Ethics Question

[kenrexford]

Here's one observation:

 

If you are in a Swiss event and have just played one slam hand in a partscore and one slam hand at an insane grand level down one, with one board to play, white-on-red, and partner's RHO opens the bidding, partner's next bid is likely to be complete nonsense. Not just a one-in-a-hundred chance, but probably 50-50.

 

That's not a partnership matter, IMO.

 

The TD's agreed.

 

The suits (no, I did not demand credentials and badges) did not.

 

In fact, the suits focused on the bid itself and, strangely, made no observations concerning whether or not fielding occurred. I found this particularly bizarre.

[Stephen Tu]

Ken, this is a win-loss Swiss event? Those still common in your area?

 

Psyching in a VP Swiss match just because you are behind in a particular match wouldn't make any sense.

[han]

Yes it would. If you are behind 20 IMPs or so then randomizing the outcome of the last board is definitely a positive EV strategy. If you win 10 IMPs you gain many more VPs then when you lose an additional 10 IMPs.

[jdonn]

Yes it would. If you are behind 20 IMPs or so then randomizing the outcome of the last board is definitely a positive EV strategy. If you win 10 IMPs you gain many more VPs then when you lose an additional 10 IMPs.

I was unaware randomizing is even money expected value in terms of imps :)

[kenrexford]

Ken, this is a win-loss Swiss event? Those still common in your area?

 

Psyching in a VP Swiss match just because you are behind in a particular match wouldn't make any sense.

Huh?

 

Just how many IMP's do you expect to have lost after bidding a vulnerable grand down one (where NO ONE would bid the grand) AND after playing in a vulnerable partscore when the slam probably makes?

 

Humorously, though, people often say, "You don't know what happened at the other table." In this situation, the people at the other table actually went down in the first slam (+100 and +140 = win) and missed the other slam.

 

BTW -- you may notice that we were +140 on the hand where slam makes with a normal lead. We got the normal lead. However, being in 2♠, I decided to play it safe to ensure my contract. As the only risk was a 5-0 split in trumps, I took an immediate hook with A109 in dummy and KQxxx in hand, losing and then facing a cross-ruff. But, I protected that +110 and even scored an overtrick. LOL

[Stephen Tu]

You have to be pretty sure of the margin to know you are getting the bonus effect of VP won vs. VP lost. If the opps are bad enough that you can't be sure that something crazy didn't happen on one of the boards or one of the "flat" boards, you might be only down 10 instead of 20, and instead of getting 2:1 on VPs on a 10-imp swing you are only getting even money.

 

In a VP situation, unlike win-loss, there is much less motive to swing on the last board and try to get it back in the same match. Hanging on to the last 1-2 VP and blitzing next round against worse opps might end up with more VP for the two rounds than scraping back to 6-14 and winning the next match 13-7.

[han]

Yes it would. If you are behind 20 IMPs or so then randomizing the outcome of the last board is definitely a positive EV strategy. If you win 10 IMPs you gain many more VPs then when you lose an additional 10 IMPs.

I was unaware randomizing is even money expected value in terms of imps :)

You don't need even money. If you have more than 1/3 chance of getting a 10+ IMP win then you are +EV in terms of VPs, no matter how many IMPs you risk to lose. The more VPs you are behind, the less even money your randomizing needs to be in terms of IMPs.

 

Of course you know this and you know I know you know this and you understand that my comment was a reaction to Stephen Tu's comment which was wrong. So why are you arguing with me?

[han]

You have to be pretty sure of the margin to know you are getting the bonus effect of VP won vs. VP lost.

You don't have to be sure of the size of the margin, you only have to be sure that there is a considerable margin. The larger the margin, the more -EV your attempts of swinging can be in terms of IMPs. The point here is that Ken had good reasons to believe that psyching was a sound tactic given the circumstances. Ken might have exagerated, he often does and certainly his 50-50 estimate seems way off to me, but he was trying to win the match by playing good bridge. He was white against red, well behind in a swiss match (or so he thought) and he picked up a 1-count, these are excellent conditions for a psyche.

 

If the opps are bad enough that you can't be sure that something crazy didn't happen on one of the boards or one of the "flat" boards, you might be only down 10 instead of 20, and instead of getting 2:1 on VPs on a 10-imp swing you are only getting even money.

 

If you are behind about 10 IMPs then you are right, for exactly a 10-IMP swing you need even odds. But for any swing of 11 or more IMPs you need less than even odds, as well as for a 7-IMP swing. This is still a situation that favors swinging, but not as much as when you are 20 IMPs behind, which is again worse than when you ar 28 IMPs behind (when you can only win, not lose).

 

In a VP situation, unlike win-loss, there is much less motive to swing on the last board and try to get it back in the same match.  Hanging on to the last 1-2 VP and blitzing next round against worse opps might end up with more VP for the two rounds than scraping back to 6-14 and winning the next match 13-7.

 

This is an amazing argument, truly amazing. Did you happen to write the SAYC booklet?

[kenrexford]

I'm not sure how all of these statistics add up. However, I did a little math here.

 

On the first board, 3NT was laydown. I could expect, therefore, a small possibility of a loss of 8 IMPs. (I cannot remember the vulnerability.)

 

On the second, the chance of the slam failing seemed as remote as the 3NT being bid, so that cancelled out the first. But, I expected the net to be a fair chance of losing 15 IMPs and a sure -11.

 

With the third board psychic, we probably picked up 8 IMPs.

 

On the fourth, the game seemed safe, with a slight chance of gaining some ground. A remote chance of +10 or +12. We could conceivably be up a few IMPs, but down by 3-4 seemed more likely.

 

On the fifth, this seemed like an assured -16 or so.

 

So, I expected to be down about 20 IMPs. If we tied the last, that would mean 2 VP's on a 20 scale. If I pushed us into a blitz, this tactic costs 2 VP's. If I kept them in a partscore, when game makes, this would gain us about 10 IMPs, for 6 VP's.

 

If my numbers are even close to right, then the psychic is a 3:1 favorite, it seems.

[maggieb]

You win 4 vs lose 2 Ken.

[kenrexford]

You win 4 vs lose 2 Ken.

Oh yeah.

 

But winning four under these circumstances is worth +2 additional in hype for the next set, whereas losing 2 additional does not really affect the general mood.

 

LOL

[JoAnneM]

I think this should be your attitude: If you are going to use psychic bids, and to the extent that you use them, be prepared to be hassled, and just let it flow off your back. The bids are you choice.

 

Now life will be easier.

[cherdano]

I think this should be your attitude: If you are going to use psychic bids, and to the extent that you use them, be prepared to be hassled, and just let it flow off your back. The bids are you choice.

 

Now life will be easier.

Come on. Why should Ken expect to get hassled? He is just playing by the rules.

 

Aisde from that, interrogating Ken for these two bids is a ridiculous waste of ACBL resources. Do these "suits" get paid?

[jdonn]

I think this should be your attitude: If you are going to use psychic bids, and to the extent that you use them, be prepared to be hassled, and just let it flow off your back. The bids are you choice.

 

Now life will be easier.

Life would have been easier for Rosa Parks too if she had that attitude: If you are going to use the bus, be prepared to be hassled and forced to move to the back if a white person wants your seat, and just let it flow off your back. The mode of transportation is your choice.

 

In other words, I do not believe you should be arguing that injustice should be accepted simply because it takes too much effort to correct.

[Cascade]

I think this should be your attitude: If you are going to use psychic bids, and to the extent that you use them, be prepared to be hassled, and just let it flow off your back. The bids are you choice.

 

Now life will be easier.

I don't get this attitude.

 

A player uses a legitimate tactic and you expect him to be hassled and bullied for it.

 

To me this is organized gamesmanship.

[JoAnneM]

What I meant was that you have to expect opponents to be upset when they get beat by a psychic bid. They shouldn't, but they will be. If the opponents had not complained we would not be having this conversation, right? I wasn't referring to the "suits".

[Cascade]

What I meant was that you have to expect opponents to be upset when they get beat by a psychic bid.  They shouldn't, but they will be.  If the opponents had not complained we would not be having this conversation, right?  I wasn't referring to the "suits".

Why expect that.

 

I don't expect it when i bid to a good slam or win my contract via a squeeze. Why should i expect it when i psyche?

 

Someone has created an unhealthy environment if legal tactics induce players to be irrationally upset.

[matmat]

Someone has created an unhealthy environment if legal tactics induce plays to be irrationally upset.

i sort of feel like there is a culture of viewing psychs as unsportsmanlike... it's total BS, but still.

[JoAnneM]

Of course there is that attitude. It is because wannabe experts use them on novices or low intermediate players, which I do think is unsportsmanlike. In my opinion psyches are fine used at tables with players of comparable abilities. But when you use a psyche against new players you are just shoving that win down their throats, and maybe they won't come back. And you laugh at that but it takes a while to develop the thick skin that we wear as more experienced players.

 

I doubt if you would seldom, if ever, see a pro-level player use a psyche at a Flight C table in a stratified game. But I do have a good story about that......

[Cascade]

Of course there is that attitude. It is because wannabe experts use them on novices or low intermediate players, which I do think is unsportsmanlike. In my opinion psyches are fine used at tables with players of comparable abilities. But when you use a psyche against new players you are just shoving that win down their throats, and maybe they won't come back. And you laugh at that but it takes a while to develop the thick skin that we wear as more experienced players.

 

I doubt if you would seldom, if ever, see a pro-level player use a psyche at a Flight C table in a stratified game. But I do have a good story about that......

That is utter nonsense.

 

Psyching is a legitimate part of the game. Claiming that it is unsportsmanlike is exactly the attitude that perpetrates the idea that there is something wrong with psyches.

[Elianna]

Someone has created an unhealthy environment if legal tactics induce plays to be irrationally upset.

i sort of feel like there is a culture of viewing psychs as unsportsmanlike... it's total BS, but still.

I think that the question is when is it an actual psych and when is it an illicit partnership agreement.

 

And yes, that does seem like a process for the recorder, but the recorder process is not something that your average person knows about, so it may seem to them that pair AB get to "get away" with having secret agreements with no consequences, because they don't know that the director has investigated by speaking to the pair. Or that a recorder form will last further longer than that day.

[Cascade]

Someone has created an unhealthy environment if legal tactics induce plays to be irrationally upset.

i sort of feel like there is a culture of viewing psychs as unsportsmanlike... it's total BS, but still.

I think that the question is when is it an actual psych and when is it an illicit partnership agreement.

 

And yes, that does seem like a process for the recorder, but the recorder process is not something that your average person knows about, so it may seem to them that pair AB get to "get away" with having secret agreements with no consequences, because they don't know that the director has investigated by speaking to the pair. Or that a recorder form will last further longer than that day.

I have no problem with investigating whether the pair has an improper agreement.

 

The problem is players getting upset and using bully tactics against others who are using a legitimate tactic.

 

It is made worse when officials pamper to those inappropriate reactions.

[kenrexford]

I don't understand how or why any particular tactic at bridge would be deemed unsportsmanlike simply because the opponents are lousy. Would you not reach out a tad further to bid a slim game because you expect poor defense? Would you not offer a baby falsecard to a newbie because you know that this will probably induce an error by them?

 

I agree(d) with the concept that the TD might make inquiry in the event of a psychic call to ensure that there is no funny-business going on.

 

However, in this situation, you have to be an utter idiot to not see that the timing of the psychics was non-partnership and situation-specific. The apparent conclusion drawn was obviously not based on anything other than a dislike for the tactic and, by extension, a dislike for the rule. To extend one's own dislike for the tactic and for the rule into accusations of borderline unethical conduct is absurd and offensive. After taking successful action that I believed necessary and advisable and supported by basic bridge principles, I end up almost on trial?

 

The TD at the table? No problem. The opponents angry and scowling and making comments? Use to it. The between-sessions explanation? Expected, and fruitful because the TD's on site followed completely and agreed, as they should. The show of force with people in suits (I call them "suits" because I am convinced that they actually dressed up for the "matter") and accusations and warnings of disciplinary action? A joke.

[brianshark]

While we obviously only have one side of this argument based on Ken's account, if it's true they went out of their way, over the heads of the director, to get you a warning because they felt cheated by the psyche, then I have to say that the opponents sound like big cry babies and I have no sympathy for them whatsoever.

 

Psyches are part of the game and I feel very sorry for you that you have to deal with 'suits' people who pander to the complaints of whingers. But don't feel too bad because having a reputation for psyching can be a powerful weapon against paranoid opponents sometimes too.

[TimG]

Would you not reach out a tad further to bid a slim game because you expect poor defense? Would you not offer a baby falsecard to a newbie because you know that this will probably induce an error by them?

At MP, stretching to the slim game in hopes of a mis-defense is wrong since a mis-defense in the normal partscore will score you the same top. At IMPs, I'm not sure I'd do it either. If we're flat out better than the other team, adding the randomness of overbidding can open the door to the opponents to score IMPs when they do the normal thing and I don't want to increase the variance.

 

Newbies don't notice falsecards.