ACBL BBO now no psyche events?

[uday]

his partner has no more reason to be aware of the deviation

 

In a regular partnership, this is unlikely to be possible.

[Cascade]

his partner has no more reason to be aware of the deviation

 

In a regular partnership, this is unlikely to be possible.

Are you trying to suggest it is impossible to psyche lawfully in a regular partnership?

[barmar]

his partner has no more reason to be aware of the deviation

 

In a regular partnership, this is unlikely to be possible.

Are you trying to suggest it is impossible to psyche lawfully in a regular partnership?

If you psyche very rarely (e.g. once a year) you can get away with it. But if you psyche with any regularity, e.g. once a week, I doubt it. Maybe once in a while you'll come up with a psyche you haven't used several times before, so partner would have no reason to be aware of the possibility, but I suspect most of them will be repeat offenders, because there aren't really that many useful psyches.

[matmat]

If you psyche very rarely (e.g. once a year) you can get away with it. But if you psyche with any regularity, e.g. once a week, I doubt it. Maybe once in a while you'll come up with a psyche you haven't used several times before, so partner would have no reason to be aware of the possibility, but I suspect most of them will be repeat offenders, because there aren't really that many useful psyches.

Isn't it possible that partner is aware of the possibility, but since they are an ethical player, they do not cater to it until (if) it is exposed?

[awm]

There is also a question of the number of hands we have played, which in some ways makes it easier to psych in a regular partnership.

 

For example, suppose that I occasionally bid 1♠ in response to 1♥ on a short suit with support. Say partner has seen me do this three times in the course of our partnership.

 

If I have responded 1♠ to 1♥ a grand total of five times in our partnership, then 3/5 of the times I have not had spades. Partner very much knows how I love to fake this response, and even if he tries to be ethical and not take advantage, it may be difficult for him.

 

If I have responded 1♠ to 1♥ a grand total of three hundred times in our partnership, then 3/300 is only 1% of the time I have not had spades. Sure, partner has seen me not have spades before, but even if he was willing to be unethical and try to take advantage, the percentage of the times that I did have spades is so overwhelming that his best bet is to play me for a spade suit.

[Oof Arted]

his partner has no more reason to be aware of the deviation

 

In a regular partnership, this is unlikely to be possible.

Are you trying to suggest it is impossible to psyche lawfully in a regular partnership?

:P

 

Wayne you have just shot yourself in the foot here i think

 

You can never regularily psyche with a regular partner Why??

 

Because it is not now a psyche it is a partnership understanding and unless your CC states that partner is known to do x y z in this position then the TD will have you for using a hidden partnership agreement

 

:rolleyes:

[paulg]

his partner has no more reason to be aware of the deviation

 

In a regular partnership, this is unlikely to be possible.

Are you trying to suggest it is impossible to psyche lawfully in a regular partnership?

I believe it's a question of disclosure and, to a lesser extent, the standard of your opponents (if you know).

 

Take Hamman-Zia. Their USBF System Summary says "Suspect 1NT openers in 3rd seat when NV".

 

No problem with this at all, but is it necessary disclosure in the US Trials? Surely all the players know that 1NT in 3rd seat NV is a well-known position for action and this is general bridge knowledge. Perhaps the fact that they tend to 1NT rather than a short major is worth disclosing, but it's not a big deal.

 

But I wonder if it says this on their convention card? Playing in, say, the LM Pairs there is no system summary form and the standard of the field is more variable. Are these 1NT openers still suspect? Or is it only against people they know? And what about people they don't know but happen to have read their USBF System Summary?

 

In summary, regular partnerships have to be more diligent in explaining their agreements but true psyches are absolutely lawful.

 

Paul

[Cascade]

his partner has no more reason to be aware of the deviation

 

In a regular partnership, this is unlikely to be possible.

Are you trying to suggest it is impossible to psyche lawfully in a regular partnership?

:P

 

Wayne you have just shot yourself in the foot here i think

 

You can never regularily psyche with a regular partner Why??

 

Because it is not now a psyche it is a partnership understanding and unless your CC states that partner is known to do x y z in this position then the TD will have you for using a hidden partnership agreement

 

:rolleyes:

I don't think i said anything about regularly psyching with a regular partner.

 

I just said "psyche with a regular partner".

 

I believe that you can still psyche with a regular partner. Notwithstanding that some previous psyches may have become partnership agreements that are subject to disclosure.

[qwery_hi]

I fear FG won't be able to resist the troll-bait. Maybe i'll be able to head him off...

 

Glen, I know you have an issue with free-speech (psychs) and not-so-free-speech (psychs). I suspect somehow that the various camps that have expressed opinions won't meet anyplace they consider agreeable to all.

 

Factual things, tho, before we get back to the raving:

 

1. Psychs are legal, to a limited extent. How limited? Fuzzy. Should they be limited? Fuzzy.

2. TDs are human, thus capable of error.

3. ACBL club games (like ours) are owned and operated by independent operators (like us), not "the ACBL" in Memphis.

 

I'll toss in my observations while I'm here

 

a. It is fun to be provocative, in real life as well as at the table

b. Some people are easily bored

c. It is easier to get what you want if you know what you want

d. Flies, honey, vinegar

 

 

U

If you expect us to give Fred a pass on his classy comment (pun unintended), you're wrong. Classifying this as troll bait is dishonest.

[fred]

If you expect  us to give Fred a pass on his classy comment (pun unintended), you're wrong. Classifying this as troll bait is dishonest.

I am not looking for a pass and if you think I owe an apology I am afraid you are going to be disappointed by this response.

 

I expressed an opinion that I suspect a substantial majority of players from my part of the world who play at my level would agree with. FWIW the only other 2 regular Forums contributors I can think of off the top of my head who have won ACBL National Championships (JLOL and jdonn) seem to agree with me. Perhaps more significant is that all 3 of us (especially the other 2) are "young USA experts" (who by and large tend to be more likely to psych and less likely to be mature enough to care about the wishes of club level players than "old USA experts" tend to be). Most likely "old USA experts" would tend to be more strongly inclined to agree with me than this (admittedly small) sample of young stars.

 

Typically in the past when I have tried to support my case by saying something like "I think most USA experts would agree", there have been a lot of responses that more or less express sentiments like:

 

1) So what? Why should we assume experts know anything?

2) I know better and I have the following excuses for why I don't have the bridge record to prove it.

3) Who cares? The USA is the armpit of world bridge. We bridge players in Antarctica are much more enlightened.

4) I never admit I am wrong about anything so I why would I start now?

5) I am just a troll and will continue to behave like one no matter what you post.

 

But hopefully there are a few people out there reading this who will think something like this instead:

 

Maybe those who play our game the best actually know something, not just about how to play but also about how one should behave when playing.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[glen]

Bill: You know what happened? Barry didn't show for our team match the other night, no call, no nothing!

Mary: That's not classy! National champions all agree on that.

Bill: Yeah. Turns out he was killed in a car accident, but still!

 

Update: and now for a prime example of judging without the facts, together with hit-n-run posting techniques, please see the following smashing post:

[jdonn]

Bill: You know what happened? Barry didn't show for our team match the other night, no call, no nothing!

Mary: That's not classy! National champions all agree on that.

Bill: Yeah. Turns out he was killed in a car accident, but still!

An excellent combination of 1), 4), and 5), all neatly tucked into one bad analogy.

[qwery_hi]

If you expect  us to give Fred a pass on his classy comment (pun unintended), you're wrong. Classifying this as troll bait is dishonest.

I am not looking for a pass and if you think I owe an apology I am afraid you are going to be disappointed by this response.

 

I expressed an opinion that I suspect a substantial majority of players from my part of the world who play at my level would agree with. FWIW the only other 2 regular Forums contributors I can think of off the top of my head who have won ACBL National Championships (JLOL and jdonn) seem to agree with me. Perhaps more significant is that all 3 of us (especially the other 2) are "young USA experts" (who by and large tend to be more likely to psych and less likely to be mature enough to care about the wishes of club level players than "old USA experts" tend to be). Most likely "old USA experts" would tend to be more strongly inclined to agree with me than this (admittedly small) sample of young stars.

 

Typically in the past when I have tried to support my case by saying something like "I think most USA experts would agree", there have been a lot of responses that more or less express sentiments like:

 

1) So what? Why should we assume experts know anything?

2) I know better and I have the following excuses for why I don't have the bridge record to prove it.

3) Who cares? The USA is the armpit of world bridge. We bridge players in Antarctica are much more enlightened.

4) I never admit I am wrong about anything so I why would I start now?

5) I am just a troll and will continue to behave like one no matter what you post.

 

But hopefully there are a few people out there reading this who will think something like this instead:

 

Maybe those who play our game the best actually know something, not just about how to play but also about how one should behave when playing.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

I think Justin said that he would have no qualms psyching against you in a club game. So why would Glen have to think twice before psyching vs two stars? That is what I've been saying all along. I wouldn't call an expert's psyche against you unclassy even if it is in a club game.

[fred]

In retrospect I am not even sure why some people have become all bent out of shape because I happen to think that it is not classy for experts to psych in club games or for subs to psych at all.

 

Some other common practices that I consider not to be classy include:

 

- not using the stop card

- declarer calling for a card from dummy at trick one without giving the defense a few seconds to think

- when faced with a 2-way finesse for a Queen, leading the Jack and then the sitting there for several minutes before deciding what to do

- when having screwed up your system and your partner has given the opponents the correct explanation, not telling them "I forgot"

- having poor tempo (ie playing too slowly) on defense in obvious signalling situations

- having poor tempo (ie bidding too quickly) when making an obvious signoff bid facing an unlimited partner

- not telling the opponents when they are showing you their hands

- badmouthing partners and teammates behind their backs

 

As far as I can tell, none of these practices are illegal and arguably none could properly be considered "unethical". However, IMO, these are all examples of "not doing the right thing". For me "classiness" in bridge is about doing the right thing even if the laws don't force you to.

 

Some would argue that some/all of my examples are perfectly acceptable. In the "I forgot" case, probably many would think that I am crazy to feel this way. Furthermore, some would argue that some of the things I do at the table (like chew gum, wear jeans and t-shirts, and sometimes not shaving for days) are not very classy. Really I don't care what these people think.

 

Similarly, if you disagree with my assessment of classiness, perhaps you shouldn't care so much what I think. Keep on psyching as a sub, keep on failing to use the stop card, whatever. You are the one who has to be able to look at yourself in the mirror and, if you can do that, it shouldn't really matter to you what I happen to think constitutes classiness.

 

But if a lot of very experienced players disagree with your views on such matters, IMO you will be doing yourself a favor to honestly reconsider your position (especially if you have serious aspirations as a bridge player). If you still disagree then of course that is your right - the worst that will happen is that you may find it harder to make friends or find games with those who you disagree with.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[glen]

... Similarly, if you disagree with my assessment of classiness, perhaps you shouldn't care so much what I think. Keep on psyching as a sub ...

Well:

 

1) I do care what you think (and I appreciate the time you take to post your thoughts)

2) I don't think subs should psych in almost all circumstances.

 

and this was before and after this thread.

[Elianna]

- when faced with a 2-way finesse for a Queen, leading the Jack and then the sitting there for several minutes before deciding what to do

Do you mean declarer plays the J; LHO plays low, and then declarer sits there and decides what to do? If so, I don't see why this is not classy, it just seems really annoying. It's like if there's AQ on the board, and declarer leads small to it and then thinks what to do. It's highly annoying, but I don't know if it's classless, more clueless. (Think before starting the trick, etc.) I don't think that it's on par with psyching against total beginners (which seems pointless, as one is likely to get a good score anyway and could be taken as meanness) because this is more like showing is incompetent at planning ahead. They both may reflect badly on someone, but in different ways.

 

Or do you mean that declarer has led the J and now LHO is thinking? (This is the main reason I'm replying.) I think that not only is this classless, it's also illegal. You can't hesitate with an intention to deceive: Law 73D2 (this is from an old law book. Can't imagine it was changed, but perhaps the numbers have).

[matmat]

Furthermore, some would argue that some of the things I do at the table (like chew gum, wear jeans and t-shirts, and sometimes not shaving for days) are not very classy.

so long as you're recently bathed and not stinking of nicotine... :P

[qwery_hi]

... Similarly, if you disagree with my assessment of classiness, perhaps you shouldn't care so much what I think. Keep on psyching as a sub ...

Well:

 

1) I do care what you think (and I appreciate the time you take to post your thoughts)

2) I don't think subs should psych in almost all circumstances.

 

and this was before and after this thread.

I agree completely

[matmat]

- when having screwed up your system and your partner has given the opponents the correct explanation, not telling them "I forgot"

when are you supposed to say that?

[Oof Arted]

:D

 

Is this in the none classy list

 

A young highly attractive Female sits down as your opponent, she is well endowed in the Chest department and is wearing a very low cut top.

 

:P

[jillybean]

Hi Fred,

 

Im having trouble understanding all this. I do understand how people would consider it unethical for experts to psyche against rank beginners in novice games. I am not sure if you are also saying it is unethical for experts to psyche in club games or unethical for anyone to psyche in club games.

 

Earlier you said

Whether you think it is rational or not, a lot of players in this vast majority get upset about psychs. When experts psych it tends to ruin the game for them in the same way that people who take candy from babies tend to really upset the babies.

 

Are you saying for the likes of you, Justin, Josh and the other experts of this caliber, psyching in club games is not ok but it is ok for everyone else?

[qwery_hi]

Hi Fred,

 

Im having trouble understanding all this. I do understand how people would consider it unethical for experts to psyche against rank beginners in novice games. I am not sure if you are also saying it is unethical for experts to psyche in club games or unethical for anyone to psyche in club games.

 

Earlier you said

Whether you think it is rational or not, a lot of players in this vast majority get upset about psychs. When experts psych it tends to ruin the game for them in the same way that people who take candy from babies tend to really upset the babies.

 

Are you saying for the likes of you, Justin, Josh and the other experts of this caliber, psyching in club games is not ok but it is ok for everyone else?

While Fred may think whatever he likes, it was ill advised to call a legal action unclassy. I would get the director called on me if I were to do that at the table whenever I feel someone has done something beneath my very low standards.

[fred]

Are you saying for the likes of you, Justin, Josh and the other experts of this caliber, psyching in club games is not ok but it is ok for everyone else?

I suppose that is what I am saying, but it is almost a moot point because (in my experience at least) non-experts who would even consider psyching are few are far between.

 

If Michael Jordan chose to play in a basketball game with a group of kids, it would be in his team's best interest for him to never pass the ball and it would certainly be legal, but I don't think it would be very classy.

 

But if one of the kids chose to never pass the ball, his team would probably lose, get upset with him, and not want him on their team in the future. IMO it would be more appropriate to describe such a kid as "foolish" as opposed to "not classy".

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[fred]

- when having screwed up your system and your partner has given the opponents the correct explanation, not telling them "I forgot"

when are you supposed to say that?

I say it before the opening lead is made, but only if I am either the dummy or the declarer. You can't do this if you are a defender because your partner is still in the hand. If I am a defender and got an undeserved good result thanks to my forgetting my system, I would apologize after the hand is over.

 

But I am not saying you are "supposed to say that" in any legal sense. I just happen to think it is the right thing to do (because I believe that players who screw up their own complicated systems ruin the game for everyone and I do not feel comfortable about benefiting from my own system screwups).

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[fred]

- when faced with a 2-way finesse for a Queen, leading the Jack and then the sitting there for several minutes before deciding what to do

Do you mean declarer plays the J; LHO plays low, and then declarer sits there and decides what to do? If so, I don't see why this is not classy, it just seems really annoying. It's like if there's AQ on the board, and declarer leads small to it and then thinks what to do. It's highly annoying, but I don't know if it's classless, more clueless.

Yes, that is what I mean.

 

The reason I don't think it is classy is because players who engage in this practice are often hoping that one of their opponents will eventually tell them who holds their Queen via their mannerisms.

 

Cluelessness is another possibility as is being under time pressure and not wanting to waste time thinking about who has the Queen if it happens to be singleton on your left.

 

But about cluelessness, perhaps I should have mentioned that many of the items on my list are examples of the type of behavior I would hope experts (who by definition are not clueless) would not get involved in. Average players frequently do some of these things simply because they don't know any better.

 

IMO experts are supposed to know better and should be held to a higher standard.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com