bluffing -

[luis]

bluffing is not against bridge rules as long as it does the same to partner, and by that i mean there is no way in the world you could predict that . This "cant predict things" is not something you can just say, this mean you had no clue, or even could have no clue, for example from today you will have to alert any 1h in the same situation , because you are no longer in the possition to say "i couldnt know" , if you were in that possition before, for example if you both read a book in which this "bluff" was presented then you just cheated, because you had more info then your opponents did.

Beside this any club can deside not to allow bluffing , even if the bridge law accept them.

I am really against this kind of play, it doesnt worth it, especially if you consider yourself a good player and have intentions of wining a tournament.

Flame:

In the last tournament I played locally I've seen in 128 hands exactly 1 psyche. A 2/1 2♣ over a 1h opening with K,Kxxxxx,Axxx,xx (MPs). Spade lead against 4h, making 7 for a top. (LHO held AK of clubs).

Do you really think this wasn't fair bridge ?

A good player did this to me and I just laughed and say well done to him. It's part of the game.

 

 

ACeOfHeart:

You are wrong, forbidding psyches doesn't remove the fun of the game it removes the whole game since the laws do not allow any TD or Organization to forbid psyches. Tournaments with "forbidden psyches" are pseudo-bridge.

[Trpltrbl]

Tournaments with "forbidden psyches" are pseudo-bridge

 

I totally agree, next thing we know, they are going to host tournaments where you can't use conventions either.

 

(1H) X (1S) ?

You hold Kxxxx xxx AJx xx

 

I would X, trying to unmask the psych.

If my pd doesn't have ♠, he must have a strong NT hand, or a strong hand in a minor.

[nikos59]

I do not psych often, although I do like to "take a view"

(I mean, to bid differently from the majority)

quite often. But I cannot agree with the position that

psychics kill the game; for one thing, when bridge

made regularly first-page news (in the 30s) there

was one psychic per three hands or so.

 

For another, every great bridge player has psyched

at least once. It is difficult to find a top player more

concerned with ethics than Michael Rosenberg, yet

it is well known than in the 1992 Olympiad final,

first to speak at favourable, he opened 1NT on:

9752 - J64-A7-Q754

 

Partner had a flat 11-count and drove to 3NT; the defenders

(no clods; Levy-Mouiel) could not fathom what was

happening, so declarer scrambled 8 tricks. At the

other table, the US made 2NT holding the LevyMouiel cards,

so the Rosenberg psychic actually gained 2 imps.

 

I wonder if Flame believes that every time Rosenberg opens now

1NT at first position at favourable, his partner is Alerting opponents,

"You know, back in 1992 he bid 1NT with a 7count!"

 

n

[Flame]

Do you really think this wasn't fair bridge ?

As i tried to say before, psyching have a big problem which is basiclly unsovable, you will never know if his partner had any clue (not talking about knowing the smallest clue is wrong) that his partner could have made this psych.

Im not against the idea of psyching, but i believe there are many problems with it, the suvire one is what it can do to my partnerships , and another one which is more theretical about the fact that most times the partner of the psycher will have some clues (ex: seen it before, read about it on the forum, done against us, done by us, read in abook) , this one is theretical problem which dont have and couldnt have a 100% solution.

I strated playing bridge about 17 years ago, and trust me i had my share of psyches. I was trying here (with no much success) to take them off it.

Notice that more psyches are made by unexpirience players, and it costs, both in board result and more in the partnership.

Just to make it clear, im not advicing any world class player not to psych, sure when you have a solid partership that can take this psych , and you know how to psych (and when not to), it might help you, but in the real world its usually just a move by non expirence player trying to win the world by himself , just like a soccer player takes the ball and try to score rather then passing for a better appotunity.

[helene_t]

Psyches are great fun when kibitzing a game where experts play against experts.

 

As an intermediate player, though, I don't psych anymore. I have done it a few times with very bad results. Not in terms of IMPS, but in terms of ruining the atmosfere.

 

It's just that you have to be very experienced in order to deal with the ethical issues related to psyches. I'm not that experienced, nor are pd, td and opps.

[luis]

Psyches are great fun when kibitzing a game where experts play against experts.

 

As an intermediate player, though, I don't psych anymore. I have done it a few times with very bad results. Not in terms of IMPS, but in terms of ruining the atmosfere.

 

It's just that you have to be very experienced in order to deal with the ethical issues related to psyches. I'm not that experienced, nor are pd, td and opps.

Helene:

"There're no ethical issues"

The rules are very clear: you are entitled to bid whatever you want to bid.

 

I'm surprised to see so many players from all levels discuss the "ethical" aspects of psyches when they are the same ethical aspects as in the rest of the whole game. If you are ethical and play with the rules you know when you must alert opps about a "repeated psyche situation" and you know when you can't field a psyche and when you can and when the psyche become "evident".

I believe there's no "special chapter" for ethics on psyches, the regular rules for ethical bidding and play apply.

 

Another thing that puzzles me is how some bids that are not psyches are considered psyches, such as tactical bids and positions where a psyche is obvious and is even more likely than a normal bid.

[Chamaco]

I have every right to expect my partner not to psych, i dont see any problem with that.

Sure, agreeing with pard that he must never psych is a plausible agreement, and you have every right to be disappointed with a partner who breaks agreements.

 

But what you do not have the right to do is punishing partner with bids or play which willingly lead to a bad board.

Why ?

If you are a good player it should be obvious to you: you are not punishing only your pard, but also all the other pairs at the other tables that will be damaged by the gift you just handed to your current opponents.

[Flame]

I have every right to expect my partner not to psych, i dont see any problem with that.

Sure, agreeing with pard that he must never psych is a plausible agreement, and you have every right to be disappointed with a partner who breaks agreements.

 

But what you do not have the right to do is punishing partner with bids or play which willingly lead to a bad board.

Why ?

If you are a good player it should be obvious to you: you are not punishing only your pard, but also all the other pairs at the other tables that will be damaged by the gift you just handed to your current opponents.

Hey

I didnt say i have bid 7nt , only that i said i will , it was just to make sure partner will realize how much it bothers me.

I do my best when i play calmly , i hate having a private director checking on my table, like happend lately with the partners im playing with.

I also prefer my opponents to feel good, and i dont like it when they think we cheated (even when we dont).

[helene_t]

"There're no ethical issues"

The rules are very clear: you are entitled to bid whatever you want to bid.

The rules are not that clear to mortal players. Examples:

1) Playing online, I open 2♣ in 3rd seat nonvulnerable, my holding is (you guessed it). Everyone gets upset. We had a thread of about 1000 postings about such issues on the Dutch online bridge forum (Step). Many people say that they won't trust this to be a surprise to partner, unless proven. I say that you have to give your opponents the benefit of the doubt since it is impossible to prove that someone is not being unethical.

 

2) I open 1NT with a singleton, or someone else opens Muiderberg with a 6-card. Everyone gets upset. Of course, this is irrelevant since it's not a psyche, just bad bridge. However, most people don't know what the term "psyche" means, so it becomes most unclear what the 1000-posting thread is all about.

 

3) Partner makes a jump overcall on a three-card. I can see that on his face since he's not very good at keeping pokerface. Should I alert it? I happen to have 5 diamonds myself, and if alert it everyone knows that I have 5 diamonds and that that's the reason why I think it's a psyche. Of course, I have to bid consistently with the normal meaning of his overcall. I'm not sure if the consistent bid would be 4♦ or 5♦.

[luis]

"There're no ethical issues"

The rules are very clear: you are entitled to bid whatever you want to bid.

The rules are not that clear to mortal players. Examples:

1) Playing online, I open 2♣ in 3rd seat nonvulnerable, my holding is (you guessed it). Everyone gets upset. We had a thread of about 1000 postings about such issues on the Dutch online bridge forum (Step). Many people say that they won't trust this to be a surprise to partner, unless proven. I say that you have to give your opponents the benefit of the doubt since it is impossible to prove that someone is not being unethical.

 

2) I open 1NT with a singleton, or someone else opens Muiderberg with a 6-card. Everyone gets upset. Of course, this is irrelevant since it's not a psyche, just bad bridge. However, most people don't know what the term "psyche" means, so it becomes most unclear what the 1000-posting thread is all about.

 

3) Partner makes a jump overcall on a three-card. I can see that on his face since he's not very good at keeping pokerface. Should I alert it? I happen to have 5 diamonds myself, and if alert it everyone knows that I have 5 diamonds and that that's the reason why I think it's a psyche. Of course, I have to bid consistently with the normal meaning of his overcall. I'm not sure if the consistent bid would be 4♦ or 5♦.

1) Rules prevent players from psyching artifical bids, so if your 2♣ is your artificial forcing bid you are not allowed to psyche it. If you didn't know that now you do, score adjusted issue terminated. What constitutes a 2♣ opening bid or not depends, if your 2♣ opening is not a gross distortion of an artificial forcing 2♣ then nothing happens.

 

2) If you open 1N frequently with a singleton your pd and your CC should say that "unbalanced shape" is possible. If you don't you can open 1N with a singleton if you want and nothing happens. One of my pds opened 1N once with a void and nobody complained or said a single word about it.

Muirderberg with a 6 card suit I think is normal and shouldn't trigger any discussion at all.

 

3) Of course you can't take any action based on pd's face, bid what you would have bid over a "robot" overcall and that's it. Once I overcalled a weak 2s with a void over 1cl, my held AKQJxx of spades, he felt he couldn't pass (wrong he could) and bid 4s, making 4 after they played club ace and a club (I held 9 clubs to KQJ).

[Flame]

3) Of course you can't take any action based on pd's face, bid what you would have bid over a "robot" overcall and that's it. Once I overcalled a weak 2s with a void over 1cl, my held AKQJxx of spades, he felt he couldn't pass (wrong he could) and bid 4s, making 4 after they played club ace and a club (I held 9 clubs to KQJ).

Ok lets examine this example, partner bid 2sp over 1c and partner have AKQJxx.

Lets say that the chances of partner having a weak two in spade when you have AKQJxx are 0.01% (just an example number) they are not 0, because partner could for example bid 2sp with a 7 card to the 10.

Now if im your partner you know for 100% sure i have a honsest weak 2 in spade

and although its just 0.01% chance you know this 1 in a 10000 just came.

If anyone else here like for example The_Hog, you know he makes 1 psych every 1000 hands (again just an example) so chances are it is a psych.

The opponents doesnt have this knowlege , and there is my point it wasnt 100% fair (although it was very close to it)

Now you will say they can know because in the CC we write our psyches (never frequently etc.) but what if you and your partner have some 3-4 psyches you freqently or rarly makes but you never makes any other psyches ( i think with most good players this is the case, they have psyches the do often like the makwell pair like the 1d-1M with 2/3 cards and a weak hand).

Point is you almost always know something they dont, even if its 0.0001 piece of knowlege its still a little problem.

[helene_t]

Thanks Luis, this is clarifying.

 

But it's also confusing, since the American laws (which apply on BBO, I supose?) apear to be different from Dutch laws. I couldn't find the ban on psyches of artificial bans in the Dutch laws, they just say that it's always allowed to psych a "convention", allthough they don't use the word "artificial".

 

Also, the rule that a weak two that might be a 6-card with a 4-card minor side suit cannot be called "Muiderberg", is fairly strict in the Netherlands, although I have noticed before that TDs from other countries think differently. The issue here, however, is this: If you play off-line with an unknown p, opps cannot expect you to alert his slugish calls. So it's quite clear: you can always get away with a missing alert of a slugish call or psyche by an unknown p, while you may or may not get punished when playing with a known p. Now comes the problem with online bridge: do you have to alert your own slugish customs when playing under self-alert rules with an unknown p? The rules of the BF are not written for online bridge, and the rules of the bridgesite are self-contradictory. Last year, the technical comitee seemed to disagree internally on this issue, I'm not sure how the laws are interpreted at the moment.

[luis]

3) Of course you can't take any action based on pd's face, bid what you would have bid over a "robot" overcall and that's it. Once I overcalled a weak 2s with a void over 1cl, my held AKQJxx of spades, he felt he couldn't pass (wrong he could) and bid 4s, making 4 after they played club ace and a club (I held 9 clubs to KQJ).

Ok lets examine this example, partner bid 2sp over 1c and partner have AKQJxx.

Lets say that the chances of partner having a weak two in spade when you have AKQJxx are 0.01% (just an example number) they are not 0, because partner could for example bid 2sp with a 7 card to the 10.

Now if im your partner you know for 100% sure i have a honsest weak 2 in spade

and although its just 0.01% chance you know this 1 in a 10000 just came.

If anyone else here like for example The_Hog, you know he makes 1 psych every 1000 hands (again just an example) so chances are it is a psych.

The opponents doesnt have this knowlege , and there is my point it wasnt 100% fair (although it was very close to it)

Now you will say they can know because in the CC we write our psyches (never frequently etc.) but what if you and your partner have some 3-4 psyches you freqently or rarly makes but you never makes any other psyches ( i think with most good players this is the case, they have psyches the do often like the makwell pair like the 1d-1M with 2/3 cards and a weak hand).

Point is you almost always know something they dont, even if its 0.0001 piece of knowlege its still a little problem.

Flame:

Knowing your pd's style is not unethical.

If you don't bid game or 3N with 14 balanced when your pd overcalled because you know he overcalls light then as long as the opponents are entitled to that piece of information if they ask there's nothing unethical.

I think you are confusing pd's style with an implicit agreement. The rules forbid a partnership from having an undisclosed agreement. The rules don't forbid you from making a decision based on your partner style and the rules don't forbid you from making a bridge-logical decision (example: deciding pd either psyched or picked the wrong card from the bidding box when you have AKQJxx of spades and he announced a weak 2 in spades) .

The only thing that you have to do is give your opps the information you have about pd style if they ask.

[luke warm]

which is exactly why, next time i play with richard and next time he opens 1nt in 3rd seat, i'll pm the opps and say "i've seen him psych in that position before"

 

i see nothing wrong with doing this because the thought that he psyched did enter my mind.. it won't affect my bidding, but i think the opps have a right to this info

[Flame]

The only thing that you have to do is give your opps the information you have about pd style if they ask.

Yes luis i agree, but again this cant be done in 100%, its just not possible to tell them exactly what you know, maybe even there are things you know about your style that you arent aware of.

I tried to examplain this point is 100% thoretical (and shouldnt prevent anyone from psyching), in practice it happend wather you psych or not, you will sometime not give all the information you have.

[1eyedjack]

Sorry if this repeats what has gone before, but this I think sums it up:

 

Psyches are legal.

 

You are at liberty prior to commencement to agree with your partner not to psyche.

 

If your partner breaks that agreement and you find that act sufficiently irritating then you are at liberty not to play with that partner in later events (although you may be stuck with him for the remainder of the current event). You may get unlucky in an "individual" format tourney for a couple of hands.

 

You are not at liberty to punish your partner for psyching by making a trivial bid of 7NT or whatever. This is a breach of one or more of Laws 74A2, 74B1, 74C2 and 74C6.

 

The sponsoring organisation is not at liberty to ban psyches, although it does appear to be legal for the sponsoring organisation to regulate the psychic use of conventional calls, which might include the banning of psyches in those restricted circumstances.

 

Regardless of the legal authority, it is considered generally acceptable to restrict the use of psychic calls in a field of beginners or in a teaching environment.

 

Regardless of the lack of legal authority, some TDs/hosts on particular BBO tourneys have taken up the practice of generally banning psychic calls. This appears to be generally tolerated on the grounds that, whilst bridge it may not be, neither is attendance compulsory. Provided that the policy is published in the conditions of contest prior to commencement, the contestant is at liberty to boycott the event. This argument can be be used to further any breach of the laws in a particular event. As host you can insist that every hand in the tourney be opened 1C by dealer. Contestants could take it or leave it. It might be interesting, but it would not be bridge.

 

Unless there is such a proscription in force it it is reasonable to presume that the contest is being run under the justirisdiction of the international laws. Yes, there are different variations of the international laws, but we won't go into that (variations are effectively insignificant). More to the point, it is not acceptable for a TD to censure a player for psyching if there is no express interdiction in the conditions of contest.

 

Different aspects of the game create different degrees of interest and/or enjoyment for different players. *You* may dislike psyches but another player may enjoy them, both in the making of them and in defending against them. Personally I am in the latter category. I have yet to hear a convincing argument for their abolition, even if it were within our powers to do so. Give the abolishionists sufficient voice and next we will be hearing calls for the banning of falsecards in the play.

[luke warm]

i agree with all that jack said... having said that, i think flame's main concern is that it's impossible for 2 people to play together any length of time and *not* have unauthorized information regarding psychs, depending on the situation at the table... i think he's more worried about the ethics of it than whether or not it's good or bad or indifferent

 

whether or not this is really an ethical problem, i don't know... flame feels it is for him, and i think his position is that if it's possible to have unauth info then it's unethical on the face of it...

[EricK]

i agree with all that jack said... having said that, i think flame's main concern is that it's impossible for 2 people to play together any length of time and *not* have unauthorized information regarding psychs, depending on the situation at the table... i think he's more worried about the ethics of it than whether or not it's good or bad or indifferent

 

whether or not this is really an ethical problem, i don't know... flame feels it is for him, and i think his position is that if it's possible to have unauth info then it's unethical on the face of it...

Having unauthorised information is never unethical. Acting on unauthorised information is unethical.

 

Say partner, NV against V, opens 1NT (ostensibly 15-17) in 3rd seat and the next hand overcall 2♠. If you bid any differently to how you would if partner was in first seat, then you are acting unethically. This is true whether or not partner has ever psyched 1NT in this position before. And, this is the case whether or not you disclose to the opps that partner has been known to psyche this bid.

 

Eric

[DrTodd13]

If my partner psyches and I can use logic to determine that someone at the table has psyched and I determine it is most likely to be my partner then I see nothing wrong with "fielding" the psyche. There are a common set of circumstances in which experts are more likely to psyche. It is not necessary to alert something that should be a part of everyone's bridge knowledge. For example, 1H-(x)-1S.

1S is so often psyched that it should not be necessary to alert it. If you play some unusual convention where psyches can occur in an unexpected spot then you should alert that but alerting common psyche situations is just ridiculous.

 

I also disagree with restricting psyches of conventional bids. Also, not only would I not play in a tournament where psyches were banned but I think such tournaments should not even be allowed. We must be governed by the world-wide laws of bridge and I see no authority there for banning psyches.

[flytoox]

Psyching, or bluffing, is a part of bridge. I am sure if you would have gotten a bad score opps would not have called director.

They are just crybabies.

 

Mike :D

If Opps are known to be beginners, I would say Psychic bid is a bit unfair.

 

Hongjun

[luke warm]

i agree with all that jack said... having said that, i think flame's main concern is that it's impossible for 2 people to play together any length of time and *not* have unauthorized information regarding psychs, depending on the situation at the table... i think he's more worried about the ethics of it than whether or not it's good or bad or indifferent

 

whether or not this is really an ethical problem, i don't know... flame feels it is for him, and i think his position is that if it's possible to have unauth info then it's unethical on the face of it...

Having unauthorised information is never unethical. Acting on unauthorised information is unethical.

 

Say partner, NV against V, opens 1NT (ostensibly 15-17) in 3rd seat and the next hand overcall 2♠. If you bid any differently to how you would if partner was in first seat, then you are acting unethically. This is true whether or not partner has ever psyched 1NT in this position before. And, this is the case whether or not you disclose to the opps that partner has been known to psyche this bid.

 

Eric

i understand the distinction between knowing a psych is possible, or even likely, and acting on that knowledge... i'm not sure but i thought the rules said something about a psych not really being a psych if one person is known to do it quite often under certain circumstances... isn't it true that if this is the case, it's no longer a psych but a convention? or is it only if partner of the psychic bidder acts in a way contrary to logic?

 

when is information known to you by virtue of a psychic bid considered to be unauthorized? only if you *act* on it?

[Free]

If opps don't like psychs, it means they suck! I never heard an expert complain about such things, only losers and beginners. Friday I had a person complaining to me that I bid 1NT over a 1♦ opening with xxx-Jxxx-Axx-Jxx. That's not a psych imo, just a tactical bid. She went to the director to tell him that behind our backs! Just ridiculous...

 

Flame, I can understand you make an agreement with partner that you won't psych, it's like agreeing a certain system. What I can't understand however is that you'd bid 7NT if p psyched! You call psyching anti-bridge, what do you call your 7NT? Anti-partnership, anti-friends, anti-everything,... Even threatening with it is already anti-something imo.

[Flame]

Believe it or not , i changed my mind.

I agree that what i'v said about the thoretical problem of psyching is not really about psyches, its an all around problem that can never be 100% solved.

 

Anyway this wasnt my main point , i dont want my partners to psych, because i dont think its good for my partnership.

[mikestar]

... Friday I had a person complaining to me that I bid 1NT over a 1♦ opening with xxx-Jxxx-Axx-Jxx.  That's not a psych imo, just a tactical bid.  She went to the director to tell him that behind our backs!  Just ridiculous...

 

Agreed. I usually mark my CC "never psyche" and I would make this bid routinely. 1H will get partner too exited with a decent 16-17 and four card support. 1N= will score better than 3H-1. This is an exact analogue of responding 1N rather than 2S on xxx Kxxx Qxxx xx which is standard expert bidding.

 

For sevaral years I directed at a non-sanctioned club club which had a house rule banning psyches. I was asked for score adjustments many times in this type of auction and never granted one.

[Flame]

If opps don't like psychs, it means they suck! I never heard an expert complain about such things, only losers and beginners. Friday I had a person complaining to me that I bid 1NT over a 1♦ opening with xxx-Jxxx-Axx-Jxx. That's not a psych imo, just a tactical bid. She went to the director to tell him that behind our backs! Just ridiculous...

 

Flame, I can understand you make an agreement with partner that you won't psych, it's like agreeing a certain system. What I can't understand however is that you'd bid 7NT if p psyched! You call psyching anti-bridge, what do you call your 7NT? Anti-partnership, anti-friends, anti-everything,... Even threatening with it is already anti-something imo.

2 things that you might have missed Free, first i didnt bid 7NT just told my partner that i will, and second, i never complained about psyches just believe its bad for most partnership including mine.