Director said I was dumb !

[Chris3875]

He was probably very perceptive.

 

This happened on BBO in a tournament - but ignoring that fact, can we apply it to a normal, club game.

 

LHO opened 2H (weak) and partner doubled - RHO bid 2S (no alerts). I had heart stopper, and 5 spades and opening hand so I bid 2NT where we stayed and made 8 tricks. However, partner had 4 spades and an opening hand so we missed our game contract in spades to score a pretty woeful board. RHO had 2 spades.

 

When I whined to the Director he told me I should have doubled. I told him that a double by me at that stage would have been for takeout and shown a shortage in spades. He said I was dumb and that p and I missed out on a cartload of "penalty points" for doubling ops who were vulnerable.

 

I felt that we were damaged - I know we can't do anything about it on BBO - but if this happened in "real life" surely the score would be adjusted?

[peachy]

The opponents did not commit an infraction. If you think they did, you should explain what infraction you think they did commit. No infraction, no adjustment.

But the TD was out of line, he should have had the ability to explain things in civil language. I am going to assume this was a free tournament.

[Chris3875]

:) Yes, it was free !

 

You don't think bidding 2S with 2 small spades, no alert, in a tournament with no psyche bidding is an infraction ?

[Mbodell]

:) Yes, it was free !

 

You don't think bidding 2S with 2 small spades, no alert, in a tournament with no psyche bidding is an infraction ?

In the OP you forgot to mention that it was a "no psyche" sort-of-bridge tournament.

 

I agree that 2♠ is a psyche with two small. It is also a very common psyche. It is good to play X as penalty over new suits advancing preempts if you want to prevent this from happening in the future.

[peachy]

:) Yes, it was free !

 

You don't think bidding 2S with 2 small spades, no alert, in a tournament with no psyche bidding is an infraction ?

You did not say it was a "no psych" tournament. If yes, then the psych is an infraction of the rules of THAT TOURNAMENT, though it is not an infraction of any law, and on that basis I would adjust - - - if I were for some reason acting as TD in such an environment - - - I doubt that I ever would.

 

On BBO, tournament organizers in free tournaments at least, have the freedom to make their own rules even if they are not in compliance with the laws [example: banning psychs].

[bluejak]

'No psyche' tournaments are illegal, and you said

 

can we apply it to a normal, club game.

In a normal club game your opponent did nothing wrong and there is no adjustment.

 

The TD was arrogant and rude and his approach was unacceptable. But it is a fact that the most common psyche in bridge today is a change of suit response over a takeout double and I advise you to change your methods to playing double for penalty in that situation to allow for this.

 

While it is true that a 'No psyche' tournament is illegal, no doubt if someone psyches against you in such a tournament, a correct ruling would be to adjust.

[gwnn]

I sort of agree with the director, it is dumb to play 2H-x-2S-x as takeout (the agreement is dumb, not you) but of course he should not speak to you like that :)

[Free]

If you play a free tournament, you get what you pay for...

 

Psyching is part of the game, so it is allowed. There's no reason for the 2♠ bidder to alert his call and explain it to you that he psyched (because his partner is not aware of this). Your agreement is dumb, but that doesn't mean you are.

 

TD was way out of line: he shouldn't call any player any names, whatever they did. And if he makes up rules to ban psychs, he should penalize offenders.

[JoAnneM]

I would avoid tournaments with that director, and I would report him to BBO, if they have a way to do that.

[ggwhiz]

and I would report him to BBO, if they have a way to do that

 

Agreed and was told that the way to do it is take a screen shot of the offensive chat and e-mail it in. I haven't done it in ages but it is something like Alt - Print Screen (maybe a Control - Alt - PS).

 

Zero tolerance applies to freebie tournament directors too.

[EricK]

Psyching is part of the game, so it is allowed. There's no reason for the 2♠ bidder to alert his call and explain it to you that he psyched (because his partner is not aware of this). Your agreement is dumb, but that doesn't mean you are.

I think it would improve the game immensely if people reported their psyching tendencies in this sort of situation.

 

I obviously wouldn't expect them to say when they are psyching, but to self alert every 2♠ bid in this sequence (for example) and say "I have been known to psyche this on occasion" seems to be true to the spirit of full disclosure in an online setting.

[peachy]

Psyching is part of the game, so it is allowed.  There's no reason for the 2♠ bidder to alert his call and explain it to you that he psyched (because his partner is not aware of this).  Your agreement is dumb, but that doesn't mean you are.

I think it would improve the game immensely if people reported their psyching tendencies in this sort of situation.

 

I obviously wouldn't expect them to say when they are psyching, but to self alert every 2♠ bid in this sequence (for example) and say "I have been known to psyche this on occasion" seems to be true to the spirit of full disclosure in an online setting.

If it happens often enough that partner is made aware of the possibility, then it is no longer a psych. However, you can make the agreement (and with frequent occurrence, it already *is* the agreement) that over weak 2H, new suit is either natural and strong or weak hand with heart support and any number of spades. Just alert it and explain appropriately. Alsp, this is not only for online setting!

[Chris3875]

Thanks all - I know this site is supposed to be about Laws but that was an interesting discussion about PLAY. Of course in the BBO tournaments (especially the freebies) you don't often to get to play with the same partners so often you are flying by the seat of your pants.

 

I am a fairly low level player, so when my partner doubled the weak 2H bid, I thought - "opening hand, probably a negative double showing spades" - then to my surprise RHO comes in with 2S so I am now thinking "opening hand, probably not hearts or spades - could be minors" and with my opening hand with heart stopper and spades, 3 each of diamonds and clubs all I could think of to do was bid 2NT showing stoppers in both bid suits, which is where my partner left me.

 

I am trying to think what I would bid if the seats were reversed and I had doubled after the 2H bid - then my p doubled the 2S. I think ops would have run to 3H. What a very interesting game bridge is - I know they are legal but I hate psychs.

[blackshoe]

I know they are legal but I hate psychs.

People tend to hate and fear things they don't understand - and it's very hard to understand psychs when you're still trying to figure out what the right "system" bid is.

 

A few years ago, Julian Pottage wrote The Art of Psychic Bidding: (And Its Pitfalls). It may still be in print. An interesting read. Me, I just try to remember the Bene Gesserit Litany Against Fear:

 

I must not fear.

Fear is the mind-killer.

Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.

I will face my fear.

I will permit it to pass over me and through me.

And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.

Where the fear has gone there will be nothing.

Only I will remain.

 

(From Frank Herbert's Dune series).

[JoAnneM]

There is a difference between fear and hate.

[blackshoe]

Indeed there is, but in my experience they are often closely coupled.

[nige1]

Another double post. Sorry :( Too many windows open :)

[nige1]

There is a difference between fear and hate.

Psychs are fun and there is little to fear from true psychs, which are prone to back-fire. Unfortunately, however, ruses like this 2♠ bid may become a habit known to partner. In the EBU, there are rudimentary mechanisms for recording psychs, detecting patterns, and penalizing blatant fielding. Globally, however, there is no real effort to distinguish psychs from concealed partnership understandings.

[bluejak]

A few years ago, Julian Pottage wrote The Art of Psychic Bidding: (And Its Pitfalls). It may still be in print. An interesting read.

Was it not Julian Pottage and Peter Burrows? I contributed some legal thoughts to such a book.

[blackshoe]

Might have been, I don't have the book in front of me.

[Free]

Psyching is part of the game, so it is allowed.  There's no reason for the 2♠ bidder to alert his call and explain it to you that he psyched (because his partner is not aware of this).  Your agreement is dumb, but that doesn't mean you are.

I think it would improve the game immensely if people reported their psyching tendencies in this sort of situation.

 

I obviously wouldn't expect them to say when they are psyching, but to self alert every 2♠ bid in this sequence (for example) and say "I have been known to psyche this on occasion" seems to be true to the spirit of full disclosure in an online setting.

I disagree. The point of the psych is that it's so rare that partner won't expect it. Suppose 1 out of 5 times you'll bid 2♠ as a psych here (which is a lot btw). Say you really have ♠s and you explain this call is possible psych to your opponents. <sarcasm>I'm sure they will be very glad you alerted this 4/5 times where it wasn't necessary!</sarcasm>

 

Another point is that many people won't understand if you say "I have a tendancy to psych this with an average of 1/5 times". Either their English is poor, or your English is poor, or a combination, or they interprete it wrong, or they see "psych" and go berzerk, or whatever... You have very limited space to explain your call. You could use private chat ofcourse, but that won't beat the language barrier and the fear of psychs many people have.

 

Note that this is a situation known to pretty much everyone. 1♥-Dbl, 2♥-Dbl, 3♥-Dbl are all the same.

[nige1]

I think it would improve the game immensely if people reported their psyching tendencies in this sort of situation.

I obviously wouldn't expect them to say when they are psyching, but to self alert every 2♠ bid in this sequence (for example) and say "I have been known to psyche this on occasion" seems to be true to the spirit of full disclosure in an online setting.

I disagree.  The point of the psych is that it's so rare that partner won't expect it.

I agree with free. If deviations are frequent enough for partner to anticipate them, then they aren't psychs. They constitute an understanding. It is an "either or" understanding, like the "either or" double, employed by Bluejak. It should be disclosed on your system card; if such an agreement is alertable, then partner should alert it (as Bluejak does).

 

A problem is that some of these "either or" understandings aren't allowed. Also, the members of a partnership may have different predilections in this area. If such a partnership insist on employing an unlicensed or asymmetric method, then they can't disclose it in the normal way. Instead, they resort to a concealed partnership understanding, which they rationalise as a "psych".

[paulg]

Another double post. Sorry :ph34r: Too many windows open :D

That was dumb.

[TimG]

I am a fairly low level player, so when my partner doubled the weak 2H bid, I thought - "opening hand, probably a negative double showing spades" - then to my surprise RHO comes in with 2S so I am now thinking "opening hand, probably not hearts or spades - could be minors" and with my opening hand with heart stopper and spades, 3 each of diamonds and clubs all I could think of to do was bid 2NT showing stoppers in both bid suits, which is where my partner left me.

Partner's opening bid plus your opening bid equals game; if you decide to bid NT, I think 3NT was in order.

[Chris3875]

Which would have gone off because ops held 10 hearts between them - I thought I was lucky to make 8 tricks. My reasoning with bidding 2NT was to show stoppers in both the bid suits (hearts and spades) and close to opening hand. I see now that a double would have been much better - but I wonder what my partner would have thought I had - minors ?

 

The more I play this game, the more I know I don't know.