WHEN IS A PYCHE A PYCHE

[barmar]

First of all, as hrothgar said, it is not a psyche if the player has agreed to play a system which allows for opening 1♥ on this sort of hand. So, if you are considering whether it is a psyche, first of all you have to find out what the player's agreements are.

Remember, this was an INDY. While it's technically possible for there to be some system discussion at the beginning of the round, in practice this never really happens on BBO. So everyone assumes partner and opponents are playing something relatively standard and natural. A psyche should be judged relative to that understanding.

 

The alternative is to say that NOTHING is a psyche, because there are absolutely no agreements to have deviated from, but that way lies madness (i.e. then you also don't know what normal bids mean).

[barmar]

There is nothing psychic about it as long as it's not a partnership understanding. I do not have enough evidence to determine that responder knows about this 9 count opening.

Actually, if it's a partnership understanding, then it's by NOT a psyche, since a psyche is defined to be a gross deviation from partnership agreements or understandings. If there's a partnership understanding then the violation is the misinformation from the lack of alert. And if partner bids in a way to take the possibility of the psyche into account (i.e. "fields" it), this can be evidence of this concealed understanding.

 

In an indy there's very little chance of concealed partnership understandings, unless you're lucky enough to sit opposite a regular partner. So the normal issues that psyches raise don't really apply in this context.

 

I'm not sure why banning psyches is so prevalent in BBO tourneys. I suspect it may be for the same reason some other misbehavior is common in online bridge: there are many players who don't take it as seriously as f2f bridge. So the tourney organizers are worried that without any such regulation, there's likely to be random bidding by people who just want to be mischievous (see the other thread about random 7NT bids). So they've done this to discourage the miscreants from ruining the fun for everyone else.

[1eyedjack]

I'm not sure why banning psyches is so prevalent in BBO tourneys.  I suspect it may be for the same reason some other misbehavior is common in online bridge: there are many players who don't take it as seriously as f2f bridge.  So the tourney organizers are worried that without any such regulation, there's likely to be random bidding by people who just want to be mischievous (see the other thread about random 7NT bids).  So they've done this to discourage the miscreants from ruining the fun for everyone else.

That may be one of the reasons. I think that much of the time it should be possible to identify whether a bid is a genuine psyche or a bid purely to disrupt the result (ie with no realistic chance of gain).

 

Another reason is that there is a significant body of players who do not wish to be subjected to psychic bids by opponents (despite their legality), even genuine ones made in an attempt to win, and they are prepared to forego their own right to psyche in the interests of establishing that environment.

 

Another reason is that there is no mechanism to police psychic bidding the way that there is in F2F games, ie by recording their frequency in order to identify whether there is in fact a concealed partnership agreement, however implied.

 

A shame that it has come to this, I agree. Best just to steer clear of those tourneys. There are enough that don't ban.

[hrothgar]

I'm not sure why banning psyches is so prevalent in BBO tourneys.  I suspect it may be for the same reason some other misbehavior is common in online bridge: there are many players who don't take it as seriously as f2f bridge.

I chalk it up to ignorance and lack of oversight...

 

Throw in a 30 year program by the ACBL trying to convince players that psyches are dirty and its not surprising that some directors go crazy.

[amfnz]

But partner's choice of action might be seen as a clue. Perhaps the director felt that partner's conservative single raise indicated that he expected a light opening bid to be within the range of possibilities, and that this might therefore imply an undisclosed agreement

I would agree if the pair were a regular partnership, however in this case it was an individual and this was the first time I had ever played with this person.

 

The raise to 2♥ may have been a conservative bid but the subsequent action suggests that I took it as a genuine opener.

 

The director made the adjustment without even talking to either of us.

[kenberg]

My online experience is that rulings are much more autocratic than in f2f bridge. I chalk this up to practicality trumping best practice. A practical response is to avoid directors whose approach you don't like.

 

Your partner was not so much psyching as, imo, overactively bidding. This is a common practice online, especially in indys. You were, imo, underbidding. Everyone has his own ideas about bidding, and sometimes they mesh, sometimes they don't. I often don't agree with my opponet's bidding. Getting an adjustment because I don't like their bidding is not my style.

 

Just play elsewhere.

[badderzboy]

I read this post with sheer despair!

 

I guess I better not play in that Tourney as I play a weak NT I bet 70% don't

 

I guess if I TD I should pander to a results merchant who dbld got it wrong and even when to the trouble of finding a whinge!

 

When will people realise that its a game , we not playing for glory or money (well not in this tourney).

 

I better not use judgement when I bid - guess thats naughty too?

 

I better not make a strange lead or signal is that verboten too?

 

Jes

 

Steve

[jillybean]

Oh, it was an individual - one of the ones that asks you to 'alert and explain all artificial bids' and no psyches if youve had cornflakes for breakfast or in position 1 or 2?

 

I think indys are simply meant to be fun, if you rock the boat some TD's will give these sort of rulings - read the rules and buyer beware.

jb

[1eyedjack]

In my opinion the one tourney format in which the banning of psyches is least justified (assuming that it ever can be) it is in an individual, wherein partners are unlikely to have concealed agreements.

[blackshoe]

There is nothing psychic about it as long as it's not a partnership understanding.

There is nothing psychic about this 1 ♥ opening whatever the partnership understanding. It's a light opener. It is sufficiently light that if opener's partner is aware that he does this, that fact should be disclosed, but that's a different kettle of fish.

[glen]

imo, the problem is less about psyche or not psyche, and more about:

 

- fairness: adjust all the 1♥ openings or none.

- openness: discuss adjustments with players when making them.

 

Tourneys without fairness and openness are long term losers, for the tourney itself, for the hosting site, and for bridge.

[jillybean]

Tourneys without fairness and openness are long term losers, for the tourney itself, for the hosting site, and for bridge.

The majority of BBO does not agree with this, these tournaments are very well supported.

 

There is no hope of fairness when TD's are going to make rulings like this, as Ben pointed out other tables opened this hand ♥ but it was only this table who squeaked and got an adjustment.

 

I don't see this changing at all, read the tournament description and let your feet do the talking.

[matmat]

ACCORDING THE RULES OF THE BBOFANS TOURNEYS A PSYCHOLOGICAL

BID IS FORBIDDEN.

hmm... what if i want to make a psychic bid?

[the hog]

ACCORDING  THE  RULES OF  THE  BBOFANS TOURNEYS A  PSYCHOLOGICAL

BID  IS  FORBIDDEN.

hmm... what if i want to make a psychic bid?

Well, I guess as all bids are psychological to some extent you are not allowed to bid in this particular tournament at all.