[toystar]

---

I was west and south (dealer) passed I bid 1 ♥ pass and my P raised 2♥
and i bid 3♦ (fake bid to prevent ♦ opening hoping to discard my worthless ♦ with help of my p's some good cards)
and my p raised to 3♥ and I bid 4♥ and 4♥ was final contract.

I managed to get all 13 tricks by opp's opening 4 of♠ (my p had nice ♠ ace)

As soon as the game ended. my expert opp removed me from the table.
I told her... Why removed me? my 3♦ bid was fake to prevent ♦ opening.
u r not very gentle.

Her answer was .... I do not tolerate psyches at my table, that's why

Is there any rule not to fake bid?

[mike777]

yes, and she told you the rule.

[the hog]

I don't understand Mike's comment. You are perfectly entitled to psyche provided that your pd does not field them. The only problem here is that if you are playing with a regular partner and you make this type of psyche frequently, it should be alerted as a possible psyche.

Your opponent was rude and boorish and quite frankly I would have reported her.

[mike777]

In MBC you can make your up own rules. They did here. If you hate the rules or think they are silly, leave.

People make up tourneys on bbo all the time with no psyche rules, if you think this is silly, do not play.

I agree this was very rude.

[jdonn]

The only problem was the booting instead of asking to leave.

[toystar]

Now I add "Sometimes I enjoy Fake bidding" to my profile.

[BebopKid]

Any and all non-natural bids should be self-alerted on BBO as a courtesy.

And it was rude of her to boot you instead of asking you to leave.

[helene_t]

Psyches are part of the game. The WBF does not grant sponsoring organizations the authority to disallow psyches of natural bids.

However, BBO hosts do not have to adhere to WBF rules. Strictly, this means that the game played at some tables is not Bridge but some other game, but that's a question of semantics. If the table notes said that psyches were not allowed, I guess you got what you deserved.

Otherwise, report the host to abuse. Even if the host said that 3♦ was not a natural bid and therefore cannot be psyched under ACBL rules, you didn't do anything wrong since ACBL rules are not default on BBO.

As for Ron's remark "provided that your pd does not field them" I disagree but maybe it's just because I don't understand the word "to field". I think partner is allowed to use his general bridge knowledge to determine if your bid might have been a psyche, and if so to bid accordingly himself. Of course if his assessment is based on specific knowledge about your psyching tendencies and you failed to alert the bid as a potential psyche, there is an issue.

I've never seen a bid being alerted as a potential psyche. It's probably impractical to do so except if you have the agreement to make frequent psyches in specific situations. A more common precaution is to pre-alert "we psych occasionally".

[whereagles]

toystar, your opp was just pissed off for being bluffed... lol

by th way, nice psyche..

[Tola18]

OK, here it was a half psyche. But what if it would be called a inviting trial-bid?

Some do use them with a side-suit. Other do use them with a short/useless suit.
If it was a pick-up partner, you arent quilty to tell exactly what it was-opps can make same quess as partner.

The only odd here is partner COULD accept the invite and bid 4hearts at once as he is nearly maximum, instead of the tame 3H.
Your 4H, against partners negative 3H - is rather odd.

But poorly bidding isnt the same as unallowed psyche only because you had maximal luck.

[toystar]

Yes I agree my p's 3♥ bid was questionable and my 4♥ bid was a little
(or much?) greedy.......

[Cascade]

It doesn't make any sense to alert a (potential) psychic bid.

A psychic bid is by definition a gross misdescription of suit length or honour strength.

On the other hand you alert partnership agreements that differ from some standard - non-alertable bids.

If you alert then you are really saying that your agreement is that the bid is a two-way bid - either a genuine game try of whatever persuasion you happen to play or some variety of random bid attempting to deceive the opponent. The fact that you would feel a need to alert means that this bid has crossed the divide from psychic to partnership understanding which needs to be disclosed.

If you have a partnership understanding then you need to disclose your methods otherwise you are free to depart from any agreement without prior disclosure provided that you do not have a partnership agreement to do so.

[Free]

I really don't see the problem here: you make a trial and bid game when partner signs off. Looks a lot like a psych expose to me... Your expert opponent is probably not so bridge expert after all, since he doesn't like to play bridge (art 40 is part of bridge).

[toystar]

Alfred Sheinwold's 5 weeks to winning bridge (my favorite bridge book)

At page 101-102

Fake cue bids
A player may sometimes "promise" an ace that he doesn't actually hold.
For example, with the last hand:
♠AQT85 ♥KQJ ♦AQ3 ♣52
opener responder
1♠ 3♠
If , as the opener, you now want to bid four clubs with the two small
clubs, the District Attorney's office will refuse to prosecute.
The bid will probably get you some information, and may also discourage a club opening lead. Even if you stop short of a slam, you may profit by confusion in the ranks of the enemy.
If the idea of making a larcenous cue bid has never occurred to you, give it some thought. There is room in contract bridge for much low cunning as well as logic and science. Amiable larceny of this kind is perfectly sporting and provide some of the biggest thrills in the game.
A highly respected clergyman of my acquaintance makes it a point to throw a fake cue bid at his opponents now and then. He practically always gets away with it, how can anybody doubt a clergyman? But sometimes a suspicious opponent will lead up to the cue bid, and then it may turn out that the Reverend has a perfectly
normal ace-queen and is delighted to get such a friendly opening lead.
This is, of course, the chief reason for making fake cue bids. They correspond to the bluff in poker. If you never bluff, you are easy to play against.
THE TRUE ART OF BIDDING CONSISTS OF KEEPING YOUR PARTNER TRUSFUL AND THE OPPONENTS MISTRUSTFUL.


Waiting for your opinions...

[mike777]

toystar, on May 20 2007, 10:55 AM, said:

Alfred Sheinwold's 5 weeks to winning bridge (my favorite bridge book)

At page 101-102

Fake cue bids
A player may sometimes "promise" an ace that he doesn't actually hold.
For example, with the last hand:
♠AQT85 ♥KQJ ♦AQ3 ♣52
opener responder
1♠ 3♠
If , as the opener, you now want to bid four clubs with the two small
clubs, the District Attorney's office will refuse to prosecute.
The bid will probably get you some information, and may also discourage a club opening lead. Even if you stop short of a slam, you may profit by confusion in the ranks of the enemy.
If the idea of making a larcenous cue bid has never occurred to you, give it some thought. There is room in contract bridge for much low cunning as well as logic and science. Amiable larceny of this kind is perfectly sporting and provide some of the biggest thrills in the game.
A highly respected clergyman of my acquaintance makes it a point to throw a fake cue bid at his opponents now and then. He practically always gets away with it, how can anybody doubt a clergyman? But sometimes a suspicious opponent will lead up to the cue bid, and then it may turn out that the Reverend has a perfectly
normal ace-queen and is delighted to get such a friendly opening lead.
This is, of course, the chief reason for making fake cue bids. They correspond to the bluff in poker. If you never bluff, you are easy to play against.
THE TRUE ART OF BIDDING CONSISTS OF KEEPING YOUR PARTNER TRUSFUL AND THE OPPONENTS MISTRUSTFUL.


Waiting for your opinions...

For many of us this was our first bridge book, even if we had no idea who this guy was or ever got to play against him. Great book.

[neilkaz]

toystar, on May 20 2007, 03:03 AM, said:

Yes I agree my p's 3♥ bid was questionable and my 4♥ bid was a little
(or much?) greedy.......

Just what else do you expect your PD to bid over 3♦ when it is a game try bid and ♥ are trump and he has no help in your suit (assuming you are asking for help or showing length and some strength) ?

.. neilkaz ..

[DrTodd13]

First, if you don't alert people when they join your table that you don't allow psyches then you shouldn't be able to later say you don't tolerate psyches and remove someone for the first instance of such a bid.

If you and your partner regularly make this bid, you should say "3♦ may be a help-suit or a worthless doubleton (or tripleton, whatever)". It doesn't make any sense to say "this 3♦ is a help-suit or a psyche" because A) every bid could be a psyche and you have in essence a specific set of things that it will usually be.

The opps are just sourpusses here. You make a trial bid and then continue on to game. This usually means that either you were interested in slam if partner liked your suit or you made the help-suit try with shortness and upon finding that partner has no wasted values in this suit you bid game anyway. Most of the time it is the latter so opps should really think about leading ♦ when you bid like this.

[jdonn]

DrTodd13, on May 20 2007, 02:30 PM, said:

First, if you don't alert people when they join your table that you don't allow psyches then you shouldn't be able to later say you don't tolerate psyches and remove someone for the first instance of such a bid.

Says who? If by shouldn't remove someone you mean you shouldn't just boot them then that's true, but you have every right to ask them to leave (and then boot them if they don't comply) for any reason at all, even a petty one and even with no prior warning. I can't say it makes me like the person who did this, but it's their right.

[blackshoe]

BebopKid, on May 20 2007, 12:49 AM, said:

Any and all non-natural bids should be self-alerted on BBO as a courtesy.

And it was rude of her to boot you instead of asking you to leave.

Defintely rude. But the purpose of a psych is to deceive opponents. This is perfectly legal. Alerting your own psych defeats the purpose. It is tantamount to the flat statement I read in a recent book on bidding: "ethical players never psych." The statement is, of course, complete BS - and so, I'm afraid, is the idea that a player should alert his psyches.

If a table host pre-advertises that he doesn't allow psyches, you have two choices: don't play at his table, or follow his rules. Personally, I would choose the former. If a host doesn't pre-advertise, and later tells you that you've violated some condition you didn't know about, he's a jerk, and you should be happy to leave his table and never come back. I would be.

[DrTodd13]

jdonn, on May 20 2007, 11:51 AM, said:

DrTodd13, on May 20 2007, 02:30 PM, said:

First, if you don't alert people when they join your table that you don't allow psyches then you shouldn't be able to later say you don't tolerate psyches and remove someone for the first instance of such a bid.

Says who? If by shouldn't remove someone you mean you shouldn't just boot them then that's true, but you have every right to ask them to leave (and then boot them if they don't comply) for any reason at all, even a petty one and even with no prior warning. I can't say it makes me like the person who did this, but it's their right.

When I said they "can't" I meant they "shouldn't." Just like if I say I can't come up and punch you in the face it means that I shouldn't even though I'm perfectly capable of doing it. If they forget to say they don't allow psyches then it would be proper to tell them at their first psyche that you don't allow that at your table but since you forgot to tell them you can't blame them. Sure, if you're an ass then you can kick them right then and there but likewise I have a right to dislike that person for being an ass.