How bad is this psyche?

[CSGibson]

Warning: I am venting a bit.

 

Playing in an Ax swiss event at a local sectional, 5th of 6 rounds and the team isn't doing as well as it should (about even on the day), and you are playing a team that you should beat.

 

[hv=d=s&v=n&s=s8753h752d873c962]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

Having been dealt the above hand, how bad is a 1♠ psyche at equal vulnerability 1st seat in a 2/1 partnership?

[inquiry]

If you are expected to beat this team, why psyche? Doesn't make any sense.

[han]

Poor idea.

[Guest Jlall]

Coming from someone more prone to psyching than the rest of the bridge world I think it would be a horrendous psyche.

[andy_h]

1st at nil? Never. It's undisciplined and partner won't like it.

[matmat]

bad idea... and why psych your long suit anyway?

[jillybean]

yep, bad

[Rossoneri]

Are you kidding about psyching this?

[pclayton]

This has tilt written all over it.

[rogerclee]

You would have to pay me 5 IMPs to bid 1♠ here, so I guess that means I think it's bad.

[Guest Jlall]

You would have to pay me 5 IMPs to bid 1♠ here, so I guess that means I think it's bad.

Five is a ton. I find it hard to believe that it will blow 5 imps on average, but there will def be huge variance.

[cherdano]

I would bid 1♠ in exchange for 5 IMPs any day.

[JoAnneM]

This is a team event? So you are do this to three people instead of just one partner? And how many other hands did you mastermind.

[CSGibson]

I'm still steamed about this (despite the fact that it worked out for us on that board). Bidding after goes (X)-XX-(2♣), P-(P)-2♠-All pass, so my partner actually got off lucky for a 5 imp gain on the board (down 5 vs 3N making 5 by our partners), but if I had a stronger hand, a better fit, a worse fit, or any of another dozen variables, then this looks like the road to 1100 vs a non-vul game. And this is against opponents that we can and should beat playing straight up!

 

Side note: The opponents (original Xer with a 20 count, 2 club bidder with 8) were so pissed at my partner that they sniped at her for the next two boards, eventually having two different directors having to come over, and for one of the directors to turn cards for my partner on the next board while my partner took a walk outside to give everyone a chance to cool off. My partner was so incensed by their reaction that she did her darndest to throw two more boards afterwards.

[Gerben42]

Now there's the real problem. Refuse to continue play until the opponents behave. And be sure the director knows.

[jonottawa]

My reaction to this tale:

 

I hate psychs. If you NEVER psych, you have the right to be somewhat pissed. If you were solid all day and your partner is responsible for most of the bad results, you have the right to be pretty darn pissed.

 

However, if she was solid, the team was underperforming, and she got dealt a yarb, I can see how that might be a situation where someone might be tempted to psych.

 

When I played with a partner who psyched frequently, I got upset primarily for 2 reasons:

 

1) That behavior screams 'we're not good enough to beat these guys by playing 'normally.''

 

2) That behavior often can put a ton of ethical pressure on partner.

 

But when the opponents behave in a completely inappropriate way towards pard, that's when my animosity towards partner completely evaporates. You back up your partner's legal behavior 100% and let the opponents know that they are in the wrong and are "interfering with your enjoyment of the game" (that's the standard ZT warning). I don't understand why she would 'do her darndest to throw two more boards afterwards' if she was upset with their reaction as opposed to being upset with your reaction.

 

As to where I'd rate the behavior of the people at your table on your scale:

 

The opponents' behavior was 'disgusting'.

 

Whoever played worse in your partnership during the preceding 4 matches gets a 'bad.'

 

Whoever played better in your partnership during the preceding 4 matches gets a 'I understand it, though it would not have been my choice.'

[Impact]

I have never understood the basis for the rule prohibiting psyches of strong bids in many jurisdictions.

 

IF (and it is a big query) you wanted to psyche anything with this hand - the psyche you would want to make is of a strong and forcing bid (rationale obvious).

 

The actual psyche of 1S is an odds-on loser:-

- partner's raising of S to a high level will be bad (usually)

- partner's assumption about your strength will be bad (usually).

 

Any pass by you of a forcing bid will give the show away (as it always does) and you must hope that partner has a long suit on this auction.

 

THe upside is minimal - and against opponents whom you should beat anyway (and assuming there was no need for a "max") there is even less reason than otherwise.

Realistically the psyche of 1S here is worse than usual (and I am well-known for psyching all sorts of bids).

 

The other thing about psyching is that even when /if it does work out, the first thing you should do at the conclusion of the hand is apologise to partner, as it is an abuse of partnership!

 

regards

[Finch]

This is a team event? So you are do this to three people instead of just one partner? And how many other hands did you mastermind.

I disagree with this sentiment.

 

If you think an action is correct, you should take that action whether you are playing as a pair, a team of 4, a team of 8 or whatever. You are presumably on the team to do the best you can and your partner and your teammates should trust you sufficiently to believe that you are not deliberately trying to throw imps.

 

I also think it's a very bad psyche, but that's a different point.

[hotShot]

Psyching 1♠ with this hand is ******.

On average your partner holds 40/3 HCP, so whenever your partner has close to average strength (or more), your partner has to bid game/slam. If he doesn't the TD has to rule that he fielded your psyche. And will correct the score as if he bid game or slam.

 

So the psyche can only be successful if your partner is at most of invitational strength.

I estimate this to be around 20% of the boards, so in 80% of the boards you already achieved a bad score. And of the 20% of boards where opps might have game or slam you lose whenever they cant make their contract or go down for more than they can earn.

[SoTired]

Ordinary psyche. Good expectations. Probable bad strategy. Turned out well. Not my choice.

 

Opps are poor losers and spoilsports. Seems poster was also, but not sure as I may have misread post.

[hrothgar]

Warning:  I am venting a bit.

 

Playing in an Ax swiss event at a local sectional, 5th of 6 rounds and the team isn't doing as well as it should (about even on the day), and you are playing a team that you should beat. 

 

Dealer: South Vul: None Scoring: IMP

♠ 8753 ♥ 752 ♦ 873 ♣ 962

 

Having been dealt the above hand, how bad is a 1♠ psyche at equal vulnerability 1st seat in a 2/1 partnership?

Few random thoughts:

 

1. Ceteris paribus a first seat white v white psyche isn't particulary appealing. I don't think that the bid will have a positive expected value

 

2. If I'm playing a team that I expect to beat I want to decrease the variance, not increase it.

 

3. From the sounds of things, the opponents are the sort who get very upset when folks psych. This makes psyching much more attractive. If the opponents get upset, their game will be off for several boards to come.

[hrothgar]

This is a team event? So you are do this to three people instead of just one partner? And how many other hands did you mastermind.

In an earleir thread I made the following suggestion:

 

"Stop teaching players that psyches are unethical"

 

Uday asked for specific examples where the ACBL was doing so. I referenced the old Don Oakie articles, but this provides a good example of the basic theme.

 

Admittedly, I'm quite sure that Jo Anne - she of the "Practice Goodwill and Active Ethics" signature - was posting in a private capacity and not speaking as District 20 President. Then again, one of the major criticism of the ACBL is their inability to foster clear and unambiguous lines of communication. We don't have the equivalent of the Orange Book or the White Book. Rather, we have a random collection of semi official opinions, most of which don't actually have any legal standing (see previous threads regarding Duplicate Decisions)

[han]

I think this whole thread is an overreaction. So partner made a bad psyche, what's the big deal? If I would go venting every time my partner made a bid I didn't like then I probably wouldn't live to my next birthday!

 

If partner plays badly, don't play with her. If she plays well but made a very poor decision here, tell her you didn't like it and then forget about it.

[SoTired]

I think this whole thread is an overreaction. So partner made a bad psyche, what's the big deal? If I would go venting every time my partner made a bid I didn't like then I probably wouldn't live to my next birthday!

 

If partner plays badly, don't play with her. If she plays well but made a very poor decision here, tell her you didn't like it and then forget about it.

But partner made a successful psyche. (Bad, good, whose to say?) Of course, I might have a different opinion if the opps were beginners and the psycher was an expert.

 

The problem seems to be the reactions to the psyche. If I was the "partner" and made this psyche, I don't think I would want to play with the poster anymore.

[han]

Oh, I'd be more careful about discarding a partner. Two years ago I played in a side game at the Chicago nationals with a new partner. I made a more reasonable psyche, 1NT in 3rd chair white against red with a 7-card hear suit. We landed in 3H making for an absolutely normal score. We won the session and the event.

 

My partner was quite upset about this psyche, he told me after the game he didn't like it and that's all he said about it. But half a year later I heard from other people just how much he hated it. I just told him I wouldn't psyche again playing with him, and we played three days at the Nashville nationals. Without psyches.