ACBL BBO now no psyche events?

[glen]

A fellow was walking through a cemetery one dark and stormy night. As he got well into the cemetery, he heard a voice say, "Mark! Mark!".

 

Pretending not to let it bother him, he pulled his coat a little tighter and kept walking. Again the voice said, "Mark! Mark!". That did it.

 

He took off full speed and didn't stop till he was well outside the gates. As he stopped to catch his breath, the moon broke through the clouds enough so he could see what had been following him. It was a dog with a hare lip.

[matmat]

hahahahah

[inquiry]

I can't speak for the ACBL arm of the BBO, but I don't think psyhes are outlawed. There is one fellow who psyches 1NT overcalls in what we use to consider comic notrump... I would argue that he has done this more than enough times that his partner is aware of it, and he probably should be stopped (no I haven't reported him).

 

From March 27 to May 27, 1NT was opened 84,166 times in ACBL pairs event (excluding individuals). Of this, 972 times the opener held a singleton.

 

The most remarkable example was the following hand...

 

[hv=d=w&v=b&s=sa764hkdakj8632ck]133|100|Scoring: MP

P=P=P=1NT!

P-2C-P-3NT!

all pass

 

Down two, 12.5% [/hv]

 

There was no alert (so not Romex dynamic 1NT) and this player opened normal NT at other times. The names will not be presented here. There was no adjustment (of course, only got 12.5%). But of these 972 hands, it is the very rare hand that was adjusted. In fact, I am not sure more than one or two were. So I think perhpas the director made a mistake in your case, unless you frequently open 1NT with a singleton, and obviously as a sub, this is not a concern.

 

BTW, that was the only 7411 1NT opening, but 7321 occurred 14 times. Here is a typical example, playd on april 16th, [hv=d=w&v=b&s=sa764hkdakj8632ck]133|100|Scoring: MP

P=P=P=1NT!

P-2C-P-3NT!

all pass

 

Down two, 12.5% [/hv]

[glen]

On weekday afternoons there is a local club we go to if we are not working (i.e. rarely). The club is run by one of Canada's top players, and has mostly retired people playing, some over 80. There are two clear rules: 1) never open 1NT with a singleton, 2) no wild psychs. We are cool with these rules: they make his customers more comfortable, and it reduces TD calls. This isn't 100% bridge, but club bridge is never 100% bridge (e.g. in any club game, excluding the Flight A IMP league, we call the TD about once every 10 sessions, which is not the rate of possible infractions).

 

There are also clubs that allow infrequent psychs, at most 1 per session, or, in actual practice, at most 1 per session that results in a TD call. At these clubs it is clear not to over psych, and some players will even enjoy having you "banned" from making any subsequent psychs for the session. This is cool too - not 100% bridge but everybody remains comfortable, and there are no psych fests.

 

Even though both these approaches are not ideal for pure bridge, they reflect what is sometimes necessary to impose at the club level to keep everybody comfortable. These approaches are effective when they are done with clear rules, provided by open communications to all players.

[1eyedjack]

Leaving aside the odious practice of banning genuine psychic calls, particularly in the one event on BBO that is sanctioned by a governing body that actually has to comply with the laws, what I regard particularly obnoxious about this ruling is the covert attempt to slip it through without notifying the "offending" side or inviting representations therefrom.

[peachy]

The TD made an error, perhaps pressured by your star opponents. Psychis bids are legal unless excessive in number or made with same partner frequently so partner can begin to expect them. When playing as sub with a stranger, the chance of prior partnership experience on psychic bids is zero. As to the adjustment - if TD did not rule and adjustment when he was called and he did not return after the hand to do it, he cannot go back after the game on his own and change the score, EVEN IF THERE WERE LAW BASED REASON TO DO SO, without informing both sides. Here, there were no legal reasons.

 

I think you need to contact Jacki@ACBL who I believe is the chief TD for BBO ACBL games.

[inquiry]

... The most remarkable example was the following hand ...

what were the alerts on 1NT and 3NT?

Nope, and I checked other opening 1NT by the players involved. They are "normalish".

[PassedOut]

I played that hand (at our table the opponents bid to 3♠ making 170 after we bid to 3♣) and find it appalling that your successful action was reversed. And I find it absolutely disgusting that any experienced player would complain about your action with that hand, let alone go crying to the director about it.

 

You say your opponents were "stars," but they don't seem to be bridge players at all.

 

If the ♠A had been with your RHO instead of the leader, you'd have been -200 instead of +90. In that case, the "stars" would have taken their score without hiding behind the director's skirts.

 

Protecting "stars" as if they were babies? What a crock!

[PassedOut]

Okay, I checked the scores for the game and saw that the ~9 IMP swing caused by this decision gave your opponents first place in their section rather than a score far down the list.

 

So the director's action took first place from the rightful winners, and moved every top partnership down one spot from the place actually earned. Those players were also damaged.

 

IMO, no real bridge player would accept such a "win".

[blackshoe]

IMO, no competent director would give one.

[1eyedjack]

IMO, no competent director would give one.

The difference is, no director on BBO is expected to be competent.

[matmat]

IMO, no competent director would give one.

The difference is, no director on BBO is expected to be competent.

I think that in pay-tournaments there should be an expectation that the tournament director is competent. This goes double for tournaments allegedly sponsored by an established bridge organization, such as the acbl.

[Jacki]

Psychic bids are allowed in our ACBL games on BBO. You got a bad rulling. Please email me privately and let's discuss this so I can make sure it doesn't happen again.

 

Jacki

jacki@bridgebase.com

[fred]

Assuming you got the facts right (and I believe you) I agree that the TD made a poor ruling but, I must say that I do not think it is very classy for an expert player like Glen to psych in what is basically a club game, especially when filling in as a sub.

 

I say this both as someone who has been known to psych 1NT openings on occasion (in fact, I am currently on the ACBL's ***** list as a result of a recent 1NT psych made by my regular partner) and also as someone who knows Glen personally as both a very nice guy and as a excellent bridge player.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[Cascade]

Assuming you got the facts right (and I believe you) I agree that the TD made a poor ruling but, I must say that I do not think it is very classy for an expert player like Glen to psych in what is basically a club game, especially when filling in as a sub.

 

I say this both as someone who has been known to psych 1NT openings on occasion (in fact, I am currently on the ACBL's ***** list as a result of a recent 1NT psych made by my regular partner) and also as someone who knows Glen personally as both a very nice guy and as a excellent bridge player.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

This is a very mild psyche if in fact it is one:

 

13 HCP

 

Six card suit

 

Stiff high honour

 

Altogether you might consider this a psyche. However move a diamond into the spades and 13 HCP and six clubs would not be considered a psyche - I recall reading a world championship book where the players at both tables in a semi-final or final opened the same 12 count with a strong no trump. And also the stiff honour on its own would not be considered a psyche.

 

I would accept if you considered all of things together a psyche but you might also just call it the players judgement (even bad judgement if you don't like it).

 

Even if you don't like psyches against weaker players or in weaker games, the claim is that this psyche was perpetrated against star players who I think you would agree are fair game.

 

Personally I think not psyching against weaker players could be considered patronizing - "I'm not going to psyche against you because you aren't good enough".

 

What was your partner's psyche? That sounds like an interesting story.

[helene_t]

[...] I do not think it is very classy for an expert player like Glen to psych in what is basically a club game, especially when filling in as a sub.

Disagree with the "especially", I think psyching with an unknown p should be uncontroversial, unlike psyching with a regular p who might be able to discover a pattern in your psyches so that it becomes an implicit, undisclosed agreement.

 

Needless to say (I hope), I am not accusing anyone in particular for being unethical. I am sure top players take their ethical responsibilities seriously w.r.t. psyching in their regular partnerships (for example, Rosenberg sometimes alerted Zia's cuebids as "potentially psyching" or some such). But I wouldn't personally be comfortable doing so.

[glen]

imo, the reason tourneys ban psychs is not to protect beginners.

 

For beginners, everything is a problem - what to bid, what to play, what's going on. Handling a pysch is just another small problem on top of the mountain of challenges. In live bridge beginners often don't even know they have been psyched, as they are too focused on their own hands and don't yet have the skill set to analyse a deal.

 

The reason tourneys ban psychs is that a lot of their customers hate trickery in the bidding being used, either by their opponents or by their partners. They detest it, feeling it is an underhanded attempt to fool people.

 

At the local club that has banned most psyches, there are almost no beginners. There are, though, lots of players who have played for many, many years, and who hate psyches. They have found that while psychs are legal in bridge, it takes away their enjoyment of the game. The club has banned psyches for these customers, and it has nothing to do with beginners.

 

If BBO allowed it for their ACBL tourneys, that players could put "no psychs please" in their profiles, and you were not allowed to psych with these players, either as partners or opponents, then what you would find is not a lot of novices and intermediates with this. Instead you will find advanced, expert, "world class", and all sorts of life masters, including gold and diamond life masters, with "no psychs please". For its a set of the long timers that hate psychs, and want them out of their game.

[JoAnneM]

"Personally I think not psyching against weaker players could be considered patronizing - "I'm not going to psyche against you because you aren't good enough"."

 

I would like to reply to that remark. I don't care if it sounds patronizing to some of the experts around here. It doesn't sound patronizing to the novice or low intermediate player who just got totally snookered in a hand, and got zip because the opps were playing around them. These players may not be back for the next game!

 

You say, "So what". I say we don't need to drive bridge players away from the game, and if you want to psyche do it against someone at your own playing level. Why do you need to psyche against someone you can already outplay with normal methods? Are you showing off? Is it a macho thing? I think we should encourage players with gracious table presence, and make them think that when they play against good players they might learn something, not that they should come to the table fearing tricks and psyches.

[gwnn]

I remember once when some random BBO guy psyched against me a few months after I started playing. I was angry with him and bridge in general at first, but then I thought "wow it was kind of cool". So good players psyching against you can make you sort of appreciate the depth of bridge, depth not normally presented in the novice lessons (for good reason).

[matmat]

I would like to reply to that remark. I don't care if it sounds patronizing to some of the experts around here. It doesn't sound patronizing to the novice or low intermediate player who just got totally snookered in a hand, and got zip because the opps were playing around them. These players may not be back for the next game!

so? if someone can't take someone psyching against them, maybe they shouldn't be playing bridge at all.

[Cascade]

"Personally I think not psyching against weaker players could be considered patronizing - "I'm not going to psyche against you because you aren't good enough"."

 

I would like to reply to that remark. I don't care if it sounds patronizing to some of the experts around here. It doesn't sound patronizing to the novice or low intermediate player who just got totally snookered in a hand, and got zip because the opps were playing around them. These players may not be back for the next game!

 

You say, "So what". I say we don't need to drive bridge players away from the game, and if you want to psyche do it against someone at your own playing level. Why do you need to psyche against someone you can already outplay with normal methods? Are you showing off? Is it a macho thing? I think we should encourage players with gracious table presence, and make them think that when they play against good players they might learn something, not that they should come to the table fearing tricks and psyches.

Psyches are a legitimate part of the game.

 

I suppose you also think that I should not finesse against those who do not know what a finesse is, nor endplay someone who doesn't know what an endplay is etc, nor cue-bid to slam against someone who doesn't understand cue-bids.

 

No you don't think like that. I agree that would be ridiculous.

 

Why then it is not ridiculous that one shouldn't employ the lawful tactic of psyching?

[1eyedjack]

I half sympathise with Joanne's comments but I think that they are mistaken. Certainly we should strive not to behave in a manner that drives beginners away from the game, when playing against them, and if psyching is likely to do so then perhaps beginners should be protected.

 

Personally I do not think that it has that effect. Some players, many quite experienced, have a deep-seated objection to opposition psychs, not aided by the psycher gloating when it works. There is also a perpetual nagging doubt, in the minds of those by nature suspicious, that the partner of the psycher is not so surprised at the psych as are the opponents.

 

Maybe if the establishment were to take a more proactive approach in educating beginners (and experienced players alike, where an attitude adjustment is called for) it might provide an alternative solution to the sledgehammer ban on psychs without diluting the richness of the game.

 

I don't go as far as Matmat. If psychs really do put off beginners then protect them until they are sufficiently experienced and, more importantly, hooked on the game. Then educate them. It occurs to me that some of the experienced players who object to psychs may have been overly protected at the outset and subsequently missed out on the educational attitude readjustment that is required as their experience grew.

 

The reality is that most psychic manoeuvers fail, and that is one strong argument for allowing market forces to govern their use.

 

Neither concern is relevant to the original post. Being a pickup partnership there can be no question of advantage by undisclosed implicit agreement. Both opponents were star players, so there can be no question of rabbit-bashing. Glen's partner might have been a novice, I wouldn't know, but it seems unlikely that he was the one who complained.

 

So I was slightly taken aback by Fred's censureship of Glen's action on this hand, without commenting on the action of his opponents. It was Fred and his staff who were responsible for bestowing stars on players, and with that honour came (I thought) a responsibility to act as an ambassador for the game; on this occasion I believe falling short.

 

Directors do make the odd poor ruling, both in face to face and on BBO, and the response should be kept in proportion. Likewise, few players behave perfectly without the occasional fall from grace, and star players are no exception. But they are experienced and should know better, and maybe they, as well as transgressing directors, should be informed when they are rumbled.

 

At the risk of thread-drift, because it has already been established that psychs are not banned in ACBL tourneys, it is my observation that psychs are banned in the vast majority of tourneys on BBO that are not fettered by a higher authority. Those who make the decision to ban psychs in those tourneys sometimes claim that the purpose is to protect beginners. I sometimes wonder whether the real reason is their own prejudicial attitude against psychs and the quoted protection of beginners is just a convenience that they hope will be better received as a justification.

[PassedOut]

So I was slightly taken aback by Fred's censureship of Glen's action on this hand, without commenting on the action of his opponents. It was Fred and his staff who were responsible for bestowing stars on players, and with that honour came (I thought) a responsibility to act as an ambassador for the game; on this occasion I believe falling short.

 

Directors do make the odd poor ruling, both in face to face and on BBO, and the response should be kept in proportion. Likewise, few players behave perfectly without the occasional fall from grace, and star players are no exception. But they are experienced and should know better, and maybe they, as well as transgressing directors, should be informed when they are rumbled.

Having thought about this a bit more, I realize that I should have considered the possibility that Glen's opponents simply reported the psyche and had no knowledge of any adjustment in their favor.

 

If that is the case, Glen's opponents are blameless, but the director simply needs more instruction.

[jdonn]

I don't think psyching against beginners is illegal, unethical, or ridiculous. But I agree that it's not classy. There is no law saying that when I walk through a door I have to hold it for the person behind me, but it wouldn't be classy of me to let it slam in someone's face even if it is not illegal of me.

 

Btw the argument that this perhaps wasn't a psych is one of the biggest LOLs I have ever seen.

 

Also the argument "so what if dumb people or people who get offended for no reason don't come back to bridge ever again" is so stupid to me that words fail me.

[glen]

What exactly is a psychic call?