orange Book.

Quote

6.2 Fielding
6.2.1 The actions of you and your partner following a psyche may provide evidence of an unauthorised - and therefore illegal - understanding. If so, then your partnership is said to have "fielded" the psyche. The TD will find that you have such an unauthorised understanding if, for example, you take any abnormal action, before the psyche has been exposed, to protect your side from its effect. The TD will judge your actions objectively: that is to say your intent will not be taken into account.

6.2.2 A partnership's actions on one board may be sufficient for the TD to find that it has an unauthorised understanding and the score will be adjusted (for example, 60% to the non-offending side and 30% to the offending side is normal in pairs). This is classified as a Red psyche.

6.2.3 A TD may find that whilst there is some evidence of an unauthorised understanding it is not sufficient, of itself, to deserve an adjusted score. This is classified as an Amber psyche. In particular, if both partners psyche on the same hand, then this is very likely to be evidence of an unauthorised understanding.

6.2.4 In the majority of cases the TD will find nothing untoward and classify it as a Green psyche.

6.2.5 A TD may use evidence from a partnership's action on two or more boards to determine whether it has an unauthorised understanding. If so, the score on all such boards will be adjusted, as long as it is practical to do so. In other words, two or more Amber psyches changes them all to Red.

6.2.6 Whilst a deviation, like a psyche, is a deliberate mis-statement of some feature of the hand, it differs in that it is minor whereas a psyche is gross. A partnership's actions following a deviation may provide evidence of an unauthorised understanding, but they are less likely to do so.

To me this is quite sensible. The fact that a TD judges whether to record a psyche or not seems reasonable rather than a de facto all psyches are recorded. I personally think the ACBL is going a bit far if it suggests that all psyches must be reported and recorded. In particular, the fact that both sides must report a psyche seems over the top.

[pigpenz]

speaking as one who is always in trouble with acbl TD's They tend to go way overboard on protecting weaker players...IMHO..haha

You can ask an opp what their bid is and sometimes they will just say diamonds but you want to know is it forcing limit etc....you can call the TD and they will tell you that they are intermediates and dont know any better. So about all you can do is throw your arms up in the air.

another example 1nt 2♥ 3♣
ask opp what bid is
he says clubs
you say forcing or non forcing
he says neither
you call TD
TD says clubs
you say why am i doing this to myself...oh the fun of it.

[glen]

First, a story of more tournament fun this last weekend. Auction by the opponents goes 2♠-2NT-3♦-3♠-All Pass. I click on 3♦ – reply by expert is “not sure” – clicking again and asking private question gets no reply. Call TD. After 5 minutes TD is unable to get any clarification from expert (also I asked what would 3♣ mean, no reply etc.). TD asked us to continue play. Weak two bidder shows up with Kxxx in ♦s. Dummy remarks at end of hand that hand was very well played given the distraction.

Some of the postings here had some questions, which I’ll try to answer:

Yes, I have psyched more than the recorded times, but not, I feel, a great number of times. However, a significant number of times I have had close to my bid but not exactly it. For example xx AKQJx Jxx xxx is an opening 1♥ bid for us – recently I opened xxx AKQJ xxx xxx with 1♥.

My partner is aware that I psych. However we have the rule that we always bid as if there is no psych – for example she would have doubled 3NT if she was in the pass out seat. This is not done for ethical reasons, although it does help in this area (also it avoids seeming to have miracle catches that people worry about with husband/wife online pairs). It is done since bidding becomes too complex if one has to keep considering did partner pysch – so we rule that out as an option and bid our hands.

As to not seeing the logic behind the psych used, it was an idiotic psych. Once the bidding continued 1NT-Double I thought I was doomed. If West had passed 3♣ then partner would have got us to at least 4♦, if not higher, and that would be terrible.

Most, but not all of my psyches are not vulnerable. No idea on total number of psyches. I know the total number of boards since we only pay $ for ACBL tournaments, and we get 12 boards for each $2 for the two of us.

We play a mama-papa 2/1 system, and not with a weak notrump. There is more than one ETM system, and only some use a weak notrump – my wife and I play none of the ETM systems.

Thanks for all the replies!

[Free]

Fielding a psych isn't forbidden. If North wouldn't have doubled 1NT, then I might agree that there was some kind of agreement. However, North Doubled like he suspects a normal 1♦ opener. After the current bidding, it might seem clear that there are way too many HCP in the game. So who lied? The ones V vs NV, or partner NV vs V? You don't have to be a genius to figure it out... And if partner didn't psych and opps made a bidding error, South will still Dbl since he knows partner had a penalty Dbl on 1NT.

I find it ridiculous that they know you psyched 6 times, but that they don't know on how many boards, and what sort of psychs. If you open 1NT, 1♠, 1♥ and 1♦ with such hands, then you already did 4 different psychs!

There shouldn't be any adjustments. You took a chance, and EW didn't take their chance to penalize you, they bid like crazy. Calling TD afterwards is easy, but shouldn't be rewarded with ave+.

[Al_U_Card]

officeglen, on Jan 17 2006, 01:25 PM, said:

Yes, I have psyched more than the recorded times, but not, I feel, a great number of times. 

My partner is aware that I psych.

Just a quick question. Does your wife psych too or is it just a guy-thing?

[keylime]

Firstly, the ruling is so incredibly substandard it stinks worse than 3 month old yogurt left outside in Death Valley under the blazing summer sun.

How can a director state without direct proof mind you, that player A has psyched six times? I have a serious problem with this assertion - I could understand if it was let's say, my 4 psyche job in Lancaster, Pa's regional in 5 sessions (yes I did do this, I admit it). However, 6 psyches over 1000+ boards definitely isn't enough grounds for being barred from psyching.

Furthermore, psyching I don't think can't be barred. If memory serves, Law 40 discusses this topic and it states that any player can deviate from an understanding as long as partner is not in on the act. It does states in the Laws that there is an obligation to disclose agreements (which psyching at specific situations I feel falls into that).

I shake my head at this and wonder. Avg minus/ avg plus for playing bridge and having opponents fuss over not playing bridge? Classic.

[mike777]

As a Director, If I had 6 psyches on record over 4 months I would rule implied partnership agreement.

If 6 of them in 4 matches...come on .

Would love to hear from long time directors who owned clubs or were nat. tourney directors on how they would rule.

[mike777]

From Don Oakie commission by the ACBL Board of Directors to state leagues position....ACBL 1978 and Bridge Encyclopedia of Bridge

"....especially at the club level...a psychic bid is legal, its indiscriminate use is not. People who employ psychic calls against less experienced players may be guilty of unsportsman like Psyching and thereby be in violation of League regulations..against peers may be guilty of frivolous psyching , or of having an anannounced partnership understand....may be judged to have induldged in unsportsman like psyching, or to have disrupted the game......
an average of once a month and player or director is unlikely to say a word about it"


Oakie's definition of a psychic-a bid that deliberately and grossly misstates the bidder's high-card values or suit length----helps to distinguish true psyches from tactical bids.