[Gerardo]

Mike Flader, Fall NABC 2007, Bulletin No. 9, Page 14

"The Trouble with Psychs"

" 2. Frequent or excessive psychs are illegal. If it is reported to the director that a pair has psyched three times in a session,
the director should proceed under the assumption that this is the case".
(Bolding is mine)

I fail to see a law which yields this true. Am I missing something?

[paulg]

He would get you under L40B (Concealed Partnership understandings Prohibited) or L74B (paying insufficient attention to the game).

Of course he is preaching to the masses. I doubt he'd throw Meckwell out for three psyches in the last set when they were 80 IMPs down. And no-one ever reports Zia.

Paul

[hotShot]

Every time you psyche, your partners experience with you will grow and it will prepare him for future psyches.
When your partner starts to consider you might have psyched, you have a concealed partnership agreement.

This concealed partnership agreement puts your partner into a position where he might field your psyche.

[skjaeran]

If you make the same kind of psyche several times over just a few sessions of time this is no longer a psyche. If partner doesn't alert these bids and explain the normal meaning and adding that partner is known to psyche this bid under "x" conditions, this is no psyche but an undisclosed partnership understanding.

If you frequently psyche in different situations, you need to dislose the tendency to frequently psyche - probably as a pre-alert.

However, there's no law to disallow frequent psyching in general. But you need to disclose properly.

[helene_t]

skaeran, on Dec 2 2007, 11:55 AM, said:

However, there's no law to disallow frequent psyching in general. But you need to disclose properly.

If the de-facto meaning of a 1♠ overcall is either a weak hand with 3 spades or a normal overcall, it becomes a BSC.

[mike777]

Gerardo, on Dec 2 2007, 03:22 AM, said:

Mike Flader, Fall NABC 2007, Bulletin No. 9, Page 14

"The Trouble with Psychs"

"                                                                                                                              2. Frequent or excessive psychs are illegal. If                                                                                                              it is reported to the director that a pair has psyched three times in a session,
the director should proceed under the assumption that this is the case".
(Bolding is mine)

I fail to see a law which yields this true. Am I missing something?

There are numerous laws this may fall under depending on the full set of facts. See the law.

http://web2.acbl.org/laws/index.html

[nige1]

cardsharp, on Dec 2 2007, 04:01 AM, said:

He would get you under L40B (Concealed Partnership understandings Prohibited) or L74B (paying insufficient attention to the game).

Of course he is preaching to the masses. I doubt he'd throw Meckwell out for three psyches in the last set when they were 80 IMPs down. And no-one ever reports Zia.

Wow! Are the laws really enforced differently for world-class players? Surely Zia and Meckwell must report their own psychs?

In the UK this topic also polarizes opinion.

For example there are rules about the minimum strength for opening bids. In the UK, cynics argue that the EBU L&EC successively lowered that floor to cater for what some experts were already doing

Surely there is a problem only if there is a discernable pattern to the frequent psychs. For example if you often psych third in hand after 2 passes; or if you regularly overcall 1N with a weak long suit. or if you have a penchant for trying to pick off opponent's suit, when LHO doubles partner's opening bid and you have support; or if you psych only when you are losing a match

If your psychs are varied and unpredictable (except that you never psych when you are out of contention) there should be no problem.

[kenrexford]

I never understood this concept, and I still do not, in one respect.

I would imagine that a "partnership understanding" could develop such that a partnership recognizes that the likelihood of a psychic action increases whenever the merits of the psychic action are more likely present. In other words, an understanding based upon common sense and talent.

That cannot make much sense. To me, the idea should be whether the partnership makes psychic action too frequently in situations where fielding is enabled.

To distinguish, consider a classic psychic action. Your partner, in first seat, white-on-red, passes. In third seat, you open 2♥, a weak two-bid. Your LHO doubles, takeout. Partner now bids 2♠.

This call screams psychic. Sure, I would play this as agreeing hearts and a lead-director, but without that agreement, 2♠ screams psychic. The first issue in assessing this situation is, IMO, not whether the person has done this X number of times, but what the frequency of this psychic is as a function of the likelihood that bridge principles suggest a likely psychic.

In other words, this 2♠ psychic could occur quite often without there being a problem, as opposed to a 2♠ jump overcall after a 1♦ opening as psychic, which would be weird. If the guy bid 2♠ five times during a week in P-P-2♥-X-2♠ sequences, all white on red, Opener would be suspicious, but I would see little problem. If, on the other hand, the same guy jump overcalled 2♠ only three times in P-1♦-2♠ auctions, I would sense a big problem.

The second analysis should be as to whether the call is likely to induce fielding. This is a strange flip-side of the coin of a "psychic control" theory. Whereas I do not believe that a partnership should be allowed to have a convention that controls the risk of a psychic, I also however find fewer problems with more frequent psychics where the nature of the auction "controls" the possible damage from psychics.

Again, to contrast. After 2♥-P-2♠, it seems reasonable to play a structure, for constructive purposes, of raising spades through 2NT. For example, I would play that 2NT shows one type of spade raise, and 3♠ a different strength spade raise, a new suit maybe a raise also or maybe a strong non-raise, and rebidding the suit maybe as a non-raise minimum. If 2♠ were non-forcing, then all calls may be spade raises, passing otherwise. In that scheme, a 2♥-X-2♠ sequence is unlikely to yield fielding, because the normal use of constructive techniques will self-resolve the problem.

However, contrast this with P-1♦-2♠-P-2NT, if 2NT asked the overcaller to pick his minor if he really has a minor, or to bid 3♥/3♠/3NT with real spades and min/ave/max. Sure, that sounds like a neat approach. In fact, I'd like it if 2♠ were allowed to show a spade weak two or a minor preempt. But, that is not allowed as a convention. The "psychic" cannot operate as a substitute for a disallowed convention, with a control that allows the partnership to scientifically "field" the psychic.

[Cascade]

kenrexford, on Dec 8 2007, 03:31 AM, said:

However, contrast this with P-1♦-2♠-P-2NT, if 2NT asked the overcaller to pick his minor if he really has a minor, or to bid 3♥/3♠/3NT with real spades and min/ave/max. Sure, that sounds like a neat approach. In fact, I'd like it if 2♠ were allowed to show a spade weak two or a minor preempt. But, that is not allowed as a convention. The "psychic" cannot operate as a substitute for a disallowed convention, with a control that allows the partnership to scientifically "field" the psychic.

Isn't Drury "...a control that allows the partnership to scientifically "field" the psychic"?

[JoAnneM]

I believe the 2S bid (2H-x-2S) is called a "tactical psyche" and wouldn't (shouldn't) even be counted as one of the three you would be allowed during a session.

Just my opinion.

[ArcLight]

>Isn't Drury "...a control that allows the partnership to scientifically "field" the psychic"?

No.
Teh partnership has a different definition of a 3rd/4th seat opening bid tahn in 1st/2nd. They may open weaker hands in 3rd or 4th seat than they will in 1st/2nd. Maybe this should be alerted, although it seems very common that 3rd/4th seat oepners can be substantially weaker than in 1st / 2nd.

Its not fielding a psyche, its fileding a potentially very wide range opening bid, from lets say 8 to 21 points.

[nige1]

ArcLight, on Dec 8 2007, 05:43 PM, said:

>Isn't Drury "...a control that allows the partnership to scientifically "field" the psychic"?

No.
The partnership has a different definition of a 3rd/4th seat opening bid than in 1st/2nd. They may open weaker hands in 3rd or 4th seat than they will in 1st/2nd. Maybe this should be alerted, although it seems very common that 3rd/4th seat opwners can be substantially weaker than in 1st / 2nd.

Its not fielding a psyche, its fileding a potentially very wide range opening bid, from lets say 8 to 21 points.

This is a frequent controversy in discussion groups. IMO, Drury is fine provided that you never psych in third seat. If you ever psych, then it operates as a psych-control.

[fred]

nige1, on Dec 7 2007, 05:46 AM, said:

Wow! Are the laws really enforced differently for world-class players? Surely Zia and Meckwell must report their own psychs?

I have never heard of the concept of "reporting your own psychs". I suspect the same is true of most world class players.

However, the truth of the matter is:

- Most world class players never psych (probably because most believe that, in general, psyching is a losing strategy against strong players).
- Of the world class players who do psych, almost all psych very rarely and almost all would never psych against weak opponents.
- Of the world class players who do psych, almost all are very much in tune with their responsiblities regarding things like disclosure and fielding.
- In my experience I have never seen a psych get reported in a major team event. I am guessing that the TD (and the other players) would laugh at someone who reported a psych in the late rounds of the Vanderbilt or the Bermuda Bowl (for example).

Psychs cause a lot of problems and create a lot of controversy but not at the highest levels of the game.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[kenrexford]

fred, on Dec 8 2007, 07:49 PM, said:

nige1, on Dec 7 2007, 05:46 AM, said:

Wow! Are the laws really enforced differently for world-class players? Surely Zia and Meckwell must report their own psychs?

I have never heard of the concept of "reporting your own psychs". I suspect the same is true of most world class players.

However, the truth of the matter is:

- Most world class players never psych (probably because most believe that, in general, psyching is a losing strategy against strong players).
- Of the world class players who do psych, almost all psych very rarely and almost all would never psych against weak opponents.
- Of the world class players who do psych, almost all are very much in tune with their responsiblities regarding things like disclosure and fielding.
- In my experience I have never seen a psych get reported in a major team event. I am guessing that the TD (and the other players) would laugh at someone who reported a psych in the late rounds of the Vanderbilt or the Bermuda Bowl (for example).

Psychs cause a lot of problems and create a lot of controversy but not at the highest levels of the game.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

I'm not sure if one part of your analysis is accurate. The rest seems dead-on right. However, I'd be willing to bet that the #1 reason for a decrease in the number of psychics at the highest level is not so much effectiveness as it is financial.

[FrancesHinden]

fred, on Dec 9 2007, 01:49 AM, said:

- Most world class players never psych (probably because most believe that, in general, psyching is a losing strategy against strong players).

I also believe this.

Psyches are actually not that uncommon in top level events (read the world championship books) but - and there's a big but - they are almost always in late sets from teams that significantly down.

That confirms my belief, which is that

- Most psyches have neutral to negative expectation against good pairs
- But they also hugely increase the variability of results on the board i.e. have a small generous of greating a big positive swing

[helene_t]

fred, on Dec 9 2007, 02:49 AM, said:

- Most world class players never psych (probably because most believe that, in general, psyching is a losing strategy against strong players).
- Of the world class players who do psych, almost all psych very rarely and almost all would never psych against weak opponents.

So psychs are no good against strong players and they are no good against weak players - is it for ethical reasons that strong players don't psyche against weak players? Or do psyches have some merit against intermediate pairs?

[barmar]

I've had some well-known pros psyche against me at NABCs. I considered it a sign of respect.

Fred, you say that world-class players rarely psyche. Yet Zia has a well-known reputation for making psychic cue bids, splinters, etc. Is he an exception, or is his tendency exaggerated?

[fred]

barmar, on Dec 9 2007, 06:51 PM, said:

I've had some well-known pros psyche against me at NABCs.  I considered it a sign of respect.

Fred, you say that world-class players rarely psyche.  Yet Zia has a well-known reputation for making psychic cue bids, splinters, etc.  Is he an exception, or is his tendency exaggerated?

Zia psychs, but I doubt he psychs with anywhere near the frequency that many people would think. Also, the psychs Zia makes are generally not "outlandish" in nature. He tends to do the sort of things you mention. Another of his favorites is to open his weaker minor with a balanced 18-19 count. I don't recall him ever doing something really strange like opening the bidding with a zero HCP or preempting in a short suit.

About 10 years ago I played for an entire week with Zia as my partner in a tournament in France. For the few months leading up to that tournament I was terrified that he would constantly throw me curveballs via weird bids and signals on defense. It turned out that these fears were completely unfounded. There was not a single hand where he put me in a position where I had to figure out if he was doing something strange. He was very easy to play with (and also a lot of fun to play with).

But Zia is also known for getting the best out of new partners. Although I never said anything to him about it, it is entirely possible he sensed my nervousness and went out of his way to make me as comfortable as possible. So drawing any conclusions about Zia in general based on my experience playing with him as a partner is probably wrong.

I have played many important matches against Zia. In some of these matches I have been in the fortunate position of being ahead by a lot of IMPs going into the last segment. In those final segments Zia did many strange things, but again it would probably be wrong to draw any general conclusions about Zia since these circumstances were not exactly normal for him.

In my experience, under normal circumtances Zia tends to play more or less normally (and extremely well - he is truly a great player).

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[barmar]

I certainly didn't intend to disparage Zia -- I'm as in awe of his skill as anyone. And I'm not sure I've ever seen any of his "antics" myself when I've watched him on Vugraph, it's just anecdotal.

As you said, he didn't throw you any curveballs, perhaps because you were a new partner. The question that really matters, I think, is whether he acts up more frequently with Rosenberg, for example -- if anyone is likely to have implicit knowledge of his tendencies, it would be him.

On the other hand, the very fact that he has this reputation effectively puts the opponents on an even footing, at least in the late rounds of high-level competition when he's playing against people of similar calibre who know his style. That's why you're not likely to see champions reporting psyches against each other -- to them, it's "just bridge" to take strange actions when you're down. And in the case of Zia, they'll just chalk it up to "Zia did it again." They've all played against each other enough that they don't need Michael to alert "it might be a psyche."