[1eyedjack]

Sorry if this repeats what has gone before, but this I think sums it up:

Psyches are legal.

You are at liberty prior to commencement to agree with your partner not to psyche.

If your partner breaks that agreement and you find that act sufficiently irritating then you are at liberty not to play with that partner in later events (although you may be stuck with him for the remainder of the current event). You may get unlucky in an "individual" format tourney for a couple of hands.

You are not at liberty to punish your partner for psyching by making a trivial bid of 7NT or whatever. This is a breach of one or more of Laws 74A2, 74B1, 74C2 and 74C6.

The sponsoring organisation is not at liberty to ban psyches, although it does appear to be legal for the sponsoring organisation to regulate the psychic use of conventional calls, which might include the banning of psyches in those restricted circumstances.

Regardless of the legal authority, it is considered generally acceptable to restrict the use of psychic calls in a field of beginners or in a teaching environment.

Regardless of the lack of legal authority, some TDs/hosts on particular BBO tourneys have taken up the practice of generally banning psychic calls. This appears to be generally tolerated on the grounds that, whilst bridge it may not be, neither is attendance compulsory. Provided that the policy is published in the conditions of contest prior to commencement, the contestant is at liberty to boycott the event. This argument can be be used to further any breach of the laws in a particular event. As host you can insist that every hand in the tourney be opened 1C by dealer. Contestants could take it or leave it. It might be interesting, but it would not be bridge.

Unless there is such a proscription in force it it is reasonable to presume that the contest is being run under the justirisdiction of the international laws. Yes, there are different variations of the international laws, but we won't go into that (variations are effectively insignificant). More to the point, it is not acceptable for a TD to censure a player for psyching if there is no express interdiction in the conditions of contest.

Different aspects of the game create different degrees of interest and/or enjoyment for different players. *You* may dislike psyches but another player may enjoy them, both in the making of them and in defending against them. Personally I am in the latter category. I have yet to hear a convincing argument for their abolition, even if it were within our powers to do so. Give the abolishionists sufficient voice and next we will be hearing calls for the banning of falsecards in the play.

[luke warm]

i agree with all that jack said... having said that, i think flame's main concern is that it's impossible for 2 people to play together any length of time and *not* have unauthorized information regarding psychs, depending on the situation at the table... i think he's more worried about the ethics of it than whether or not it's good or bad or indifferent

whether or not this is really an ethical problem, i don't know... flame feels it is for him, and i think his position is that if it's possible to have unauth info then it's unethical on the face of it...

[EricK]

luke warm, on Jul 5 2004, 06:49 PM, said:

i agree with all that jack said... having said that, i think flame's main concern is that it's impossible for 2 people to play together any length of time and *not* have unauthorized information regarding psychs, depending on the situation at the table... i think he's more worried about the ethics of it than whether or not it's good or bad or indifferent

whether or not this is really an ethical problem, i don't know... flame feels it is for him, and i think his position is that if it's possible to have unauth info then it's unethical on the face of it...

Having unauthorised information is never unethical. Acting on unauthorised information is unethical.

Say partner, NV against V, opens 1NT (ostensibly 15-17) in 3rd seat and the next hand overcall 2♠. If you bid any differently to how you would if partner was in first seat, then you are acting unethically. This is true whether or not partner has ever psyched 1NT in this position before. And, this is the case whether or not you disclose to the opps that partner has been known to psyche this bid.

Eric

[DrTodd13]

If my partner psyches and I can use logic to determine that someone at the table has psyched and I determine it is most likely to be my partner then I see nothing wrong with "fielding" the psyche. There are a common set of circumstances in which experts are more likely to psyche. It is not necessary to alert something that should be a part of everyone's bridge knowledge. For example, 1H-(x)-1S.
1S is so often psyched that it should not be necessary to alert it. If you play some unusual convention where psyches can occur in an unexpected spot then you should alert that but alerting common psyche situations is just ridiculous.

I also disagree with restricting psyches of conventional bids. Also, not only would I not play in a tournament where psyches were banned but I think such tournaments should not even be allowed. We must be governed by the world-wide laws of bridge and I see no authority there for banning psyches.

[flytoox]

Trpltrbl, on Jul 4 2004, 05:59 PM, said:

Psyching, or bluffing, is a part of bridge. I am sure if you would have gotten a bad score opps would not have called director.
They are just crybabies.

Mike

If Opps are known to be beginners, I would say Psychic bid is a bit unfair.

Hongjun

[luke warm]

EricK, on Jul 5 2004, 09:55 PM, said:

luke warm, on Jul 5 2004, 06:49 PM, said:

i agree with all that jack said... having said that, i think flame's main concern is that it's impossible for 2 people to play together any length of time and *not* have unauthorized information regarding psychs, depending on the situation at the table... i think he's more worried about the ethics of it than whether or not it's good or bad or indifferent

whether or not this is really an ethical problem, i don't know... flame feels it is for him, and i think his position is that if it's possible to have unauth info then it's unethical on the face of it...

Having unauthorised information is never unethical. Acting on unauthorised information is unethical.

Say partner, NV against V, opens 1NT (ostensibly 15-17) in 3rd seat and the next hand overcall 2♠. If you bid any differently to how you would if partner was in first seat, then you are acting unethically. This is true whether or not partner has ever psyched 1NT in this position before. And, this is the case whether or not you disclose to the opps that partner has been known to psyche this bid.

Eric

i understand the distinction between knowing a psych is possible, or even likely, and acting on that knowledge... i'm not sure but i thought the rules said something about a psych not really being a psych if one person is known to do it quite often under certain circumstances... isn't it true that if this is the case, it's no longer a psych but a convention? or is it only if partner of the psychic bidder acts in a way contrary to logic?

when is information known to you by virtue of a psychic bid considered to be unauthorized? only if you *act* on it?

[Free]

If opps don't like psychs, it means they suck! I never heard an expert complain about such things, only losers and beginners. Friday I had a person complaining to me that I bid 1NT over a 1♦ opening with xxx-Jxxx-Axx-Jxx. That's not a psych imo, just a tactical bid. She went to the director to tell him that behind our backs! Just ridiculous...

Flame, I can understand you make an agreement with partner that you won't psych, it's like agreeing a certain system. What I can't understand however is that you'd bid 7NT if p psyched! You call psyching anti-bridge, what do you call your 7NT? Anti-partnership, anti-friends, anti-everything,... Even threatening with it is already anti-something imo.

[Flame]

Believe it or not , i changed my mind.
I agree that what i'v said about the thoretical problem of psyching is not really about psyches, its an all around problem that can never be 100% solved.

Anyway this wasnt my main point , i dont want my partners to psych, because i dont think its good for my partnership.

[mikestar]

Free, on Jul 5 2004, 08:39 PM, said:

... Friday I had a person complaining to me that I bid 1NT over a 1♦ opening with xxx-Jxxx-Axx-Jxx.  That's not a psych imo, just a tactical bid.  She went to the director to tell him that behind our backs!  Just ridiculous...

Agreed. I usually mark my CC "never psyche" and I would make this bid routinely. 1H will get partner too exited with a decent 16-17 and four card support. 1N= will score better than 3H-1. This is an exact analogue of responding 1N rather than 2S on xxx Kxxx Qxxx xx which is standard expert bidding.

For sevaral years I directed at a non-sanctioned club club which had a house rule banning psyches. I was asked for score adjustments many times in this type of auction and never granted one.

[Flame]

Free, on Jul 5 2004, 03:39 PM, said:

If opps don't like psychs, it means they suck! I never heard an expert complain about such things, only losers and beginners. Friday I had a person complaining to me that I bid 1NT over a 1♦ opening with xxx-Jxxx-Axx-Jxx. That's not a psych imo, just a tactical bid. She went to the director to tell him that behind our backs! Just ridiculous...

Flame, I can understand you make an agreement with partner that you won't psych, it's like agreeing a certain system. What I can't understand however is that you'd bid 7NT if p psyched! You call psyching anti-bridge, what do you call your 7NT? Anti-partnership, anti-friends, anti-everything,... Even threatening with it is already anti-something imo.

2 things that you might have missed Free, first i didnt bid 7NT just told my partner that i will, and second, i never complained about psyches just believe its bad for most partnership including mine.

[DrTodd13]

Right, when someone does the same psyche so much, it becomes a convention and not a psyche. Of course, in the ACBL, they had to ban "controlled psyches" because they banned the underlying convention.

[mishovnbg]

flytoox, on Jul 5 2004, 10:21 PM, said:

Trpltrbl, on Jul 4 2004, 05:59 PM, said:

Psyching, or bluffing, is a part of bridge. I am sure if you would have gotten a bad score opps would not have called director.
They are just crybabies.

Mike 

If Opps are known to be beginners, I would say Psychic bid is a bit unfair.

Hongjun

It is not only fair, it is nice for them... Learning to play against psyches is part of game. Beginners can lose board by different way, by psyche is the best, because give them chance to win, if p didn't discover psyche
Misho

[Gerben47]

First of all, if people complain about psyches that is a failure of their teacher who did not prepare them for this.

Secondly, you can not ban psyches since there is no clear cut border. Sure, 1♦ - 1NT denies a 4-card major. If you have it, is that a psyche? What if you open 1NT on a 6322 hand? What if you have 7 clubs? Or only 14 points? 13? 12?

Psyching against beginners: Some say this is not fair, I think it is fair but a losing tactic as your expectation i s a good score anyway. You are randomizing your score in a situation that does not call for it.

You have to define what the goal of your contest is. If it is a learning round with many beginners I would not make a bid that is outside the "book".

If it is a normal competition, I play to win and expect others to do the same.

[Trpltrbl]

flytoox, on Jul 5 2004, 03:21 PM, said:

Trpltrbl, on Jul 4 2004, 05:59 PM, said:

Psyching, or bluffing, is a part of bridge. I am sure if you would have gotten a bad score opps would not have called director.
They are just crybabies.

Mike 

If Opps are known to be beginners, I would say Psychic bid is a bit unfair.

Hongjun

I don't really play against beginners, don't like to.
Rather play my regular game against experts.

Mike

[bearmum]

Gerben47, on Jul 6 2004, 09:43 PM, said:

First of all, if people complain about psyches that is a failure of their teacher who did not prepare them for this.

Secondly, you can not ban psyches since there is no clear cut border. Sure, 1♦ - 1NT denies a 4-card major. If you have it, is that a psyche? What if you open 1NT on a 6322 hand? What if you have 7 clubs? Or only 14 points? 13? 12?

Psyching against beginners: Some say this is not fair, I think it is fair but a losing tactic as your expectation i s a good score anyway. You are randomizing your score in a situation that does not call for it.

You have to define what the goal of your contest is. If it is a learning round with many beginners I would not make a bid that is outside the "book".

If it is a normal competition, I play to win and expect others to do the same.

before I start let me say I dislike psyching ONLINE when LOTS of us are playing with pickup partners -- and MAYBE against established partnerships who can psych REALLY well within the rules of bridge -- I only wish I could do it as well

Having said that in response to your all of the things quoted are OK OCCASIONALLY (and I mean occasionally )---- but if they become PART of you game (and partner acts as though he/she might expect you to have (for example a SIX card major OR a 7 card minor when opening 1NT) then it's NOT a psych but (IMHO) UI and SHOuLD be on your CC AND alerted to opps and if NOT therefore subject to SOME sort of sanctions - and no doubt the qualified directors will tell you what they are ( if i'm right

As far as I understand the rules IF you SOMETIMES ( as opposed to really occasionally) reply 1NT to 1♦ which on your CC denies a 4 C major then you need to ALERT the fact that the 1NT MAY contain a 4 card major - as opps are entitled to that information ( EVEN if you DO change your CC ) - please correct me directors if I am misunderstanding the alerting rules

[vanilla]

know what!!!!

never did that TD let me know what crime I comitted to be dismissed from her tourney...........found out she also excluded me from future participation in her tourneys.....
perhaps you say I really should not worry about this
but TD in question seems to be an ACBL qualified TD also - directing in tourneys we play money for to play in....

we should use this forum (BBO) with so many players from all countries all over the world and from all levels from expert to novice to discuss what we can do to make bridge a game for everybody...

so I am a paria.......not allowed to play with the good kids

[Gerben47]

Quote

but TD in question seems to be an ACBL qualified TD also - directing in tourneys we play money for to play in....

Well, that does not say much it seems. In this group and in rec.games.bridge there have been a lot of horrorstories about really really bad TD that were "qualified" ACBL directors.

To be fair, the same is true for other NBO's but many posters are in the ACBL.

Gerben

[McBruce]

Psychic Call is defined in the Laws as 'A deliberate and gross misstatement of honor strength or suit length.' However, the Laws do not forbid such bids at all, except in one case: when they are made with such frequency that they become a de facto partnership understanding.

Some of the so-called psyches mentioned in this thread are not psyches at all. The original one, a 1♥ opening on a singleton, certainly was. Responding 1NT to 1♦ while holding four bad hearts certainly is not.

My number one concern as a TD in situations where the opponents claim damage due to a psyche is to take control of the situation. Too often the aggreived side is flailing about with snide comments and the accused side is responding in kind, like a football match where a player is trying to convince the referee to award a penalty kick on a dubious foul. You have to be a Jack "just the facts, ma'am" Webb type and prevent this from happening, threatening the players with penalties if neccesary. Nobody can make the right ruling if all four players are constantly gabbing. Here are the things to think about.

1. Were the opponents truly damaged by the bid they are complaining about? Damage must be clear and obvious to get to question 2:
2. If there was damage, was the bid a true psyche (must be deliberate and must be far from the normal expectation for the bid, not 'slightly off')? Is there evidence that is was a mistaken bid? If so, no redress.
3. Is there evidence that the bid might be a partnership understanding? If so, now you may award an adjusted score if the damage is serious enough to warrant it.

In the vast majority of cases you will find that the opponents are overreacting and you must be firm in letting them know that psyches are legal, while excessive complaining about them is not.

Some time ago in a club team game, I opened 2♠ in first seat and partner bid 2NT, asking for a feature. I had the K♣ AND the K♥ to go with my six spades to the QJT, so I had to think fast. Finally I settled on the solution that I would bid 3♦! This anti-feature bid (on a small doubleton) would likely get us to the right spot:

--if partner bid 3NT over 3♦, I could assume we were missing a diamond stopper and I would correct to 4♠.
--if partner bid 3♠ over 3♦, I could assume he thought we were missing a club or heart stopper and I would correct to 3NT.

(You may object that there are flaws with my reasoning. Good--it means my 'psyche' was not risk-free.)

Partner bid 3NT and I corrected to 4♠. LHO, who had over 2,000 MP, asked the meaning of our auction. Partner told him that 3♦ promised the ace or king of diamonds. Finally he decided to lead the A♦. All followed and he switched to a club. I was able to pitch a diamond and made an overtrick for 1 IMP (and as it turned out, no difference in Victory Points). LHO, who had held the ace and king of diamonds, went ballistic, calling me a cheater in a loud enough tone to carry the whole room. I called for the Director.