Psychic bid button

[paulhar]

And, if course, your partner fields your falsecard, the trouble starts!

[1eyedjack]

I've been down this road before but here goes......

 

I think we should also have a button for when you are going to make a defensive false-card.

 

Let's say you and your partner agree to play natural count (it goes without saying that you have told your opponents this at the start of the round).

 

Then you realise that a devilish false-card or false-count card may fool declarer. And so it proves.

 

I say we should *HAVE* to press a button just like the psyche button.

 

Bring back the rope!

 

Dwaynish.

How do you explain the fact that in most countries in face to face games there is a requirement to report psychic bids but not to report falsecards in play? Or perhaps you think that falsecards should be reported (or psychic bids not)?

[Free]

We had this discussion already a 100 times! Some people say falsecards are not similar to psychics, others (including me) say they are. You give a gross misinterpretation of your hand, deliberatly, to fool opps (and p).

 

Why don't we add a button for misclicks when undo's are not allowed? Plz press the button before you misclick plz :rolleyes: ! No offense, but this is crazy... Button for psychs, button for falsecards, what else will come? Button for creative bidding? Button for extreme weak hands? Button for underbids? Button for overbids? Where will this end? And why do we need to change so much rules for online bridge? In f2f bridge, nobody has to call the TD before he makes any of these weirdo thingy's. TD's online are already complaining about too many buttons pressed (or too many times), too many calls, lots of work,... And now we have to bother them with this as well? It's just a waste of time imo.

[Chamaco]

And why do we need to change so much rules for online bridge?  In f2f bridge, nobody has to call the TD before he makes any of these weirdo thingy's.

In many country, in f2f bridge, you HAVE TO do it afterwards, if you psyche, because recording those psyches is the only way to verify if those psyches recurs or not (and are hence a concealed agreement).

 

The only reason not to call the director BEFOREHAND is that it would disclose unauthorized info to partner during bidding.

Since there is not this problem in online bridge, I think that *if a TD decides to rule psyches that way*, he may like to require psyche preannouncing.

 

Personally, I have no strong opinion for or against psyches, I simply believe that such a tool should be viewed as a compromise: there are people (and TDs) who see psyches as *the* evil thing, and they'd wish them to be banned. There are players (who would probably overuse it) who just think that ANY regulation of psyches is close to dictatorship and anti-bridge.

 

Obviously these 2 positions cannot co-exist and none of the 2 solution is feasible, in my opinion.

The only possible solution is a compromise, imperfect, with shortcoming, but better than nothing. Extreme solutions cannot be applied IMO.

 

Psyche pre-alertting has the advantage of simulating a procedure already used in many low-mid flight national events, and it would probably be seen as a sign of goodwill from the psycher to preinform the director, easing his task.

 

From the other viewpoint, if I were a psyche supporter, I'd much prefer to have to simply click a button (what's the problem in clicking a button?) to prealert rather than having to accept that in many tourneys psyches are either banned or severely penalized.

 

In any case, this time I'll follow the "in quick- out quick" principle for this thread, I am not a psycher nor an opposer, just pick the solution you like :rolleyes:

[Dwayne]

How do you explain the fact that in most countries in face to face games there is a requirement to report psychic bids but not to report falsecards in play?  Or perhaps you think that falsecards should be reported (or psychic bids not)?

 

Then this is clearly an anomoly in local regulations.

 

After all, what's the real difference? Both are a deliberate mistatement of your actual holding. What we should be monitoring, rather than reporting all psyches per se, are occurences where a player clearly fields a partner's actions that are inconsistent with their claimed agreements.

 

Dwaynerino.

[Cascade]

The only reason not to call the director BEFOREHAND is that it would disclose unauthorized info to partner during bidding.

Since there is not this problem in online bridge, I think that *if a TD decides to rule psyches that way*, he may like to require psyche preannouncing.

There are potential UI problems from pre-alerting online.

 

I pre-alert my psyche and then the TD comes snooping around. When something seems awry with the auction partner or one of the opponents may be able to deduce that I have psyched based on the presence of the director.

 

Maybe I missed the full proposal but it seems to me that a pre-alert procedure would need to be accompanied by the TD monitoring the psyche from a distance or in some sort of invisible mode.

 

Personally I think regulations regarding psyches are bad. The laws make it clear that psyches are legal. What is illegal is to have a concealed partnership understanding. I also think that it is entirely inappropriate to call the director because an opponent psyches. When an opponent psyches there has not been any infraction of law so there is no need to call a director. Therefore calling the director is poor sportsmanship in my opinion. It is only appropriate to call the director if there is an infraction or a suspicion of an infraction so unless there is evidence of a concealed partnership understanding I do not believe that it is appropriate to call the director. In fact I think that calling the director just because the opponent has psyched is an example of gamesmanship.

[Chamaco]

The only reason not to call the director BEFOREHAND is that it would disclose unauthorized info to partner during bidding.

Since there is not this problem in online bridge, I think that *if a TD decides to rule psyches that way*, he may like to require psyche preannouncing.

There are potential UI problems from pre-alerting online.

 

I pre-alert my psyche and then the TD comes snooping around. When something seems awry with the auction partner or one of the opponents may be able to deduce that I have psyched based on the presence of the director.

 

Maybe I missed the full proposal but it seems to me that a pre-alert procedure would need to be accompanied by the TD monitoring the psyche from a distance or in some sort of invisible mode.

 

Personally I think regulations regarding psyches are bad. The laws make it clear that psyches are legal. What is illegal is to have a concealed partnership understanding. I also think that it is entirely inappropriate to call the director because an opponent psyches. When an opponent psyches there has not been any infraction of law so there is no need to call a director. Therefore calling the director is poor sportsmanship in my opinion. It is only appropriate to call the director if there is an infraction or a suspicion of an infraction so unless there is evidence of a concealed partnership understanding I do not believe that it is appropriate to call the director. In fact I think that calling the director just because the opponent has psyched is an example of gamesmanship.

 

I agree on the principles you refer to.

 

The potential problems arise, anyway, in tournaments with people used to play in tournaments where psyches are banned.

 

As an example, some of the limitations in OItaly about psyches are the following (I won't discuss whether they are right or wrong, just mention them to clarify the reason why an italian player is likely to call the TD, or why an italian TD may have tendncy to ban some psyches):

 

- you cannot psyche 1 of a suit unless you have at least 8 hcp; if you do, you will be automatically penalized

- you cannot psyche NT bids with hcp deviating more than 3 hcp from your announced range; if you do, you will be autoimatically penalized

- system-protected psyches are banned altogether.

- there are more limitations but I won't enter all details.

 

So you see that psyching is bound to generate different reactions from players used to different regulations, and who assume (by ignorance) that their local regulation applies worldwide.

 

This is only one of many cases where a TD will find helpful to have the time to be prepared to explain to the contenders the reasons of his decision.

 

I agree about the slight difficulty of the players viewing th TD at the table (which may signal a possible psyche), but I think there are ways to overcome this.

[hrothgar]

“Psyches” are undoubtedly one of the more controversial subjects in bridge. From my own perspective, all of the controversy is rooted in a very simple observation: The entire concept of a “psyche” is conceptually flawed. So long as organizations persist in trying to base regulations on a flawed premise, they can’t help BUT create complex and inconsistent rulings.

 

Game theorists have long recognized the existence of so-called “mixed” strategies that deliberately incorporate randomization into the strategy space. As an example, lets consider a very simple game like “Matching Pennies”. Two players (A + :unsure: are each handed a coin. Each player will secretly determine whether to expose the coin as “Heads” or “Tails”. The coins are simultaneously exposed. If the two coins match (both coins are heads or both coins are tails, then player A will keep both coins. If the two coins don’t match, then player B will keep both coins).

 

Playing this simple game, the equilibrium strategy is for both players to randomly select whether they are going to play Heads or Tails, with a 50-50 weighting. [The “equilibrium” is the combination of strategies where neither player has an incentive to change their behavior. For example, suppose that Player A chooses a strategy in which he always chooses to player “Heads”. In this case, player B would always want to play “Tails”. However, if Player B adopted a strategy of always playing Tails, then player A would want to change his strategy to always play Tails. The mixed equilibrium using precisely 50-50 weighting is the only equilibrium to this game.]

 

If anyone is still bothering to read this post, “Matching Pennies” is important because it illustrates a system in which the only stable solution involves deliberate randomization. In a similar fashion, many players argue that optimal strategies in bridge often require deliberate randomization as well. There are a wide number of well-known examples of positions that require “random” carding or mandatory false-cards. Equally significant, many players believe that certain positional bidding situations also require some type of randomization. For example, suppose that I am sitting white-on-red holding

 

S 42

H K

D KQT8754

C T52

 

Partner and RHO have just passed. I argue that the “optimal” strategy is to open

 

1NT 25% of the time

3C 25% of the time

4C 50% of the time

 

[i’m not so much worried about the actual percentages, but rather the “core” premise. Behaving deterministically and always bidding 4C or always bidding 3C is not likely to be an optimal strategy]

 

From my perspective, so-called “Psyches” are actually examples in which players are subconsciously adopting mixed strategies in their bidding. I doubt that many of the players can consciously articulate the principles involved let alone precisely characterize the precise percentages that they assign to different branches in their bidding tree. “Game Theory” didn’t even exist as a formal discipline when the expression “Psyche” was coined, so its not too surprising that early regulations didn’t take this notion into account. With this said and done, this model does describe observed behavior and offers a superior basis for creating appropriate regulations.

[Free]

Recording psychs is a waste of time imo. If I really want to psych, I WILL psych. I'll always find a bid which gives a gross misinterpretation of my hand. If it's not recorded, then it might be the same bid more times, but if it would be recorded I can go on for years before I need to repeat a psych.

 

Look at the hand Richard gave us:

S 42

H K

D KQT8754

C T52

 

pass - pass - ?

 

what can I bid? 1♣, 1♦, 1♠, 1NT, 2♦, 2♠, 2NT, 3♣, 3♦, 3NT, 4♣, 4♦, 4NT, 5♣ and 5♦ (and perhaps 1♥ but I don't like psychs with stiffs, I want 5 trumps at 2-level :o ). I don't think I've forgotten one. This means I can bid 15 different bids, and 11 bids would be considered as psych! Similar hands, right position and other right factors don't occur enough to limit my possibilities for a psych... Is repeating a psych every 5 years a partnership understanding? I don't think so :unsure:

 

So why do people want to waste their energy like this? I really don't understand this...

[Cascade]

As an example, some of the limitations in OItaly about psyches are the following (I won't discuss whether they are right or wrong, just mention them to clarify the reason why an italian player is likely to call the TD, or why an italian TD may have tendncy to ban some psyches):

 

- you cannot psyche 1 of a suit unless you have at least 8 hcp; if you do, you will be automatically penalized

- you cannot psyche NT bids with hcp deviating more than 3 hcp from your announced range; if you do, you will be autoimatically penalized

- system-protected psyches are banned altogether.

- there are more limitations but I won't enter all details.

Wow!!!

 

8 hcp does not sound like a psyche if you have the suit bid.

 

3 hcp deviation for NT is certainly not a psyche.

 

These rules are about as much nonsense as the ones we have locally.