Psyching

[Gerben47]

Hi, I was playing an 8 board team match on BBO and at some point I made a psych. Now the opponents (one of which was the match organizer) were mad at me because they said psyching in 1st and 2nd seat is forbidden. I replied that I had never heard of such a rule, and they said it was somewhere in the conditions of contest. Since there were no special conditions for the match I decided to read all the BBO conditions of contest again, but did not find anything.

 

Even if it's not in the rules, this won't get rid of the block in people's minds. Anyone have any idea to approach people who think psyching is cheating?

 

BTW, the reason why I psyched on the hand was because we needed a swing in order to win the match, and the hand looked right for it. We achieved a good score on the hand.

[csdenmark]

Gerben you will find some hints here but certainly no solutions!

 

http://forums.bridgebase.com/in...ay;threadid=576

[hrothgar]

From my perspective, the most interesting "issue" here revolves arround the notion of "Conditions of Contest". I am a strong advocate that event sponsor's have the right to establish the Conditions of Contest for their own events: By this, I mean that the players who organize a team game or direct a tournament have the option to determine the set of regulation that govern the event. I see nothing wrong with the host of a game having regulations banning psyche's in first/second seat.

 

With this said and done, the event organizers also have an obligation to to publish the conditions of contest. I personally have no interest lending even tacit support to events that prohibit psyches or regulate conventions. Furthermore, I get extremely annoyed when event organizers seem to be making up the regulations as they go along. Case in point: Yesterday there was a tournament on BBO in which a variety of treatments including Polish Club, Multi, and Canape were all explictly banned in the Conditions of Contest. I think that the event organizers followed exactly the right proceedures by explictly describing the rules under which they wanted to run their event.

 

As to your specific example: I am not aware of any Zonal authority that bans player's from psyching in first/second seat.

[inquiry]

Psyching in first or second position is legal, and is allowed in general in the BBO. That is, there is no prescribed (to the best of my knowledge) rule that prevents psyching.

 

Having said that, a few common sense rules and a few codified rules exist.

 

First, it is illegal to pschye a strong forcing opening bid (although 2C as "either GF" or "preempt in diamond" is legal, as this is not a pscyh but a multi-meaning bid).

 

Second, it is not legal to basically pyche so often as to destroy the continuity of the game. To psyche 4 hands out of ten, for instance seems excessive to me. I think 2 psyhces per 24 boards is a very reasonable rate for some who "psyhces frequentlly"

 

Third, if you make the same type of psyches in the same type of position so often that your partner "picks it up" and takes it into account, you pysch may be illegal and at best iil advised based upon ethics.

 

Fourth, if the person running the contest you are competing in establishes prior to the event that pscyhs are not allowed, then they are not allowed. Of course this has to be conveyed to everyone.

 

Fifth, for an experienced partnership to pscych against a pickup partnership in on line bridge is just bad form. They have virtually no experience togehter and such a psych has an unethical feel to me... no matter how perfect the hand is for the pysch. Others will disagree with me on this issue I know. Against good opposition or establish opponents, when the right hand come up, psyche away .

 

Psyches are a necessary part of good bridge. Choosing when to psych, based upon the bidding so far, the vulnerability, your holding, the state of the match or your possition in a tournment, is a difficult skill to master. One might choose to pass with a good hand. One might choose to preempt in a four card suit, or with a fairly strong hand iwth 8 card suit. One might choose a splinter in a suit with three small cards. One might open 1NT on nothing, or open 1 of a suit with one card in it or 5 cards but no hcp. These psyches are often like the unilateral very light preempt, or a preempt with a side four card major. When they work, they work, when they don't they really dont. It is a roll of the dice. It is this "top-bottom" nature of the psche that makes frequent pscyhes unsporting, especially in a matchpoint game. You are randomly giving tops and bottoms to your opponents. IF it is late in an event and you are "out of contention" I would say it is unethical to psyche... you may reward someone "unfairly" or harm them "unfairly". I use unfairly in teh context that you are creating a random outcome on a hand where no matter if your psych works or not, it will not help you finish high in the ranking. Again, others will disagree with me. I know several people who go psych happy when they have a bad game, and play down the middle when they have a good game... I think this is not sporting.

[keylime]

This is a testing subject for sure, here's my thoughts...

 

Many people I would think that tend to play bridge in between the proverbial lines feel that psyching destroys the intergrity of the game. However, I think that psyching, if done with randomness, and done at specific times, can equalize a deficit. It's all a matter of style.

 

Remember too folks, more often than now, psyching is losing bridge. Give you a great example from this weekend:

 

RHO opens this hand 2NT:

 

Ax A ATX AKT9xxx

 

To me, this isn't quite a psyche. It's an offshape Nt that if they hit partner with a minimum, they sit pretty, and has a place to run, clubs. So far, so good. Problem is, BOTH partners decided to somehow get themselves into 7C redoubled down four!

 

However, a funny story to show you more often than not, psychnig is losing bridge....

 

RHO opens 1S on this lovely hand:

 

VOID Qxxx J8xx Txxxx

 

LHO not in on the act, goes straight to 4S on this:

 

76543 Jxx 9x 8xx

 

Pass, Pass, DOUBLE! RHO now runs into clubs, exposing the psyche, let's just say, down 7 vulnerable doubled was quite nice.

 

Whether we like it or not, psyching is allowed, and part of the game. It's up to us to expose them and make life heck on them. B)

[hrothgar]

First, it is illegal to pschye a strong forcing opening bid (although 2C as "either GF" or "preempt in diamond" is legal, as this is not a pscyh but a multi-meaning bid).

 

Maybe within the ACBL. Thankfully that "ogust" [sic] body doesn't actually have any authority in online bridge. Psyching strong forcing openings is perfect legitimate in WBF play. I recall at least one appeal involving this very issue. For anyone who cares, the current WBF regulations regarding psyches is available at

 

http://www.worldbridge.org/departments/sys...ems/psyches.asp

[luis]

This is a testing subject for sure, here's my thoughts...

 

Many people I would think that tend to play bridge in between the proverbial lines feel that psyching destroys the intergrity of the game. However, I think that psyching, if done with randomness, and done at specific times, can equalize a deficit. It's all a matter of style.

 

Remember too folks, more often than now, psyching is losing bridge. Give you a great example from this weekend:

 

RHO opens this hand 2NT:

 

Ax A ATX AKT9xxx

 

To me, this isn't quite a psyche. It's an offshape Nt that if they hit partner with a minimum, they sit pretty, and has a place to run, clubs. So far, so good. Problem is, BOTH partners decided to somehow get themselves into 7C redoubled down four!

 

However, a funny story to show you more often than not, psychnig is losing bridge....

 

RHO opens 1S on this lovely hand:

 

VOID Qxxx J8xx Txxxx

 

LHO not in on the act, goes straight to 4S on this:

 

76543 Jxx 9x 8xx

 

Pass, Pass, DOUBLE! RHO now runs into clubs, exposing the psyche, let's just say, down 7 vulnerable doubled was quite nice.

 

Whether we like it or not, psyching is allowed, and part of the game. It's up to us to expose them and make life heck on them. B)

 

Random psiches are a normal part of the game and are used for bridge reasons and for psychological reasons too. Banning psyches is equivalent in my opinion to banning squeezes. If you like to play a sub-version of this game just because the whole stuff is too much for your brain power then don't call it bridge....

[inquiry]

First, it is illegal to pschye a strong forcing opening bid (although 2C as "either GF" or "preempt in diamond" is legal, as this is not a pscyh but a multi-meaning bid).

 

Maybe within the ACBL. Thankfully that "ogust" [sic] body doesn't actually have any authority in online bridge. Psyching strong forcing openings is perfect legitimate in WBF play. I recall at least one appeal involving this very issue. For anyone who cares, the current WBF regulations regarding psyches is available at

 

http://www.worldbridge.org/departments/sys...ems/psyches.asp

 

Well. it is clearly illegal in the ACBL, but it is my understanding that psyching a conventional, strong forcing opening bid is also illegal in WBL sanctioned events. Here I will quote The ORANGE BOOK )updated to September 2002)

HANDBOOK OF EBU DIRECTIVES AND PERMITTED CONVENTIONS

 

This rule book says

"6.1.13 You may not psyche a game forcing or nearly game forcing

artificial opening. Thus, for example, you may not psyche an

Acol 2 opening or a Benjamin opening 2 or 2. In addition you

may not psyche a Multi-2 opening in a Level 3 event (see 13.4.2).

 

Reading the orange book, I found another illegal psych I never heard before:

"6.1.4 Watson: a double of 3NT asks your partner not to lead the suit

you've bid: you may not use this if you have psyched."

[hrothgar]

Hi Ben

 

The Orange Book is a publication of the English Bridge Union.

The EBU another example of a National Organization.

 

Here, once again, the WBF regulations are independant of the EBU.

[inquiry]

Hi Ben

 

The Orange Book is a publication of the English Bridge Union.

The EBU another example of a National Organization.

 

Here, once again, the WBF regulations are independant of the EBU.

 

 

 

Well, the intenational laws are not so wide open. Let's examine a few of them. From the International Laws, we find?"

 

"LAW 40-A. Right to Choose Call or Play

A player may make any call or play (including an intentionally misleading call == such as a psychic bid == or a call or play that departs from commonly

accepted, or previously announced, use of a convention), without prior announcement, provided that such call or play is not based on a partnership

understanding."

 

This seems to be what you are eluding too in that the International laws are more flexible than those of certain nationalities. However, the international laws potential take away what they give in 40-A just a few paragraphs later where it says...

 

"Law 40-D. Regulation of Conventions

The sponsoring organisation may regulate the use of bidding or play conventions. Zonal organisations may, in addition, regulate partnership understandings (even if not conventional) that permit the partnership’s initial actions at the one level to be made with a hand of a King or more below average strength. Zonal organisations may delegate this responsibility"

 

This means that under international law of bridge, conventions CAN BE limited to a king more or below the average stregth if they like if you are going to use a conention. Think of this like Condition of contest for BBO tournments, where you admit the tournmnet organizer/director, can establish the conditions of contest. Here the world organization allows pschyes, but 40-D allows limitation on psyhces of conventions.

 

They can even REGULATE which convention to be used (they could, outlaw for an event, multi-2D, for instance). This is codified in the laws. The laws do not say any particular thing is outlawed or illegal, but it could be by event. As you well know in the US, some tournments allow an anything goes attitude, some adhere to the CCG thingee.

 

What about in WBF event (instead of leaving it up to the organizers?). Most people reading this post has never played in a WBF event. These are BY INVINTATION only, so holding that they allow brown and red sticker conventions as well as highly unusual methods as an example for all others is disingenious.

 

For one thing, even in WBF world championship events, it is not ANY GOES. In Monte Carlo, for instance, The World Seniors Bowl and the

World Transnational Open Teams where both Category 3 events, thus no High unusual methods or Brown Sticker systems were permitted. In addition, any pairs competing in those two events who wanted to play Red Sticker systems had to register these in advance and required the approval of the Chairman of the Systems Committee.

 

For the Bermuda Bowl and Venice cup, it was system I with pretty much anything goes. However, bear in mind that a) all the players in the event are of the absolute highest quality skillwise. B) All had to give the red, brown and unusual methods in detailed writing 3 months before the event, c) anyone playing these things had to make themselves avaliable for 15 minutes prior to the start of each session to answer questions, as well as provide two pages of notes for defenses to their conventions/treatments.

 

And yet you advocate allowing such things as normal and "allowed" by WBF. Yet the page you list even identifies some as brown sticker (like an explicit agreements that psychic calls are expected, or providing systemic protection for them) and as we see, those are outlawed in some WBF events.

 

This goes back to your "online convention" card thing with the 28 pages of notes about your system that you expect your opponents to look at during the 14 minutes you have to play 2 boards in an online tournment. Your explaination is that it is just a few "clicks" to find out what a specified bid means, but then it is a few more clicks to see what other inferences are drawn from this bid (as opposed to another), and of course the time to load the 28 page link, and hope that it doesn't swamp out the memory on your opponents computer and knock your opponent off line. That is unreasonable, and that is why for elite events where top teams are going to play extended matches against each other these things are allowed but only with EXTENSIVE PRIOR DISCLOSURE in the form of advance exchange of agreements in writing 3 months prior to the event, a 15 minute discuss time PRIOR to each session for review, and detailed TWO page notes of defense for use during the play.

 

Despite this, you seem to believe that on line bridge anything goes. It is a wild and wooly free for all. In FACT if you want to play by international "online laws", you might want to check out...rules for the "internet world bridge championship" from okbridge at http://blueclub.okbridge.com/iwbc2001/conv...strictions.php3

 

There was considerable limitiation: no opening bid at one level with less than 8 hcp, no psych of any conventional bid, no forcing pass, no encrypted signals, weak preempts without at least one definded suit (mullt 2D ok, hower), two-way opening bids which show either length or shortness in a suit, etc.

 

And before you jump on OKBridge being "american", note the language of their not psyching a convention call, which reads:

"Conventional opening bids which may be psyched. This rule bars the psyching of conventional opening bids (Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge, Law 40D; interpretation of the WBF Laws Commission.). This does not prohibit minor deviations from conventional opening bids. " Quoting law 40-D from way above in this post.

[hrothgar]

Issue 1:

 

As you note, the WBF delgates authority over a wide variety of regulations to the appropriate Sponsoring Organization. In the case of physical events within North America, the Sponsoring Organization is normally either the ACBL or the USBF.

 

I have no problem with this approach. Nor do I object to individual sponsoring organizations establishing online games with clearly definied sets of regulations. For example, the ACBL has established its own online bridge site. This is fine by me. Equivalently, I see nothing wrong with players organizing tournaments on BBO that will be conducted using ACBL alerting regulations and convention charts.

 

However, I strenuously object to the assertion that the particular set of regulations that the ACBL/EBU/Whatever has adopted have any bearing on "online bridge" as a whole. Just as I believe that Sponsoring Organzations have the right to run its a tournaments using ACBL rules, I have an equal right to refuse to particpate in events that use this set of regulations.

 

Where the disconnect comes about is when Sponsoring Oranizations chose to run events without any clear guidance regarding the set of regulations that will be enforced. Personally, I see no reason why we should assume that ACBL or EBU standards should be the default. Both organizations are dying and will be nearly completely irrelevant to organizaed bridge within a decade.

 

BTW, for what its worth the WBF is pretty damn generous with its "invitations". Case in Point the WBF Championships in Montreal had a large number of events run under WBF laws open to anyone willing to fork over sufficient cash.

[hrothgar]

This goes back to your "online convention" card thing with the 28 pages of notes about your system that you expect your opponents to look at during the 14 minutes you have to play 2 boards in an online tournment. Your explaination is that it is just a few "clicks" to find out what a specified bid means, but then it is a few more clicks to see what other inferences are drawn from this bid (as opposed to another), and of course the time to load the 28 page link, and hope that it doesn't swamp out the memory on your opponents computer and knock your opponent off line. That is unreasonable, and that is why for elite events where top teams are going to play extended matches against each other these things are allowed but only with EXTENSIVE PRIOR DISCLOSURE in the form of advance exchange of agreements in writing 3 months prior to the event, a 15 minute discuss time PRIOR to each session for review, and detailed TWO page notes of defense for use during the play.

 

It is interesting to compare the success that the Austrlian, Dutch, and Swedish Bridge Federations have running tournaments that permit a wide variety of high complex artifical methods during short round pair events. The main difference is that players are socialized to understand that variance in methods is an established part and parcel of the game.

 

For a variety of reasons, the ACBL has seen fit to try to lower bridge down to the lowest common denominator. In doing so, that have basically destoyed the game in North America. The ACBL continues to lumber on, however, the organization is about to fall off a cliff as its core membership becomes too old to continue.

 

The mean Age of ACBL members is 69

Each year the mean age increases by almost a year.

This is a sign of an organization in pathological decline t

[inquiry]

Well, you will have a hard time to get me to back the policies of the ACBL on what SHOULD happen. When I was in college, I bought five copies of George Rosenkrantz book on Romex. This was first version (the red book), with mexican 2D, graded limit raises, confi, superconfi, Dynamic 1NT, etc. Five of us at the University of Florida started playing it, studying it, etc. The local bridge clubs (both the university and the Gainesville club), allowed us to play it, no problem. The problem came with sectionals or regionals... as nearly the whole system was illegal. Eventually, we gave up out of dispair and switched back to precision.

 

What they allow, and dont' allow, has always been a random crap shoot.I suspect based upon what people on the convention committee was familiar with (or maybe what they or their friends liked to play). In fact, I dropped out of competitive bridge for a long time, in part to make a living, in part because how could i win if the bidding systems/methods that made the most sense to me where not allowed. In addition, all but one of the 5 Romex players also took hiatus from the game (one has never stopped being tournment active). But even I have to agree that highly unusual methods that are, to use a term I don't like, distructive, must be limited. I have no idea why they banned (for a while) a foring but unbalanced 1NT, or why they banned mexican 2D showing a big balanced hand. But I can see why they might ban an opening 1H bid on 0 to 7 hcp.

 

Ben

[luis]

Well, you will have a hard time to get me to back the policies of the ACBL on what SHOULD happen. When I was in college, I bought five copies of George Rosenkrantz book on Romex. This was first version (the red book), with mexican 2D, graded limit raises, confi, superconfi, Dynamic 1NT, etc. Five of us at the University of Florida started playing it, studying it, etc. The local bridge clubs (both the university and the Gainesville club), allowed us to play it, no problem. The problem came with sectionals or regionals... as nearly the whole system was illegal. Eventually, we gave up out of dispair and switched back to precision.

 

What they allow, and dont' allow, has always been a random crap shoot.I suspect based upon what people on the convention committee was familiar with (or maybe what they or their friends liked to play). In fact, I dropped out of competitive bridge for a long time, in part to make a living, in part because how could i win if the bidding systems/methods that made the most sense to me where not allowed. In addition, all but one of the 5 Romex players also took hiatus from the game (one has never stopped being tournment active). But even I have to agree that highly unusual methods that are, to use a term I don't like, distructive, must be limited. I have no idea why they banned (for a while) a foring but unbalanced 1NT, or why they banned mexican 2D showing a big balanced hand. But I can see why they might ban an opening 1H bid on 0 to 7 hcp.

 

Ben

 

They have to generate revenues, if you allow anything the game gets very complex since you have to teach beginners meta-defenses and how to prepare for the unexpected from start, this makes the learning curve of this game steeper finally resulting in less new players, and thus less revenues from tournaments and classes.

 

Meckstroth can open 1NT 10-12 and you are supossed to have a defense against that and the multiple run-outs that they have well studied. But you cannot open pass showing 13+. This is absurd since the mini-NT is more destructive and harder to defend than a forcing pass, a mini-NT can ruin your constructive bidding while "pass" can't. There're forcing pass systems without a fert and they are forbidden, the reason is a dark mistery and the only acceptable explanation is that someone decided they are evil.

 

I don't mind having destructive methods and conventions banned to make the game more popular and blah blah... but why? o why? why ban a system just because it is not "common" ? Playing against uncommon systems is a skill that bridge players must learn to develop without protection from organizations that don't want to bother about diversity.

[DrTodd13]

At least 90% of bridge players learn one system and may add

a gadget here or there over time but aren't interested in learning

any more because they have enough information to enjoy the

game. For less than 10% of us, system experimentation is part

of the enjoyment. Those of us in the 10% annoy everyone else

and are at the same time annoyed by the governing bodies who

seek to protect their income by trying to stop us experimenters

from driving everyone else away. Only in big venues is there

sufficient critical mass to have an event where you can gather

people who like to experiment with systems.

 

I tried to create such an environment on BBO with the fish out of

water tournaments but the current BBO infrastructure made this

too difficult. Even if the infrastructure supported what I was

trying to do, you basically need established partnerships to play

unusual systems and there wasn't enough of these online at any

time to have a tournament. Maybe...just maybe there might be

enough such people at a NABC. You can't make a system

experimentation session the only one available though because

people who just want to play will join the session not knowing

what they are getting into and they won't enjoy it and you just

created more people calling for a more permanent ban.

 

And I agree with Luis, nothing is difficult about defending a forcing

pass. Only people's lack of experience make it moderately troublesome.

1H fert (as in Tresboof) is designed to be preemptive and to get the

opponents out of their normal system. This is the goal of all

preemption so people must just not like the idea of preempting on

weak balanced hands! If preempting on weak balanced hands is so

inferior then let us play it against you and punish us for our insolence.

[Cascade]

 

With this said and done, the event organizers also have an obligation to to publish the conditions of contest.

 

...

 

As to your specific example: I am not aware of any Zonal authority that bans player's from psyching in first/second seat.

 

Psyches are specifically allowed by the laws of bridge.

 

Therefore I do not think that you can regulate psychic calls.

 

That applies in a general sense - you can regulate psyches of conventional calls.

 

Wayne

[the hog]

Defending against a strong pass system is a piece of cake, and can be huge fun if you play counterferts

(fert) 1N = 0-10 any

 

Fwiw FP systems are not permitted in matches of less than 14 boards in Aus, and systems need to be submitted a week in advance. You are expected to provide your own defence, though the written defence is allowed at the table. I much prefer this to the US system, where the some of the defences provided are really poor. (I wonder if deliberately so?).

 

Psyching strong openings is forbidden. Most other stuff is allowed even in 2 board pairs events, including transfer openings, canape bids, ALL sorts of weird and wonderful two bids, nt openings that may or may not contain a s/t systemically etc etc. People cope!

 

Agree totally with Luis, if you ban psyches, you might be playing some card game but you are not playing bridge.

 

Oh, and if anyone thinks psyching is "more often than not losing bridge", it isn't if done sensibly. The 1S opening Dwayne quotes is of a man demented. Try the odd sting cue in a slam auction and see if it loses.

[Free]

Some regulations are just crazy! Especially the ones about strong pass systems! It's true that you may open 1NT with about any hand, but pass with strong hand isn't allowed... Even bids at 2-level with 0-7 HCP are allowed. If you want to go nuts, play 3NT random: 0-5 HCP any hand. That's allowed! It's just not as good as a strong pass. If you'd play random 3NT you'll lose more than you win.

 

It's just ridiculous what people want to ban! In my region, psychics are allowed only once per tournament/club evening. Brown sticker conventions are only allowed in the 2 highest competitions, rule of 18 is about always active (so no 1X psychics),... No wonder no Belgian team gets far in international events. Everybody plays a standard system, even top teams.

 

And if you come up with a psych, opponents are mad because they feel like we lie about our system. A few weeks ago, my partner bid 2C after a 1H opening from me with 2 Clubs and 4 Diamonds. His hand came on the table, and ops were complaining that I should alert his bid, while I only know that p has 4+C... They almost went crazy about it, and I actually didn't see the purpose of his psyche.

A psych that I did a few times (the one with p-p-1NT) crazed some opponents to, but now we've adopted it in our system B) People look weird when we alert 1NT (also overcall) in 3rd hand with 15-17 or 0-5 HCP, but they're not so angry when it seems to be a 0-5. But as far as I know it's still considered as a psych, since it's systemicly protected. :-

 

Anyway, about playing online: ACBL isn't the standard, because I (and many many many other players) don't know their rules. It's not because many players are Americans that their rules are used. So if it's not written in the conditions of contest, it's allowed. Organizers don't have the right to change the rules during an event. If they forget to put it in te conditions of contest, too bad!

 

But I've experienced that you have to let partner know that you dare to psych, because otherwise they kick you in crazy contracts. First time I played with Misho ( 8) the bluff-master 8) ) we got several bottoms because of psychics. Then he just told me that when I've passed he dares to bluff a lot, and it went a lot better B). Just a simple agreement and you can do whatever you want without being afraid of getting hammered.

[inquiry]

Anyway, about playing online: ACBL isn't the standard, because I (and many many many other players) don't know their rules. It's not because many players are Americans that their rules are used. So if it's not written in the conditions of contest, it's allowed. Organizers don't have the right to change the rules during an event. If they forget to put it in te conditions of contest, too bad!

 

Maybe you might want to read the World Bridge Federations, "Dode of Laws for Electronic Bridge" http://www.ecatsbridge.com/BiB/b7/online_l...aws/default.asp

 

BtW, a number of your pyches are brown sticker and illegal in civilized bridge (only Category I events allow them and even then only after extensive documentation to opponents before and with written suggested defense... to spring this on line against the unsuspected is, well, not sporting. And in my saying this, please remember I greatly favor pscyhes... just controlled psyches with chekbacks without proper documentation and alerting, in an online envronment I don't like). The 3rd seat psych control for the 2NT openign bid for instance.

 

Ben

[mycroft]

like others, I would suggest the world bridge federation guidelines on psychs as interesting reading (if, possibly, too restrictive in some cases). Case in point - in four years of playing at the Waterloo Bridge club, I know of 4 people who psyched. One did it once to my knowledge, one would do it probably once a month or so, and then there was my partner and I. If the auction makes it clear that somebody psyched at that club, and it wasn't me, it's pretty much certain that it was my partner - not because of our frequency or actual psychic call history, but because nobody else psyched, ever. But reading the WBF paper strictly, we can no longer psych because *any* psych is easier for me to catch as partner's. I don't think that is a problem at the levels the WBF usually regulates!

 

Going back to the original point, there are Sponsoring organizations - Austria, I know, I think South Africa has something like it - where psyches in first and second seat are illegal. The consensus of the BLML is that the regulation is illegal, but nobody's going to complain about it.

It may have been that the pair who complained were Austrians (or usually played in clubs where that regulation was also in effect).

 

My own psyching frequency has gone down significantly since I started directing regularly at the club I usually play at...I think it would probably be okay by now (my ethical reputation has been made for better or worse), but I haven't had the hand for it the last little while (or I've been second hand, red on white, and decided not to!)

 

Having said that, I guess that the "good" intermediates (novices working hard and doing well at it) had better watch out. Yes, I know it's losing bridge to psych against C players, but the two or three pairs I'm thinking of will appreciate the education (especially if I crapout!)

 

Michael.

[Gerben47]

In defence of strong pass systems:

 

The primary purpose of the fertilizer bid is NOT to destroy the opposing bidding. It is to have a bid available with the weak hands that can not be bid if pass is something else. The point of having pass as something else is the simple principle of having more space available. There are 61.8% more possible uncontested sequences below 3NT after pass than there are after 1C. THAT is the point of strong pass systems.

 

The hands where you are least likely to want to exchange a lot of information are the hands with 0 - 8 HCP. If you pass with that, this is a waste. If you systematically open 1something with them, that is much better (except when you go for a number).

 

If you compare Moscito (Pass 0 - 8 (9), 1C 15+, rest 9 - 14) with a Forcing pass system (pass 14+, some bid 0 - 7 (8), rest 8 - 13), you see that the burden has been redistributed in a better way.

 

I will give one argument against ferts. The higher your fert is, the more it is designed to destroy the opponent's bidding.

 

If you want to ban fertilizer bids (which I personally don't), I can suggest a middle way. Allow them but only as 1C or 1D. These opening bids don't mean anything in some other systems anyway.

[inquiry]

In defence of strong pass systems:

 

First, the rules disallowing forcing pass as highly unusual perpetuate this bid as being “highly unusual”. How will it ever become usual if it is not allowed to be played? The forcing pass has many advantages, and I agree it is mostly a constructive system albeit a lot of the relays which are also frequently disallowed are also used. Two obvious advantages for the forcing pass partnership are that they have more bidding room (sometimes only one bid, 1C), allowing relays to show exact distribution at low levels, and that bids besides pass, as Gerben noted, are more informative… imagine weak 1,2 and 3 bids. An unfair advantage currently is that your opponents are not familiar with forcing pass systems (why should they be, having never faced it).

 

Should you ever face a forcing pass system, you need some defensive agreement. I use a one level suit bid over the forcing pass as “weak takeout” of the suit bid. So imagine the bidding went (Pass*)-1C my 1C shows a takeout of 1C and not a good hand. While if I bid 1D, 1H, 1S, all those bids show takeout of the bid suit, and again not strong. If I bid 1NT that is balanced good 15 to 18 (just like a 1NT overcall). With a good hand, I too pass, planning (perhaps) to bid later. There are other defense schemes, but the best way to fight forcing pass where they save room is to get in their and mix it up with them. Don’t wait for an opening bid to bid. Find a way to overcall or make a preemptive jump overcall (even 2C over a forcing pass is now weak jump overcall, and even playing multi 2D, a jump to 2D over a forcing pass is a weak jump overcall in diamonds, etc).

 

If they forcing pass was legal, I would probably play it. I am not sure why it is banned, but this ban is virtually world-wide except for very limited events. Thus it is hardly worth learning the system, since you can't practice it in serious competition in the great majority of sanctioned tournments.

 

ben

[the hog]

If they forcing pass was legal, I would probably play it. I am not sure why it is banned, but this ban is virtually world-wide except for very limited events. Thus it is hardly worth learning the system, since you can't practice it in serious competition in the great majority of sanctioned tournments.

 

You can play it in teams matches of 14 boards + in Australia, IF you are in the top 30% of the fields. (2 rounds have to be played first). So you get a few pairs playing Suspensor or WOR in the South West Pacific Teams - a week long event, and one or two NZ pairs playing T-Rex. This latter is the only system I have ever seen that frightens me to learn.

[mishovnbg]

Hi all!

I am may be one of the players who did most psyches in BBO B). But before to do it, I read BBO rules about and they exsist! Forbidden in BBO is to bluffing from 1 and 2 position, even with overcalls and with strong conventional openings. Make sense for me, because I like to play Bridge, if I like to play roulette I will go to casino ;D. Similar rules are in Bulgaria, except overcalls.

Bluffs are part of my style, so level of opponents is not important for me. While losing against my bluff, may be they can learn how to bid against psyches and will be prepared it can happen again! I can reset score after any my bluff, if they like - result is important for me only in light of partnership understanding...

Misho

[DrTodd13]

I don't think you need rules against 1st and 2nd seat psyching because I can't imagine those would pay off frequently enough to be worth the risk of your partner believing you. I think compared to most people I psyche a lot, especially in 3rd seat. I like to have some intended sequence that I want to ellicit from my opponents when I psyche. I don't like truly random psyches in desperation hoping that opponents will somehow screw up. Even being among the most frequent psychers, I still don't think my psyche frequency rises to the level of bridge becoming roulette.

 

With respect to Inquiry's comments on forcing pass, I have learned a couple forcing pass systems just for the fun of playing them online and at lunch time bridge. If all you want to do is play in tournaments and acquire masterpoints then I don't know why you'd learn forcing pass but for a fun change of pace, forcing pass systems are good. There is also the factor of playing an entirely different system making you better at other systems...kind of like a country musician who learns jazz and the result is that both their country and jazz is improved due to comprehending music at a higher plane. Ok...I'm getting pretty philosophical so I'll quit but if anybody wants to learn Tresboof (forcing pass system) send me a message and I'd be happy to teach you and play it with you

 

With respect to Gerben's comments about limiting ferts to 1C or 1D, this is the sort of arbitrary choice that has gotten us to where we are today.