Advice on living with Bridge Laws

[vin1990]

Playing online I have had a couple of situations where an opponent appointed themselves as a laws expert and got extremely agitated.

 

Once was when I psyched and was (questionably?) asked about my bid (by an opponent who held the suit I psyched). So I replied what I thought the bid showed in the system we had agreed - and then got a lecture afterwards about 'breaking the rules'. So I decide no more psychs online unless it's with people I know.

 

Recently I had another situation I'm more confused about. Playing with a pick-up partner we were about 50 imps up versus a regular pair who seemed a little annoyed.

 

The bidding on this hand went..

 

1h(opps)-1s(partner)-dbl(neg)-my bid

 

holding 4 small spades and a single heart and AK of clubs I bid 4s...(both non-vul).

 

Opener doubled instantly and my pick-up partner pulled to 5h.

 

At this point I suspected ('knew') from the speed with which opener doubled and the speed of my partners 5h bid that he'd psyched his spade overcall.

 

I thought pick-up partnership, no pattern - so I decided to pass with my single heart.

 

Afterwards I got this irate lecture about 'fielding a psych' and the opponents stormed off. (5h doubled was not a good outcome).

 

So my questions are:

 

i) Is passing 'fielding a psych'? Should I have bid 5s?

ii) As someone new to the game what is the best way to deal with self-appointed laws experts online? I have no intention of arguing back - and I have absolutely no interest in playing the game if its going to end up like being in a court of law. So how psychologically do you deal with what to me is nonsense.

 

I should point out I play chess at a very competitive level and know all the rules and my ethical obligations. I understand if I take up bridge more seriously that it is my responsibility to learn the laws and my ethical responsibilities - but the situation which is new to me is the number of 'laws experts' whose opinions I find more self-serving or emotional than being factual or informative.

[blackshoe]

One aspect of online bridge I dislike as compared to face to face (f2f) bridge is the attitude that if a player doesn't like something that happened he just walks away, even in the middle of a hand. In f2f, that would get you penalized, or suspended, or banned.

 

To answer your questions: No, no, and call the director. It's his job to sort out people like this.

[jkljkl]

I should point out I play chess at a very competitive level and know all the rules and my ethical obligations. I understand if I take up bridge more seriously that it is my responsibility to learn the laws and my ethical responsibilities - but the situation which is new to me is the number of 'laws experts' whose opinions I find more self-serving or emotional than being factual or informative.

Hello,

 

a bridge historian would need several large tomes to analyse and document the topic "psyche".

 

Try for instance

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?sho...&hl=psyche&st=0

 

Since I am not an historian: If you look at the bottom of the forums oversight there is a section with forums dedicated to the laws, blackshoe is one of the moderators there, simply ask when in doubt about something.

 

As someone new to the game what is the best way to deal with self-appointed laws experts online? I have no intention of arguing back - and I have absolutely no interest in playing the game if its going to end up like being in a court of law. So how psychologically do you deal with what to me is nonsense.

Here my personal way of dealing with such things

a) online bridge is recreational bridge don't take it too seriously as long as you cannot set up a table with people you know

b) Ignore the selfappointed experts. opp come, opp go life is too short to argue.

 

Don't forget to print out http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png

 

ciao stefan

[zasanya]

Vin I too used to play chess at fairly high competitive levels.The one big difference between chess and bridge is that chess has absolutely clear cut rules and Bridge does not have.Some of the bridge rules are absolutely illogical.For example My multi 2♦ which can mean anything from 6-21 hcp; can be weak M; can be strong unbalanced in any suit ; can be strong balanced is allowed but my 2NT which is 11-13 6+ minor is disallowed.

So a chess player if he wants to enjoy this game must reconcile to the lack of rigid rules which moreover change depending on the level of the opponents and the sponsors idiosyncracy.

If you accept this then you will find that the game can give immense enjoyment.

It is unfortunate that you came across unreasonable opponents.There are all sorts of people on bbo.The best thing is to put the particularly unpleasant people in the enemy list and make friends and play with friends as for as possible..

[Codo]

1. The rules of bride apply on the internet too. You are allowed to psych.

2. It is sometimes enjoyable to play against unknown opps. But sometimes it is not, Their are bean counters, "Experts" and "Law Experts" who have no idea of the game. Don't take them and their advice serious. They err.

 

My personal problem with psychs on BBO is: Way too often these psychs worked perfectly because the partner of the psycher showed a surprisingly judgement in not raising to the limit, not bidding game with 10 HCPS opposite a "strong NT" etc.

So I guess that many people are a little oversensitive with psychs, because there are people who psych and cheat.

 

You are not allowed to take any information from the speed in which your partner makes a bid. So your reasoning was in no way ethical.

However, there is NO reason to run from 4 Spade X to 5 Heart when 1 Spade was natural, so there is no reason for you to run. The bid itself made it obvious that 1 Spade was a psych.

[zasanya]

1. The rules of bride apply on the internet too. You are allowed to psych.

1)There are tournaments on BBO which specifically say No Psyches allowed.

2)Several table hosts in main club remove a player who psyches.

3)The definition of what is a psyche is fuzzy,at least from a chess players perspective.

4)Even in tournaments which allow psyche there is no clearcut rule about the number of psyches you are allowed.So in a F2F tournamenton on your convention card you may write 'Psyche rarely' and psyche twice in a session .On the other hand you may write Psyche frequently and never psyche.

5)The TD decides ultimately on the basis of accumulated data ,result and her judgement.

I still enjoy the game.

[vin1990]

I really dislike being told my reasoning was not ethical.

 

It is fine and useful to say 'It is considered unethical by the laws to take into account any breaks in tempo by your partner. If partner does bid out of tempo then...' Then I have an ethical and moral compass to go on and some appropriate ways to behave in response when breaks in tempo occur.

 

But to label my thinking as unethical in the absence of that knowledge reeks of the same 'j'accuse' behaviour that I find abhorrent in self-appointed rules experts.

 

I explained my logic very badly. Fact was whatever the breaks in tempo by my opponent or partners, pulling 4s to 5h exposed the psych whatever they did in relatino to tempo - and yes I should not have said the speed of my partners bid influenced my decision. Mea culpa, 100 lashes for me. Any other derogatory remarks about my ethical standards are unwelcome.

[Codo]

Calm down Dude,

 

you wrote:

At this point I suspected ('knew') from the speed with which opener doubled and the speed of my partners 5h bid that he'd psyched his spade overcall.

 

I tried to tell you that you are allow to pass because the the bid itself makes it sure that he psyched, no matter how quick he made the bid. But if you did so because of the speed of his bid, this was not ethical. You are not allowed to take any interference from the time partner needs to bid. And we both agree on this fact.

 

Maybe I expressed this badly, there was no offense intended and surely I would never call you unethical, sorry if this is what you read in my words.

[Hanoi5]

As it was pointed out (I think) you don't have to explain your psych. Of course as it was also pointed out you have to follow the rules of specific tournaments (not only online) that prohibit psyching.

 

I explained my logic very badly. Fact was whatever the breaks in tempo by my opponent or partners, pulling 4s to 5h exposed the psych whatever they did in relatino to tempo - and yes I should not have said the speed of my partners bid influenced my decision. Mea culpa, 100 lashes for me. Any other derogatory remarks about my ethical standards are unwelcome.

 

The 100 lashes go to you (and will probably be enough fi you don't do it again) if your partner's speed or any other symptom made you realize the psych and you acted upon that fact. If it was the speed of the double no lashes at all, but it's hard to demonstrate that it was so... However, in your defense, partner put you in a difficult situation, you might as well have gotten out of that table and checked what a substitute might have done over the same auction...

[helene_t]

But to label my thinking as unethical in the absence of that knowledge reeks of the same 'j'accuse' behaviour that I find abhorrent in self-appointed rules experts.

Bridge jargon uses the word "ethical" in a weird way. We all break the ethical codes sometimes and it does not mean that we are immoral.

 

Anyway, you are allowed to field a psyche if you can do so based solely on the auction and your own holding, and your knowledge about opps tendencies. What you can't do is to field a psyche on the basis of your knowledge that your partner is generally prone to psyching. So when you play with a pick-up partner it is no problem (unless of course it is the third time he psyches during the half hour you have known him).

 

You are not obliged to know the bridge laws in details. Even certified directors don't know everything by heart. If you are unsure about a law issue and you partner doesn't know either, it is always fine to call the director. You don't have to let the "law expert" opponents bully you.

 

It sounds as you already know the rules better than most.

[blackshoe]

Smart certified directors who are pretty sure they know a particular law by heart still double check themselves when ruling. Smart certified directors who happen to be playing don't make rulings at their own table unless they are also the designated director for the event and there is no other qualified director available. This is so even when the other players say they are perfectly happy to accept whatever he says as gospel. Smart players who (think they) know the laws follow those laws and call the director, rather than trying to make their own rulings.

[Finch]

Playing online bridge in the main bridge club can be a bit different from 'normal' bridge, because - unless you know your partner and your opponents - you are playing with and against people you have never met before and quite possibly never will.

 

In a proper, organised, competitive game of bridge the TD stops any of this sort of personal laws-making, or at least he does if he's called. People who are rude to you and/or walk off in the middle of a hand are penalised. The main bridge club on BBO doesn't have a TD. It's like meeting three complete strangers on a train and agreeing to play with them - there's no guarantee you all understand the laws or play the game in the same way.

 

The laws and regulations are very clear*, but they can vary from place to place round the world, and because they are complex there are plenty of people who think they know them but don't.

 

There are also plenty of obnoxious people around playing bridge. That's true of the world in general, just mark down their names and ignore them in future. There are even more pleasant bridge players.

 

*OK, that's not true. But reasonably clear.

[barmar]

Although most of the Laws are pretty clear, the ones regarding UI, disclosure, and psyching leave quite a bit open to judgement (UI: what were the LAs, and what did the UI suggest; disclosure: does the pair have an agreement, and/or was the explanation adequate; psyches: was the bid a "gross" distortion of the player's holding). That judgement normally comes from the TD, or an appeals committee if necessary. When you're playing without a TD, as in the MBC, it's every one for themselves, and this is when you get people applying their own interpretations of the Laws.

[vin1990]

thanks for your explanation helene, and for the other helpful comments and sorry if I over-reacted codo -Im usually pretty agreeable. I dont get the angst especially when its solely about playing for fun.