Banned from psyching in ACBL tournaments!

[mike777]

most of zia bids are tactical not psyches.....pls do not ask me to split the difference, gives me a headache. If you psyche a control, tactical..if you open 1nt with 2 hcp psyche.

[DrTodd13]

Just starting alerting all your bids and say "frequently tactical." Alerting that you psyche frequently doesn't make sense because if you are alerting it then it is part of your agreement and therefore, by definition, cannot be a psyche. So, I prefer the term tactical. Of course, the problem is that almost all jurisdictions disallow bids of the form "normal or very weak and tactical."

 

Todd

[Blofeld]

BTW just got email from a long time director, over 35 years, and he said 2 were his stated limits over 4 months...not 6 :).

A limit on number of psyches per time period seems faintly ridiculous. Psyches per hand played much more reasonable.

 

I take strong issue with your distinction between psyches and tactical bids, though. The opponents need to be protected against any implicit agreement that bids can mean something other than their stated meaning, whatever the size of the deviation.

[Free]

Agree, it's not the number of psychs opposite the time, but opposite the number of boards that is important. Hypotheticly, if I play 2 boards in 4 months, and I psych both of them, then I have an average of 100% psyching. However, if I play 1000 boards a month and I psych 2, then I only psych 0.05% of the time over the same period of 4 months. You don't have to be a genius to realize "time" has nothing to do with the frequency of psyching...

 

And another thing: if you make such psychs an agreement, then you'll start playing a HUM! So basicly people really want you to pass with weak hands, and make that game in particular quite boring for you. :)

[hrothgar]

From Don Oakie commission by the ACBL Board of Directors to state leagues position....ACBL 1978 and Bridge Encyclopedia of Bridge

Couple useful observations regarding Don Oakie's article regarding psyches:

 

Oakie's opinions regarding psyches are (were) regularly mocked by serious players. From my perspective, Edgar Kaplan came up with the best response:

 

Thanks for the bulletin's clever

clarification endeavor.

It's all right to psyche,

as much as you like,

so long as you like to psyche NEVER

 

The rec.games.bridge archives on google groups have some interesting threads (I recommend searching on Psyche + oakie)

 

Equally significant: Oakie's article represented his own personal opinions on this matter. The Oakie article was published in the ACBL bulletin. The ACBL made a number of efforts to suggest that this article represented official ACBL policy and certainly succeeded in confusing a lot of people. However, when push comes to shove the ACBL was forced to admit that these personal opinions are just that... opinions, and should not be treated as having any legal authority. (This is part of what I find most annoying about the ACBL. Actions like this show no respect for either the membership or the Laws of the game)

 

For what its worth, I sent the following email to the ACBL back in 2000. The response that I received from Gary Blaisse directly stated that the Oakie letter has no legal standing:

------------------

 

I have a very explict question regarding the ACBL policy regarding psyches. This year, in the International Teams trial, Zia opened 1N in second

seat NV holding the following hand.

 

S JT3

H K98

D AJ64

C T65

 

(The board in question is hand number 107 from the ITT finals)

 

His partner, Michael Rosenberg, blasted directly to 3N holding a flat 14 count. (I don't think for a moment that Rosenberg "fielded" this bid in any way.)

 

I recall Zia making almost the exact same psyche in another recent event. (Opening a balanced hand with ~9 HCP with a "psychic" 1N). The hand in question was board 82 from the semi finals of the 1999 International Team Trials when Zia opened a 12-14 HCP 1N in third seat, NV holding

 

S 4 2

H A 10 7 5

D J 9 8 5 4

C A 6

 

I find it hard to reconcile this behavior with the ACBL's strict policy with respect to psyches. In particular, ACBL policy states that making the same pysche more than once creates a concealed partnership understanding.

 

I am left with the uncomfortable conclusion that one of two different things is occurring. The ACBL is selective in its enforcement of the Laws of Bridge. Existing legitimate regulations are not enforced against well known players.

 

The ACBL policy with respect to psyches is not legitimate according to the Laws of Bridge. This policy is not enforced during major events because the players involved at this level understand that the policy is not enforcable and would protest. However, this illegitimate policy is imposed those players who do not have a strong enough understanding of the actual laws.

 

Any clarification would be appreciated.

 

Richard Willey

[glen]

I wrote the following letter to ACBL@bridgebase.com, and cc'ed the ACBL's Mike Flader

 

-------

 

The ACBL web site accurately informs us that: “Clearly the Laws permit psychs. Psychic bidding is a part of the game.”

 

In the Summer 05 NABC bulletins, Mike Flader, ACBL Associate National Tournament Director, stated, as what it appears to now be ACBL policy, that “An agreement to psych, either explicit or implicit, is illegal”.

 

Since players are permitted to psych by the Laws, and players know that each other can psych, what is actually illegal is this policy as stated.

 

I ask that the ACBL tournaments on Bridge Base Online discontinue use of this illegal policy. I do understand that it could be possible to state “An agreement to psych in a certain way or at certain times, either explicit or implicit, is illegal”. However this is not what was stated, and it is not what is being enforced in these ACBL BBO tournaments.

 

Please reply with your decision on this item, and if this illegal policy will continue to be enforced, the suggested means for appealing this decision, perhaps using the ACBL arbitration methods I believe are made available to members. Thanks in advance!

 

A copy of this letter will appear on the BBO Forums.

[inquiry]

Glen,

 

Let me start by stating that I think your ETM matters website is one of the best sites on the web, and I quote it regularily, and use a lot of ETM treatments. I love the concepts in etm victory.

 

Let me further say that I psyche frequently (not in ACBL events obviously) and pseudo randomly (mostly, however not vu, never in an individual event, never against beginners, never against an inexperience pick up partnership unless both are high advanced or betterl). I agree psyches are part of the game and can not discounted.

 

Third, let me say that I reviewed 1138 of your hands that you played with your wife using a commercial bridge program that will show opening bids, overcalls, doublees intial responses etc, and will show allow you to "plot" a number of items for each. For instance, I can look at every 1NT overcall you or your wife made out of these 1138 hands and see how many overcalls were made on 14 hcp (your lower limit) on 15 hcp, etc. While looking I can also find how many were made with singletons, six or seven cards suits, voids, etc. I can find your 3 card overcall (only once), I can find your preemptive overcall vul on four or five card suits and no points. These all jump out with the plot feature.

 

When looking through the 1138 hands, I found that you do not psyche at a very high level, but I did discover this..

 

1) your wife never psyched in the 1138 hands (wrong distribution, or point count)

 

2) you had something like ONLY 27 hands that might be considered a psyche by some people, although many might easily fall more in tatical bids area. It would take a discussion of each hand to determine if psyche or tatical bidm but even 27 out of 1138 is not excessive... assuming 26 hand sessions, this is one pcyshe every 1.17 "session". that is Frequent, but not excessive, and half of these are probably not really psyches anyway. This includes a 12 point 1NT overcal showing 14-17 (I disregarded the 18 and 13 point ones as not extreme enough), out of 10 1NT overcalls you made, you had a singleton 4 times. ACBL would consider each of those a psyche perhaps. You also opened 1NT 3 times (out of 74 opening 1NT bids) with a singleton. I think the ACBL expects 1NT to be opened with a singleton at a rate less than 1/3 that (I open 1NT with a higher singleton frequency than you did, just not in ACBL events).

 

3) Clearly, your psyches are not controlled and in fact you do much worse than average on the vast majority of them. One kind in particular was very bad to you, and that was the "random" 2 of a major overcall when they open a strong 2C. You got three horrible results on this out of four, and should have had four horrible out of four (the other was an average).

 

So this raises a couple of issues (I have no way of knowing if these were ACBL events or not, but they were bbo tourneys, so if you play exclusively in ACBL there you go).

 

A.) Although all 27 are probably not fair to call psyches, a lot are, how many would be too many?

 

B.) Your wife never does, you do alot. This raises the question of each partner using a different bidding system, which I think is not allowed. So if one frequently and one never psyches, is that legal?As an aside, you open 1NT 74 times, your wife 26, you overcalled 1NT 10 times, she overcalled 1NT 3 times. This might be a similar problem?

 

I wish you luck in your quest to get the ACBL ruling thing straightened out. But try to remember they are trying to maximize the pleasure for their customers (including you, of course). I jsut hope everyone realizes people really are trying to make good faith decisions.

[mike777]

We all agree that the policy is vague but then many laws are vague when you really analyze them in depth as this issue has been over the decades. Kaplan has written often on this subject in BW.

 

Keep in mind not only the issue of implicit partnership agreements but also the laws pertaining to sportsmanship, disruption to the game and possibly other section of the laws come into the discussion also.

 

It does seem that many players who do not own a club or Direct for living have one bias on this issue over the bias of those who make a living or deal with this issue on a daily or weekly basis.

[luis]

Ben's post is very interesting because it raises a topic that is not discussed a lot is individual style a partnership agreement? Where is the line between playing a different system and having a different style? The law forbidding each player from playing a different system is very subjective because it's not clear if bidding style is part of the system or not, if it is then you and your pd must agree to have the same style, if bidding style is not part of the system then what is a system?

Mmmmm food for thought.

[LH2650]

From ACBL Codification (or the Club Director's Handbook). "Both members of a partnership must employ the same system that appears on the convention card."

 

The Sponsoring Organization has the authority to require that both players use the same system because it has the right to regulate the use of conventions. This really means that you both must play the same conventions. Style, such as opening 1 Notrump with a 5 card major, or opening a 4 card major in third position, cannot be regulated. Psyching is a matter of style.

 

The ACBL Club Director's Handbook has considerable discussion of the regulation of psyching, and can be downloaded from the ACBL website. Here is a piece:

 

"Are psychs allowed?"

 

"Clearly Law 40 permits psychs. Psychic bidding is a part of the game...Excessive psyching leads to implied and concealed partnership understandings and such understandings are serious offenses — they erode the very basics on which the game of bridge are built. Pairs that regularly use psychs soon learn the type of psychic calls their partner makes and are prepared for them. The opponents do not have this same information, although the rules of the game call for complete disclosure of bidding methods."

 

 

Note that, in determining whether you are psyching excessively, the cumulative number of psyches, as well as the rate, is important. You probably can't be banned from psyching, but the director can require your psyches to be reported, and he can, on minimal evidence, determine that your good result was obtained due to an undisclosed partnership agreement. At that point, you can only lose.

[Al_U_Card]

Interesting point about application of your methods. An ex-partner of mine (premature death) would never overcall vul without the complete package, so I never had a problem with taking bids on her cards......I, on the other hand was far less discriminating with mine. Does this mean that we were using two different "systems"?

[inquiry]

Interesting point about application of your methods. An ex-partner of mine (premature death) would never overcall vul without the complete package, so I never had a problem with taking bids on her cards......I, on the other hand was far less discriminating with mine. Does this mean that we were using two different "systems"?

My feeling is this rule is to try and keep a client-pro from playing a system where the client can open 1NT... or rebid 1NT... (hehehe), but if you have ever looked at matchpoint things, the pro's bend over backwards to bid NT first (well not all of them). I am not sure why such a rule exist, but there you go.

[glen]

Thanks Ben for your very detailed reply, and your kind words once more on bridgematters.com

 

All of my tournament hands with my wife were in ACBL BBO tourneys. I believe my wife did psyche at least once, because my selective memory remembers a 7 or 8 point opening at some point – perhaps it was in the days before 1138.

 

Yes, my psychic bids may not be successful – that may be a reason for me to avoid them, but not for asking me to curtail them.

 

My wife and I play the same system – same ranges etc. However we have different styles and we play a system that allows one choice of bids, which accounts for the different frequency of bids. I have not seen any regulation on partnerships being forced to adopt the same style, or being forced to have a system that does not provide options.

 

As you note, "clearly your psyches are not controlled" – I believe it is this single factor that should allow me to continue to psych, as long as it does not become excessive, or develop into a pattern of particular psyches, or find my partner catching a bunch of them.

 

I do understand that the TDs are attempting to regulate the game to maximize the pleasure for their customers, and they are making good faith decisions and policies. However I believe that this particular policy is bad for the long term health of the game, since it will discourage younger players from playing and drive even more of them towards that bluffing game. I would especially like an online bridge site to permit relative free-wheeling in tournament play, as our more youthful players will enjoy this. Certainly the brick-and-mortar bridge clubs can continue to enforce rules to keep their existing clientele happy (for example, one local club has a rule that one can never, ever, open 1NT with a singleton). I believe that this is short-sighted, but far less dangerous than allowing the same regressive approach to infest tournament play on our most popular online bridge site.

[mghmaine]

Gerben wrote:

North is allowed to think and wonder why EW are attempting 3NT on a combined 15-count.

 

Only logical explanation - someone has psyched. It wasn't the 1NT overcaller, he bid 3NT. It wasn't the person with the ♣ either, why else would he jump? Leaves partner.

 

 

And Partner is known to psych quite a bit ! N is prepared to make better decisions because her partnership psychs quite a bit.

[hrothgar]

Only logical explanation - someone has psyched. It wasn't the 1NT overcaller, he bid 3NT. It wasn't the person with the ♣ either, why else would he jump? Leaves partner.

 

And Partner is known to psych quite a bit !  N is prepared to make better decisions because her partnership psychs quite a bit.

Bullshit

 

North is prepared to make a better decision because North has more than three brain cells to rub together. Any competent player should be able to deduce that there are too many points in this deck and that West ain't the one whose lying...

 

If you really feel aggrieved that North/South have extra information, you might want to complain about the ACBL's disclosure regulations which don't allow players to provide information about the frequency of their psyches

[pigpenz]

Like I posted before the ACBL is trying to gear their games more for the average to averageminus player :P Maybe they should have a flight A event where pretty much everything goes.

 

Now some people feel like when playing against a couple that there is too much of a chance for their to be illegal info given.

 

quote: from goone2

"after playing against couples 4/5 rounds I felt like Jofh and I should get married" :P

[DrTodd13]

Like I posted before the ACBL is trying to gear their games more for the average to averageminus player :P Maybe they should have a flight A event where pretty much everything goes.

 

Now some people feel like when playing against a couple that there is too much of a chance for their to be illegal info given.

 

quote: from goone2

"after playing against couples 4/5 rounds I felt like Jofh and I should get married" :P

For a while, the ACBL tried SAYC-only events and I would guess that they thought people might like them because of grumbling about how complex systems were getting. So, at that time you have regular events and SAYC-only events. If now you introduced "everything goes" events, you have another stratification of regular events and "anything goes." Now, take a bunch of smart people who take some pride in their intelligence and took up the game in part because of its richness and give them a choice...a more restrictive event or a less restrictive event. I think in part their pride will prevent them from playing in the more restrictive event because that is tantamount to admitting that they are incapable of dealing with complexity. So, I would predict something very odd would happen. The anything goes events would be very popular but at the same time the grumbling over how complex things are getting would only increase even though people have the choice not to have to deal with it.

[epeeist]

....

The ACBL web site accurately informs us that: “Clearly the Laws permit psychs. Psychic bidding is a part of the game.”

 

...ACBL policy, that “An agreement to psych, either explicit or implicit, is illegal”.

 

Since players are permitted to psych by the Laws, and players know that each other can psych, what is actually illegal is this policy as stated.

....

There may be more, but from what you posted, I don't see any contradiction. Psychs are allowed, but agreements to psych are not. So for instance, one may happen to choose to psych, NV against V as dealer. Okay, no problem, psychs are permitted. But if one has an agreement (explicit or implicit) with one's partner that one SHOULD psych more often in those situations, or more often against weaker opponents, or [etc.] then you have an illegal agreement to psych.

 

The two conditions you state therefore don't seem incompatible, I don't understand why you call the no-agreement policy illegal, am I missing something?

 

More generally, as others have pointed out, without knowing details (e.g. what if the TD had only seen you play 4 times, and those happened to be 4 times you psyched?) it's hard to know whether the decision was subjectively wrong. It may have been wrong objectively (with a full complete knowledge of all facts), but it may have been subjectively correct (reasonable based on the information available at the time and given the time in which to reach a decision). Kind of like a sporting event, the need for officials to make calls quickly means that some will later be found to have been wrong. Doesn't necessarily mean the referee was wrong to make the decision he or she did, based on what the referee could perceive at the time. Also, even if the decision was subjectively wrong, given the need to decide things quickly -- whether in bridge or live sports -- a certain number of mistakes must be expected.

[Free]

Everyone knows South psyched:

 

North has 13hcp, but E and W bid strong. Clearly South psyched, and the vulnerability only helps to find the smartguy.

West hears an invite. North made a Dbl showing 9+hcp (or something similar). He would never do that with only 2-3hcp, so clearly South psyched (+ NV vs V). Seeing his dummy makes it 100% clear.

East bids after his partner's 1NT overcall. From the moment West bids again, he's not the liar. North wouldn't dbl, so again South is the psycher.

 

You don't have to be a genius to figure this out. West should know after the 3♣ bid that the values are behind him, so he should pass quickly... If the TD wants to penalize anyone, he should still use a split score, because EW had the information and still bid stupid, so they're not damaged.

[glen]

The two conditions you state therefore don't seem incompatible, I don't understand why you call the no-agreement policy illegal, am I missing something?

Yes, you are missing something since the ACBL policy is missing something that qualifies an agreement.

 

ACBL: An agreement to psych, either explicit or implicit, is illegal

 

For example, say it said:

 

An agreement to bid 1S, either explicit or implicit, is illegal

 

Without qualification, this policy would be illegal by bridge laws.

 

If it stated:

 

An agreement to bid 1S with less than 8 points, either explicit or implicit, is illegal

 

This would be okay, now they have added qualification.

 

What happens when they use the policy without qualification is this:

 

ACBL: An agreement to psych, either explicit or implicit, is illegal

TDs: We have logged you psyching multiple times with regular pd - therefore you have an agreement to psych - please curtail

 

TDs don't have to record how you psyched, or when you psyched, or how often you psyched - just you are psyching with a regular partner, so it must be illegal by ACBL "policy" as established this summer.

 

As to the actual board, I really don't care about the TD ruling etc. I posted the board since some wanted to see it. What I do care about is this:

 

I can no longer psych in ACBL BBO tournaments with my regular partner, since any result on such a board is under the threat of immediate adjustment by employing the policy.

 

To use your "kind of like a sporting event" example, I don't mind the pass interference call by the ref here, but if this wrong pass interference is going to be called frequently, against the rules of the game, then there is a serious long term problem.

[pigpenz]

Glen did you watch the playoffs (football) last weekend?

Even with instant replay the refs couldnt get it right :P

Now in the real world is psyching a procedural penalty, i dont think so.

That is why we have recorders and committees.

Committees dont have the power to turn over procedural penalties, but they do have the power to recommend that player be disciplined for unusual activites, like frequent psyching.

 

Just like anything there has to be a paper trail to bring charges. We dont have committees here in ACBL Games and we dont have a recorder, so we have to live with the absurd rulings that some of these TD's make at times. I have always wondered why we never see any ACBL TD's responding to the fourms?

 

So IMHO if you think its right to tactically psyche then go for it, its part of the game. ;)

I have yet to see anyone alert their two bids that they may open on xxxxx of a suit, they ACBL TD's always promote full disclosure, but trying to get people to really disclose is another matter.

[pbleighton]

"I have yet to see anyone alert their two bids that they may open on xxxxx of a suit.."

 

I do, but you are right, it's rare.

 

Peter

[luis]

Glen did you watch the playoffs (football) last weekend?

Even with instant replay the refs couldnt get it right :P

Now in the real world is psyching a procedural penalty, i dont think so.

That is why we have recorders and committees.

Committees dont have the power to turn over procedural penalties, but they do have the power to recommend that player be disciplined for unusual activites, like frequent psyching.

 

Just like anything there has to be a paper trail to bring charges. We dont have committees here in ACBL Games and we dont have a recorder, so we have to live with the absurd rulings that some of these TD's make at times. I have always wondered why we never see any ACBL TD's responding to the fourms?

 

So IMHO if you think its right to tactically psyche then go for it, its part of the game. ;)

I have yet to see anyone alert their two bids that they may open on xxxxx of a suit, they ACBL TD's always promote full disclosure, but trying to get people to really disclose is another matter.

Completely offtopic but how can they call "no play" when the whole Colts defense was jumping around the offense? It's either a false start by Faneca (if you have very good eyes) or the Colts must be charged neutral zone infraction. Even worst they could have let the steelers snap and then the Colts are offside so if they blew the whistle is because they saw something.

 

Bah! :-)

[pigpenz]

Glen did you watch the playoffs (football) last weekend?

Even with instant replay the refs couldnt get it right :D

Now in the real world is psyching a procedural penalty, i dont think so.

That is why we have recorders and committees.

Committees dont have the power to turn over procedural penalties, but they do have the power to recommend that player be disciplined for unusual activites, like frequent psyching.

 

Just like anything there has to be a paper trail to bring charges. We dont have committees here in ACBL Games and we dont have a recorder, so we have to live with the absurd rulings that some of these TD's make at times. I have always wondered why we never see any ACBL TD's responding to the fourms?

 

So IMHO if you think its right to tactically psyche then go for it, its part of the game. :(

I have yet to see anyone alert their two bids that they may open on xxxxx of a suit, they ACBL TD's always promote full disclosure, but trying to get people to really disclose is another matter.

Completely offtopic but how can they call "no play" when the whole Colts defense was jumping around the offense? It's either a false start by Faneca (if you have very good eyes) or the Colts must be charged neutral zone infraction. Even worst they could have let the steelers snap and then the Colts are offside so if they blew the whistle is because they saw something.

 

Bah! :-)

Mike Periera head of NFL officials was on the NFL channel and said no plays are rare but do happen. Basically he said no one saw the movement of the offensive tackle and when colts crossed line they did not touch any steelers, a steeler player got up and ball wasnt snapped so linesman whislted the play to a halt. I know crazy but thats what they did.

[glen]

Several of the keys to the NFL approach:

 

First they are willing to admit the referees are wrong:

NFL: Referee was wrong on interception

 

Second, they are willing to improve:

Q&A: Mike Pereira, NFL supervisor of officials

The one thing I would say about officiating is that, I don't care if we do it for 100 years, it's a constant learning curve. And what we have to do is the same things teams do -- and that's improve week in and week out.

Third, they distribute the correct information to help get better in the short term:

Obviously, every official in this league has seen it by now, and every official going forward in the playoffs is going to see it on the tapes that we put out. If that happens again, it will not be reversed.

Fourth, they work hard on the long term :

Officiating a major source of contention during NFL playoffs

The NFL has a competition committee that meets annually to pour through film, analyze trends and recommend changes. Most of them deal with minutiae. Occasionally they are consequential, such as the re-emphasis on downfield contact a couple of years back.