Banned from psyching in ACBL tournaments!

[pigpenz]

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.

yes they do and too bad the ACBL TD's here dont. I still believe that they need to run a game just for Flight A players, where pretty much anything goes. I can remember about 25 yrs ago when I played with pretty much a novice player and we finished second to Barry Crane in a Regional Mens pairs, his comments were:

" I couldnt believe it, in the mens pairs they throw bids out there and if someone does something weird the opponents say nice bid where in the womens pairs they call the TD and want to start a war!"

[mike777]

yes they do and too bad the ACBL TD's here dont.  I still believe that they need to run a game just for Flight A players, where pretty much anything goes. I can remember about 25 yrs ago when I played with pretty much a  novice player and we finished second to Barry Crane in a Regional Mens pairs, his comments were:

" I couldnt believe it, in the mens pairs they throw bids out there and if someone does something weird the opponents say nice bid where in the womens pairs they call the TD and want to start a war!"

Anything goes?

 

I see more wierd stuff playing in online tourneys then I do reading Bermuda Bowl books. Perhaps MP tourneys at top level are wierd also but reading the top Imp games looks much more natural than almost any late night bbo tourney when it comes to bids, leads, etc.

[pigpenz]

I see more wierd stuff playing in online tourneys then I do reading Bermuda Bowl books. Perhaps MP tourneys at top level are wierd also but reading the top Imp games looks much more natural than almost any late night bbo tourney when it comes to bids, leads, etc.

Well when was the last time in Bridge World you read reports on hands from matchpoint events? B)

 

for the averge player imp events are alot less stressfull than matchpoints! Most of the online tourneys are short 12 board matches so alot of swinging can happen. So when playing here the thing to look for is being 50+% and + @imps. Now if there was a 26 board session event over 6 sessions think how happy you would be with a 53% game with a top of 100 per board. I would take that anyday of the week.

 

The days are gone where opps just sit there and let you bid unobstructed :(

[Brandal]

Yes, I have psyched more than the recorded times, but not, I feel, a great number of times. 

 

My partner is aware that I psych.

Just a quick question. Does your wife psych too or is it just a guy-thing? :rolleyes:

I'm "one of those" who think bidding is just a tool to get

me to the fun part of declaring or defending.

 

A psych is a selfish act,"you" decide to be the only one at

the table who knows exactly what's going on,leaving pd

in the dark but trusting him to rescue "you" by not bidding

like "you" have what you bid.

 

I know,but it's legal to psych,that's really the only argument

I hear from that corner.

 

So,is it fun to psych,for whom is the psych fun,and why on

earth is this so important to some?

 

And once again,yes I know it's legal.

 

:rolleyes:

 

(even tho I replied to you Al,this isn't directed at you) :)

[hrothgar]

A psych is a selfish act,"you" decide to be the only one at

the table who knows exactly what's going on,leaving pd

in the dark but trusting him to rescue "you" by not bidding

like "you" have what you bid.

 

So,is it fun to psych,for whom is the psych fun,and why on

earth is this so important to some?

As I have noted on multiple occasions, I firmly believe that optimal strategies at bridge require deliberate randomization. There are any number of examples of mixed strategies in declarer play and defense. The most obvious example is restricted choice analysis. The legal construct of "psyches" is a woefully imperfect attempt to describe this same set of behaviour in the bidding subgame.

 

Please note that statement that I made: I assert that playing bridge optimally requires the use of mixed strategies. Furthermore, I would like the opportunity to test this hypothesis. Balanced against this, we have your own subjective belief that psyches are in someway distasteful. You are also asserting that your own preferences are more important than mine. You are arguing that my ability to play the game should be constrained so that you enjoy it more. The reason that the fact that "Psyches are legal" is so important is that it allows us to move beyond inherently subjective arguments and personal aesthetics.

 

To streach an analogy, lets apply the same line of reasoning to the game of chess. Lets assume that you has some profound distaste for the en passant rule because it increases the complexity of the game. I have no problem if you personally don't wish to take advantage of en passant. I have a very BIG issue if you start arguing that I can't use make use of an otherwise legal move because it puts you at a disadvantage.

 

You really want to rethink your use of the word "selfish"...

[Echognome]

I'm "one of those" who think bidding is just a tool to get

me to the fun part of declaring or defending.

 

A psych is a selfish act,"you" decide to be the only one at

the table who knows exactly what's going on,leaving pd

in the dark but trusting him to rescue "you" by not bidding

like "you" have what you bid.

 

I know,but it's legal to psych,that's really the only argument

I hear from that corner.

Bidding is clearly more than just a tool to get to declaring/defending. Bidding also provides a lot of information for declarer/defender. Think of a psyche as a false-card in the bidding. Just as falsecards can come in many different varieties (false count, false suit preference, false attitude, playing an unnecessary honour, etc.), so can psyches in the bidding. A psyche can be done by bidding a suit you do not hold, or showing strength you do not have, showing a stopper when you do not have one, making a cuebid in a suit you do not have a control in, doubling a cuebid when you have nothing in the suit, etc.

 

Just as in falsecards, psyches risk partner misinterpreting as much as opponents. A psyche is a gamble. It (might) make things harder for opponents, but it also makes it harder for your own side too. I believe your statement that you are the only one at the table who knows what's going on is like saying that once the opponents psyche, I am not allowed to think. For a quick example, suppose your RHO opens and then passes a forcing bid. Do I not think that something strange has happened?

 

I don't understand the other parts of your argument. How is psyching any more selfish than preempting? or falsecarding? The objective of a psyche is to place doubts in your opponents' (and as a consequence your partner's) minds. You are deliberately misstating your distribution and/or strength. That's the definition of a psyche. You are making a gamble that the opponents will believe you and not find their own best contract. If you are not skilled as an opponent to reveal the psyche and find your best contract, then I might suggest not playing a strong club where opponents will often come in on "cheese".

 

Finally, the point that it is legal is exactly why we should learn how to psyche and how to cope with our opponent's psyching. It is not just a matter of saying "that's unfair" and "my opponents are being unsportsmanlike". We might as well argue that falsecarding is illegal too and maybe throw in preempts as well. Then we can all play with our cards face up and show our true skill which is double dummy bidding and play.

[Brandal]

Balanced against this, we have your own subjective belief that psyches are in someway distasteful. You are also asserting that your own preferences are more important than mine. You are arguing that my ability to play the game should be constrained so that you enjoy it more.

 

You really want to rethink your use of the word "selfish"...

My point is the psych also throws partner off the deep end,

the psycher disregards partner's place in the partnership

for that hand...

 

And yes,I stand by my opinion that this is selfish.

 

You're completely wrong in assuming I think psyches are

distasteful or constrains my enjoyment of the game.

 

I was simply asking a few questions sprung from curiousity.

 

Sorry if I stepped on anyone's toes.

[Brandal]

I'm "one of those" who think bidding is just a tool to get

me to the fun part of declaring or defending.

 

A psych is a selfish act,"you" decide to be the only one at

the table who knows exactly what's going on,leaving pd

in the dark but trusting him to rescue "you" by not bidding

like "you" have what you bid.

 

I know,but it's legal to psych,that's really the only argument

I hear from that corner.

Bidding is clearly more than just a tool to get to declaring/defending. Bidding also provides a lot of information for declarer/defender. Think of a psyche as a false-card in the bidding. Just as falsecards can come in many different varieties (false count, false suit preference, false attitude, playing an unnecessary honour, etc.), so can psyches in the bidding. A psyche can be done by bidding a suit you do not hold, or showing strength you do not have, showing a stopper when you do not have one, making a cuebid in a suit you do not have a control in, doubling a cuebid when you have nothing in the suit, etc.

 

Just as in falsecards, psyches risk partner misinterpreting as much as opponents. A psyche is a gamble. It (might) make things harder for opponents, but it also makes it harder for your own side too. I believe your statement that you are the only one at the table who knows what's going on is like saying that once the opponents psyche, I am not allowed to think. For a quick example, suppose your RHO opens and then passes a forcing bid. Do I not think that something strange has happened?

 

I don't understand the other parts of your argument. How is psyching any more selfish than preempting? or falsecarding? The objective of a psyche is to place doubts in your opponents' (and as a consequence your partner's) minds. You are deliberately misstating your distribution and/or strength. That's the definition of a psyche. You are making a gamble that the opponents will believe you and not find their own best contract. If you are not skilled as an opponent to reveal the psyche and find your best contract, then I might suggest not playing a strong club where opponents will often come in on "cheese".

 

Finally, the point that it is legal is exactly why we should learn how to psyche and how to cope with our opponent's psyching. It is not just a matter of saying "that's unfair" and "my opponents are being unsportsmanlike". We might as well argue that falsecarding is illegal too and maybe throw in preempts as well. Then we can all play with our cards face up and show our true skill which is double dummy bidding and play.

This one I buy :rolleyes:

 

But since preempts are normally part of system agreements

I wouldn't call them selfish.

 

But clearly falsecarding etc can be viewed same way as psyches

 

Good reply,thanks Echognome

[hrothgar]

My point is the psych also throws partner off the deep end,

the psycher disregards partner's place in the partnership

for that hand...

If you honestly believe that the player making a psyche "disregards" his partner's place, than you have no idea how psyches work.

 

First and foremost, psyches aren't "random". How often do you see players psyche a 7NT overcall? How often do they psyche red versus white? Mixed strategies are employed in precise ways and at precise times.

 

Case in point: Most players employ mixed strategies opposite partners who have limited their hand in some way. For example, partner might be a passed hand. Alternatively partner has made a limited opening bid - a 1M opening in a Precision context is a standard example, as is a preemptive bid like a "standard" weak 2M opening. Its more effective to psyche opposite a limited hand for two reasons:

 

1. The player making the psyche is much better positioned to judge whether the opponents have game (potentially slam). The player making the psyche can make an accurate assessment of risk versus reward

 

2. The limited hand isn't in a position to "surprise" partner. The player making the psyche should have anticipated potentially rebids by the limited hand and is well positioned to control the auction.

[Brandal]

My point is the psych also throws partner off the deep end,

the psycher disregards partner's place in the partnership

for that hand...

If you honestly believe that the player making a psyche "disregards" his partner's place, than you have no idea how psyches work.

 

First and foremost, psyches aren't "random". How often do you see players psyche a 7NT overcall? How often do they psyche red versus white? Mixed strategies are employed in precise ways and at precise times.

 

Case in point: Most players employ mixed strategies opposite partners who have limited their hand in some way. For example, partner might be a passed hand. Alternatively partner has made a limited opening bid - a 1M opening in a Precision context is a standard example, as is a preemptive bid like a "standard" weak 2M opening. Its more effective to psyche opposite a limited hand for two reasons:

 

1. The player making the psyche is much better positioned to judge whether the opponents have game (potentially slam). The player making the psyche can make an accurate assessment of risk versus reward

 

2. The limited hand isn't in a position to "surprise" partner. The player making the psyche should have anticipated potentially rebids by the limited hand and is well positioned to control the auction.

I hear you Richard,and I have no problems at all with all

your points,you make a good case.

 

BUT.....and this is my "thing" regarding psyches:

 

How does a regular partnership handle the ethics,when

does it become an implicit agreement,is it possible to

psych say....1 time every 50 boards,and not letting it

become an ethical problem?

 

How do regular partnerships handle this,do they say upfront

we might psych or we may not?

 

How does this affect opponents in that case,when you announce

we occasionally psyche,are there ethical problems with that too?

 

Is it fair to say in a regular partnership,the partner will probably

suspect the psyche before the opps do?

 

In few words,it's the ethical side that bothers me,not the psych

[hrothgar]

BUT.....and this is my "thing" regarding psyches:

You seem to have a LOT of issues about psyches: Last I heard, the problem was that the player who was making a psyche was disrespecting his partner....

 

Regardless

 

I said it before, I'll say it again: I believe that the legal construct "psyche" should be striken from the Law. The behaviour pattern that a psyche attempts to describe should be replaced with more formal structures based on the concept of a mixed strategies.

 

The root cause of the habitual fights surrounding psyches has a very simple cause: The legal constructs which govern the game are not harmoniously aligned with the strategies that players wish to employ. The disclosure problems that you are currently complaining about is a simple reflection of this fact...

 

Until you permit players the tools that they require to describe their actions, you shouldn't complain about the quality of their disclosure...

[Brandal]

I have a very BIG issue if you start arguing that I can't use make use of an otherwise legal move because it puts you at a disadvantage.

I will never argue anything of that sort,I'm the first to applaud

opponents who outsmart me,be it in bidding or cardplay.

 

I played a tournament the other day where the host/TD said

"announce at start of round if you use bluffs/psyches"

 

 

What's next,play showing all 4 hands?

 

:rolleyes:

[Brandal]

BUT.....and this is my "thing" regarding psyches:

You seem to have a LOT of issues about psyches: Last I heard, the problem was that the player who was making a psyche was disrespecting his partner....

 

Regardless

 

I said it before, I'll say it again: I believe that the legal construct "psyche" should be striken from the Law. The behaviour pattern that a psyche attempts to describe should be replaced with more formal structures based on the concept of a mixed strategies.

 

The root cause of the habitual fights surrounding psyches has a very simple cause: The legal constructs which govern the game are not harmoniously aligned with the strategies that players wish to employ. The disclosure problems that you are currently complaining about is a simple reflection of this fact...

 

Until you permit players the tools that they require to describe their actions, you shouldn't complain about the quality of their disclosure...

Nice debating techniques you have

 

To make it clear:

 

The "thing" is why I don't personally apply these

mixed strategies,the ethics part.

 

My opinion that I find it selfish to psyche doesn't rule out

me having another reason not to psyche?

 

 

You seem very entitled to your opinions,why mock mine?

[hrothgar]

For whats its worth, I'm going to provide an example regarding how mixed strategies might be implemented in a "fair" manner:

 

Lets assume that you want to employ a mixed strategy. You need to chose whether to win a trick with the Queen or the Jack. Your optimal strategy is to randomize, playing the queen 50% of the time and the Jack 50% of the time.

 

I argue that your best course of action is to base your decision on some external source of random information. For example, you could flip a coin. If the coin turned up heads, you would play the queen. If the coin turned up tails, you play the jack. Alternatively, you could look at the clock. If the minute hand were odd (1, 3, 5, 7, 9) play the Queen, otherwise play the Jack. Unfortunately, both of these suggestions are flawed. (There would be severe UI if you suddenly started flipping a quarter in the middle of a tournament). With this said and done, players do have easy access to a suitable source of random information - the same deck of cards that they are using to play out the hand. Hypothetically, I could look at the length of my Spade suit. If the suit length was odd, I play the Queen, other the Jack...

 

There are potential issues with the scheme: most notably, you need to worry about the possibility that the your source of random data might be affected by the question that you ask: For example: Lets assume that the crucial decision involved whether to play the Queen or Jack of Spades. You wouldn't want to use the length of the Spade suit as your source of entropy because the restricted choice decision doesn't happen if you happen to hold one Spade. On this occasion, you could default to using the length of the Heart suit or whatever...

 

Lets assume that you wanted to formally implement some such scheme:

 

As always, players are required to disclosure their methods. In this case, players would announce those occasions on which the used mixed strategies. Along with this, they would also provide the Probability Density Function which governed the their decision process. Before the start of the tournament, players would give the TD the "key" describing the card holding that controlled the random decision making process. At the close of the tournament, the organizers could then check to ensure that players had accurately described their methods. (You might want a proceedure in which each player submitted 5 different sets of "keys". The precise set that they used would be chosen randomly at the start of the tournament. This step would eliminate many possibilities for collusion)

 

I readily admit that the process I describe is complicated. I suspect that I could come up with a simplier scheme. With this said and done, the process conforms with disclosure regulations and is fair. It's also not far removed from examples of so-called encrypted signalling.

 

It should also be noted that many poker players employ similar strategies to randomize their betting. (I first ran into this type of process reading some work that an MIT prof did apllying game theory to poker)

[uday]

That's simple enough , but can you take it back to the bidding ?

 

Can I assume that mixed strats in bidding mean that when we open (say) 1N, it is either strong (say, 3/4 of the time) or a balanced bust (say 1/4 of the time)

 

Assuming there is some clean external source of these numbers for the moment, like the wall clock, or a characteristic of the hand: this surely isnt legal today in acbl land , is it ? Is it legal anywhere offline ?

[hrothgar]

That's simple enough , but can you take it back to the bidding ?

 

Can I assume that mixed strats in bidding mean that when we open  (say) 1N, it is either strong  (say, 3/4 of the time) or a balanced bust (say 1/4 of the time)

Its important to differentiate between a bid that has mutliple meanings and true mixed strategy.

 

Case in point: there is a bid called a "Woodson Two Way NT opening" in which a 1NT opening shows either 10-12 HCP or 16-18 HCP. This is not an example of a mixed strategy because players will open 1NT 100% of the time that that they have 10-12 HCP and 100% of the time that they have 16-18 HCP.

 

A mixed strategy requires that players randomly choose one of a number of different bids with a single hand. For example, assume that you're sitting red on white and there are two passes to you. You hold:

 

♠ K

♥ xxx

♦ AKT9872

♣ xx

 

You determine that your best course of action is to open

 

1♦ 15% of the time

1NT 20% of the time

2♦ 5% of the time

3♦ 30%% of the time

4♦ 15% of the time

5♦ 15% of the time

 

This is a mixed strategy

 

The Laws specifically forbid external aids to calculation. I had always assumed that this referred to double dummy analyzers and the like.

 

>Assuming there is some clean external source of these numbers for the

>moment, like the wall clock, or a characteristic of the hand: this surely isnt

>legal today in acbl land , is it ? Is it legal anywhere offline ?

 

Regardless of whether or not this is technically "legal" its an accurate description of the strategy that people use. You can't look at a player like Zia and beleive that he's doing anything different. He might be going from "gut" feel rather than using a random number to make his decisions, however, the key element (randomizing) is the same.

[inquiry]

I like psyches, I think we should all be encouraged to use them from time to time. There is one aspect of psyches, however that I think is a rule violation that is difficult to catch. Some people (most) will become psyche happy when they are having an average to slightly average plus game in an effort to produce a swing to win. This is fine, they are using the condition of contest and their results so far to try to win. But if their partner is familar with when they are likely to psyche, and this is it, their partner will have an easier time picking up the psyche (good game, don't pcyhe, horrible game, don't psyche, but late in a modest game, go for it).

 

A second place where I hate psyches is someone hopelessly out of a pairs event (way below average) psyching left and right. One thing, they are not takin gthe game seriously, second they are dramatically affecting the results of the contest without increasing their chance to win. IF their wild psyche works, they punish their unlucky opponents at their table, but more likley, their psyche will go badly for them, rewardign their current opponents to the disadvantage of the rest of the field sitting the other direction. This simply doesn't seem sporting to me.

 

Ben

[uday]

he Laws specifically forbit external means for calculation.

 

What about internal means? some function of the various hand/deal attributes might do it easily (perhaps not for the complex example you presented but surely for strategies like: open 1NT 50% of the time, pass 50% of the time)

 

Then again, i'm not sure what "external" means in this context.

[hrothgar]

he Laws specifically forbit external means for calculation.

 

What about internal means? some function of the various hand/deal attributes might do it easily (perhaps not for the complex example you presented but surely for strategies like: open 1NT 50% of the time, pass 50% of the time)

 

Then again, i'm not sure what "external" means in this context.

The distinction between internal and external doesn't crop up in the laws since I apparantly "invented" the term external...

 

This topic is formally covered a note under Law 40E Convention Cards

 

"A player is not entitled, during the auction and play periods, to any aids to his memory, calculation or technique. However, sponsoring organizations may designate unusual methods and allow written defenses against opponents' unusual methods to be referred to at the table"

 

I suspect that the original intent of the law was to prevent players from referencing their systems notes during bidding or, worse yet, pull out a copy of the Dictionary of Card Combinations during play. Its interesting to note that the use of the cards as a seed could be considered an aid to technique. (I certainly believe that a pure source of random data is likely to better than my own subjective mental coin flip which probably have patterns. Or to quote the Simpsons* "Poor, predictable Bart. Always picks rock")

 

* Cause the Simpsons can be applied to everything important in life

[luke warm]

A psych is a selfish act,"you" decide to be the only one at

the table who knows exactly what's going on,leaving pd

in the dark but trusting him to rescue "you" by not bidding

like "you" have what you bid.

i think this part is the cause of some of the posts you got... if you think about it, it really isn't logical... is it selfish because you say it is, or is it objectively selfish?

 

we both know that you're just voicing an opinion... the opinions of others seem to differ and, as you say, they have the laws of bridge on their side

 

i would argue that a psych is an altruistic act... i'm risking a blow to my ego to help my team (and/or teammates)... but regardless of our positions, both are mere opinion - worth exactly what one is willing to pay

[Brandal]

A psych is a selfish act,"you" decide to be the only one at

the table who knows exactly what's going on,leaving pd

in the dark but trusting him to rescue "you" by not bidding

like "you" have what you bid.

i think this part is the cause of some of the posts you got... if you think about it, it really isn't logical... is it selfish because you say it is, or is it objectively selfish?

 

we both know that you're just voicing an opinion... the opinions of others seem to differ and, as you say, they have the laws of bridge on their side

 

i would argue that a psych is an altruistic act... i'm risking a blow to my ego to help my team (and/or teammates)... but regardless of our positions, both are mere opinion - worth exactly what one is willing to pay

Yes,ofcourse it's just my opinion of the psyche itself,

deciding to go on my own whim outside the partnership.

 

The reason I don't psyche anymore(I did psyche in my "youth"),

is I have become uncomfortable with the ethical side.

 

:)

 

Never seen anyone else call it selfish,never called it selfish

myself until yesterday. :D

 

Maybe from what I've written earlier,it's not easy to see

but I don't feel strongly either way about the psyche itself.

[Brandal]

Last I heard, the problem was that the player who was making a psyche was disrespecting his partner....

 

 

Until you permit players the tools that they require to describe their actions, you shouldn't complain about the quality of their disclosure...

I believe I used the word disregard,not disrespect,

with disregard I meant "barring" partner from being

in the loop on that particular hand,he is pretty much

left in the dark?

 

I am NOT complaining about anything,don't know where

you get that idea,nor am I attacking "your side".

[Brandal]

A mixed strategy requires that players randomly choose one of a number of different bids with a single hand. For example, assume that you're sitting red on white and there are two passes to you. You hold:

 

♠ K

♥ xxx

♦ AKT9872

♣ xx

 

You determine that your best course of action is to open

 

1♦ 15% of the time

1NT 20% of the time

2♦ 5% of the time

3♦ 30%% of the time

4♦ 15% of the time

5♦ 15% of the time

 

This is a mixed strategy

This looks more like tactical bids,or "table feel" bids than psyches.

 

 

 

 

In this scenario you draw,does both partners in the pair apply

this mixed strategy?

 

"Ah....this time I have to open 1NT....cool".....is more bingo than

bridge to me (I know you don't like my "way") :P

 

I have no doubt whatsoever that the strategy might work,

I just don't like it....I hope that's fair enough :)

[Al_U_Card]

A mixed strategy requires that players randomly choose one of a number of different bids with a single hand.  For example, assume that you're sitting red on white and there are two passes to you.  You hold:

 

♠ K

♥ xxx

♦ AKT9872

♣ xx

 

You determine that your best course of action is to open

 

1♦ 15% of the time

1NT 20% of the time

2♦ 5% of the time

3♦ 30%% of the time

4♦ 15% of the time

5♦ 15% of the time

 

This is a mixed strategy

This looks more like tactical bids,or "table feel" bids than psyches.

 

 

 

 

In this scenario you draw,does both partners in the pair apply

this mixed strategy?

 

"Ah....this time I have to open 1NT....cool".....is more bingo than

bridge to me (I know you don't like my "way") :P

 

I have no doubt whatsoever that the strategy might work,

I just don't like it....I hope that's fair enough :)

Wouldn't 1 H be a psyche and the given bids are just distortions (interpretations)?

[pigpenz]

[.I played a tournament the other day where the host/TD said

"announce at start of round if you use bluffs/psyches"

 

 

What's next,play showing all 4 hands?

 

:P

When I direct the first thing I announce is that psyches are part of the game and I am very tolerant of them :) But Please alert all artificial bids.