Atrocity

[gwnn]

I think gross is when the call has nothing to do with your hand.

 

ie

 

-

xxxx

xxxx

jxxxx

 

for 1♠ opening/overcall. this is, like, a 12-18 "disortion", which is kind of much.

 

what I don't like in TD's decision that it didn't really explain why the so-called psyche damaged the opposing pair. i.e. if everyone had made 3NT-1 and they 2NT=, they wouldn't have really called the director, no?

[sceptic]

The second reason, in an individual, if you make your partner, let's say, very upset, at least you will get a new partner on the next hand (or two).

 

I am quite suprised at you here Ben, you are almost condoning behaviour that is likely to piss someone off and that is not good for BBO and is possibly a small factor in the bad behaviour issue we have on BBO especially an indy tourney????

 

I am still adamant, that while psyches are leagal and possibly fun when they work, if you have not even had the time to discuss with a pick up partner a system carding and what conventions you play (or at best a very basic one)

 

How on earth are you likely to build up a relationship with a pick up by psyching after a few hands, or are people rude enough that a pick up partner has no feelings and you can do what you like with them

 

I believe a lot of experts here state that psyches ruin trust in a partnership, how do you expect it to make a pick up partner feel

 

one of the experts here partnered me once and psyched after a few hands, I carried on bidding like an idiot and afterwards we got a shite result (the shite result did not bother me, but I did think to myself, that my pard was an idiot (at the time, not for psyching, but remotely expect some sort of result with a sub standard partner)) (that is not a long term view of that person btw)

[matmat]

How on earth are you likely to build up a relationship with a pick up by psyching after a few hands, or are people rude enough that a pick up partner has no feelings and you can do what you like with them

why on earth would i want to build up a relationship with them? should i be looking to purchase friendship bracelets? or perhaps an engagement ring?

 

hmmm...

 

i am a lot more likely to psych with a random/pickup partner as the benefits far outweigh the drawbacks imo. with a steady partner you risk ruining the partnership, whereas with a random it is not clear that it isn't in the best interest of your score to mastermind a bit anyway...

[1eyedjack]

How on earth are you likely to build up a relationship with a pick up by psyching after a few hands, or are people rude enough that a pick up partner has no feelings and you can do what you like with them

Why on earth should any player regard a psychic bid by his partner as rude or some sort of personal affront?

 

It may work. It may not. But if it does not it was not with malice aforethought, nor should you assume that he is doing anything other than doing his best to secure a good score for his own side, being both himself and his partner (you).

 

It should be regarded as no more "damaging" to a relationship than (say) taking an unnecessary failing finesse, and if any player infers otherwise when on the receiving end of partner's psyche then I put it to you that the problem lies not with the psycher but with his partner.

 

If in defending a hand you have agreed with partner to play normal count, and your partner, at a given instant in the play, judges that the count would be of more value to declarer than to you and on that basis false-cards his count signal, do you regard that as damaging to the relationship?

[sceptic]

it would appear I am in a minority here with my view, but I am not overly concerned, my attitude is not against psyches, it is about how a pick up pard feels, the problems of people doing a runner in tourneys or at a table , I think this plays a small part in the problem, whether it is a legal bid or not.

 

I think matmat summed up the social aspect of what BBO is about

 

why on earth would i want to build up a relationship with them? should i be looking to purchase friendship bracelets? or perhaps an engagement ring?

 

with friends like this who needs enemies LOL

[fred]

Why on earth should any player regard a psychic bid by his partner as rude or some sort of personal affront?

Many players (including me) like to employ a general strategy of playing down the middle in the hope that an opportunity will arise later in the hand in which their bidding judgment or play/defense skill will give them an opportunity to get a good result by making a superior decision to other players holding the same cards who faced the same decision.

 

In my view it is not unreasonable for such player to resent it when partner openers 1S in first position with a doubleton spade and 5 HCP (for example). They might (correctly) think that such an action puts the partnership's result on the deal largely at the mercy of random factors beyond their control. Their bridge skill is much less likely to have an impact on the result when a psych takes place.

 

They might even go so far as to think "if you don't believe we can win by playing normally then you do not have very much respect for my game."

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[brianshark]

A psyche basically cuts your partner out of the auction. He is no longer in a position to make an informed call because you have decided that you are going solo in this one. I can think of no greater insult to your abilities as a bridge player than your partner openly declaring that, "I think we're better off if I bid this hand myself".

 

The only time it doesn't have as much of a personal statement of mistrust is within a regular partnership where an inherent trust in their abilities should already exist, and a bit of flamboyance "to let off steam" or whetever is ok if done about once every other year.

 

And there's nothing wrong with a partnership who are known to psyche more than normal. There's even a section on the WBF convention card where you are expected to note the frequency of your psyches. Something like 'never', 'rare', 'seldom' or 'occasional' I have seen from time to time.

 

Again, there's nothing illegal about a psyche, or even knowing that your partner psyches a lot. As long as the psyche isn't fielded, no law has been broken.

[hrothgar]

A psyche basically cuts your partner out of the auction. He is no longer in a position to make an informed call because you have decided that you are going solo in this one. I can think of no greater insult to your abilities as a bridge player than your partner openly declaring that, "I think we're better off if I bid this hand myself".

I think that this is a remarkably naive view.

 

Very few players psyche at random. For example, I don't recall ever seeing anyone psyche a 7NT opening. (I've seen plenty of frivolous 7NT openings tht are deliberately designed to punish partner, but that's a different story)

 

Most psyches occur at a point of time where partner has strictly limited his hand in some way.

 

Partner is a pass hand...

Partner has opened with a preempt...

Partner has made a limited opening bid...

 

You aren't cutting partner out of the auction. Your partner has alreayd done his job and describe his hand. This is what provides you with the information that you need to judge whether a psyche is likely to be successful.

[inquiry]

The second reason, in an individual, if you make your partner, let's say, very upset, at least you will get a new partner on the next hand (or two).

 

I am quite suprised at you here Ben, you are almost condoning behaviour that is likely to piss someone off and that is not good for BBO and is possibly a small factor in the bad behaviour issue we have on BBO especially an indy tourney????

 

I am still adamant, that while psyches are leagal and possibly fun when they work, if you have not even had the time to discuss with a pick up partner a system carding and what conventions you play (or at best a very basic one)

 

How on earth are you likely to build up a relationship with a pick up by psyching after a few hands, or are people rude enough that a pick up partner has no feelings and you can do what you like with them

 

I believe a lot of experts here state that psyches ruin trust in a partnership, how do you expect it to make a pick up partner feel

 

one of the experts here partnered me once and psyched after a few hands, I carried on bidding like an idiot and afterwards we got a shite result (the shite result did not bother me, but I did think to myself, that my pard was an idiot (at the time, not for psyching, but remotely expect some sort of result with a sub standard partner)) (that is not a long term view of that person btw)

Well Kiwi said, "who the hell would psyche in an Individual with an unknown partner anyway? "

 

This implies that if you were ever going to psyche, you would do so with a KNOWN partner. The implication that it is better, safer, saner to psyhe with a regular partner I found bothersome. The reaon being, a possible implication is that the psyche is safer with a known partner is that he is more likely to pick it up, hence, leaning towards a partnership agreement of sorts. I had a partner who would respond 1♠ after I opened a minor and they made a takeout double with or without spades. He did this a lot (F2F) so I began ALERTING his 1♠ bids, and his passes as well (as he bid 1♠ without spades only with support, so a pass carried some information). Eventually, he had to stop doing that.

 

So this is what I meant. There can be no "hidden" understanding of partners tendencies to psyche in an individual with a pick up partner.

 

also, in an individual, you are not really trying to establish a partnership. This has ntothing to do with that issue. And I don't get pissed off when my partners psyche, and I think this is true of most players. My comment was should you happen to get your partner irrate in an individual, they will not be stuck with you very long. If I was playign with a pickup partner in a regular tourmanent, where we had a lot of boards left, this obvioiusly would not be true.

 

As far as psyching, I think I can understand Freds veiw that HE CAN win playing down the middle. In fact, I hope to do so myself. But in an individual, you get good and bad results by just sitting there. No one knows what anyone else is doing. This is true of you and your partner and your opponents. In the later rounds, if you have been estimating your results (or if it is a baramoter), you may see that you need a good result to "win". After two passes to you, and you are weak, the time might be ripe for a psyche. It depends upon a lot of factors, and is not just meant to randomize the results, and of course not to "piss off" your partner. Of course, if it goes sour, you will not win, and who knows you may keep your partner from winning, but Individuals are, well, an individual event. You should do all you can within the rules to try to win. If you think a psyche on a given board gives you the best chance to win (and psyches are not illegal by TD rule), then it is a psyche you should do.

[hrothgar]

As far as psyching, I think I can understand Freds view that HE CAN win playing down the middle. In fact, I hope to do so myself.

I'll go a bit further and point out the following:

 

Fred probably has a very good chance of winning by playing down the middle. However, Fred's the shark in the pool. He's a nice friendly shark, but he's a hell of a lot better than most of us. Lets assume that you are entering a 22 table section. All other things being equal, there is about a 1/22 chance that you're the best in the field.

 

That means that there is (roughly) a 21 in 22 chance that your decision to play down the middle is benefiting someone else. Decreasing variance and playing down the middle is the best way to ensure that the sharks are going to be able to emerge on top.

[1eyedjack]

Why on earth should any player regard a psychic bid by his partner as rude or some sort of personal affront?

Many players (including me) like to employ a general strategy of playing down the middle in the hope that an opportunity will arise later in the hand in which their bidding judgment or play/defense skill will give them an opportunity to get a good result by making a superior decision to other players holding the same cards who faced the same decision.

 

In my view it is not unreasonable for such player to resent it when partner openers 1S in first position with a doubleton spade and 5 HCP (for example). They might (correctly) think that such an action puts the partnership's result on the deal largely at the mercy of random factors beyond their control. Their bridge skill is much less likely to have an impact on the result when a psych takes place.

 

They might even go so far as to think "if you don't believe we can win by playing normally then you do not have very much respect for my game."

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

There is no shortage of top class players who occasionally psyche. Zia, for example? Do they do it because they are dismissive of their partner's ability to go average plus on the hand on skill alone? I think they do it because the sniff the prevailing wind and detect a whiff of opportunity that occurs but rarely.

 

Also, I ask myself, against which opponents would I rather be sitting ... A pair who know that I never psyche and can take comfort in the predictability of my hand falling within announced parameters, or a pair who forever have a niggling doubt that I might not have the hand described? Personally I would rather invoke an element of discomfort, even if in practice I might psyche very rarely.

 

But your point is well made: If you are a world class pair, perhaps you do not need ever to psyche. For us lesser mortals, particularly when we know we are sitting against players who on paper are better, and in a case where second place wins no prizes, the technique may, depending on the situation, have some merit.

[fred]

Decreasing variance and playing down the middle is the best way to ensure that the sharks are going to be able to emerge on top.

Maybe, but I suspect that many people who get satisfaction of out winning the games they play largely due to randomness are already busy playing bingo.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[hotShot]

Well suppose w/r the bidding was: pass - pass

and you hold x xx xx QJxxxxxx.

 

You can bid 3/4/5♣ or you can psyche e.g. 1NT planing to run to 2/3/4♣ if necessary. Both decisions are are made without involving partner much, both decisions are made expecting partner to pass.

 

Why should one be ok while the other one is shows disrespect for partner?

 

But after 1NT opps might not reach their best spot, while a club preempt might tell them that they must have a fit and good combined strength.

 

This is not randomness and this has nothing to do with disrespect to partner.

[hrothgar]

Decreasing variance and playing down the middle is the best way to ensure that the sharks are going to be able to emerge on top.

Maybe, but I suspect that many people who get satisfaction of out winning the games they play largely due to randomness are already busy playing bingo.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

This seems to pre-suppose that there's no skill involved in knowing how/when one should roll the dice...

 

Games like Bingo or, for that matter, traditional children's games like "Chutes and Ladders", "Candyland", and "War" are complete random. There is no decision making or strategy involved.

 

In contrast, the decision whether to play with or against the field simply another dimension to bridge strategies. Any number of authors have pointed out examples where players should take a sub-optimal line on an individual hand in order to increase their chances of winning an event. The classic example is (probably) Kit Woolsey's discussion about taking a finesse of playing for the drop holding an eight card spade fit missing the Queen.

 

Admitted, one can argue whether players who aren't good enough to win events playing down the middle necessarily have the necessary judgement to determine whether they should be psyching. However, I'm pretty sure that I can find some "core" where these types of strategies are valid.

[pbleighton]

"Maybe, but I suspect that many people who get satisfaction of out winning the games they play largely due to randomness are already busy playing bingo."

 

A tiny sample, but I hate bingo :P

 

Peter

[fred]

Well suppose w/r the bidding was: pass - pass

and you hold x xx xx QJxxxxxx.

 

You can bid 3/4/5♣ or you can psyche e.g. 1NT planing to run to 2/3/4♣ if necessary. Both decisions are are made without involving partner much, both decisions are made expecting partner to pass.

 

Why should one be ok while the other one is shows disrespect for partner?

 

But after 1NT opps might not reach their best spot, while a club preempt might tell them that they must have a fit and good combined strength.

 

This is not randomness and this has nothing to do with disrespect to partner.

This difference is that, if you open with some club preempt, you are giving your partner an accurate description of your hand and allowing his judgment to come into play with respect to determining the result you achieve.

 

When you open 1NT (or whatever) you are taking your partner's judgment out of the equation.

 

I am not saying that I think it is appropriate or productive to let such things bother you at the table, but I can certainly understand not wanting to play with a partner (or teammates) that like to play this way.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[fred]

Admitted, one can argue whether players who aren't good enough to win events playing down the middle necessarily have the necessary judgement to determine whether they should be psyching. However, I'm pretty sure that I can some "core" where these types of strategies are valid.

I am not sure you are saying this, but if you are saying "some psychs rate to work more often than not" I agree with you.

 

The problem is that, in my opinion, there are only a few such psychs (the 3rd seat 1NT opening with a weak hand, a long suit, and opponents who play DONT for example). If you start to use these few effective psychs on a regular basis then you are not psyching anymore - the psych has become part of your system.

 

And if you decide to go outside the realm of psychs that are well known to be effective you will be entering the realm of randomness.

 

Maybe its better to spend you time and energy trying to improve to the point that you are capable of winning by playing down the middle?

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[pbleighton]

"Maybe its better to spend you time and energy trying to improve to the point that you are capable of winning by playing down the middle?"

 

LEARN HOW TO PLAY DEFENSE?

 

YOU'VE GOT TO BE KIDDING!

 

Peter

[cherdano]

Admitted, one can argue whether players who aren't good enough to win events playing down the middle necessarily have the necessary judgement to determine whether they should be psyching.  However, I'm pretty sure that I can some "core" where these types of strategies are valid.

I am not sure you are saying this, but if you are saying "some psychs rate to work more often than not" I agree with you.

I think what Richard is talking about are psychs that, while having a negative expected average outcome (lose more often than they gain), increase the chance of winning the event by increasing the variation of our own score.

 

In my opinion, these situations are extremely extremely rare outside bridge books and barometer matches on BBO (and anyway I prefer to come in 3rd three times rather than win once and end in the middle of the pack the other two times, especially if it means I can play bridge all of these times instead of playing lottery).

 

Arend

[hotShot]

This difference is that, if you open with some club preempt, you are giving your partner an accurate description of your hand and allowing his judgment to come into play with respect to determining the result you achieve.

 

When you open 1NT (or whatever) you are taking your partner's judgment out of the equation.

 

I am not saying that I think it is appropriate or productive to let such things bother you at the table, but I can certainly understand not wanting to play with a partner (or teammates) that like to play this way.

Sometimes a player has to make a decision, based of the facts he has (up to know). He will select the best action he can think of, using his judgment.

 

How do you call partners aggressive game bid?

How do you call it, when your partner goes for slam?

How do you call it, when partner decides to sacrifice?

How do you call it, when partner decides to make a penalty double?

 

In all these cases, your partner uses his own judgment do decide the partnerships fate.

The same could happen with preempts and psyches.

 

It can mean that partners judgment is poor or worse, maybe it proves that partner is bigheaded, selfish and/or arrogant, but I think it's a bit touchy to think that it shows disrespect to you.

[fred]

How do you call partners aggressive game bid?

How do you call it, when your partner goes for slam?

How do you call it, when partner decides to sacrifice?

How do you call it, when partner decides to make a penalty double?

 

In all these cases, your partner uses his own judgment do decide the partnerships fate.

The same could happen with preempts and psyches.

The difference is that, in the situations you describe, the player in question is either forced to make a final decision for the partnership, he thinks he has enough information to make the winning final decision for the partnership, or he thinks that trying to gain more information and/or enlisting partner's judgment is not going to help.

 

The kind of psychs we have been talking about do not (or at least should not) fall into any of these categories.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[hotShot]

"...

he thinks that trying to gain more information and/or enlisting partner's judgment is not going to help."

 

I thought my example was fitting this category.

Usually BBO or f2f player find less subtle ways, to express disrespect to their partners.

 

I think our views on this are closer together than it appears in this discussion.

[awm]

Obviously there is some luck in bridge (even duplicate). The existence of a luck factor gives inferior players a chance to win. For example, if I were to play chess against Kasparov I would lose. He is a much better chess player, and there is no luck in chess. We could play a hundred times and I would lose every time. But if I were to play bridge against the world champion italians, there is some chance I would win. I'd bet that if we played a hundred short matches (say 6 boards each) my team would win a few times despite being inferior players. This is the beauty of bridge, and one of the nice things about a game with some luck involved.

 

Of course, if you're the best player (or pair) in a given field you'd be more likely to win if there was less luck. But for most of us who are not the best, there is some advantage to trying to increase the amount of randomness in the game provided I can do it without significantly hurting my average score. After all, the more luck there is, the more likely an inferior player can win. I don't think there's anything "wrong" or "unethical" about trying to increase the randomness as long as it's done with improving your chances in mind (rather than just out of malice).

 

The occasional psych, frequent tactical bid (say preempting a level more or less than normal with your hand), and choice of non-mainstream methods has this kind of an effect in bridge.