Psychs

[Cascade]

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).

 

Hey, I am way over 80 and I play in a club game mostly of retired people and we don't ask to be mollycoddled. We can psyche = and do == with the best of them. :lol:

 

A sweet little old lady that I thought was a rank beginner flat psyched me out of a vulnerable game the other day. Sweetest smile on her face when she apologized as she wrote down her score. :P

love

joan

Best post in the thread :)

[jillybean]

Hey, I am way over 80 and I play in a club game mostly of retired people and we don't ask to be mollycoddled.  We can psyche = and do == with the best of them.  :lol:

 

A sweet little old lady that I thought was a rank beginner flat psyched me out of a vulnerable game the other day.  Sweetest smile on her face when she apologized as she wrote down her score.  :angry:

love

joan

Whoooo hoooo Joan :) Great to hear this, dont ever lose that spirit!

[jdonn]

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).

 

Hey, I am way over 80 and I play in a club game mostly of retired people and we don't ask to be mollycoddled. We can psyche = and do == with the best of them. :lol:

 

A sweet little old lady that I thought was a rank beginner flat psyched me out of a vulnerable game the other day. Sweetest smile on her face when she apologized as she wrote down her score. :angry:

love

joan

Best post in the thread :)

I'm surprised you aren't bothered that the lady apologized. :)

[Cascade]

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).

 

Hey, I am way over 80 and I play in a club game mostly of retired people and we don't ask to be mollycoddled. We can psyche = and do == with the best of them. :lol:

 

A sweet little old lady that I thought was a rank beginner flat psyched me out of a vulnerable game the other day. Sweetest smile on her face when she apologized as she wrote down her score. :angry:

love

joan

Best post in the thread :)

I'm surprised you aren't bothered that the lady apologized. :)

Well there really isn't any need to apologize for getting a good score.

 

I wouldn't personally apologize for something that I had done deliberately in an attempt to get a good score.

 

I sometimes apologize when I have made a mistake that turns out good e.g. 6 months or so ago we had a relay stuff up and got to a stupid 7♣ that rolled in. I do this in much the same way that I apologize on the squash court after winning a point through a mishit. And tennis players raise their hand apologetically after hitting a net chord.

[blackshoe]

what guarantee do I have that you do not have a tacit carding understanding (and I am not saying you do, in particular, but just as an example).

None. Are you entitled to one? Are your opponents entitled to guarantees from you?

[matmat]

what guarantee do I have that you do not have a tacit carding understanding (and I am not saying you do, in particular, but just as an example).

None. Are you entitled to one? Are your opponents entitled to guarantees from you?

point taken. none, of course.

 

though i have no reason to believe that any particular person is being truthful in their disclosures and ambiguous descriptions do not really help in that regard.

[gnasher]

My partner and I have agreed to lead low from 3 small against suits.  But sometimes he worries that I'm going to take him for having an honor in the suit, so he decides to lead top of nothing instead.  When he does this, I always play him for a doubleton -- that's what we've agreed, and that's what I expect.  It usually hurts our defense, since I get the count of the hand wrong, or try to give him a ruff, etc.

 

Is there an concealed partnership understanding here?

Yes.

 

He's done it on a number of occasions, but I continue to assume that he should have learned his lesson and stopped.  If I defend as if his carding is honest, what's my obligation to the opponents?

Your obligation is to tell them what you know to be your partner's leading style. It doesn't matter whether you yourself are going to act on that knowledge - you still have an implicit agreement that should be disclosed.

 

ACBL requires that both members of a partnership play the same system, I believe. We're not allowed to agree "I lead bottom of nothing, he leads top of nothing."

Maybe, but having an illegal agreement and not disclosing it is far worse than having an illegal agreement and disclosing it.

 

Either make an agreement that you're both willing to stick to, or circle both cards and tick the "special carding" box. When asked, explain that systemically you might lead either card from xxx, but that your partner sometimes leads top from xxx and you never do. I imagine that most opponents will appreciate the honesty and not worry about whether what you're doing is allowed.

[Cascade]

Playing the same system does not mean doing identical things with identical hands. Individuals within a partnership are allowed to exercise their own judgement.

 

I suppose it is moot whether your judgement never to take a certain action among choices on your convention card means that you really are playing a system with choices. Although I could see how you could argue that it is no different than other choices. Three small is just a subset of combinations that you might lead from. One partner always taking some action with that hand and the other always taking a different action is no different logically from a bidding situation in which with a narrow subset of hands one partner say always opens and the other never opens.

[blackshoe]

Though i have no reason to believe that any particular person is being truthful in their disclosures and ambiguous descriptions do not really help in that regard.

You have, generally, no reason to believe that any particular person is deliberately lying to you, either. Since the laws of the game require him to tell you the truth, I would think one should suppress one's paranoia and give the player the benefit of the doubt until there is evidence that he's not following the laws — at which point one should call the TD and present that evidence.

[JoAnneM]

So why is deceptive bidding so frowned upon by many players, while deceptive card play is generally admired?

I suspect that many of the players who frown on psyching don't even notice falsecards, because they don't pay attention to the opponents' carding (in which case there's not much point in falsecarding against them). But the game is almost impossible to play if you don't take inferences from the auction, so deceptive bidding is noticeable, and therefore annoying when it works to the psycher's benefit.

Wow, that is very patronizing. Do you play in clubs often? Declaring is the easiest part of the game and I would put some 80 year old club players who have been playing 60 years against the people I have been watching on VuGraph anyday. Just when it comes to declaring.

[Cascade]

So why is deceptive bidding so frowned upon by many players, while deceptive card play is generally admired?

I suspect that many of the players who frown on psyching don't even notice falsecards, because they don't pay attention to the opponents' carding (in which case there's not much point in falsecarding against them). But the game is almost impossible to play if you don't take inferences from the auction, so deceptive bidding is noticeable, and therefore annoying when it works to the psycher's benefit.

Wow, that is very patronizing. Do you play in clubs often? Declaring is the easiest part of the game and I would put some 80 year old club players who have been playing 60 years against the people I have been watching on VuGraph anyday. Just when it comes to declaring.

I thought that you advocated patronizing behaviour like no psyching against beginners.

[JoAnneM]

If you are a beginner and want to psyche I have no problem, even against other beginners. What I have a problem with is sharks feeding off of tadpoles. You don't have a problem with that, even think it's fun. We just have different opinions.

[hackenbush]

LOL @ this thread.

[jillybean]

If you are a beginner and want to psyche I have no problem, even against other beginners.  What I have a problem with is sharks feeding off of tadpoles.  You don't have a problem with that, even think it's fun.  We just have different opinions.

I dont believe there is a problem with shark eating tadpoles.

This entire debate was started after a minnow scared off a couple of sharks.

 

I do agree that sharks, who for some reason are able to play in novice games shouldn't psyche, I doubt they would. Novices who leave the sanctuary of the "sayc" novice game must swim with big fish.

[Cascade]

If you are a beginner and want to psyche I have no problem, even against other beginners. What I have a problem with is sharks feeding off of tadpoles. You don't have a problem with that, even think it's fun. We just have different opinions.

I think you should play by the rules.

 

You think that some players should be further restricted. And further you and others think that one should adopt some insulting and patronizing policy against some players.

 

I think that is specifically against the rules (and ethics if they exist) of the game that we play.

[helene_t]

Seriously, I have no strong opinion about whether hunters should be allowed to shoot the Loch Ness monster if they find it. But why don't we start a 45 page thread about the issue anyway, just for fun? I mean, we all know that genuine psychs are very rare.

[mike777]

Seriously, I have no strong opinion about whether hunters should be allowed to shoot the Loch Ness monster if they find it. But why don't we start a 45 page thread about the issue anyway, just for fun? I mean, we all know that genuine psychs are very rare.

ok anyone who shoots/kills nessie...sucks...expand analogy as you are able.

 

I mean really can anyone prove Jlall and Jdonn go to local club and.....

 

nonusa....fill in players of your choice!

[JoAnneM]

Perhaps I am too idealistic. I envison a player who has achieved a certain level of expertise at the game as being "pro" bridge, not just "pro" himself. I have played against people like Baze, Soloway, Passell, etc who have (had) exceptional table presence and whom I could not imagine doing anything to make a novice want to leave the game. On the other hand I have played against two "pros" in the last year whom I think are a disgrace to the game.

 

I don't think patient sportmanship and gracious table presence costs one MP or IMP in the long run and it leaves newer players wanting to come back and play the expert players again, so they can learn something. And not psyching against a brand new player is part of that.

[Jlall]

I don't think patient sportmanship and gracious table presence costs one MP or IMP in the long run...

Well this is untrue. If you don't open 1N with xx xx QJT9xx Kxx w/r in third seat vs a novice you are costing yourself imps in the long run. Even with higher volatility vs a bad pair, you are gaining in expectation for sure. However I still believe its not right to do so.

 

 

I mean really can anyone prove Jlall and Jdonn go to local club and.....

 

What? I played about 5 club games a week for a year and a half, but jdonn doesn't play bridge obv.

[olegru]

If my understandings correct - The main reason why the perfectly legal action like baby psych does not considered as an appropriate against unknown opponents is – you thinks this can annoy the beginners and even turn them out of bridge.

Question: what about much more often and even more painful for novices issues, are they appropriate?

Examples:

1. (pass) - pass - (1 spade) – pass - (2 clubs, no alert) – pass – (pass) - dbl – (2 spade, my God, partner again forgot we are playing Druri). Is it classy to call Director here? Opponents clear not experienced and directors call 100% will annoy them and probably turn out of bridge? Of cause it is just one of a thousands possible MI examples.

2. You are declarer. You lead to KDx on the table and RHO play her smallest card, but hesitated long enough to make it perfectly obvious she has the Ace. Your only possible plan was to convenience her partner later lead another suit, but now he can not make a mistake. RHO very proud she found the hold up play and will be extremely unhappy if you will question her wonderful performance calling TD. Will you call him or classy player just have to accept losses like that in not the top level game?

3. Novice opponent has a penalty card. Is it appropriate to take advantage of that? I guess opponent will not feel it is fare to lose trick such a stupid way and it can turn him or her out of bridge.

4. Bidding 3NT with no stopper in known opponent’s suit. It is contradict what they learn in classes and by beginners opinion more poker than bridge.

5. Lead unsupported honor. If you will be lucky enough to find partner with another honor in this suit, they can think something fishy is going on.

6. Underlead the Ace in a trump contract if you think situation is good for this kind of action. They learn from the teacher experts never do it and surely will get situation wrong. Don’t you feel you took a candy from a baby by undeleading the Ace?

7. Preempt with a very bad suit?

And so on and soo on...

[jdonn]

I mean really can anyone prove Jlall and Jdonn go to local club and.....

 

What? I played about 5 club games a week for a year and a half, but jdonn doesn't play bridge obv.

I think I played in 2 clubs games this year, but I'm about to go to a regional for a weekend, and an NABC!

[georgeac]

I am one of those intermediate players some think best to protect from psyches. When I play in an open field, I hope the players will play their best game. If this means psyching, false carding or playing multi so be it, it’s all part of this wonderfully complex game. The first time I encounter something new it can throw me and I get a bottom board. I don’t stop playing, I can learn from it and maybe the next time or the 5th time it happens I will be prepared and get a top board. That buzz when you bid your game in a difficult auction, despite what the opps throw at you, keeps me playing the game.

 

If I want a ‘safe game’ I can always play 0-299ers or new-comer games although playing against other weak players I find is more nerve wrecking, has more weird auctions, bids close to psyches and UI passed than playing against ‘experts’. Suggesting that players should dumb down their game against inexperienced players is both arrogant and I believe, detrimental to my game

I agree 100% with this. I am also an intermediate player. I played an open swiss and got psyched against and lost a match by 3 imps because of it. At first I was upset but then was glad that it happened because it was the first time it had happened to me. I now know what to expect and what I can do to still find the right contract the next that it happens.

[TimG]

I played an open swiss and got psyched against and lost a match by 3 imps because of it.

The match was 3-0?

[georgeac]

I played an open swiss and got psyched against and lost a match by 3 imps because of it.

The match was 3-0?

okay you might have a point. but we lost quite a few imps on that board and the others in the match were close or push.

[Cascade]

I don't think patient sportmanship and gracious table presence costs one MP or IMP in the long run...

Well this is untrue. If you don't open 1N with xx xx QJT9xx Kxx w/r in third seat vs a novice you are costing yourself imps in the long run. Even with higher volatility vs a bad pair, you are gaining in expectation for sure. However I still believe its not right to do so.

If you open that hand in most jurisdictions routinely (in other words part of your partnership's methods) then you are playing an illegal system.