ACBL -- Limited Number of psyches/tournament?

[inquiry]

I sent a query into the ACBL, lets see what they tell us.

I think they are going to tell you taht you can not limit the number of psyches per session. However, you can punish players who psyche too frequently (abusively) of if their partners catch their psyches without good bridge reason why (of course, if this is first time partnership, or a pair that otherwise never psyches, a catch is ok).

 

Ben

[Gweny]

WHOAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

 

I do know know who tell you this epeeist but this is NOT what td is suppose to tell you. Our macros for start of tournament are all approve by ACBL. Please contact me with TDs name so I can let this person know this is error.

 

Thanks,

 

Gweny/ACBL Coodinator

[epeeist]

WHOAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

 

I do know know who tell you this epeeist but this is NOT what td is suppose to tell you. Our macros for start of tournament are all approve by ACBL. Please contact me with TDs name so I can let this person know this is error.

 

Thanks,

 

Gweny/ACBL Coodinator

I've sent you an e-mail with, as best as I can remember, which TD it was. I had no problem or difficulty with the TD, who was friendly and polite in response to my question, I was just seeking clarification (and waiting for the ACBL's response to uday :) ) because it was the first online ACBL tournament I'd seen that warning in.

[1eyedjack]

A theoretical problem with limiting psyches by permitted number per session is that if you are partnering someone who likes to operate, and he hasn't psyched yet, and you are approaching the end of the session, you as partner will be less surprised by a psyche than opponents. Or if he psyches early in the session your opponents may suspect a psyche later that you know is not a psyche. Only way around that is for each player to advise the opponents at the beginning of each round how much of his psyche quota has been used, but I am not aware of any authority (that operates this limitation) requiring that.

[Cascade]

Only way around that is for each player to advise the opponents at the beginning of each round how much of his psyche quota has been used, but I am not aware of any authority (that operates this limitation) requiring that.

Indeed this approach is seriously flawed in my opinion.

 

If I advise my opponents at round two that I have used my psyche quota then they may have considerable unauthorized information about the boards that I played in round one.

 

This would not be a problem in online play where everyone plays the same boards at the same time.

 

However there would be other problems. A pair would have an advantage compared with pairs in earlier rounds if they knew that you had already used up your quota.

[Gweny]

:) Thanks Epee! :-)

and just so you all can relax...

 

psyches are allow but we do keep notes on who is psyching and with whom they are playing so if it becomes pattern that player xyz uses this tools abundently with same partner then we can and will take appropriate action.

[bglover]

Well I think I must take some of the blame/heat here for the "1 psyche" rule that seems to have become so prominent on BBO.

 

Because I received complaints everytime someone made a successful psyche, I early on instituted a rule, that seems to have been adopted by many tourney directors: if anyone pysches more than once per session, they must prealert opponents about frequent psyching tendencies. I did this, admittedly, to cut down on the number of complaints more than anything else.

 

When I was directing FOT (created months after I first develped this rule) I kept the rule the same. Systemic psyching needed pre-alerting. However, for TopFlight, there was not (and, I believe still is not) any such rules regarding psyches.

 

Why? Because one must recognize the realities of the field in each tourney. Altho FOT is by no means a "weak" game, it is a game that covers a large spectrum of players-- I felt that allowing unfetttered psyching would give too big an advantage to the better players who might take advantage of lesser opponents, and thus ruin everyone's enjoyment of the game some.

 

On the other hand, TopFlight was meant to represent a "best of the best" field and thus no restrictions of this sort were even considered (the only restriction I ever institiuted was that anyone playing a "forcing pass" type system must 1st forward copies of defenses to all members.. they are just too hard to defend against without having ample time to prepare).

 

Trust me, every time someone successfully psyched in TopFlight, I received a director call, just like I did in FOT. But, in FOT the players were reminded "1 psyche per session or prealert" while in TopFlight my answer was "sorry, psyches are part of the game".

 

So, I guess all you 1-psyche-per-tourney haters should blame me. I believe I was the first director to implement that rule. But, it was only meant to keep the playing field relatively level.

[luke warm]

is it fair to say then that you instituted this rule out of either an unwillingness to address the issue every time it came up or an inability to have the 'conditions of contest' specifically mention that psychics are allowed under bridge laws?

 

it's my opinion that such a rule runs counter to both the spirit and letter of the law

[bglover]

No, I did it for the reasons stated- to keep the field as level as possible.

 

Notice I did NOT outlaw psyches or limit psyches to 1 per session.. I told people they had to prealert frequent psyches if they knew they had a tendency to psyche often. By instituting that rule, it actually cut down on the number of psyches generally because people did not wish to prealert them and let opponents know of their psyching tendencies.

 

Now, if people knew they were likely to psyche as a partnership, it's not a stretch to say that it was somewhat systemic. And, therefore, should be alerted as part of what that partnership played. That was my thinking, anyway.

 

In any event, the rule cut down on the number of director calls regarding psyches. I can't honestly say it cut down on psyching per se, just that people who psyched frequently knew they had to prealert or risk getting penalized.. again, leveling the playing field some.

[Cascade]

There are perfectly adequate laws dealing with psychic bids and violations of agreements and concealed partnership understandings L40A and L75B.

 

Therefore there is no need to create regulations to have the same affect and I believe that those regulations are wrong when they take away some of the rights of players given under those same laws.

 

Pre-alerting psychic bids is against the spirit of the law in my opinion. L40A says you are allowed to make a 'surprise attack' and then that regulation says it is not allowed to be a 'surprise'.

 

That don't make sense to me.

[bglover]

Well in the US there used to be (might still be) a place to check off on the card if a pair uses frequent psyches.

 

Therefore I don't think what I did was so far beyond the realm of what the ACBL was endorsing. There was a legitimate reason for "frequent psyches" to be on a pair's card.. I was merely extending that principle to online bridge.

 

But, that was not my reasons.. As I stated before, I just wanted to keep things relatively level. That's all.

[Cascade]

I don't understand what you mean by level.

 

If everyone knows that psychic bidding is part of the game then that is level.

 

If they also know that concealed agreements are not part of the game then that is level.

 

If someone less experienced does not know about either of these things then they will need to get educated in what is part of the game.

[paulhar]

I don't understand what you mean by level.

Let me take a stab.

 

When I play with my wife, and I open 1D followed by double and 1H by her, I know she has 4+ hearts. Period. The opponents know that psyches exist and an advancer with four or five hearts might think a psyche is being used here. But I know differently. This is an advantage I shouldn't have - they should know she has four hearts too. I didn't think that mattered until once an opponent played in 4H because they thought she psyched.

 

On the other hand, with one of my other partners, it might be not hearts almost as often as hearts! <_< Mabye that's an exaggeration, but here again I have knowledge that the opponents should be entitled to.

[Cascade]

That may be a partnership understanding that you would need to disclose to the opponents. If you do not then the bid is based on a concealed partnership understanding which is illegal.

 

How much more level than that do you want the playing field to be?

[TimG]

That may be a partnership understanding that you would need to disclose to the opponents. If you do not then the bid is based on a concealed partnership understanding which is illegal.

 

How much more level than that do you want the playing field to be?

So you're suggesting that given teh auction 1♦-(DBL)-1♥, Paul should alert and tell the opponents that his partner always has 4+ hearts? Something about that doesn't seem quite right.

[Cascade]

That may be a partnership understanding that you would need to disclose to the opponents.  If you do not then the bid is based on a concealed partnership understanding which is illegal.

 

How much more level than that do you want the playing field to be?

So you're suggesting that given teh auction 1♦-(DBL)-1♥, Paul should alert and tell the opponents that his partner always has 4+ hearts? Something about that doesn't seem quite right.

I don't think it needs an alert but if the opponents ask then they are entitled to know that you never depart from your agreements.

 

There is a more strict requirement if you have a partnership understanding that would not be natural as then you would have to alert.

[keylime]

Gotta give ya one that happened during the Nanaimo regional:

 

In of all games, the Intermediate/Newcomer game! This happened:

 

1C-1D

1H-1S

1NT - 4NT

6NT All Pass

 

The 1D hand was 3-3 in the suits they bid! They forgot if they played inverted minors or not!!!!!!!!! I didn't know whether to laugh, cry, or pull my hair out! :o

[helene_t]

An example of wanting to lose:  You're in the qualifying rounds where the top 10 pairs qualify for a 5 table Howell in the finals without carryover.  You have a 74% game going into the last round when your opponents are a pair you've scored 47 consecutive near tops against because they can't handle your system and you have them totally psyched out.  Seems to me that this is one of the nine other pairs that you would like to be in the finals against you.

Exactly this happend last year in a prestigeus tournament in the Netherlands. The TD thought it was OK but the appeal comite decided to disqualify the pair that used this strategy, allthough they were in good faith since they got the TD's aproval before they started losing. AFAIK there still is no concensus as to whether this strategy is allowed.

[Gerben47]

There are now anti-dumping laws in all NBB tournaments. However in the case you mention there were extremely obvious results (like -3400). I'm sure you could play "badly but not obvious".

 

In fact I was in a similar situation at one point. There was going to be a "cut" and there would be money prizes in both groups. I knew that I was near this cut so if we would get just below it we had more chance to win money than to start at the bottom of the stronger group.

 

What to do... Anyway the last few boards were very good and we landed well above the cut. And in the end, we didn't get any money.

[pclayton]

An example of wanting to lose:  You're in the qualifying rounds where the top 10 pairs qualify for a 5 table Howell in the finals without carryover.  You have a 74% game going into the last round when your opponents are a pair you've scored 47 consecutive near tops against because they can't handle your system and you have them totally psyched out.  Seems to me that this is one of the nine other pairs that you would like to be in the finals against you.

Exactly this happend last year in a prestigeus tournament in the Netherlands. The TD thought it was OK but the appeal comite decided to disqualify the pair that used this strategy, allthough they were in good faith since they got the TD's aproval before they started losing. AFAIK there still is no concensus as to whether this strategy is allowed.

This was a BIG issue in the US about 20 years ago. Don't know how or when or if it was resolved.

 

You are playing in a round robin qualifier, where two of the 3 teams advance to the head to head play against a very good team and a very weak team. You are beating the weak team by a small margin, and beating the strong team by a huge -unsurmountable (for argument's sake - lets say you can't lose). Certainly, there is an incentive to 'dump' to the weak team, effectively stopping the stronger team from advancing.

 

I asked the question of a pro player, who was on the ACBL's Law (I think)Commission at the time.

 

His answer was: "Would you sacrifice a trick to guarantee your contract"?

[TimG]

I asked the question of a pro player, who was on the ACBL's Law (I think)Commission at the time.

 

His answer was: "Would you sacrifice a trick to guarantee your contract"?

I don't know if the rule is still on the books or not, but this was technically against ACBL rules 20 years ago. Somewhere there was a rule against "losing a trick that could be won". It made all sorts of plays (finesses, endplays, etc.) illegal. The rule was used as the basis for disciplining a team which dumped in a three-way match in a New England KO. (They were successful and went on to win the event. Though I believe ACBL stripped them of the masterpoints!) Perhaps TL Goodwin can elaborate, I believe he was part of the committee.

 

T.H. Goodwin

[TimG]

This was a BIG issue in the US about 20 years ago. Don't know how or when or if it was resolved.

The way to resolve it, BTW, is with conditions of contest that take away any incentive to dump.

[uday]

The ACBL has replied to my query on psychs. I neglected to ask if I could quote the reply here, so I will paraphrase.

 

This is what the ACBL said

 

. Despite the fact the psychic calls are specifically allowed by Law 40, we know of clubs that have house rules forbidding or limiting the use of such calls. These clubs usually do because such calls are disruptive to their games.

 

. In ruling on psychic calls we, as Tournament Directors, only limit their use in two cases:

--- partners begin to deviate their responses based on a suspicion that partner has psyched (based in turn on a history of psyching)

--- these calls are frivolous, destroying the game.

 

. BBO may wish to track psychic calls.

 

. This is a difficult situation

 

. Many players have difficulty distinguishing between a psychic call and a tactical bid. In investigating claims of excessive psychic bidding we have often found that the call in question was a tactical bid.

 

 

 

My summary based on this :

 

- ACBL on BBO should not be limiting psychs ( not that we are, by policy)

- There is nothing wrong with psyching in a non-frivolous fashion

- TDs and players should be aware that many "psychs" are really just tactical calls

 

I guess we knew all this already :)

 

maybe I should add this (but I am unsure if it should be the case)

 

- Players should avoid catering to partners psychs in the bidding unless they have alerted the opponents to partners tendencies.

 

 

 

 

uday

[EricK]

As far as I can see, all psyches are either frivolous bids or tactical calls. What else is there?

 

Also, I think players shouldn't cater to their partner's psyches even if they have alerted their opponents to partner's tendencies.

 

eg 1♥ (X) 1♠ (P) . Now unless the 1♠ bid specifically denied ♠, then I don't think telling opps that 1♠ may be a psyche gives you an excuse not to raise partner if you have ♠ as well.

 

Eric

[epeeist]

Thanks for the info, uday.