[KiwiBridge]

Thanks for all the feedback. Let me make one thing clear: I haven't pysched since I was young... and who the hell would psyche in an Individual with an unknown partner anyway? As I saw it at the time, I had one suit that may be worth partner leading, and one and only one chance to bid it.

A simple lead directing overcall. Unknown partner, claiming Expert status, unlikely to go mad after already passing, indeed he did pass throughout.

At no time did the director contact me, he merely assumed it was a pysche and adjusted accordingly. What I objected to was his reasoning, quote "as you knew the opponents were likely to bid game, therefore it was a psyche!" On that basis, no one could ever make a lead directing overcall with a passed partner, unless they were sure that the opponents did NOT have game on! What madness.

[inquiry]

Actually, psyching in an individual with an unknown partner seems to be the most "legal" time to do it. I mean, there is no question that you have used this psyche before with this partner, so there can be no "undislosed" agreement that allows you partner to have an advantage to catching the psyche. The second reason, in an individual, if you make your partner, let's say, very upset, at least you will get a new partner on the next hand (or two).

I find pcyhes with people you play with a lot more of a problem than one like this one.

[blackshoe]

Gonna try to cover several responses to my last here.

Fred,

Sacred text, no. But I do maintain that psychs are an integral part of the game, and that when you ban psychs, you're playing a different game. I would also say that to ban psychs, and then automatically rule any "strange" bid a psych is unfair to your ("your" referring to he who made the ban, not to "bbo") customers. FWIW, I agree with the rest of what you said. In particular, I remember "goulashes" as a lot of fun - and so was "cutthroat", a variant with an interesting rule set:

1. If you have 13+ HCP, you must open. (Failure to open is deemed a psych).
2. Once the bidding is opened, any subsequent bid must be at least game, whatever the cards held.
3. After three passes, the last person to have bid is declarer. He may choose from amongst the other three players which is to be dummy. If his chosen dummy is not seated opposite declarer, that dummy changes seats with the player who is seated there.
4. Once declarer has chosen his dummy, that (dummy) player may "accept" or "reject". If he accepts, he gets the same score as declarer. If he rejects, he gets the same score as the defenders.
5. Scoring is aggregate, using a running tally for each player, and standard rubber bridge score elements are divided by ten.
6. Other than the above, rubber bridge rules apply.

In this game, psychs are not only legal, they are rampant. This can be a very fun game, but it is not "contract bridge" as defined by the rules promulgated by the WBF.

If folks want no-psych tournaments, that's fine with me, but I think the SO of such tournaments has an obligation to be careful what he calls a psych.

DrTodd:

Quote

You can't determine whether the person made a mistake or did it deliberately. If they say they made a mistake it is self-serving.

Sometimes you can, if you ask the right questions. In any case a self-serving answer is still evidence. I was taught never to dismiss a self-serving statement out of hand, but to investigate the circumstances, and judge the degree to which such self-serving evidence should influence my ruling. In addition, IME, mistakes happen far more often than deliberate gross distortions, and when the latter do occur, players are far more likely than not to admit it.

Kiwi:

It struck me when I first read your original post that the director in question is at best mistaken about what constitutes a psych, and probably also about his obligation to investigate rather than assume. <shrug>

[inquiry]

Well, what is a psyche is in the eye of the TD is clear. I once opened 1♥ in third seat with 11 hcp and a four card heart suit. This was in no way meant to be a psyche, it was a tactical bid, despite playing five card major. Yup, the opponents called the director on me, and said I psyhced a 1♥ bid (they did have a 5-3 heart fit). The director agreed and gave me an average minus.

I have since tried not to play in "psyche-banned" tourmanents" (other than those of one director who at least has a reasonable view of what is a psyche). I have played in some such tourneys, however, because not until after the tourney starts does the fact that pscyhes are banned become annouced. I guess I don't mnd so much that pyches are banned, but what I dislike is the fact that some one else decides if my bid is a pyche. I open very lightly, and make raises that others will not based upon degree of fit. I would hate to have some of these actions called a pcyhe when I think they are the correct normal bid.

As long as the tournament has a decription someplace that "pyches" are not allowed, I see no problems with these events, and should I play in one (not bloodly likely), then I will cerainly follow the rules of the TD..

BTW, this topic... is one that reoccurs about once a month.... we have discussed this to death here... Should we pin one topic on this so we don't need to keep opening new threads all the time?

[glen]

blackshoe, on Feb 15 2007, 05:58 PM, said:

If folks want no-psych tournaments, that's fine with me, but I think the SO of such tournaments has an obligation to be careful what he calls a psych.

No psyche-tournaments are like small towns with a large ‘No loitering’ notice where one might expect a Welcome sign. There’s a message there, and it will not help to debate with the Sheriff whether 5 minutes or 10 constitutes loitering.

The no-psyche message means that the tournaments will be conducted with the spirit that players cannot fool the opponents in the bidding. You can debate with the Sheriff all you want about what is or is not a psyche, but you will still land in jail in this town if you are a “trouble maker”.

[hotShot]

A psyche is a deliberate gross distortion.
While we might not be able to find out, if a distorted bid was made deliberate or accidental, we should be able to define what a gross distortion is.

Kiwi's overcall had 4♦ instead of 5 and 5 HCP instead of 8-16, this is a 1 card and 3+ points deviation. I call that a deviation of 4 (1+3).

Inquiry's hand had 4♥ instead of 5 and 11 HCP instead of 12+. I call that a deviation of 2 (1+1).

I would call a deviation of 4 a 'gross deviation', while i would think that 2 is just a deviation.

How many cards or HCP would you call 'gross'?

[matmat]

hotShot, on Feb 16 2007, 04:44 AM, said:

A psyche is a deliberate gross distortion.
While we might not be able to find out, if a distorted bid was made deliberate or accidental, we should be able to define what a gross distortion is.

Kiwi's overcall had 4♦ instead of 5 and 5 HCP instead of 8-16, this is a 1 card and 3+ points deviation. I call that a deviation of 4 (1+3).

Inquiry's hand had 4♥ instead of 5 and 11 HCP instead of 12+. I call that a deviation of 2 (1+1).

I would call a deviation of 4 a 'gross deviation', while i would think that 2 is just a deviation.

How many cards or HCP would you call 'gross'?

so is a deviation of 3 gross?

[gwnn]

I think gross is when the call has nothing to do with your hand.

ie

-
xxxx
xxxx
jxxxx

for 1♠ opening/overcall. this is, like, a 12-18 "disortion", which is kind of much.

what I don't like in TD's decision that it didn't really explain why the so-called psyche damaged the opposing pair. i.e. if everyone had made 3NT-1 and they 2NT=, they wouldn't have really called the director, no?

[matmat]

sceptic, on Feb 16 2007, 05:18 AM, said:

How on earth are you likely to build up a relationship with a pick up by psyching after a few hands, or are people rude enough that a pick up partner has no feelings and you can do what you like with them

why on earth would i want to build up a relationship with them? should i be looking to purchase friendship bracelets? or perhaps an engagement ring?

hmmm...

i am a lot more likely to psych with a random/pickup partner as the benefits far outweigh the drawbacks imo. with a steady partner you risk ruining the partnership, whereas with a random it is not clear that it isn't in the best interest of your score to mastermind a bit anyway...

[1eyedjack]

sceptic, on Feb 16 2007, 11:18 AM, said:

How on earth are you likely to build up a relationship with a pick up by psyching after a few hands, or are people rude enough that a pick up partner has no feelings and you can do what you like with them

Why on earth should any player regard a psychic bid by his partner as rude or some sort of personal affront?

It may work. It may not. But if it does not it was not with malice aforethought, nor should you assume that he is doing anything other than doing his best to secure a good score for his own side, being both himself and his partner (you).

It should be regarded as no more "damaging" to a relationship than (say) taking an unnecessary failing finesse, and if any player infers otherwise when on the receiving end of partner's psyche then I put it to you that the problem lies not with the psycher but with his partner.

If in defending a hand you have agreed with partner to play normal count, and your partner, at a given instant in the play, judges that the count would be of more value to declarer than to you and on that basis false-cards his count signal, do you regard that as damaging to the relationship?

[fred]

1eyedjack, on Feb 16 2007, 12:16 PM, said:

Why on earth should any player regard a psychic bid by his partner as rude or some sort of personal affront?

Many players (including me) like to employ a general strategy of playing down the middle in the hope that an opportunity will arise later in the hand in which their bidding judgment or play/defense skill will give them an opportunity to get a good result by making a superior decision to other players holding the same cards who faced the same decision.

In my view it is not unreasonable for such player to resent it when partner openers 1S in first position with a doubleton spade and 5 HCP (for example). They might (correctly) think that such an action puts the partnership's result on the deal largely at the mercy of random factors beyond their control. Their bridge skill is much less likely to have an impact on the result when a psych takes place.

They might even go so far as to think "if you don't believe we can win by playing normally then you do not have very much respect for my game."

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[brianshark]

A psyche basically cuts your partner out of the auction. He is no longer in a position to make an informed call because you have decided that you are going solo in this one. I can think of no greater insult to your abilities as a bridge player than your partner openly declaring that, "I think we're better off if I bid this hand myself".

The only time it doesn't have as much of a personal statement of mistrust is within a regular partnership where an inherent trust in their abilities should already exist, and a bit of flamboyance "to let off steam" or whetever is ok if done about once every other year.

And there's nothing wrong with a partnership who are known to psyche more than normal. There's even a section on the WBF convention card where you are expected to note the frequency of your psyches. Something like 'never', 'rare', 'seldom' or 'occasional' I have seen from time to time.

Again, there's nothing illegal about a psyche, or even knowing that your partner psyches a lot. As long as the psyche isn't fielded, no law has been broken.

[hrothgar]

brianshark, on Feb 16 2007, 06:07 PM, said:

A psyche basically cuts your partner out of the auction. He is no longer in a position to make an informed call because you have decided that you are going solo in this one. I can think of no greater insult to your abilities as a bridge player than your partner openly declaring that, "I think we're better off if I bid this hand myself".

I think that this is a remarkably naive view.

Very few players psyche at random. For example, I don't recall ever seeing anyone psyche a 7NT opening. (I've seen plenty of frivolous 7NT openings tht are deliberately designed to punish partner, but that's a different story)

Most psyches occur at a point of time where partner has strictly limited his hand in some way.

Partner is a pass hand...
Partner has opened with a preempt...
Partner has made a limited opening bid...

You aren't cutting partner out of the auction. Your partner has alreayd done his job and describe his hand. This is what provides you with the information that you need to judge whether a psyche is likely to be successful.

[inquiry]

sceptic, on Feb 16 2007, 05:18 AM, said:

Quote

The second reason, in an individual, if you make your partner, let's say, very upset, at least you will get a new partner on the next hand (or two).

I am quite suprised at you here Ben, you are almost condoning behaviour that is likely to piss someone off and that is not good for BBO and is possibly a small factor in the bad behaviour issue we have on BBO especially an indy tourney????

I am still adamant, that while psyches are leagal and possibly fun when they work, if you have not even had the time to discuss with a pick up partner a system carding and what conventions you play (or at best a very basic one)

How on earth are you likely to build up a relationship with a pick up by psyching after a few hands, or are people rude enough that a pick up partner has no feelings and you can do what you like with them

I believe a lot of experts here state that psyches ruin trust in a partnership, how do you expect it to make a pick up partner feel

one of the experts here partnered me once and psyched after a few hands, I carried on bidding like an idiot and afterwards we got a shite result (the shite result did not bother me, but I did think to myself, that my pard was an idiot (at the time, not for psyching, but remotely expect some sort of result with a sub standard partner)) (that is not a long term view of that person btw)

Well Kiwi said, "who the hell would psyche in an Individual with an unknown partner anyway? "

This implies that if you were ever going to psyche, you would do so with a KNOWN partner. The implication that it is better, safer, saner to psyhe with a regular partner I found bothersome. The reaon being, a possible implication is that the psyche is safer with a known partner is that he is more likely to pick it up, hence, leaning towards a partnership agreement of sorts. I had a partner who would respond 1♠ after I opened a minor and they made a takeout double with or without spades. He did this a lot (F2F) so I began ALERTING his 1♠ bids, and his passes as well (as he bid 1♠ without spades only with support, so a pass carried some information). Eventually, he had to stop doing that.

So this is what I meant. There can be no "hidden" understanding of partners tendencies to psyche in an individual with a pick up partner.

also, in an individual, you are not really trying to establish a partnership. This has ntothing to do with that issue. And I don't get pissed off when my partners psyche, and I think this is true of most players. My comment was should you happen to get your partner irrate in an individual, they will not be stuck with you very long. If I was playign with a pickup partner in a regular tourmanent, where we had a lot of boards left, this obvioiusly would not be true.

As far as psyching, I think I can understand Freds veiw that HE CAN win playing down the middle. In fact, I hope to do so myself. But in an individual, you get good and bad results by just sitting there. No one knows what anyone else is doing. This is true of you and your partner and your opponents. In the later rounds, if you have been estimating your results (or if it is a baramoter), you may see that you need a good result to "win". After two passes to you, and you are weak, the time might be ripe for a psyche. It depends upon a lot of factors, and is not just meant to randomize the results, and of course not to "piss off" your partner. Of course, if it goes sour, you will not win, and who knows you may keep your partner from winning, but Individuals are, well, an individual event. You should do all you can within the rules to try to win. If you think a psyche on a given board gives you the best chance to win (and psyches are not illegal by TD rule), then it is a psyche you should do.

[hrothgar]

inquiry, on Feb 16 2007, 06:25 PM, said:

As far as psyching, I think I can understand Freds view that HE CAN win playing down the middle. In fact, I hope to do so myself.

I'll go a bit further and point out the following:

Fred probably has a very good chance of winning by playing down the middle. However, Fred's the shark in the pool. He's a nice friendly shark, but he's a hell of a lot better than most of us. Lets assume that you are entering a 22 table section. All other things being equal, there is about a 1/22 chance that you're the best in the field.

That means that there is (roughly) a 21 in 22 chance that your decision to play down the middle is benefiting someone else. Decreasing variance and playing down the middle is the best way to ensure that the sharks are going to be able to emerge on top.

[1eyedjack]

fred, on Feb 16 2007, 03:42 PM, said:

1eyedjack, on Feb 16 2007, 12:16 PM, said:

Why on earth should any player regard a psychic bid by his partner as rude or some sort of personal affront?

Many players (including me) like to employ a general strategy of playing down the middle in the hope that an opportunity will arise later in the hand in which their bidding judgment or play/defense skill will give them an opportunity to get a good result by making a superior decision to other players holding the same cards who faced the same decision.

In my view it is not unreasonable for such player to resent it when partner openers 1S in first position with a doubleton spade and 5 HCP (for example). They might (correctly) think that such an action puts the partnership's result on the deal largely at the mercy of random factors beyond their control. Their bridge skill is much less likely to have an impact on the result when a psych takes place.

They might even go so far as to think "if you don't believe we can win by playing normally then you do not have very much respect for my game."

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

There is no shortage of top class players who occasionally psyche. Zia, for example? Do they do it because they are dismissive of their partner's ability to go average plus on the hand on skill alone? I think they do it because the sniff the prevailing wind and detect a whiff of opportunity that occurs but rarely.

Also, I ask myself, against which opponents would I rather be sitting ... A pair who know that I never psyche and can take comfort in the predictability of my hand falling within announced parameters, or a pair who forever have a niggling doubt that I might not have the hand described? Personally I would rather invoke an element of discomfort, even if in practice I might psyche very rarely.

But your point is well made: If you are a world class pair, perhaps you do not need ever to psyche. For us lesser mortals, particularly when we know we are sitting against players who on paper are better, and in a case where second place wins no prizes, the technique may, depending on the situation, have some merit.

[fred]

hrothgar, on Feb 16 2007, 03:33 PM, said:

Decreasing variance and playing down the middle is the best way to ensure that the sharks are going to be able to emerge on top.

Maybe, but I suspect that many people who get satisfaction of out winning the games they play largely due to randomness are already busy playing bingo.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[hotShot]

Well suppose w/r the bidding was: pass - pass
and you hold x xx xx QJxxxxxx.

You can bid 3/4/5♣ or you can psyche e.g. 1NT planing to run to 2/3/4♣ if necessary. Both decisions are are made without involving partner much, both decisions are made expecting partner to pass.

Why should one be ok while the other one is shows disrespect for partner?

But after 1NT opps might not reach their best spot, while a club preempt might tell them that they must have a fit and good combined strength.

This is not randomness and this has nothing to do with disrespect to partner.

[hrothgar]

fred, on Feb 16 2007, 06:51 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Feb 16 2007, 03:33 PM, said:

Decreasing variance and playing down the middle is the best way to ensure that the sharks are going to be able to emerge on top.

Maybe, but I suspect that many people who get satisfaction of out winning the games they play largely due to randomness are already busy playing bingo.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

This seems to pre-suppose that there's no skill involved in knowing how/when one should roll the dice...

Games like Bingo or, for that matter, traditional children's games like "Chutes and Ladders", "Candyland", and "War" are complete random. There is no decision making or strategy involved.

In contrast, the decision whether to play with or against the field simply another dimension to bridge strategies. Any number of authors have pointed out examples where players should take a sub-optimal line on an individual hand in order to increase their chances of winning an event. The classic example is (probably) Kit Woolsey's discussion about taking a finesse of playing for the drop holding an eight card spade fit missing the Queen.

Admitted, one can argue whether players who aren't good enough to win events playing down the middle necessarily have the necessary judgement to determine whether they should be psyching. However, I'm pretty sure that I can find some "core" where these types of strategies are valid.

[pbleighton]

"Maybe, but I suspect that many people who get satisfaction of out winning the games they play largely due to randomness are already busy playing bingo."

A tiny sample, but I hate bingo

Peter