simple question

[jjsb]

hello

 

ok let say a fictional situation (but that we have known no doubt ) u are doing a KO match 32 deals and after crazy 16 deals unlucky and also bad played u're 50IMP behind . u dont want to give up of course but u and ur p after a discussion has decided to play the last 16 deals putting a LOT of pressure , i mean dont change the system doing more psyche , overcall with very weak hand etc... the question is nto to say if that way of acting is good or not , i'm pretty sure i would have a lot writing back " well dont change anything just try to do ur best and luck migth be back simply" u're rigth of course saying that but anyway it's ur decision u have taken with the team and partner to do those 16 last deals this way with psyche and so. The question is simple , do u have to say about it to ur opp at ur table ? to the whole team u're playing against ?

let say now u're playing in MP and at the middle of the tourney u are doing very bad and again u decide with partner to change radically ur way of play (again pls i know it's not the best way to do it's fictional , it's just the decision of ur team) and use more psyche etc. is it accepted to do that in MP? (considering u know u migth have some 0 but some 100 to some other and that can change radically the result at the end ) do u have to tell the director of the tourney ? the team u will meet ?

 

regards

syl

[EricK]

My opinion is that if you are doing these things with a genuine desire to win, then that is OK. If you are just doing them to have a bit of fun "because it no longer matters" then that is wrong.

 

I don't think you have to tell opponents in a teams match - they know as well as you how badly you are doing so they must expect that you may try something.

 

I also don't think you have to tell opponents at pairs. You don't have a duty to the rest of the field, you must simply do what you feel is most likely to bring in enough MP to win (or come in the top 3, or whatever your goal is).

 

Eric

[Cascade]

If you are 50 IMPs up in a team game or having a great game at MPs ...

 

Do you have to tell the opponents that you are going to take conservative middle of the road actions?

 

The answer to this question and yours should be the same.

 

I have never had my opponents inform me that because they are so far ahead they are not going to psyche. Have you?

[helene_t]

Correct me if I'm wrong, I suppose that the law is:

 

If partner makes a call that, according to your agreemtent, is likely to be a psyche, while the opps would not expect it to be a psyche, you must alert it.

 

If you have an extremely deviating overcall style or use psyches very frequently, you must write it on your CC. But under the given circumstances, you probably don't change your CC, so it would be nice to alert the opponents.

[the hog]

"If partner makes a call that, according to your agreemtent, is likely to be a psyche."

Helene, if its LIKELY to be a psyche, then it is not a psyche. A psyche is as unexpected to your partner as it is to the opponents.

eg we used to play over a precision C that 1H showed 13 cards. This is not a psyche. Naturally the opponents are pre alerted.

[Free]

Overcalling is a matter of style, and according to the rules, opps need to be informed about this as well. However, nobody will gain from a TD if you don't tell them imo...

 

Just put it in your notes that when you think you're behind, your style changes heavily to very agressive bidding and put on your cc "psyching: rare unless we're losing heavily" :unsure:

[whereagles]

Of course I wouldn't warn the opponents!! I mean.. what sort of general warns the enemy he's gonna do a surprise attack? :unsure:

[Cascade]

A psyche is as unexpected to your partner as it is to the opponents.

I don't buy this totally.

 

Partner being as unexpected as the opponents is not really completely synonymous with what is written in the laws "not based on a partnership understanding".

 

In particular I do not care whether Mrs Guggenheim (sp??) expects my psyche as much as my partner so long as I have no partnership understanding. Partner may expect the psyche more simply because he has a wider general bridge knowledge.

[inquiry]

Just put it in your notes that when you think you're behind, your style changes heavily to very agressive bidding and put on your cc "psyching: rare unless we're losing heavily" :unsure:

I think this is illegal and unethical to boot.

 

Let's handle the illegal aspects. You and your partner will know when you are "losing heavily", but of course your opponents whom you change every round, will not have a clue how you are doing. So your partner will be much more prepared to field a psyche than you. This in effect makes it an illegal psyche.

 

Now lets look at the ethics of it. For this, I will assume we are talking matchpoints to make it easy. When you are "losing heavily", a few psyches are not actually likelyt to improve your winning chances (one or two boards will not help). So what your psyches do are either help unreasonable your current opponents (by giving them a gift top when your psyche falls flat), or "unfairly harming" them, when your psyche workds but does nothing to improve your chances of winning.

 

It is much better ethically and legal to psyche when no one can suspect it (Early in an event, or when you think you need one more good board to WIN). This is what I think anyway.

 

Ben

[Free]

Ok, perhaps it's illegal. So just put "frequent psychs" and nobody will complain if you didn't psych at all, right?

 

I also don't think it's a good strategy to start psyching when you're losing, I just respond to jjsb's question :o If he want's to play this way, I won't stop them... Just giving advise, perhaps wrong advise :unsure: .

[pclayton]

Its not a good idea to not advise the opponents of your strategy. As a matter of fact, if there is a situation where a psyche might be advisable (responding to a weak 2, responding to a mini-NT, or 3rd hand opening), I would not hesitate to tell the opponents; "not only are we are behind in this match, but I've also seen him psyche in this situation before". Disclosure is for the benefit of the opponents.

 

Just because you are being trounced at the half, doesn't mean that going nuts is the best strategy. I've seen a lot of good teams try to play par at one table and the other table have some 'variable' results. If you are the table thats going for the 'variable' results, then you better be up front with your opponents, where psyches are concerned.

 

If you field the psyche in a match where you are deep in a hole, and you end up winning, you may get to state your case to the C/E committee.

[PriorKnowledge]

Why does everyone think that to take a risk you have to OVERBID? Why not take a risk by UNDERBIDDING. This is not likely to foul up the field and just as likely to generate some extra tops.

 

Another way to generate some tops is making anti-percentage plays. This is even MORE likely to generate a top than going crazy in the bidding.

 

For example.

 

Ax

xxx

KQ10xxx

xx

 

xxx

AKxx

Ax

KQxx

 

1N - 3N

 

Opening lead KS. When in with AS, play the AD and finesse the 10D. Most of the time this will throw tricks away. But when Jxxx is with West, you make when everyone else is down for a cold top.

[Cave_Draco]

"Shooting" - The art of playing for an abnormal result - is perfectly legal and proper.

 

A private agreement to fail to adhere to your Convention Card is most definately NOT.

 

P.S.

Psyching is not the way to shoot effectively!

Unless the rules have changed drastically since I played Tournament bridge...

Every time your opponents psyche, call the director, :lol:

You will get penalised by losing time! But, a psyching pair will lose time every round, AND the director will be on the alert.

 

P.P.S.

IMO, the best shooting opportunities come in the play!

Also, try playing IMPs tactics at MP & MP tactics at IMPs. Abnormal results are almost certain, :lol:

[mikestar]

The best shooting opportunities are in the play. But in the bidding, an underbid may be an even more rewarding shot than an overbid because it is less likely to be expected.

 

The key is to strive for abnormal results but not to play for miracles. Bidding a 40% game (in MP) or staying out of a 60% game is a resonable shot. Bidding a 10% game or staying out of a 90% game will just increase the size of your loss.

[Cascade]

Unless the rules have changed drastically since I played Tournament bridge...

Every time your opponents psyche, call the director, :lol:

You will get penalised by losing time! But, a psyching pair will lose time every round, AND the director will be on the alert.

I think this is out and out gamesmanship.

 

Calling the director for a psyche is not reasonable unless you think that there has also been an infraction.

[luke warm]

i agree with ben, except i don't know about the legality of it... i do have a problem with the ethics, on an intuitive basis

[Cave_Draco]

Unless the rules have changed drastically since I played Tournament bridge...

Every time your opponents psyche, call the director, :D

You will get penalised by losing time! But, a psyching pair will lose time every round, AND the director will be on the alert.

I think this is out and out gamesmanship.

 

Calling the director for a psyche is not reasonable unless you think that there has also been an infraction.

I don't see how it can be considered gamesmanship, :D

 

http://www.worldbridge.org/departments/systems/psyches.asp

 

Given that one often only plays a couple of boards against any particular opponents, how can one judge if the WBF guidlines are being broken?

 

I would maintain that no pair can so judge, unless opps psyche twice, :lol:

 

If the final sentence was amended to "Calling the director for a psyche is not reasonable unless you think that there could have been an infraction."

I would agree.

 

However, failing to call the director is, IMO, to make the unilateral decision that no infraction has taken place! I say that making that decision is not "proper", it is up to the director to decide.

How can the director decide if s/he is denied information?

[luke warm]

if an opponent psychs and if you call the director because you aren't sure there was an infraction, you are open to potential penalty... worse, you are purposely opening your opponents to a time penalty for no reason other than they made a bid santioned by the rules, and you didn't like it

 

it is gamesmanship, if it's done for that reason, and your post left the impression that's why you'd be doing it

[Cascade]

I think this is out and out gamesmanship.

 

Calling the director for a psyche is not reasonable unless you think that there has also been an infraction.

 

If the final sentence was amended to "Calling the director for a psyche is not reasonable unless you think that there could have been an infraction."

I would agree.

There "could have been" lots of infractions:

 

The opponents might have used some illegal method of communication that we do not know about (very similar to what you are suggesting about psyches);

 

They may have peeked at our cards and dropped an off-side King or Queen

 

etc

 

We don't call the director unless we have some evidence.

 

I believe that summoning the director because there has been a psyche is not the proper use of a director call. It is motivated by your own personal crusade against psyches and/or a desire to intimidate the opponents into not exercising their lawful right to psyche.

 

It is akin to calling the police everytime the next door neighbours have visitors because they might be selling drugs.

[the saint]

I agree, with the above, with one small proviso.

 

If you have VERY GOOD reason to believe that the opps in question psych regularly and in a recurring theme or pattern, the pysch should be recorded to allow such a pattern to be established. Such that in the future, damage through a possibly illicit understanding by the opps in question may be prevented.

 

Alan (aka The Saint)

 

P.S. If someone psyches against me and makes it stick then good luck to you, but I have the memory of an elephant.... And the bloodlust of a vampire! Surely that is the spirit we want this game to be played in? :lol:

[1eyedjack]

It probably varies across NCBOs, but locally I thought that there was a duty to report psyches ... each and every one. It is not gamesmanship. It is supposedly the only way to identify whether an alleged psyche comes as equal surprise to both parties. No-one appears to follow that rule, though.

 

Interesting point is: if you are going into the last segment in arrears, and as a team during the tea-break you have agreed between you that North-South will play steady and East-West will push for swings, do you have to disclose this to the opposing team? Instinctively I would think that you do, but I have known matches where just such agreements have come to light only after the event.

[luke warm]

jack, the gamesmanship comes about, imho, if a pair calls the td with the aim of harming the psyching team, thru some time penalty... according to the way i read the post, that would be the motive and i think that makes it wrong

 

as far as alan's post goes, i agree as long as partner of the psyching player bids in a way contrary to logic... iow, if a player is known to psych often in particular conditions, this in itself is not wrong... how his partner bids after the psych can make it wrong

[Cascade]

How his partner bids is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether or not they have an undisclosed agreement.

 

Any psyche is legal provided it is not based on an undisclosed agreement.

 

Well by any psyche I mean subject to regulations about not psyching conventional bids etc.

[luke warm]

i understand the rule, wayne... take a situation where you've never discussed this subject with a partner but you have noticed on more than one occasion where he psychs a, say, 1nt call in 3rd seat... now it's impossible for you *not* to know he does that... what do you do with a 9 or 10 count?

 

that's what i meant by bidding as if partner's bid was what it seems.. if i passed the 9 count, someone could say i was in possession of u.i., and imo they'd be correct

[Chamaco]

Calling the director for a psyche is not reasonable unless you think that there has also been an infraction.

Borderline statement, I would rephrase it as follows:

 

"Calling the director to ask for appeal for a psyche is not reasonable unless you think that there has also been an infraction. But it is reasonable to record the psychers to log their psyche in a psyche's database to ensure that a concealed agreement is not there"