woodjohnd

Thanks again Kaitlyn for another constructive comment. Regardless of whether we agree on all points, it is a pleasure to have a thoughtful and courteous exchange. I originally created the post on Bridge Winners, and then decided to also try it on BBO to see if there was a different audience. And at least, in the form of yourself, that turned out to be the case. My initial quixotic goal was to try to create a groundswell of support for an outright ban of psych bidding. I have understood from the start that this is a minority view, although I was encouraged a bit when I found the Larry Cohen link I mentioned earlier. Here is the link to the Bridge Winners version if you are interested: http://bridgewinners.com/forums/read/intermediate-forum/psyched-out/ Indeed 'Bid and Make' didn't get much positive feedback on Bridge Winners. And the comment you made above is EXACTLY what I have been trying to get at the whole time. It seems pretty clear to me that at some stage, those 'well-known' psychs are no longer psychs but agreements, and therefore should be subject to the usual disclosure rules. Maybe they should be on the convention card for frequent practitioners. Here is a link to another Bridge Winners thread of interest on the subject: http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/how-standard-are-these-psych-bids-2/ This latter thread is a long one, but I found it interesting to wade through. A fellow called Ken Cohen (since banned from Bridge Winners) made a number of contributions on this thread all related to these 'well-known' psychs and the fact that, in Ken's view, they weren't good for the game and should be banned. He too didn't get much love from the Bridge Winners crowd. I find it ironic that the folks who are so willing to run 'Bid and Make' down because they were unaware of a specific 'well-known' psych, at the same time are unable (or unwilling) to accept that if they believe that everyone should know about that psych, then it can't possibly be considered as such.

Thanks for the constructive reply Kaitlyn. I feel like the voice in the wilderness in wanting to play the game minus the psych bidding. So good to know that I have at least some compatriots. I too think that I won't bother with the tournament scene very much any more, if at all. And we are not totally alone, please check out the following link from Larry Cohen's website: https://www.larryco.com/bridge-learning-center/detail/87

PSYCHED OUT - A BRIDGE FAIRY TALE ____________________________________________________________________________ Players’ Systemic Agreements - Partnership understandings as to the methods adopted by a partnership may be reached explicitly in discussion or implicitly through mutual experience or awareness of the players. - ACBL LAW 40(A)1(a) Players’ Systemic Agreements - A player may make any call or play without prior announcement provided that such call or play is not based on an undisclosed partnership understanding (see Law 40C1). - ACBL LAW 40(A)3 Deviation from System and Psychic Action - A player may deviate from his side’s announced understandings always, provided that his partner has no more reason to be aware of the deviation than have the opponents. - ACBL LAW 40©1 _____________________________________________________________________________ Once upon a time, in a town not too far away, there were 2 bridge players, Bid and Make. They were decent enough intermediate players, and always trying to improve. At the bar after a recent game, they decided to use Revised Cappelletti as their defense over their opponents’ No Trump bids. Unfortunately, they neglected to add this to their card. In a subsequent game not too long after, Make bid 2 clubs following an opponent’s 1NT opener. Of course, as Bid well knew, this 2 club bid meant that Make had one of two hand types, either long diamonds, or an undisclosed major plus an undisclosed minor. But Bid said nothing. And the opponents, who thought they knew what was going on, didn’t ask. They thought that the 2 club bid meant a single suited hand, the regular Cappelletti meaning. But as it turned out, they were wrong. After the board was finished, Bid and Make's opponents felt that they had been damaged, resulting in a poor score. The director, when called, ruled that the opponents were indeed damaged by Bid's failure to disclose the partnership agreement, and consequently adjusted the score in the opponents favor. Around about the same time, in a different town not that much further away, there were another two bridge players, Joke and Trick. They were very experienced players with many thousands of master points. At the bar after a recent game, they compared notes and had a good laugh about a pair they had fooled with the old "Raise Partner's Pre-Empt By Bidding a Non-Existent Suit" swindle. Sometime later on, Bid and Make met Trick and Joke in a regional stratified pairs event. On the first hand at that table, Trick bid 3 spades after Joke had preempted in diamonds over Bid’s strong 2 club opener. Of course, as Joke well knew, this bid meant that Trick had one of two hand types, either a genuine spade suit, or (more likely) support for his diamond preempt and nothing at all in spades. But Joke said nothing. And Bid and Make, who thought they knew what was going on, didn’t ask. They thought the bid was natural with a lengthy spade suit. But as it turned out, they were wrong. After the board was finished, Bid and Make felt that they had been damaged, resulting in a poor score. The director, when called, ruled that they were out of luck since Trick's 3 spade bid was a 'psych' and unless there was evidence of the ‘psych’ bid being ‘fielded’ by Joke (whatever that might consist of) then there was no damage. Now Bid and Make were discouraged and upset at this turn of events. Up to that point they had been doing well, but the results of this particular board significantly impacted their standing in the overall event. And they could not understand why they had been penalized on that earlier occasion for not disclosing their Revised Cappelletti agreement, while Joke and Trick got away with not disclosing their clear (if implicit) agreement regarding the bogus 3 spade bid. They studied and studied the relevant Bridge Laws, and still could not understand why, once a bid was called a ‘psych’, then the usual rules regarding undisclosed agreements no longer applied. In the meanwhile, Joke and Trick were back in the bar enjoying some beers and another good laugh. So Bid and Make decided to seek input from more experienced players to clear up their confusion. And they did get quite a lot of response regarding the specific type of ‘psych’ they had fallen victim to, apparently known by many as a ‘baby psych’. This feedback mainly consisted of two oddly contradictory viewpoints, sometimes both of them expressed by the same individual, to wit: (A) this particular type of ‘psych’ bid is very common in more experienced bridge circles, and so it seems hard to believe that Bid and Make didn’t recognize it for what it was and didn’t have a prepared defense to deal with it; but (B) even though this particular type of ‘psych’ is apparently so common (see point A) it still qualifies as a ‘psych’ and not an implicit agreement, hence Bid and Make just need to ‘learn from the experience’. Unfortunately, this feedback from more experienced players didn’t really help Bid and Make. They had been knocked out of first place in their event due to this one hand, and still felt like they had been treated unfairly. So next they decided to take their quest for knowledge to Mount Memphis and the Oracle of Bridge, the inestimable AyeSee B. Ell. And, surprisingly enough considering their lowly status, the Oracle deigned to share its wisdom on this subject with them. For starters, the Oracle told them that ‘psych’ bidding was an integral part of the game of duplicate bridge. And that, right there, just added to Bid and Make’s puzzlement. They always thought that the whole idea of duplicate bridge, compared to the rubber game, was to try to remove the element of chance from the game as much as possible. This should result in as fair a comparison of skill as can be managed. Of course, it is impossible to eliminate all the aspects of chance, but to specifically allow a source of deliberately created randomness in the outcome seems contrary to the desired goal. At least that is what Bid and Make thought. The Oracle went on to describe that there was a mechanism for dealing with situations where specific pairs consistently used ‘psych’ bidding in a frivolous or unsportsmanlike way. This process involves an ancient rite called ‘recording’ where directors, when informed of a ‘psych’ bid, are supposed to enter this into a central register of such information, kept in a secret cave high on Mount Memphis. If it appears at some point (not clear when) by looking at this register that a given specific pair were abusing their use of ‘psych’ bidding then some steps would be taken (not clear what). By this point, poor Bid and Make both had headaches. During their introduction to ‘psych’ bidding courtesy of Joke and Trick, no ‘recording’ had been done by the director. But it was obvious that it wouldn’t have mattered one bit in their case. Clearly the procedure for ‘recording’ and then analyzing the records to identify an inappropriate pattern of ‘psych’ bidding would not generate results in any timeframe to provide redress for their specific incident. Perhaps ‘recording’ would eventually catch up to ‘psych’ bid abusers, but only after they had left a long trail of unhappiness in their wake. Now most fairy tales have a happy ending, but unfortunately this isn’t one of them. Even the mighty Oracle’s knowledge was still insufficient to explain to Bid and Make why things are the way they are. Apparently, the net result is that Bid and Make just have to ‘suck it up’. But they don’t have to be happy about it (and they aren’t).