Psychic Bids vs. Disclosure

[BurnKryten]

I psych with greater frequency than most players on BBO, and some of my partners are well aware of situations where I am more likely to psych. In the interests of full disclosure, I currently alert two situations with one of my partners who has played a large number of hands with me:

 

Pass - Pass - Pass (1)

 

1) Alerted as "Very likely to not have a bust hand"

 

 

Pass - Pass - 1X (2)

 

2) Alerted as "Occassionally psychic in this position"

 

 

I do my best to mix up the psychics to avoid my partners picking up on my tendencies. Sometimes I bid a short suit, sometimes a long one, sometimes a balanced hand. The difficulty is that certain situations greatly increase the chances that a psych will work (for example, two passes to me, and I'm holding a terrible hand).

 

Any thoughts on my efforts at disclosure? I want my opponents to have the information they are legally and ethically entitled to, but I don't want them to be misled by my efforts at disclosure. Perhaps a second question would be: Is it ethical to psych more frequently in positions where (in my opinion) it is likely to work?

 

John

[Trpltrbl]

I psych with greater frequency than most players on BBO, and some of my partners are well aware of situations where I am more likely to psych. In the interests of full disclosure, I currently alert two situations with one of my partners who has played a large number of hands with me:

 

Pass - Pass - Pass (1)

 

1) Alerted as "Very likely to not have a bust hand"

 

 

Pass - Pass - 1X (2)

 

2) Alerted as "Occassionally psychic in this position"

 

 

I do my best to mix up the psychics to avoid my partners picking up on my tendencies. Sometimes I bid a short suit, sometimes a long one, sometimes a balanced hand. The difficulty is that certain situations greatly increase the chances that a psych will work (for example, two passes to me, and I'm holding a terrible hand).

 

Any thoughts on my efforts at disclosure? I want my opponents to have the information they are legally and ethically entitled to, but I don't want them to be misled by my efforts at disclosure. Perhaps a second question would be: Is it ethical to psych more frequently in positions where (in my opinion) it is likely to work?

 

John

As long as your pd bids as if you have a regular opening. And alerting your opps that you might have a psych, you cannot do. What you can do is prealert your opps before you start playing that these are the type of sistuations you like to psyche in. But you lose most of the positive part of having a psych. And I think your biggest problem is when pd starts adjusting for your possible psych, that is illegal. And maybe try to win at bridge with regular bidding ;) Don't see many psyches at high level competiton, wonder why <_<

 

Mike :D

[Free]

I have a problem with all this psychic bidding and disclosure issues. If some psyche acures more often than others, and it becomes even a regular situation, can't you play it anymore?

 

Just to give an example:

1H - Dbl - 1S where 1S doesn't promisse spades

 

If my partner knows that this can be with or without spades, and he alerts it, is it forbidden or not? Because you show as much information as possible, but it seems like a systemic protected psych...

[Trpltrbl]

I have a problem with all this psychic bidding and disclosure issues.  If some psyche acures more often than others, and it becomes even a regular situation, can't you play it anymore?

 

Just to give an example:

1H - Dbl - 1S where 1S doesn't promisse spades

 

If my partner knows that this can be with or without spades, and he alerts it, is it forbidden or not?  Because you show as much information as possible, but it seems like a systemic protected psych...

Question is going to be what pd will do, if he has 4-5-2-2 and let's say an 18 count ? Or a hand where he would bid 4 SP if you actually never have psyched before and he takes you for real spades. As long as he bids like you have real spades it is ok, but if not ;)

I guess you can make it systematic, with opener relaying to find out if you really have spades or not, but what is the point of psyching then <_<

 

Mike :D

[hrothgar]

Here’s my own thought’s about psyches: Take ‘em for what they’re worth:

 

The first thing that players need to understand is that psyche’s are NOT random. No one “psyches” a 7NT opening. Few players psyche in second seat. Rather, most players who like to psyche (myself included) have a set of rules that suggest good opportunities to mix up the auction a little. For example, my third seat 1NT openings white versus red are suspect. Same with my NT overcalls opposite a passed hand partner, third seat major suit openings, 3N bids following a major suit opening, …(the list goes on).

 

The second thing that players need to understand is the concept of a “mixed” strategy equilibrium. Much of my formal academic work was in a field called “Game Theory”. Game Theory is a branch of Economics that studies constrained optimization in multi-player systems. Game Theory distinguishes between “pure” strategies and “mixed” strategies. Pure strategies are deterministic. A player who adopts a pure strategy will always follow the same line of play. In contrast, a mixed strategy incorporates random elements:

 

As a very simple example, suppose that we are going to play the “coin matching” game. Two players agree that they will simultaneously place a coin face down on the table.

 

If the two coins match - both coins are heads or both are tails - player A keeps the coins. If the two coins don’t match - one coin is heads and the other is tails – player B keeps the coins.

 

Suppose that either player adopted a “pure” strategy: For example, assume that player A decided that he would always play Heads. In this case, player B could very easily optimize around this by always playing tails and winning.

 

It turns out that the equilibrium strategy is for each player to randomly decide whether to play heads or tails. Furthermore, each player will weight the two choices 50-50, choosing heads precisely 50% of the time and choosing tails the other 50%.

 

Now that this little diversion is over and done with:

 

I argue that there is no-such thing as a psyche. Rather, players who chose to psyche are experimenting with mixed strategies. Furthermore, I strongly believe that the regulatory structure needs to be adjust to allow for this type of behavior. Today many Zonal authorities create impossible dilemma’s where they allow psyches but forbid players to adequate divulge their methods. The whole situation is completely unworkable.

[lenze]

When I started this game, over 30 years ago, I, too, was intrigued with psyches. It was fun to get a TOP because we had snookered an opponent. Fortunately, I had some great mentors who taught me that a psyche was a tool of the weak player. One who could not evaluate his hand, bid accurately, or defend or declare well. This does not mean there is no place in the game for a well timed psyche, but to be effective, it must be very rare. Pysching can be fun, but it is generally, not good bridge.

[hrothgar]

When I started this game, over 30 years ago, I, too, was intrigued with psyches. It was fun to get a TOP because we had snookered an opponent. Fortunately, I had some great mentors who taught me that a psyche was a tool of the weak player. One who could not evaluate his hand, bid accurately, or defend or declare well. This does not mean there is no place in the game for a well timed psyche, but to be effective, it must be very rare. Pysching can be fun, but it is generally, not good bridge.

This is a great philosophy if you have the luxury of ensuring that you are significantly better at bidding/declarer play/defense than all the folks that you compete against.

 

However, my understanding is that this simply isn't true at the top levels of the game. There are a small number of "true" artisans such Geir Helgemo or Benito Garazzo who truly excel at card play. However, at the top level the bulk of the swings boil down to bidding system, luck, and the occassional careless mistake.

 

Personally, I don't think that I'll ever compete at the top levels. My brain isn't wired right for that level of declarer play or defense. With this said and done, I do find system design extremely interesting. Furthermore, I firmly believe that designing an "optimal" bidding system can generate significant positive results even in this day and age. Finally, I am firmly convinced that mixed strategy equilibria are a very necessary component of any well designed system.

 

Striving to play mechanically and praying that your opponent's screw up doesn't make for a particularly interesting game. Far better to force the opponents to make mistakes and reap your just rewards.

[Trpltrbl]

When I started this game, over 30 years ago, I, too, was intrigued with psyches. It was fun to get a TOP because we had snookered an opponent. Fortunately, I had some great mentors who taught me that a psyche was a tool of the weak player. One who could not evaluate his hand, bid accurately, or defend or declare well. This does not mean there is no place in the game for a well timed psyche, but to be effective, it must be very rare. Pysching can be fun, but it is generally, not good bridge.

I totaly agree.

 

Mike :D

[Free]

"a psyche was a tool of the weak player"

 

I don't agree. Why do beginners NEVER psyche, and advanced+ players do???

 

"One who could not evaluate his hand, bid accurately, or defend or declare well"

 

I don't agree. Bridge is a bidders game, and if partner passed, you should try to bid, and deal as much damage as possible if you don't have anything to play. Evaluation of the hand, declaring or defending has nothing to do with it, psyching is used to mess up your opps bidding, or help your own bidding so they don't find the good defense.

If you have 0 HCP and complete garbage NV vs V, partner and RHO passed, then you don't need to be bad to conclude opps have a game to play. So evaluation is still fine imo. So we bid something and see where it gets us. If opps still find their contract, then we still defend like nothing happened (partner will notice I dont have anything), and if opps let us play, we are not afraid to declare for -3 (or -5 if they have slam).

 

"This does not mean there is no place in the game for a well timed psyche, but to be effective, it must be very rare"

 

Agree, but make it just "rare". You don't have to psych every 3 boards imo, once in 30 or more should be enough imo.

 

"Pysching can be fun"

 

It IS fun.

 

"but it is generally, not good bridge"

 

I don't agree completely. It's good bridge if it works, it's not good bridge if it doesn't work. So it depends on how often psychic bids work for you. If you lose more than you win, stop it, but if you win more you should continue to do it...

[lenze]

This is a great philosophy if you have the luxury of ensuring that you are significantly better at bidding/declarer play/defense than all the folks that you compete against.

 

If that wasn't true, I wouldn't be playing :D

[inquiry]

Psyches are, and should be, a part of the game. But they enter a randomness into the game which is distasteful to some. I will share my view on psyhes.

 

First, when you are likely will win (either you are the best pair in the field, or you already have a great game), to psyche and risk a disaster is silly. Second, when you are so far out of an event already (maybe because of a psyche that went bad earlier), to psyche is basically "uneithical" in my view. By this, I mean if you have two rounds to play and you are clearly in last place or deep in the bottom half, and even four good boards will not drag you up to middle of the pack, I would never pyshe then.

 

Now, imagine a barameter game where I know I am close to winning but need a one more swing. A normal result will not help, here I am much more likely to do something odd (this could be a psych, or an intential underbid, overbid, frisky double, or anti-percentage line of play). That is, I pyche when if it works, it will help me place in the overall standing in an event.

 

Now earlier in an event, where I am roughly equal, my psyches are when I think I have less of a chance of partner hanging me. So first and second seat psyches are rare (but do occur). I guess if you ignore very light third seat opening bids (protecting partner) or opening preempts on 5 card suits as not being "psyches", I probably psyche about once every 40 hands or so, although I have not kept statstics.

 

And here is something I like... I like opponents who NEVER psyche... they make my life SOOOO much easier. I get into more trouble when I assume my opponents MUST have psyched than probably other people, becasue I always assume that opponents bids MIGHT be a psyche.

 

Ben

[Trpltrbl]

"a psyche was a tool of the weak player"

 

I don't agree. Why do beginners NEVER psyche, and advanced+ players do???

 

"One who could not evaluate his hand, bid accurately, or defend or declare well"

 

I don't agree. Bridge is a bidders game, and if partner passed, you should try to bid, and deal as much damage as possible if you don't have anything to play. Evaluation of the hand, declaring or defending has nothing to do with it, psyching is used to mess up your opps bidding, or help your own bidding so they don't find the good defense.

My opinion is that destructive bidding, aka psyching, is only for players who really don't think their skills are going to get them where they need to go. With other words if you can't beat them with normal, regular bridge they have to do it some other way. And that is big reason why organisation frown upon psyching.

And I am not talking about have a few points less then what you should have for opening a hand. But the complete destructive psyches, pretty soon they might be completly banned. :D

 

And the reasons why beginners don't psyche, is because they don't know what it is, and they will as soon as they get psyched against the first time.

And the advanced players do it because they are getting frustrated that they don't have the skils to beat the experts. :D

And I have not seen an expert psyche in a very long time, still wondering why :D

 

Mike :D

[inquiry]

And I have not seen an expert psyche in a very long time, still wondering why

 

Let me be the first to start what might be an avalanche of examples of expert players psyching in topflight events. I will just give two examples from recent bermuda bowls... One hand, a polish player opened 1NT in third chair (not surpisingly not vul) 1NT when holding a bunch of hearts and out... something like xx, Kxxxxxx, xx, xx

 

A few years ago, Meckstroth made a great responding psych in the FINALS of a Bemuda Bowl when he responded 1S with something like S-xx H-xx D-Kxxx C-xxxxx to his partner's 1H opening bid. Everything was perfect for this psych. He was not vul, his partner was limited by the 1H opening bid (precision). His vul oppoennts had their suit picked off by the psych and he got to play 3C when 3NT makes.

 

The list could be longer of course, but I don't keep a list of psychs at hand unless they are something unusual about them that i want to remember so I can use them myself.

 

Ben

[Trpltrbl]

And I have not seen an expert psyche in a very long time, still wondering why

 

Let me be the first to start what might be an avalanche of examples of expert players psyching in topflight events. I will just give two examples from recent bermuda bowls... One hand, a polish player opened 1NT in third chair (not surpisingly not vul) 1NT when holding a bunch of hearts and out... something like xx, Kxxxxxx, xx, xx

 

A few years ago, Meckstroth made a great responding psych in the FINALS of a Bemuda Bowl when he responded 1S with something like S-xx H-xx D-Kxxx C-xxxxx to his partner's 1H opening bid. Everything was perfect for this psych. He was not vul, his partner was limited by the 1H opening bid (precision). His vul oppoennts had their suit picked off by the psych and he got to play 3C when 3NT makes.

 

Ben

I don't say they never do, but with Meckstroth you had to go back several years. And his psyche was a lot easier playing Precision, were his pd is limited so he couldn't get in to much trouble. And that kinda psyching is also not destructive, since his pd opened and he did have some points. He just lied a litte about the amount of spades he had B)

 

Mike :D

[inquiry]

Well, I certainly don't remember every pscyh I see people make. I have seen a lot of them, by a lot of players. Fred Gilteman even psyched against me a couple of months ago in a B/I forum event called "thinking with fred" (a hand witnessed by more than 200 kibitizers and discussed elsewhere in this forum, link below). Clearly FRED is better than me, so by your rules, why would he be pscyhing? I remember the Meckstroth hand specifically, because I played precsion at the time and I adopted that psych as a weapon with some good success (and one miserable failures). I remember the polish hand because it causes a stir on rgb.

 

As far as the quality of the psych, there are all kinds... The psyched cue-bid showing a control when one is lacking, the psych exclusion card blackwood (or splinter) without shortness, that can be made with fairly good hands.

 

I will agree to only a few things about what is wrong with psyches...

1) In social bridge, it is not a good idea to psych. What is the point.

2) Psycihing conventional bids, particularily opening bids, is not a good idea (and is often banned)

3) Too frequent psyching is bad for the game (some people feel like they have to psych when not vul because bidding is the right thing to do in that situation)

4) Psyching when you are out of the running in an event is clealy wrong

5) Psyching where your partner has a much greater chance of catching your pysch due t past history is not ethical.

 

With those caveats, the psych can be a great weapon in the hands of a pro. I will ot do a search of bb hands to find all the psyches but there were plenty. But I will provide a link the psych thaf Fred sapped me and john good with....

http://forums.bridgebase.com/in...st=0entry8133

 

The board in question was board 9, and "Fred's thoughts" were typed in to the kibitizer. Note the perfect hand for the psych. The vul was right, he knew we could make game, and he might make it hard for us to figure out the hand belong to us. Do expert psych? Yup, and here is a great example of picking the time when to do it.

 

Ben

[EricK]

With regards to psyching and the strength of the participants.

 

Better players will beat worse players in the long run, but to do well in an event, they sometimes have to beat them in the short run as well.

 

If the hands are not conducive to standard expert skill, then how are a good team going to beat a slightly worse team?

 

One way might be with a well timed psyche.

 

Eric

[Trpltrbl]

I will agree to only a few things about what is wrong with psyches...

 

2) Psyching conventional bids, particularily opening bids, is not a good idea (and is often banned)

As far as I know psyching a conventional bid is illegal.

 

Mike B)

[inquiry]

I will agree to only a few things about what is wrong with psyches...

 

2) Psyching conventional bids, particularily opening bids, is not a good idea (and is often banned)

As far as I know psyching a conventional bid is illegal.

 

Mike B)

Well, this isn't exactly true. You can psych plenty of conventional bids, although some are specifically banned. You can not psych a "strong forcing opening bid" like a precision 1C, GF 2C, benjamin 2D, acol 2Bid. I think I remember where Multi 2D is allowed (not legal in plenty of ACBL events), you can't psych that. But other "conventional" calls are psyched... things like flannery, splinters, 2NT "strong and forcing" to a weak two bid, exclusion blackwood, etc to name a few.

 

I should have added one more don't. I don't think it is proper to psych against beginners or novices.

 

Ben

[the hog]

And I am not talking about have a few points less then what you should have for opening a hand. But the complete destructive psyches, pretty soon they might be completly banned.

 

In that case you won't be playing Bridge. Psyches are a perfectly legitimate and serious weapon. Also Lenze's assertion that it is the "tool of a weak player" is just plain silly when you have a look at the top players who do psyche and when they do it.

[Trpltrbl]

I will agree to only a few things about what is wrong with psyches...

 

2) Psyching conventional bids, particularily opening bids, is not a good idea (and is often banned)

As far as I know psyching a conventional bid is illegal.

 

Mike B)

Well, this isn't exactly true. You can psych plenty of conventional bids, although some are specifically banned. You can not psych a "strong forcing opening bid" like a precision 1C, GF 2C, benjamin 2D, acol 2Bid. I think I remember where Multi 2D is allowed (not legal in plenty of ACBL events), you can't psych that. But other "conventional" calls are psyched... things like flannery, splinters, 2NT "strong and forcing" to a weak two bid, exclusion blackwood, etc to name a few.

 

I should have added one more don't. I don't think it is proper to psych against beginners or novices.

 

Ben

Oops I ment opening bids.

 

Mike :D

[lenze]

Also Lenze's assertion that it is the "tool of a weak player" is just plain silly when you have a look at the top players who do psyche and when the do it.

 

I must admit that I have been out out the tournament world for over 15 years, so I may be ignorant on modern day "Experts". But I did have the chance to play against and with some of the best players ever. (Oswald Jacoby, Jim Jacoby, Barry Crane. Bob Hamman, Bobby Wolf, Dr. Fisher, Mike Passell, Curtis Smith, etc). Never once did I EVER see one these greats psyche.!!

[the hog]

With all due respect Lenze, some of the names you mention would not make my personal list of the 200 world's best ever. I am surprised you left out someone whom I am sure you would would have played against - Meyer Schleiffer, who would, I believe, make the list as a bridge player's bridge player. Perhaps this is the topic of another thread - who would you rank as the top 50 of all time?

 

Getting back to the topic - a player who never psyches leaves himself too open. Your bids need to be tinged with an air of doubt!

[lenze]

Just curious!. Who, on my list, would you exclude from the top 200?

 

BTW; To my knowledge, I never had the privilage to play against Meyer Schleiffer

[inquiry]

I certainly don't want to get into a ranking top 200 players of all times, and so I wouldn't want to propose anyone names. However, since Ron suggested NONE on Lenze's list would make the top 200, I just have to take some exceptions to that.

 

Barry arguably was THE BEST matchpoint player of all time. I think his record given his many different partners and playing while holding down a full time job is unparrallel.

 

Oswald was clearly among the very best players of his era, and come on, Bob H has to be on everyones top 200 of all time list.

 

Ben

[irdoz]

TheHog (Ron)

"With all due respect Lenze, some of the names you mention would not make my personal list of the 200 world's best ever."

 

Inquiry

"However, since Ron suggested NONE on Lenze's list would make the top 200"

 

Hmmm.