[pigpenz]

Like I posted before the ACBL is trying to gear their games more for the average to averageminus player Maybe they should have a flight A event where pretty much everything goes.

Now some people feel like when playing against a couple that there is too much of a chance for their to be illegal info given.

quote: from goone2
"after playing against couples 4/5 rounds I felt like Jofh and I should get married"

[DrTodd13]

pigpenz, on Jan 19 2006, 09:52 AM, said:

Like I posted before the ACBL is trying to gear their games more for the average to averageminus player Maybe they should have a flight A event where pretty much everything goes.

Now some people feel like when playing against a couple that there is too much of a chance for their to be illegal info given.

quote: from goone2
"after playing against couples 4/5 rounds I felt like Jofh and I should get married"

For a while, the ACBL tried SAYC-only events and I would guess that they thought people might like them because of grumbling about how complex systems were getting. So, at that time you have regular events and SAYC-only events. If now you introduced "everything goes" events, you have another stratification of regular events and "anything goes." Now, take a bunch of smart people who take some pride in their intelligence and took up the game in part because of its richness and give them a choice...a more restrictive event or a less restrictive event. I think in part their pride will prevent them from playing in the more restrictive event because that is tantamount to admitting that they are incapable of dealing with complexity. So, I would predict something very odd would happen. The anything goes events would be very popular but at the same time the grumbling over how complex things are getting would only increase even though people have the choice not to have to deal with it.

[epeeist]

officeglen, on Jan 18 2006, 01:37 PM, said:

....
The ACBL web site accurately informs us that: “Clearly the Laws permit psychs. Psychic bidding is a part of the game.”

...ACBL policy, that “An agreement to psych, either explicit or implicit, is illegal”.

Since players are permitted to psych by the Laws, and players know that each other can psych, what is actually illegal is this policy as stated.
....

There may be more, but from what you posted, I don't see any contradiction. Psychs are allowed, but agreements to psych are not. So for instance, one may happen to choose to psych, NV against V as dealer. Okay, no problem, psychs are permitted. But if one has an agreement (explicit or implicit) with one's partner that one SHOULD psych more often in those situations, or more often against weaker opponents, or [etc.] then you have an illegal agreement to psych.

The two conditions you state therefore don't seem incompatible, I don't understand why you call the no-agreement policy illegal, am I missing something?

More generally, as others have pointed out, without knowing details (e.g. what if the TD had only seen you play 4 times, and those happened to be 4 times you psyched?) it's hard to know whether the decision was subjectively wrong. It may have been wrong objectively (with a full complete knowledge of all facts), but it may have been subjectively correct (reasonable based on the information available at the time and given the time in which to reach a decision). Kind of like a sporting event, the need for officials to make calls quickly means that some will later be found to have been wrong. Doesn't necessarily mean the referee was wrong to make the decision he or she did, based on what the referee could perceive at the time. Also, even if the decision was subjectively wrong, given the need to decide things quickly -- whether in bridge or live sports -- a certain number of mistakes must be expected.

[Free]

Everyone knows South psyched:

North has 13hcp, but E and W bid strong. Clearly South psyched, and the vulnerability only helps to find the smartguy.
West hears an invite. North made a Dbl showing 9+hcp (or something similar). He would never do that with only 2-3hcp, so clearly South psyched (+ NV vs V). Seeing his dummy makes it 100% clear.
East bids after his partner's 1NT overcall. From the moment West bids again, he's not the liar. North wouldn't dbl, so again South is the psycher.

You don't have to be a genius to figure this out. West should know after the 3♣ bid that the values are behind him, so he should pass quickly... If the TD wants to penalize anyone, he should still use a split score, because EW had the information and still bid stupid, so they're not damaged.

[glen]

epeeist, on Jan 20 2006, 09:10 AM, said:

The two conditions you state therefore don't seem incompatible, I don't understand why you call the no-agreement policy illegal, am I missing something?

Yes, you are missing something since the ACBL policy is missing something that qualifies an agreement.

ACBL: An agreement to psych, either explicit or implicit, is illegal

For example, say it said:

An agreement to bid 1S, either explicit or implicit, is illegal

Without qualification, this policy would be illegal by bridge laws.

If it stated:

An agreement to bid 1S with less than 8 points, either explicit or implicit, is illegal

This would be okay, now they have added qualification.

What happens when they use the policy without qualification is this:

ACBL: An agreement to psych, either explicit or implicit, is illegal
TDs: We have logged you psyching multiple times with regular pd - therefore you have an agreement to psych - please curtail

TDs don't have to record how you psyched, or when you psyched, or how often you psyched - just you are psyching with a regular partner, so it must be illegal by ACBL "policy" as established this summer.

As to the actual board, I really don't care about the TD ruling etc. I posted the board since some wanted to see it. What I do care about is this:

I can no longer psych in ACBL BBO tournaments with my regular partner, since any result on such a board is under the threat of immediate adjustment by employing the policy.

To use your "kind of like a sporting event" example, I don't mind the pass interference call by the ref here, but if this wrong pass interference is going to be called frequently, against the rules of the game, then there is a serious long term problem.

[pigpenz]

Glen did you watch the playoffs (football) last weekend?
Even with instant replay the refs couldnt get it right
Now in the real world is psyching a procedural penalty, i dont think so.
That is why we have recorders and committees.
Committees dont have the power to turn over procedural penalties, but they do have the power to recommend that player be disciplined for unusual activites, like frequent psyching.

Just like anything there has to be a paper trail to bring charges. We dont have committees here in ACBL Games and we dont have a recorder, so we have to live with the absurd rulings that some of these TD's make at times. I have always wondered why we never see any ACBL TD's responding to the fourms?

So IMHO if you think its right to tactically psyche then go for it, its part of the game.
I have yet to see anyone alert their two bids that they may open on xxxxx of a suit, they ACBL TD's always promote full disclosure, but trying to get people to really disclose is another matter.

[pbleighton]

"I have yet to see anyone alert their two bids that they may open on xxxxx of a suit.."

I do, but you are right, it's rare.

Peter

[luis]

pigpenz, on Jan 20 2006, 06:51 PM, said:

Glen did you watch the playoffs (football) last weekend?
Even with instant replay the refs couldnt get it right
Now in the real world is psyching a procedural penalty, i dont think so.
That is why we have recorders and committees.
Committees dont have the power to turn over procedural penalties, but they do have the power to recommend that player be disciplined for unusual activites, like frequent psyching.

Just like anything there has to be a paper trail to bring charges. We dont have committees here in ACBL Games and we dont have a recorder, so we have to live with the absurd rulings that some of these TD's make at times. I have always wondered why we never see any ACBL TD's responding to the fourms?

So IMHO if you think its right to tactically psyche then go for it, its part of the game.
I have yet to see anyone alert their two bids that they may open on xxxxx of a suit, they ACBL TD's always promote full disclosure, but trying to get people to really disclose is another matter.

Completely offtopic but how can they call "no play" when the whole Colts defense was jumping around the offense? It's either a false start by Faneca (if you have very good eyes) or the Colts must be charged neutral zone infraction. Even worst they could have let the steelers snap and then the Colts are offside so if they blew the whistle is because they saw something.

Bah! :-)

[pigpenz]

luis, on Jan 20 2006, 02:45 PM, said:

pigpenz, on Jan 20 2006, 06:51 PM, said:

Glen did you watch the playoffs (football) last weekend?
Even with instant replay the refs couldnt get it right
Now in the real world is psyching a procedural penalty, i dont think so.
That is why we have recorders and committees.
Committees dont have the power to turn over procedural penalties, but they do have the power to recommend that player be disciplined for unusual activites, like frequent psyching.

Just like anything there has to be a paper trail to bring charges. We dont have committees here in ACBL Games and we dont have a recorder, so we have to live with the absurd rulings that some of these TD's make at times. I have always wondered why we never see any ACBL TD's responding to the fourms?

So IMHO if you think its right to tactically psyche then go for it, its part of the game.
I have yet to see anyone alert their two bids that they may open on xxxxx of a suit, they ACBL TD's always promote full disclosure, but trying to get people to really disclose is another matter.

Completely offtopic but how can they call "no play" when the whole Colts defense was jumping around the offense? It's either a false start by Faneca (if you have very good eyes) or the Colts must be charged neutral zone infraction. Even worst they could have let the steelers snap and then the Colts are offside so if they blew the whistle is because they saw something.

Bah! :-)

Mike Periera head of NFL officials was on the NFL channel and said no plays are rare but do happen. Basically he said no one saw the movement of the offensive tackle and when colts crossed line they did not touch any steelers, a steeler player got up and ball wasnt snapped so linesman whislted the play to a halt. I know crazy but thats what they did.

[glen]

Several of the keys to the NFL approach:

First they are willing to admit the referees are wrong:
NFL: Referee was wrong on interception

Second, they are willing to improve:
Q&A: Mike Pereira, NFL supervisor of officials

Mike Pereira said:

The one thing I would say about officiating is that, I don't care if we do it for 100 years, it's a constant learning curve. And what we have to do is the same things teams do -- and that's improve week in and week out.

Third, they distribute the correct information to help get better in the short term:

Mike Pereira said:

Obviously, every official in this league has seen it by now, and every official going forward in the playoffs is going to see it on the tapes that we put out. If that happens again, it will not be reversed.

Fourth, they work hard on the long term :
Officiating a major source of contention during NFL playoffs

Quote

The NFL has a competition committee that meets annually to pour through film, analyze trends and recommend changes. Most of them deal with minutiae. Occasionally they are consequential, such as the re-emphasis on downfield contact a couple of years back.

[pigpenz]

officeglen, on Jan 20 2006, 09:59 PM, said:

Several of the keys to the NFL approach:

First they are willing to admit the referees are wrong:
NFL: Referee was wrong on interception

Second, they are willing to improve:
Q&A: Mike Pereira, NFL supervisor of officials

Mike Pereira said:

The one thing I would say about officiating is that, I don't care if we do it for 100 years, it's a constant learning curve. And what we have to do is the same things teams do -- and that's improve week in and week out.

Third, they distribute the correct information to help get better in the short term:

Mike Pereira said:

Obviously, every official in this league has seen it by now, and every official going forward in the playoffs is going to see it on the tapes that we put out. If that happens again, it will not be reversed.

Fourth, they work hard on the long term :
Officiating a major source of contention during NFL playoffs

Quote

The NFL has a competition committee that meets annually to pour through film, analyze trends and recommend changes. Most of them deal with minutiae. Occasionally they are consequential, such as the re-emphasis on downfield contact a couple of years back.

yes they do and too bad the ACBL TD's here dont. I still believe that they need to run a game just for Flight A players, where pretty much anything goes. I can remember about 25 yrs ago when I played with pretty much a novice player and we finished second to Barry Crane in a Regional Mens pairs, his comments were:
" I couldnt believe it, in the mens pairs they throw bids out there and if someone does something weird the opponents say nice bid where in the womens pairs they call the TD and want to start a war!"

[mike777]

pigpenz, on Jan 21 2006, 11:32 AM, said:

yes they do and too bad the ACBL TD's here dont.  I still believe that they need to run a game just for Flight A players, where pretty much anything goes. I can remember about 25 yrs ago when I played with pretty much a  novice player and we finished second to Barry Crane in a Regional Mens pairs, his comments were:
" I couldnt believe it, in the mens pairs they throw bids out there and if someone does something weird the opponents say nice bid where in the womens pairs they call the TD and want to start a war!"

Anything goes?

I see more wierd stuff playing in online tourneys then I do reading Bermuda Bowl books. Perhaps MP tourneys at top level are wierd also but reading the top Imp games looks much more natural than almost any late night bbo tourney when it comes to bids, leads, etc.

[pigpenz]

mike777, on Jan 21 2006, 12:41 PM, said:

I see more wierd stuff playing in online tourneys then I do reading Bermuda Bowl books. Perhaps MP tourneys at top level are wierd also but reading the top Imp games looks much more natural than almost any late night bbo tourney when it comes to bids, leads, etc.

Well when was the last time in Bridge World you read reports on hands from matchpoint events?

for the averge player imp events are alot less stressfull than matchpoints! Most of the online tourneys are short 12 board matches so alot of swinging can happen. So when playing here the thing to look for is being 50+% and + @imps. Now if there was a 26 board session event over 6 sessions think how happy you would be with a 53% game with a top of 100 per board. I would take that anyday of the week.

The days are gone where opps just sit there and let you bid unobstructed

[Brandal]

Al_U_Card, on Jan 17 2006, 02:58 PM, said:

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?

I'm "one of those" who think bidding is just a tool to get
me to the fun part of declaring or defending.

A psych is a selfish act,"you" decide to be the only one at
the table who knows exactly what's going on,leaving pd
in the dark but trusting him to rescue "you" by not bidding
like "you" have what you bid.

I know,but it's legal to psych,that's really the only argument
I hear from that corner.

So,is it fun to psych,for whom is the psych fun,and why on
earth is this so important to some?

And once again,yes I know it's legal.



(even tho I replied to you Al,this isn't directed at you)

[hrothgar]

Brandal, on Jan 23 2006, 05:13 PM, said:

A psych is a selfish act,"you" decide to be the only one at
the table who knows exactly what's going on,leaving pd
in the dark but trusting him to rescue "you" by not bidding
like "you" have what you bid.

So,is it fun to psych,for whom is the psych fun,and why on
earth is this so important to some?

As I have noted on multiple occasions, I firmly believe that optimal strategies at bridge require deliberate randomization. There are any number of examples of mixed strategies in declarer play and defense. The most obvious example is restricted choice analysis. The legal construct of "psyches" is a woefully imperfect attempt to describe this same set of behaviour in the bidding subgame.

Please note that statement that I made: I assert that playing bridge optimally requires the use of mixed strategies. Furthermore, I would like the opportunity to test this hypothesis. Balanced against this, we have your own subjective belief that psyches are in someway distasteful. You are also asserting that your own preferences are more important than mine. You are arguing that my ability to play the game should be constrained so that you enjoy it more. The reason that the fact that "Psyches are legal" is so important is that it allows us to move beyond inherently subjective arguments and personal aesthetics.

To streach an analogy, lets apply the same line of reasoning to the game of chess. Lets assume that you has some profound distaste for the en passant rule because it increases the complexity of the game. I have no problem if you personally don't wish to take advantage of en passant. I have a very BIG issue if you start arguing that I can't use make use of an otherwise legal move because it puts you at a disadvantage.

You really want to rethink your use of the word "selfish"...

[Echognome]

Brandal, on Jan 23 2006, 02:13 PM, said:

I'm "one of those" who think bidding is just a tool to get
me to the fun part of declaring or defending.

A psych is a selfish act,"you" decide to be the only one at
the table who knows exactly what's going on,leaving pd
in the dark but trusting him to rescue "you" by not bidding
like "you" have what you bid.

I know,but it's legal to psych,that's really the only argument
I hear from that corner.

Bidding is clearly more than just a tool to get to declaring/defending. Bidding also provides a lot of information for declarer/defender. Think of a psyche as a false-card in the bidding. Just as falsecards can come in many different varieties (false count, false suit preference, false attitude, playing an unnecessary honour, etc.), so can psyches in the bidding. A psyche can be done by bidding a suit you do not hold, or showing strength you do not have, showing a stopper when you do not have one, making a cuebid in a suit you do not have a control in, doubling a cuebid when you have nothing in the suit, etc.

Just as in falsecards, psyches risk partner misinterpreting as much as opponents. A psyche is a gamble. It (might) make things harder for opponents, but it also makes it harder for your own side too. I believe your statement that you are the only one at the table who knows what's going on is like saying that once the opponents psyche, I am not allowed to think. For a quick example, suppose your RHO opens and then passes a forcing bid. Do I not think that something strange has happened?

I don't understand the other parts of your argument. How is psyching any more selfish than preempting? or falsecarding? The objective of a psyche is to place doubts in your opponents' (and as a consequence your partner's) minds. You are deliberately misstating your distribution and/or strength. That's the definition of a psyche. You are making a gamble that the opponents will believe you and not find their own best contract. If you are not skilled as an opponent to reveal the psyche and find your best contract, then I might suggest not playing a strong club where opponents will often come in on "cheese".

Finally, the point that it is legal is exactly why we should learn how to psyche and how to cope with our opponent's psyching. It is not just a matter of saying "that's unfair" and "my opponents are being unsportsmanlike". We might as well argue that falsecarding is illegal too and maybe throw in preempts as well. Then we can all play with our cards face up and show our true skill which is double dummy bidding and play.

[Brandal]

hrothgar, on Jan 23 2006, 10:04 AM, said:

Balanced against this, we have your own subjective belief that psyches are in someway distasteful. You are also asserting that your own preferences are more important than mine. You are arguing that my ability to play the game should be constrained so that you enjoy it more.

You really want to rethink your use of the word "selfish"...

My point is the psych also throws partner off the deep end,
the psycher disregards partner's place in the partnership
for that hand...

And yes,I stand by my opinion that this is selfish.

You're completely wrong in assuming I think psyches are
distasteful or constrains my enjoyment of the game.

I was simply asking a few questions sprung from curiousity.

Sorry if I stepped on anyone's toes.

[Brandal]

Echognome, on Jan 23 2006, 10:53 AM, said:

Brandal, on Jan 23 2006, 02:13 PM, said:

I'm "one of those" who think bidding is just a tool to get
me to the fun part of declaring or defending.

A psych is a selfish act,"you" decide to be the only one at
the table who knows exactly what's going on,leaving pd
in the dark but trusting him to rescue "you" by not bidding
like "you" have what you bid.

I know,but it's legal to psych,that's really the only argument
I hear from that corner.

Bidding is clearly more than just a tool to get to declaring/defending. Bidding also provides a lot of information for declarer/defender. Think of a psyche as a false-card in the bidding. Just as falsecards can come in many different varieties (false count, false suit preference, false attitude, playing an unnecessary honour, etc.), so can psyches in the bidding. A psyche can be done by bidding a suit you do not hold, or showing strength you do not have, showing a stopper when you do not have one, making a cuebid in a suit you do not have a control in, doubling a cuebid when you have nothing in the suit, etc.

Just as in falsecards, psyches risk partner misinterpreting as much as opponents. A psyche is a gamble. It (might) make things harder for opponents, but it also makes it harder for your own side too. I believe your statement that you are the only one at the table who knows what's going on is like saying that once the opponents psyche, I am not allowed to think. For a quick example, suppose your RHO opens and then passes a forcing bid. Do I not think that something strange has happened?

I don't understand the other parts of your argument. How is psyching any more selfish than preempting? or falsecarding? The objective of a psyche is to place doubts in your opponents' (and as a consequence your partner's) minds. You are deliberately misstating your distribution and/or strength. That's the definition of a psyche. You are making a gamble that the opponents will believe you and not find their own best contract. If you are not skilled as an opponent to reveal the psyche and find your best contract, then I might suggest not playing a strong club where opponents will often come in on "cheese".

Finally, the point that it is legal is exactly why we should learn how to psyche and how to cope with our opponent's psyching. It is not just a matter of saying "that's unfair" and "my opponents are being unsportsmanlike". We might as well argue that falsecarding is illegal too and maybe throw in preempts as well. Then we can all play with our cards face up and show our true skill which is double dummy bidding and play.

This one I buy

But since preempts are normally part of system agreements
I wouldn't call them selfish.

But clearly falsecarding etc can be viewed same way as psyches

Good reply,thanks Echognome

[hrothgar]

Brandal, on Jan 23 2006, 07:06 PM, said:

My point is the psych also throws partner off the deep end,
the psycher disregards partner's place in the partnership
for that hand...

If you honestly believe that the player making a psyche "disregards" his partner's place, than you have no idea how psyches work.

First and foremost, psyches aren't "random". How often do you see players psyche a 7NT overcall? How often do they psyche red versus white? Mixed strategies are employed in precise ways and at precise times.

Case in point: Most players employ mixed strategies opposite partners who have limited their hand in some way. For example, partner might be a passed hand. Alternatively partner has made a limited opening bid - a 1M opening in a Precision context is a standard example, as is a preemptive bid like a "standard" weak 2M opening. Its more effective to psyche opposite a limited hand for two reasons:

1. The player making the psyche is much better positioned to judge whether the opponents have game (potentially slam). The player making the psyche can make an accurate assessment of risk versus reward

2. The limited hand isn't in a position to "surprise" partner. The player making the psyche should have anticipated potentially rebids by the limited hand and is well positioned to control the auction.

[Brandal]

hrothgar, on Jan 23 2006, 11:31 AM, said:

Brandal, on Jan 23 2006, 07:06 PM, said:

My point is the psych also throws partner off the deep end,
the psycher disregards partner's place in the partnership
for that hand...

If you honestly believe that the player making a psyche "disregards" his partner's place, than you have no idea how psyches work.

First and foremost, psyches aren't "random". How often do you see players psyche a 7NT overcall? How often do they psyche red versus white? Mixed strategies are employed in precise ways and at precise times.

Case in point: Most players employ mixed strategies opposite partners who have limited their hand in some way. For example, partner might be a passed hand. Alternatively partner has made a limited opening bid - a 1M opening in a Precision context is a standard example, as is a preemptive bid like a "standard" weak 2M opening. Its more effective to psyche opposite a limited hand for two reasons:

1. The player making the psyche is much better positioned to judge whether the opponents have game (potentially slam). The player making the psyche can make an accurate assessment of risk versus reward

2. The limited hand isn't in a position to "surprise" partner. The player making the psyche should have anticipated potentially rebids by the limited hand and is well positioned to control the auction.

I hear you Richard,and I have no problems at all with all
your points,you make a good case.

BUT.....and this is my "thing" regarding psyches:

How does a regular partnership handle the ethics,when
does it become an implicit agreement,is it possible to
psych say....1 time every 50 boards,and not letting it
become an ethical problem?

How do regular partnerships handle this,do they say upfront
we might psych or we may not?

How does this affect opponents in that case,when you announce
we occasionally psyche,are there ethical problems with that too?

Is it fair to say in a regular partnership,the partner will probably
suspect the psyche before the opps do?

In few words,it's the ethical side that bothers me,not the psych