Frequent Psyches

[Martynk]

I'm looking for some guidelines on how to deal with a player who makes frequent psyches.

 

We don't want to ban psyches in the club.

 

Obviously if psycher's partner fields the psyche we can deal with that. But, is there any way to deal with the situation where the psycher then passes his partner's forcing bid. This happens frequently, so there is an implicit partnership agreement that forcing bids can be passed by a psyching partner.

 

 

Is it possible that if psychers partner has a clear game going hand then any forcing bid below game level is catering for the possibility of a psyche and so is fielding?

 

Anyone got any other ideas/suggestions

[TimG]

I think it is sort of the opposite of what you suggest. If psycher's partner jumps to game when some other, below game, forcing action would have been normal then this is a problem.

 

For instance, if this pair's GF major suit raise is 2N or 3M, but responder bids 4M instead when he has a really good GF raise, that is making allowance for the psyche. Or, if responder skips Stayman with a balanced 21 count opposite partner's "suspect" 1N opening in order to avoid playing in 2C, that would be making allowance for the psyche.

[JoAnneM]

I don't understand. Psyches are allowed, but frequent psyches are not. Surely this can be dealt with by giving a number per game and making sure that each psyche is reported. An announcement before each game to report psyches helps too. Also, even the tiniest hint of fielding decision should go to the opponents. IMHO

[hotShot]

Actually it's quite simple.

 

If a player of a pair psyches often, the psyche gets part of the partnership agreement.

This means that psychers partner has to alert any bid his partner has ever psyched before.

 

Don't forget to check if such an agreement is allowed.

 

Not only does this make psyching a lot less attractive, the failure to disclose the possibility of a psyche is a misinformation whenever a psyche happens. If the psyche should damage opponents, the TD can now adjust the score because of the MI.

 

If a player often passes forcing bids, they are in fact nonforcing and have to be alerted and disclosed accordingly. Again if a psycher has passed a specific forcing sequence before, there is a implicit partnership understanding that has to be disclosed. The failure to alert is again misinformation.

 

So as TD you need to record the psyches so that you can prove that a similar psyche has been done recently and establishes a partnership agreement.

After that you check the proper alerts, if they gave a misinformation and benefited from the psyche, you can adjust the score.

 

Edit:

I forgot to mention that it's not allowed that bids are forcing / nonforcing depending on whom of the partnership makes them. So if one often passes forcing bids and he other does not, this might be a violation of system restrictions. Because the 2 players seem to play different systems.

[blackshoe]

I don't understand. Psyches are allowed, but frequent psyches are not. Surely this can be dealt with by giving a number per game and making sure that each psyche is reported. An announcement before each game to report psyches helps too. Also, even the tiniest hint of fielding decision should go to the opponents. IMHO

I don't think it's legitimate to assign a specific number. "Frequent" is deliberately, it seems to me, left as a judgement call. Saying "you can only psych n[/n] times per session" is not, IOW, IAC with Law 40. Hotshot's approach is much better, it seems to me.

[TimG]

Hotshot's approach is much better, it seems to me.

I think the idea that one psyche creates an agreement is terrible. If he is going to record every psyche with the intention of declaring them agreements, he ought to also record every deviation any pair makes. The first time someone opens 1N with a singleton: agreement. The first time someone responds to an opening bid with 5 HCP: agreement. The first time someone opens a five-card weak two-bid: agreement.

[Trinidad]

Hotshot's approach is much better, it seems to me.

I think the idea that one psyche creates an agreement is terrible. If he is going to record every psyche with the intention of declaring them agreements, he ought to also record every deviation any pair makes. The first time someone opens 1N with a singleton: agreement. The first time someone responds to an opening bid with 5 HCP: agreement. The first time someone opens a five-card weak two-bid: agreement.

Of course, one psych doesn't create an agreement, just like seeing one swallow doesn't mean it's Summer.

 

But the OP wasn't talking about one psyche. He was talking about frequent psyches. And if you see many swallows it is Summer. (At least here in Europe; in Africa it is probably the other way around.)

 

Rik

[TimG]

Hotshot's approach is much better, it seems to me.

I think the idea that one psyche creates an agreement is terrible. If he is going to record every psyche with the intention of declaring them agreements, he ought to also record every deviation any pair makes. The first time someone opens 1N with a singleton: agreement. The first time someone responds to an opening bid with 5 HCP: agreement. The first time someone opens a five-card weak two-bid: agreement.

Of course, one psych doesn't create an agreement, just like seeing one swallow doesn't mean it's Summer.

 

But the OP wasn't talking about one psyche. He was talking about frequent psyches. And if you see many swallows it is Summer. (At least here in Europe; in Africa it is probably the other way around.)

 

Rik

But, hotshot was talking about a single occurrence:

 

Actually it's quite simple.

 

If a player of a pair psyches often, the psyche gets part of the partnership agreement.

This means that psychers partner has to alert any bid his partner has ever psyched before.

 

...

 

So as TD you need to record the psyches so that you can prove that a similar psyche has been done recently and establishes a partnership agreement.

He goes so far as to say "a similar psych", so it doesn't even have to the same.

 

I agree that establishing a pattern is a good thing; I disagree that one instance makes a pattern.

[blackshoe]

I think you're reading something into what hotshot said that isn't there.

[hrothgar]

Actually it's quite simple.

 

If a player of a pair psyches often, the psyche gets part of the partnership agreement.

This means that psychers partner has to alert any bid his partner has ever psyched before.

 

Don't forget to check if such an agreement is allowed.

 

Not only does this make psyching a lot less attractive, the failure to disclose the possibility of a psyche is a misinformation whenever a psyche happens. If the psyche should damage opponents, the TD can now adjust the score because of the MI.

 

If a player often passes forcing bids, they are in fact nonforcing and have to be alerted and disclosed accordingly. Again if a psycher has passed a specific forcing sequence before, there is a implicit partnership understanding that has to be disclosed. The failure to alert is again misinformation.

 

So as TD you need to record the psyches so that you can prove that a similar psyche has been done recently and establishes a partnership agreement.

After that you check the proper alerts, if they gave a misinformation and benefited from the psyche, you can adjust the score.

 

Edit:

I forgot to mention that it's not allowed that bids are forcing / nonforcing depending on whom of the partnership makes them. So if one often passes forcing bids and he other does not, this might be a violation of system restrictions. Because the 2 players seem to play different systems.

There are much simpler ways to proceed...

 

Organize the entire club to give the offender the "silent treatment". The offender will probably either change his was or quite the club. Either way, you win...

 

If this doesn't work, flick small pieces of paper at the player who psyches throughout the course of the match. (This is MUCH more annoying than subjecting his to inane recorder calls)

[bluejak]

If a player of a pair psyches often, the psyche gets part of the partnership agreement.

This means that psychers partner has to alert any bid his partner has ever psyched before.

This idea is [a] terrible and contrary to the Laws of the game.

 

I think people who want a sledgehammer to crack a nut fail to think of the damage they do. One occurrence never proves anything. Do you really want the next time a novice makes a silly bid in your club to say that his partner must alert this bid and say "It may be natural and normal, but once he bid it on ...."?

 

Fortunately there is no Law nor Regulation that supports this. Agreements are required to be disclosed: single occurrences do not make agreements.

 

But, is there any way to deal with the situation where the psycher then passes his partner's forcing bid. This happens frequently, so there is an implicit partnership agreement that forcing bids can be passed by a psyching partner.

That is pretty ridiculous as well: if a player sits down opposite an expert, and makes a strong, forcing response, and the expert passes he knows he has psyched. It is nothing to do with partnership: knowledge of bridge is not disclosable, it is just bridge.

 

:ph34r:

 

To be honest, I cannot really understand what this thread is about. If a player psyches every so often, so what? He is not going to do too well, is he? Or do people dislike good scores?

 

Yes, a player who psyches because he has lost interest and is just fooling around is a menace, but that is different: that is a breach of Law 74A2 and other Laws, so you deal with him.

[Cascade]

I don't understand. Psyches are allowed, but frequent psyches are not. Surely this can be dealt with by giving a number per game and making sure that each psyche is reported. An announcement before each game to report psyches helps too. Also, even the tiniest hint of fielding decision should go to the opponents. IMHO

This is the bully approach.

[jeremy69]

If you have a frequent psycher, he is spoiling the game of others and you are worried that his partner(s) are picking up on his psychic tendencies then in theory it might be right to get them recorded but in the club world most players don't want to spend their time doing this and will just ignore the procedure and moan about it anyway.

I wouldn't approach this via the law nor would I start setting numbers per session. I would get a committee member to have a quiet word in the ear of the psycher. If he then continues at the rate of, say, three or more a session then I would consider the committee of the club asking him not to attend the duplicate or club any more.

[hotShot]

But, hotshot was talking about a single occurrence:

 

Writing the post it did not occur to me that it could be understood as a single occurrence, I just wanted to avoid the distraction created by a discussion on what number of occurrences would establish an agreement/experience.

 

So of cause I agree with you that the first occurrence, although it is a partnership experience, does not create an agreement.

 

He goes so far as to say "a similar psych", so it doesn't even have to the same.

If a player psyched a 1NT opening, when he's holding a 3♦ preempt, it this save just because the last # times he had done it with ♣?

If a player psyched a ♥ Cuebid, is it save because he only psyched ♦ and ♣ cuebids before?

 

This is what I meat with similar psych and I'm sure we can agree about that.

 

There is room for a discussion about this scenario:

A player frequently psyched a suit over a t/o dbl, is it a new kind of psyche if opps use a "suit bid" as t/o instead of dbl?

[iviehoff]

If a player of a pair psyches often, the psyche gets part of the partnership agreement.

Not really. Only if partner's responses cater for the possiblity of the psyche.

[bluejak]

If a player of a pair psyches often, the psyche gets part of the partnership agreement.

Not really. Only if partner's responses cater for the possiblity of the psyche.

No. The WBF have specifically pointed out that if a psyche is frequent enough to be part of a partnership agreement it is disclosable, and may be an illegal agreement, whether or not partner allows for it in his bidding.

 

As for psyching spoiling the game for others, this is just a myth promulgated by a minority who like to spoil the game for others. There have always been such people. There was a pair at Moseley BC who were accused of cheating, and thus spoiling the game for others, despite the fact that they regularly got 43%. Investigation by the TD merely discovered that they were playing a Strong Club. Teachers in England seem very lax at teaching their students that their way of playing is not the only way, so poor players believe anything different is unfair [eg, strong no-trump :rolleyes: ]

 

Psyching which is not aimed at winning an event is a breach of Law, but otherwise psyching is merely a legal part of the game, and the people who get upset by it are generally those who are effectively led by others into believing that anything they do not do is unfair. They are just as upset by five-card weak twos, six-card pre-empts, and [a few year's back] weak twos and weak jump overcalls.

 

Different players have different approaches to this game, and encouraging intolerance is not a long term solution to keeping the game going.

[Cascade]

Psyching which is not aimed at winning an event is a breach of Law,

I don't know where you think this is written down but it seems wrong to me.

 

If I am a player who expects to score 45% then I have as much of a right to psyche as another player who expects to get 60+% (or the IMP equivalents). The fact that a weaker player is unlikely to win an event in no way impacts on that players right to psyche.

[Cyberyeti]

Psyching which is not aimed at winning an event is a breach of Law,

I don't know where you think this is written down but it seems wrong to me.

 

If I am a player who expects to score 45% then I have as much of a right to psyche as another player who expects to get 60+% (or the IMP equivalents). The fact that a weaker player is unlikely to win an event in no way impacts on that players right to psyche.

At the start it's fine, it's 3/4 of the way through when you're on 43% that it's deemed frivolous and you get nailed for it.

[iviehoff]

Psyching which is not aimed at winning an event is a breach of Law,

I don't know where you think this is written down but it seems wrong to me.

The EBU thinks the following laws justify this position (EBU Orange book para 6A5).

 

"Frivolous psyching, for example suggesting a player has lost interest in the

competition, is a breach of the Laws. (Law 74A2, 74B1, 74C6)."

 

I'm surprised they didn't also mention Law 72A, which says

 

"Duplicate bridge tournaments should be played in strict accordance with the

Laws. The chief object is to obtain a higher score than other contestants

whilst complying with the lawful procedures and ethical standards set out

in these laws."

[bluejak]

Psyching which is not aimed at winning an event is a breach of Law,

I don't know where you think this is written down but it seems wrong to me.

 

If I am a player who expects to score 45% then I have as much of a right to psyche as another player who expects to get 60+% (or the IMP equivalents). The fact that a weaker player is unlikely to win an event in no way impacts on that players right to psyche.

You miss the point: it is the aim. Even if your expectation is to get 45% this might be your day to get 70% and if a psyche helps you get it, that is fine. It is psyching that is not aimed at winning, but just for the hell of it, that is illegal.

[helene_t]

But BlueJak, you said "aimed at winning the event". That sounds as if a pair who has no chance of winning the event (at table 83 in the last round of a Swiss) is not allowed to psyche. I don't think that's what you intended to say.

[jeremy69]

That sounds as if a pair who has no chance of winning the event (at table 83 in the last round of a Swiss) is not allowed to psyche.

 

If you are at table 83 and you psyche because your view is that it is your best chance of winning the final match and ending on a respectable note or gaining some more master points then I think that is fine. If you psyche because you are bored and want some fun at the expense of the other pair who are also at Table 83 and having a bad day then that is not fine.

 

It may, of course, not be all that easy to work out the difference.