[Cascade]

TimG, on Aug 29 2004, 11:33 AM, said:

Cascade, on Aug 28 2004, 04:39 PM, said:

That may be a partnership understanding that you would need to disclose to the opponents.  If you do not then the bid is based on a concealed partnership understanding which is illegal.

How much more level than that do you want the playing field to be?

So you're suggesting that given teh auction 1♦-(DBL)-1♥, Paul should alert and tell the opponents that his partner always has 4+ hearts? Something about that doesn't seem quite right.

I don't think it needs an alert but if the opponents ask then they are entitled to know that you never depart from your agreements.

There is a more strict requirement if you have a partnership understanding that would not be natural as then you would have to alert.

[keylime]

Gotta give ya one that happened during the Nanaimo regional:

In of all games, the Intermediate/Newcomer game! This happened:

1C-1D
1H-1S
1NT - 4NT
6NT All Pass

The 1D hand was 3-3 in the suits they bid! They forgot if they played inverted minors or not!!!!!!!!! I didn't know whether to laugh, cry, or pull my hair out!

[helene_t]

The_Hog, on Aug 27 2004, 12:47 AM, said:

An example of wanting to lose:  You're in the qualifying rounds where the top 10 pairs qualify for a 5 table Howell in the finals without carryover.  You have a 74% game going into the last round when your opponents are a pair you've scored 47 consecutive near tops against because they can't handle your system and you have them totally psyched out.  Seems to me that this is one of the nine other pairs that you would like to be in the finals against you.

Exactly this happend last year in a prestigeus tournament in the Netherlands. The TD thought it was OK but the appeal comite decided to disqualify the pair that used this strategy, allthough they were in good faith since they got the TD's aproval before they started losing. AFAIK there still is no concensus as to whether this strategy is allowed.

[Gerben47]

There are now anti-dumping laws in all NBB tournaments. However in the case you mention there were extremely obvious results (like -3400). I'm sure you could play "badly but not obvious".

In fact I was in a similar situation at one point. There was going to be a "cut" and there would be money prizes in both groups. I knew that I was near this cut so if we would get just below it we had more chance to win money than to start at the bottom of the stronger group.

What to do... Anyway the last few boards were very good and we landed well above the cut. And in the end, we didn't get any money.

[pclayton]

helene_t, on Aug 30 2004, 02:46 AM, said:

The_Hog, on Aug 27 2004, 12:47 AM, said:

An example of wanting to lose:  You're in the qualifying rounds where the top 10 pairs qualify for a 5 table Howell in the finals without carryover.  You have a 74% game going into the last round when your opponents are a pair you've scored 47 consecutive near tops against because they can't handle your system and you have them totally psyched out.  Seems to me that this is one of the nine other pairs that you would like to be in the finals against you.

Exactly this happend last year in a prestigeus tournament in the Netherlands. The TD thought it was OK but the appeal comite decided to disqualify the pair that used this strategy, allthough they were in good faith since they got the TD's aproval before they started losing. AFAIK there still is no concensus as to whether this strategy is allowed.

This was a BIG issue in the US about 20 years ago. Don't know how or when or if it was resolved.

You are playing in a round robin qualifier, where two of the 3 teams advance to the head to head play against a very good team and a very weak team. You are beating the weak team by a small margin, and beating the strong team by a huge -unsurmountable (for argument's sake - lets say you can't lose). Certainly, there is an incentive to 'dump' to the weak team, effectively stopping the stronger team from advancing.

I asked the question of a pro player, who was on the ACBL's Law (I think)Commission at the time.

His answer was: "Would you sacrifice a trick to guarantee your contract"?

[TimG]

pclayton, on Aug 30 2004, 11:16 AM, said:

I asked the question of a pro player, who was on the ACBL's Law (I think)Commission at the time.

His answer was: "Would you sacrifice a trick to guarantee your contract"?

I don't know if the rule is still on the books or not, but this was technically against ACBL rules 20 years ago. Somewhere there was a rule against "losing a trick that could be won". It made all sorts of plays (finesses, endplays, etc.) illegal. The rule was used as the basis for disciplining a team which dumped in a three-way match in a New England KO. (They were successful and went on to win the event. Though I believe ACBL stripped them of the masterpoints!) Perhaps TL Goodwin can elaborate, I believe he was part of the committee.

T.H. Goodwin

[TimG]

pclayton, on Aug 30 2004, 11:16 AM, said:

This was a BIG issue in the US about 20 years ago. Don't know how or when or if it was resolved.

The way to resolve it, BTW, is with conditions of contest that take away any incentive to dump.

[uday]

The ACBL has replied to my query on psychs. I neglected to ask if I could quote the reply here, so I will paraphrase.

This is what the ACBL said

. Despite the fact the psychic calls are specifically allowed by Law 40, we know of clubs that have house rules forbidding or limiting the use of such calls. These clubs usually do because such calls are disruptive to their games.

. In ruling on psychic calls we, as Tournament Directors, only limit their use in two cases:
--- partners begin to deviate their responses based on a suspicion that partner has psyched (based in turn on a history of psyching)
--- these calls are frivolous, destroying the game.

. BBO may wish to track psychic calls.

. This is a difficult situation

. Many players have difficulty distinguishing between a psychic call and a tactical bid. In investigating claims of excessive psychic bidding we have often found that the call in question was a tactical bid.



My summary based on this :

- ACBL on BBO should not be limiting psychs ( not that we are, by policy)
- There is nothing wrong with psyching in a non-frivolous fashion
- TDs and players should be aware that many "psychs" are really just tactical calls

I guess we knew all this already :)

maybe I should add this (but I am unsure if it should be the case)

- Players should avoid catering to partners psychs in the bidding unless they have alerted the opponents to partners tendencies.




uday

[EricK]

As far as I can see, all psyches are either frivolous bids or tactical calls. What else is there?

Also, I think players shouldn't cater to their partner's psyches even if they have alerted their opponents to partner's tendencies.

eg 1♥ (X) 1♠ (P) . Now unless the 1♠ bid specifically denied ♠, then I don't think telling opps that 1♠ may be a psyche gives you an excuse not to raise partner if you have ♠ as well.

Eric

[epeeist]

Thanks for the info, uday.

[inquiry]

uday, on Aug 30 2004, 11:52 PM, said:

- ACBL on BBO should not be limiting psychs ( not that we are, by policy)
- There is nothing wrong with psyching in a non-frivolous fashion
- TDs and players should be aware that many "psychs" are really just tactical calls
- Players should avoid catering to partners psychs in the bidding unless they have alerted the opponents to partners tendencies.

Yes, we knew this already, but is good to have the official word from the ACBL. IF anyone else wants to know what other bridge organizations say about psych's they should read appendix four of the World Bridge Federation guidlines, which deals with psychic bidding (it is only one page). The 2002 guidelines by the WBF can be found here...

WBF guidelines on psychs.--- PDF format

As you will see, this is in perfect agreement with the views expressed by the ACBL to Uday in writing (according to uday's summary)... with the how individual clubs deal with them obvioulsy not covered).

[hrothgar]

>Many players have difficulty distinguishing between a psychic call and a
>tactical bid. In investigating claims of excessive psychic bidding we have
>often found that the call in question was a tactical bid.

Why does this not surprise me? The ACBL is unable to offer a coherent definition that differentiates between a tactical bid and a psyche. (None to surprising given that the difference is inherently subjective)

And somehow, the membership has gotten confused...