[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

[fred]

hotShot, on Feb 16 2007, 04:14 PM, said:

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.

This difference is that, if you open with some club preempt, you are giving your partner an accurate description of your hand and allowing his judgment to come into play with respect to determining the result you achieve.

When you open 1NT (or whatever) you are taking your partner's judgment out of the equation.

I am not saying that I think it is appropriate or productive to let such things bother you at the table, but I can certainly understand not wanting to play with a partner (or teammates) that like to play this way.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[fred]

hrothgar, on Feb 16 2007, 04:21 PM, said:

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 some "core" where these types of strategies are valid.

I am not sure you are saying this, but if you are saying "some psychs rate to work more often than not" I agree with you.

The problem is that, in my opinion, there are only a few such psychs (the 3rd seat 1NT opening with a weak hand, a long suit, and opponents who play DONT for example). If you start to use these few effective psychs on a regular basis then you are not psyching anymore - the psych has become part of your system.

And if you decide to go outside the realm of psychs that are well known to be effective you will be entering the realm of randomness.

Maybe its better to spend you time and energy trying to improve to the point that you are capable of winning by playing down the middle?

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[pbleighton]

"Maybe its better to spend you time and energy trying to improve to the point that you are capable of winning by playing down the middle?"

LEARN HOW TO PLAY DEFENSE?

YOU'VE GOT TO BE KIDDING!

Peter

[cherdano]

fred, on Feb 16 2007, 10:54 AM, said:

hrothgar, on Feb 16 2007, 04:21 PM, said:

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 some "core" where these types of strategies are valid.

I am not sure you are saying this, but if you are saying "some psychs rate to work more often than not" I agree with you.

I think what Richard is talking about are psychs that, while having a negative expected average outcome (lose more often than they gain), increase the chance of winning the event by increasing the variation of our own score.

In my opinion, these situations are extremely extremely rare outside bridge books and barometer matches on BBO (and anyway I prefer to come in 3rd three times rather than win once and end in the middle of the pack the other two times, especially if it means I can play bridge all of these times instead of playing lottery).

Arend

[hotShot]

fred, on Feb 16 2007, 06:37 PM, said:

This difference is that, if you open with some club preempt, you are giving your partner an accurate description of your hand and allowing his judgment to come into play with respect to determining the result you achieve.

When you open 1NT (or whatever) you are taking your partner's judgment out of the equation.

I am not saying that I think it is appropriate or productive to let such things bother you at the table, but I can certainly understand not wanting to play with a partner (or teammates) that like to play this way.

Sometimes a player has to make a decision, based of the facts he has (up to know). He will select the best action he can think of, using his judgment.

How do you call partners aggressive game bid?
How do you call it, when your partner goes for slam?
How do you call it, when partner decides to sacrifice?
How do you call it, when partner decides to make a penalty double?

In all these cases, your partner uses his own judgment do decide the partnerships fate.
The same could happen with preempts and psyches.

It can mean that partners judgment is poor or worse, maybe it proves that partner is bigheaded, selfish and/or arrogant, but I think it's a bit touchy to think that it shows disrespect to you.

[fred]

hotShot, on Feb 16 2007, 06:33 PM, said:

How do you call partners aggressive game bid?
How do you call it, when your partner goes for slam?
How do you call it, when partner decides to sacrifice?
How do you call it, when partner decides to make a penalty double?

In all these cases, your partner uses his own judgment do decide the partnerships fate.
The same could happen with preempts and psyches.

The difference is that, in the situations you describe, the player in question is either forced to make a final decision for the partnership, he thinks he has enough information to make the winning final decision for the partnership, or he thinks that trying to gain more information and/or enlisting partner's judgment is not going to help.

The kind of psychs we have been talking about do not (or at least should not) fall into any of these categories.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[hotShot]

"...
he thinks that trying to gain more information and/or enlisting partner's judgment is not going to help."

I thought my example was fitting this category.
Usually BBO or f2f player find less subtle ways, to express disrespect to their partners.

I think our views on this are closer together than it appears in this discussion.

[awm]

Obviously there is some luck in bridge (even duplicate). The existence of a luck factor gives inferior players a chance to win. For example, if I were to play chess against Kasparov I would lose. He is a much better chess player, and there is no luck in chess. We could play a hundred times and I would lose every time. But if I were to play bridge against the world champion italians, there is some chance I would win. I'd bet that if we played a hundred short matches (say 6 boards each) my team would win a few times despite being inferior players. This is the beauty of bridge, and one of the nice things about a game with some luck involved.

Of course, if you're the best player (or pair) in a given field you'd be more likely to win if there was less luck. But for most of us who are not the best, there is some advantage to trying to increase the amount of randomness in the game provided I can do it without significantly hurting my average score. After all, the more luck there is, the more likely an inferior player can win. I don't think there's anything "wrong" or "unethical" about trying to increase the randomness as long as it's done with improving your chances in mind (rather than just out of malice).

The occasional psych, frequent tactical bid (say preempting a level more or less than normal with your hand), and choice of non-mainstream methods has this kind of an effect in bridge.