I need expert TD advice

[NickRW]

I believe that folks attitude towards psyches is primarily a social convention. Their attitude is determined by the environment in which they start playing. If beginners are bombarded with messages that state that psyches are equivalent to cheating they will internalize this belief.

I think this is spot on.

 

I do not buy the notion that permitting psyches in and of itself acts to empty out clubs through annoyance to the opps. I do buy the notion that people have certain beliefs about what is good/proper bridge and (some) tend to be intolerant of ideas which deviate from that.

 

I myself learnt bridge while still at school. Being young and, in particular because of having a maverick on the team, psyches other bids that simply seemed to be a bit "on the edge" was part of what I grew up with. As a consequence, if I get taken for a ride by an unexpected bid, or a bid which turned out to be different to what I expected - well I might be a bit miffed if the result is poor for me, but I'm not going to be crying off to the director.

 

As another illustration of this, I play with my partners (kids) no blackwood or any ace asking convention. It seemed to me that arguments over what is and what is not blackwood just too much trouble to teach to beginners. Instead I taught cue bidding. As a result of this, especially if we maybe have a grand on, cue bidding can occupy sometimes 2.5 whole levels of bidding and go on for lots of rounds. This is not in any way psyching, or indeed doing anything else that others don't do - we just do a lot of it. At the local club opps run out of pass cards. Some of them suffer in silence. Others get really quite rude about what they see as "unconventional" or "time consuming". One even goes into a fit of gleeful giggling. Obviously they don't like it and I am probably doing the club atmosphere a disservice. But where does this problem come from? From the fact that we are wrong in some bridge sense? Well, at the level of that club certainly not - we find more slams than almost any other pair. Are we doing something illegal? Again obviously not. I think it is simply that we do something that is outside of what is expected/taught - or at least that is how I see it.

 

So - if zero tolerance - or what ever label is used to justify it - includes banning or even frowning on (probably genuine) psyches - then I think the policy itself is to blame. Unfortunately it seems to have become a cultural, ingrained thing in some places.

 

Nick

[barmar]

Hrothgar said "Stop teaching players that psyches are unethical"

 

Does this really happen, or are we referring to the pressure against psyching, whether it be this "2 psych limit", or "no-psych tourneys" ?

I also wonder whether anyone is explicitly taught anything, positive or negative, about psyches. I'm of the impression that the notion is completely unmentioned during formal bridge lessons.

 

When we teach bridge, we explain that bidding is a language. We teach students how to speak and understand that language. They learn to listen to the bidding and make inferences. It's simple: you bid X, that means you have Y.

 

No one ever tells them the caveat: except when you lie. As far as most of these players can tell, the bidding system they learned is part of the rules of the game. The closest anyone ever comes to teaching about psyching is to explain that sometimes you have a hand for which no bid is adequate, and you have to find the closest approximation. This isn't really a lie, it's just stretching the truth.

 

Over time they learn about other small digressions, like opening light in 3rd seat, or preempting with fewer cards in the suit than they were originally taught. But still, psyches are rarely mentioned.

 

So is it any wonder that when they encounter them in the "real world", they seem totally foreign and out of place? No one ever told them you can make a bold faced lie.

[hrothgar]

Hrothgar said "Stop teaching players that psyches are unethical"

 

Does this really happen, or are we referring to the pressure against psyching, whether it be this "2 psych limit", or "no-psych tourneys" ?

Does anyone have a copy of any of the old Don Oakie opinions that were featured so prominently in the Bulletin years back?

[jdonn]

Hrothgar said "Stop teaching players that psyches are unethical"

 

Does this really happen, or are we referring to the pressure against psyching, whether it be this "2 psych limit", or "no-psych tourneys" ?

Does anyone have a copy of any of the old Don Oakie opinions that were featured so prominently in the Bulletin years back?

This may well be, but I think the belief that psychs are not ethical more of a myth that perpetuates in home games and kitchens when people learn from their parents and neighbors. My strong suspicion is the thinking that psychs should be or are illegal is influenced very little by anything the ACBL or bridge clubs or bridge teachers do.

[blackshoe]

Don Oakie did conduct a very vocal, and very public, crusade against psychs. It seems highly unlikely to me that this had little impact on the players of the day, many of whom are still around.

[helene_t]

I don't recognize this negative attitude towards psychs. Of the nine cases I recall, two seemed to annoy at least one player. In one case it was because of a (somewhat justified) suspension of a concealed agreement. The other was at the Dutch StepBridge online bridge site when I psyched a strong 2♣ opening.

 

I am not sure why so many online TDs ban psyches. Maybe psyches are less tollerated in other countries than the ones I have played in. Maybe it is an attempt to get rid of the "sabotage bids" which are probably much more of a problem online than IRL.

[blackshoe]

Perhaps there's an attitude of "I'm playing online, so it doesn't count, so I can do whatever I want" on the part of some players, so they misuse or overuse psychs. Or perhaps they're just idiots. :D

[jillybean]

Perhaps there's an attitude of "I'm playing online, so it doesn't count, so I can do whatever I want" on the part of some players, so they misuse or overuse psychs. Or perhaps they're just idiots. :D

I dont think this is the case, atleast not in my experience of running 'psyche encouraged' games on BBO and that of another TD who permits psyches; we have not seen an excessive number of psyches at all. its worth noting that forcing bids,unusual bids, bad bids turned lucky are all often called psyches. Look at the 3♣ psyche at the start of this thread.

 

Speaking from personal experience, I think people have a hard time grasping why a player should be allowed to make an outright lie when making a bid AND then tell opponents another lie when asked what the bid means.

[blackshoe]

Whoa! Back up! Explaining the actual agreed meaning of a call is not a lie, whether the hand matches the agreement or not.

[barmar]

Whoa! Back up! Explaining the actual agreed meaning of a call is not a lie, whether the hand matches the agreement or not.

I think many players have a hard time understanding that explanation requirements don't change just because you're self-explaining. I suspect their intuition is that since your partner doesn't see the explanation, you really have to explain truthfully.

 

Thus, when you psyche, you're both lying in the bid and lying in the explanation. How many lies are they supposed to tolerate at once? B)

[Rossoneri]

I think this is spot on.

 

I do not buy the notion that permitting psyches in and of itself acts to empty out clubs through annoyance to the opps. I do buy the notion that people have certain beliefs about what is good/proper bridge and (some) tend to be intolerant of ideas which deviate from that.

 

I myself learnt bridge while still at school. Being young and, in particular because of having a maverick on the team, psyches other bids that simply seemed to be a bit "on the edge" was part of what I grew up with. As a consequence, if I get taken for a ride by an unexpected bid, or a bid which turned out to be different to what I expected - well I might be a bit miffed if the result is poor for me, but I'm not going to be crying off to the director.

 

As another illustration of this, I play with my partners (kids) no blackwood or any ace asking convention. It seemed to me that arguments over what is and what is not blackwood just too much trouble to teach to beginners. Instead I taught cue bidding. As a result of this, especially if we maybe have a grand on, cue bidding can occupy sometimes 2.5 whole levels of bidding and go on for lots of rounds. This is not in any way psyching, or indeed doing anything else that others don't do - we just do a lot of it. At the local club opps run out of pass cards. Some of them suffer in silence. Others get really quite rude about what they see as "unconventional" or "time consuming". One even goes into a fit of gleeful giggling. Obviously they don't like it and I am probably doing the club atmosphere a disservice. But where does this problem come from? From the fact that we are wrong in some bridge sense? Well, at the level of that club certainly not - we find more slams than almost any other pair. Are we doing something illegal? Again obviously not. I think it is simply that we do something that is outside of what is expected/taught - or at least that is how I see it.

 

So - if zero tolerance - or what ever label is used to justify it - includes banning or even frowning on (probably genuine) psyches - then I think the policy itself is to blame. Unfortunately it seems to have become a cultural, ingrained thing in some places.

 

Nick

Good to see that at least someone is teaching the kids right in slam bidding!

 

I am somewhat confused. According to what I found on ACBL's website: http://www.acbl.org/play/zeroTolerance.html, it does not appear that psychs have anything to do with Zero Tolerance? Is this a case of something being abused/misused? (much like Blackwood?)

 

Or is everyone talking about some other Zero Tolerance that I am unaware of?

[mycroft]

First, just to add my oar to the dreaded "e" argument: the only legal term is Psychic Call (or Play). Neither psych or psyche are correct :-)

 

On topic, I see nothing wrong with "on and after the second psychic call by a player in <length of time - I think one session is pretty small, really, even though one partner and I, back when disclosing psychic tendencies was on the card, we had Frequent checked *and circled a couple of times*; once a session, each, was about average>, the onus is on the player to justify the call to the TD to avoid discipline". I don't mind reporting/recording psychics; provided the list isn't a "three strikes and you're out" thing in fact if not in name, but is used to show pattern or partnership knowledge of tendencies for later "this isn't really a psychic any more, is it?" rulings (Good luck with this one, though!)

 

Speaking of psychics, though, the last one I did, I'm embarrassed about, because I looked at my LHO before opening a ferdinand 1H; had he been playing with his 800 MP wife as always, everything would have been fine and them fair game. However, he was playing with his 4 MP son...Oops. I apologized afterward.

[Cascade]

Speaking of psychics, though, the last one I did, I'm embarrassed about, because I looked at my LHO before opening a ferdinand 1H; had he been playing with his 800 MP wife as always, everything would have been fine and them fair game. However, he was playing with his 4 MP son...Oops. I apologized afterward.

Why didn't you consider the son was worth educating?

 

This attitude seems incredibly patronizing to me.

[NickRW]

Speaking of psychics, though, the last one I did, I'm embarrassed about, because I looked at my LHO before opening a ferdinand 1H;

Er, don't understand "ferdinand 1H" - one mention of on the forums - but no definition.

 

It isn't rhyming slang for "fert" by any chance?

 

Nick

[Echognome]

Er, don't understand "ferdinand 1H" - one mention of on the forums - but no definition.

 

It isn't rhyming slang for "fert" by any chance?

 

Nick

My guess is "third in hand" and a slight use of Cockney.

[mycroft]

both is correct - it's specifically a third seat 0-3 1H call.

 

And education is just fine; it's psyching against newbies that felt wrong - especially when Dad really did have a 2C opener and we racked up -480. Quoting Fred:'Besides that, once I started to become a better player, psyching against club players started to feel like "taking candy from babies" - it was not fun for me either.' Again, legitimate tactic, and against a regular partnership of decent players, fair game. Against someone with two months of bridge under his belt? Not so much.

 

I occasionally get newer players (okay, not so newer) who have been psyched against and are absolutely indignant. Yeah, it's an education issue, and they were never told. After doing the education, I explain that the reason they've never seen it was that it's a losing tactic in general (but having a reputation for psyching is probably a winning tactic, if opponents stop believing you the 999/1000 you're not psyching), and especially against weaker players (because they can expect above-average scores by playing it down the middle); so the fact that they did this against *you* means that they consider you no longer a weaker player!