psyche exclusions

[Bbradley62]

I frequently play in a daily no-psyches tournament. The director has consistently explained that a one-cad deviation from what is expected is not considerd a psyche. This sensible rule-of-thumb would suffice for Jilly's example.

 

Would it be a psyche if bidder had AQx instead of AQxx?

[jillybean]

I frequently play in a daily no-psyches tournament. The director has consistently explained that a one-cad deviation from what is expected is not considerd a psyche. This sensible rule-of-thumb would suffice for Jilly's example.

 

Would it be a psyche if bidder had AQx instead of AQxx?

 

Sorry, I don't understand this. Are you saying it should be ok to make a lead directing call (edited, not double) on AQx but not AQxx? I hope not, I don't see anything sensible in this "rule".

[blackshoe]

Anyone who claims a lead directing double with AQ, or AQx, or AQxx, or AQxxx, is a psych has no clue what a psych is.

[barmar]

What do lead-directing doubles have to do with this? In Jilly's example it was a supposedly natural 2-level overcall.

[blackshoe]

<shrug> Somebody brought them up.

[jillybean]

What do lead-directing doubles have to do with this? In Jilly's example it was a supposedly natural 2-level overcall.

Sorry, that was me. It should have read lead directing bid, not double. It doesn't change the fact that a lead directing bid or double made on AQxx is considered a psyche but when made on AQx is not, is nonsense.

[Bbradley62]

Sorry, that was me. It should have read lead directing bid, not double. It doesn't change the fact that a lead directing bid or double made on AQxx is considered a psyche but when made on AQx is not, is nonsense.

My question was actually exactly the opposite. My question is: what is expected in the auction (1N)-p-(2D)-2S? Is the spade bid expected to simply be lead directing, or is it expected to show length (and, therefore, a suggestion of a suit for declaring)?

[the_dude]

Psychs are a legitimate element of normal bridge. IMO, however, it makes sense to ban psychs from some BBO tournaments:

 

1. Many of competitors are beginners. Psychs may confuse their learning.
2. As a BBO player, you alert and explain your own calls. Opponents are prone to cry foul if your explanation bears no relationship to your hand.
3. It is easy to cheat on-line, so the fielding of psychs becomes more suspicious and generates more bad feeling than it would at face-to-face bridge.
4. Many on-line tournaments are free. Some competitors are not the full shilling. Many have a low attention-span. In the past, when such players were doing badly, they would quit. Now runners are discouraged. So there is a strong temptation for such players to psych and fool around. This tendency must be discouraged because it can detract from the enjoyment of others.
5. Some players try to get round system-restrictions by spurious claims that their banned conventional call is a "psych". (Personally, I don't approve of system restrictions but if we must have them, then I think that they should be enforced).
6. Psychs attract director calls. On-line, few experienced directors are available.

 

These reasons enough would be more than enough for me to ban psyches.

 

By agreeing to play on a Free, anonymous, or extremely low cost site .. aren't you implicitly agreeing to a less-serious game with a lower standard of play. Such a game would need certain rules to combat things like "runners", cheaters, and other mayhem seekers.

 

I would think that players insistent on a serious game would play somewhere that requires a real membership and identity, with real consequences for misbehavior. Then I would feel better about complaining if the venue did not allow the full array of competition.

[Echognome]

Although I would personally not prefer to play in a "No Psych" tournament, I don't have a problem if other people want to. Say that certain people really enjoy playing a game that is not bridge, but is very similar to bridge. If that game happens to catch on and become more popular than bridge, who are we to say that they shouldn't be allowed to play it? That's like saying that a Whist website should not allow bridge. Why not? What does it harm us if people are allowed to play Canasta or Gin or whatever? Are we offended because it is on a bridge website?

 

I personally think it has to be tough to figure out what's a psych and what's a misbid. When does the partnership have an agreement (explicit or implicit) and when do they not? But it's not for me to judge whether it's workable and I certainly don't want to tell other people it's wrong to play a game they enjoy, even if it's a game I wouldn't enjoy.

[barmar]

There are lots of games on BBO that aren't "real bridge" according to the Laws. Someone already mentioned Goulash tourneys, which people have been running for years. And now we have all the "best hand" tourneys, where the robots are guaranteed not to have more HCP than the human. IMHO, games that deliberately cook the deals are further from the spirit of the bridge laws than disallowing psyches. But we play them because they're fun. And as long as all the players are aware of what's going on, it's fair; no harm, no foul.

 

The main problem with the no-psyche tourneys, though, is that the TD's tend to be willing to treat almost any deviation, misbid, or temporizing bid as a psyche. So people who never truly psyche sometimes get labeled as such, because they decide to open a 4-card major or bid a weak 2 with only 5 cards in the suit. Real players know that this is "just bridge", but the players who want these no-psyche tourneys are apparently looking for protection from any type of surprise.

[1eyedjack]

I have known of regular tournaments that ban psychs with the stated motives of protecting beginners or inexperienced players who make up the larger part of the entry field in those particular tourneys. Assuming that there are not also some unpublished motives, this is not an evil motive although it is arguably misguided.

 

One possibly unintended consequence of that policy is that it serves to perpetuate the mediocrity of the field attending that particular regular event. That said, if it is the intention of the organisers that the field should for ever and a day remain one which is targeted at beginners and inexperienced players, then this consequence may be intended and actually further their aims, as better players stay away and the captured market of inexperienced players remain in permanent ignorance of a potentially enriching element of the game.

 

What I find personally a little disappointing is that these organisers do not have the imagination to mix it up a bit, and allow psychs in a selection of their tourneys albeit perhaps not all. Sure, as a player you can hunt around for other tourneys where the psych isn't banned, but it remains a restriction of choice.

[wank]

a new low for me this week. i play in these wanky bbo tournies sometimes, and though i consider it ridiculous i do respect the no-psyching rules some of them have.

 

on this occasion the tournament wasn't advertised as a no-psyche tournament, including on the rules page which noone normally reads. lo and behold i picked up a hand where i thought the best approach was a psyche. it worked - we went for 250 against the opps' slam. a few minutes later without warning the score is changed, i'm kicked from the tournament and the director won't respond to my surprisingly politely worded enquiries as to why this had occurred.

 

the director then refused to let partner leave, forcing him to close BBO to escape 5 boards with a random.

[helene_t]

Having played some 10,000 hands online (I think) I have only once been psyched against as far as I know (there may have been some weird calls that were intended as psychs but I don't think so).

 

Those who ban psyches must be of the impression that psychs are more common than they are in my experience. Probably because some people consider many minor deviations, unintentional deviations or non-deviations from weird (possible ill-disclosed) agreements, to be "psychs".

 

I can understand the desire to ban "sabotage bids", as Duke of York calls them (like bidding 7NT and redoubling on random hands), but this can be done without creating uncertainty about which minor deviations and misbids might get punished.

 

The idea that psyches should be banned to protect beginners may have some merit if we were really talking about psyches. But we aren't. Most perceived psyches are either ill-disclosed methods or misbids. Beginners are much more prone to make misbids so they are more at risk of getting hit by the TD's abuse of an no-psyche rule. And ill-disclosed methods are already infractions regardless of the "psyche" restrictions.

 

In short, I think psyche-bans have no merit whatsoever, beyond maybe being a clumsy way of describing a policy against sabotage bids.

[hotShot]

If a regular partnership meets another regular partnership at a f2f tournament, we know our agreements and we are confident that opps know their agreements too.

Psyches are rare since partnerships are not allowed to repeat the same psyche often.

Without screens we expect bidders partner to alert and explain their agreements, this way we can be quite sure that the explanations we get are correct.

 

Since our side has an established partnership trust, we can usually deal with psyches sometimes we win sometimes we lose and everything is fine.

 

Playing online things change quite a bit. People who like to psyche, can do it very often, because the will usually have a different partner or TD and most TD's don't keep records about psyching.

Since you often play with an unknown partner and since you don't have many agreements, you don't have any partnership experience and therefore no partnership trust.

This makes it much harder to expose a psyche.

Online, if I explain my own bid, my explanation is invisible to my partner, so he does not know if my explanation fits our agreements. There is high potential for abuse.

People feel cheated if people explain their own bids and have a different hand than they disclosed.

 

Online I don't care to much about cheating, cheating opps provide you with a similar kind of competition than a regular expert/ world class partnership.

[pooltuna]

a new low for me this week. i play in these wanky bbo tournies sometimes, and though i consider it ridiculous i do respect the no-psyching rules some of them have.

 

on this occasion the tournament wasn't advertised as a no-psyche tournament, including on the rules page which noone normally reads. lo and behold i picked up a hand where i thought the best approach was a psyche. it worked - we went for 250 against the opps' slam. a few minutes later without warning the score is changed, i'm kicked from the tournament and the director won't respond to my surprisingly politely worded enquiries as to why this had occurred.

 

the director then refused to let partner leave, forcing him to close BBO to escape 5 boards with a random.

 

IMO this needs to be reported to BBO as abuse of the TD rights and permissions. Clearly the TD has no clue about the rules of bridge and BBO needs to inform him of same and warn him that TD rights are revokeable.

[jillybean]

IMO this needs to be reported to BBO as abuse of the TD rights and permissions. Clearly the TD has no clue about the rules of bridge and BBO needs to inform him of same and warn him that TD rights are revokeable.

To become a BBO TD you need only to be a BBO member in good standing, there is no requirement to know the rules of the game at all. Being granted BBO TD rights allows a person to create tournaments (the host), that person can then add anyone they please as "TD's".

[helene_t]

To become a BBO TD you need only to be a BBO member in good standing, there is no requirement to know the rules of the game at all. Being granted BBO TD rights allows a person to create tournaments (the host), that person can then add anyone they please as "TD's".

true but this td was not only clueless, he was also careless (didnt anounce his own rules) and rude (kicked someone out without providing any explanation why). I think this should be enough reason to revoke the td rights, even if one accepts the premise that tds don't have to know the basics about the bridge laws.

[hotShot]

Please let us start to call them "hosts", because thats what they are. Some hosts have experience as TD and some don't.

[Gerben42]

Psychs are a legitimate element of normal bridge. IMO, however, it makes sense to ban psychs from some BBO tournaments:

 

* Many of competitors are beginners. Psychs may confuse their learning.

* As a BBO player, you alert and explain your own calls. Opponents are prone to cry foul if your explanation bears no relationship to your hand.

* It is easy to cheat on-line, so the fielding of psychs becomes more suspicious and generates more bad feeling than it would at face-to-face bridge.

* Many on-line tournaments are free. Some competitors are not the full shilling. Many have a low attention-span. In the past, when such players were doing badly, they would quit. Now runners are discouraged. So there is a strong temptation for such players to psych and fool around. This tendency must be discouraged because it can detract from the enjoyment of others.

* Some players try to get round system-restrictions by spurious claims that their banned conventional call is a "psych". (Personally, I don't approve of system restrictions but if we must have them, then I think that they should be enforced).

* Psychs attract director calls. On-line, few experienced directors are available.

 

* Psychs against beginners is not only bad conduct, but also bad strategy. There is no need for a rule against this, you can feel sorry for those who try this. In BBO, those who are beginners show this on their profile, so rather than F2F, you cannot say that you didn't know.

* You misunderstood #2: You explain your agreement, you don't have to tell what you have. If your agreement is 15-17 and you bid 1NT on 14 because you upgraded, you MUST write 15-17. If you psyched with 2 HCP and 6♣ you still must write 15-17.

* Fielding of psyches is a rare event, and there are easier ways to cheat than psyching. Cheaters who play the same tournament regularly get overconfident first and get caught second.

* Psyching because you are doing badly in a tournament is already covered in other rules.

* If people try to circumvent system restrictions that would mean a fielded psych. These are easily uncovered.

* The more director calls for psychs, the more opponents can be educated that they are part of the game. This is a important issue that is ignored by most bridge teachers, and by many of them purposely to enforce the myth that psyching is cheating. This needs to be countered with force.

 

 

In short, TDs who ban psychs themselves are guilty of upholding the myth that they are not part of the game, or are too lazy to deal with their important educational obligation.

[nige1]

Please let us start to call them "hosts", because thats what they are. Some hosts have experience as TD and some don't.

A BBO Tournament director assumes the director role, so it is reasonable to call him "director". Similarly, many Bridge club "directors" have no training or experience; but do an effective and useful job to enhance the enjoyment of players.

[nige1]

You misunderstood #2: You explain your agreement, you don't have to tell what you have. If your agreement is 15-17 and you bid 1NT on 14 because you upgraded, you MUST write 15-17. If you psyched with 2 HCP and 6♣ you still must write 15-17.

I understand the rules. Even in team-matches, however, when his hand deviates from a player's explanation of it, opponents often accuse him of cheating, (although the player correctly disclosed the partnership agreement).

Fielding of psyches is a rare event, and there are easier ways to cheat than psyching. Cheaters who play the same tournament regularly get overconfident first and get caught second

There is a lot of confusion about psychs. What many players pass off as psychs are, in fact, concealed partnership agreements (eg about super-light third-seat openers and many so-called "tactical" bids). I don't think such players are deliberate "cheats" but Gerben42 is right that players would benefit from education about disclosure, "fielding" and so on.

Psyching because you are doing badly in a tournament is already covered in other rules.

The rules forbid players from mucking about when they are out of contention. The problem is that there are lots of head-bangers among the competitors in free on-line tournaments. They are loose-cannons at the best of times; so, other than ban psychs, it is hard to know what the director can do about it.

 

Gerben42 makes many other excellent points. But all this re-education takes time. As others have mentioned there is a supervening problem that makes psych-bans a practical necessity for BBO tournaments. There often many competitors but just a few inexperienced directors.

Had we but world enough, and time,

This coyness, lady, were no crime.

We would sit down and think which way

To walk, and pass our long love's day;

Thou by the Indian Ganges' side

Shouldst rubies find; I by the tide

Of Humber would complain. I would

Love you ten years before the Flood;

And you should, if you please, refuse

Till the conversion of the Jews.

My vegetable love should grow

Vaster than empires, and more slow.

An hundred years should go to praise

Thine eyes, and on thy forehead gaze;

Two hundred to adore each breast,

But thirty thousand to the rest;

An age at least to every part,

And the last age should show your heart.

For, lady, you deserve this state,

Nor would I love at lower rate.

 

But at my back I always hear

Time's winged chariot hurrying near;

And yonder all before us lie

Deserts of vast eternity.

Thy beauty shall no more be found,

Nor, in thy marble vault, shall sound

My echoing song; then worms shall try

That long preserv'd virginity,

And your quaint honour turn to dust,

And into ashes all my lust.

The grave's a fine and private place,

But none I think do there embrace.

 

Now therefore, while the youthful hue

Sits on thy skin like morning dew,

And while thy willing soul transpires

At every pore with instant fires,

Now let us sport us while we may;

And now, like am'rous birds of prey,

Rather at once our time devour,

Than languish in his slow-chapp'd power.

Let us roll all our strength, and all

Our sweetness, up into one ball;

And tear our pleasures with rough strife

Thorough the iron gates of life.

Thus, though we cannot make our sun

Stand still, yet we will make him run.

[hrothgar]

A BBO Tournament director assumes the director role, so it is reasonable to call him "director". Similarly, many Bridge club "directors" have no training or experience; but do an effective and useful job to enhance the experience of players.

 

Any particular reason to be quoting that particular poem?

(No objection - indeed, I think that I've used extracts from it before on the forums; however, its one of my all time favorites and its odd to see it suddenly appear)

[nige1]

Any particular reason to be quoting that particular poem? (No objection - indeed, I think that I've used extracts from it before on the forums; however, its one of my all time favorites and its odd to see it suddenly appear)

It seemed appropriate to the context of expecting harassed on-line directors to patiently teach and gently persuade paranoid tournament-players to tolerate psychs and related subtleties -- rather than just getting on with a cruder but enjoyable game :)