Psyching and enjoyment

[Free]

Meckwell doesn't really need to psych (they're considered the best pair in the world so why take any risks?), while Zia keeps psyching on a regular basis (and the crowd loves it). B-)

[RMB1]

Clubs are encouraged by the ebu to write your name in a special book when you do, ...

 

Is this encouragement documented anywhere?

[jeffford76]

I can't imagine that any reasonable TD would think that opening 1♠ on AKxx AQJxxx xx x is a psyche.

 

Funny - I can't imagine that any reasonable TD would say it wasn't.

[barmar]

Something that I don't like about psyches is that established partnerships often veer away from psyching lest their partners get used to their particular psyches or lest the partnership be accused of being wired or fielding psyches. For example, I heard that Meckwell doesn't psyche for this reason. So I understand this reasoning, but it also means that the only folks who feel at liberty to psyche are in unestablished partnerhips. So assuming that the ability to psyche has some advantage (else why do it?), why should unestablished partnerships enjoy a particular advantage over established partnerships? Sure, established partnerships have obvious advantages over unestablished partnerships, but it's an advantage that is the result of effort and time and an advantage that should be encouraged if anything.

Whatever "advantage" is gained by psyching in an unestablished partnership is balanced out by the fact that partner is as likely to be fooled as the opponents. This is an explicit requirement in the Laws regarding psyches: if you do it enough for partner to expect it, it's become an implicit agreement, which must be disclosed, and not a psyche.

[straube]

Whatever "advantage" is gained by psyching in an unestablished partnership is balanced out by the fact that partner is as likely to be fooled as the opponents. This is an explicit requirement in the Laws regarding psyches: if you do it enough for partner to expect it, it's become an implicit agreement, which must be disclosed, and not a psyche.

I understand this explicit requirement, but I disagree that psyching is "balanced" out by the fact that partner is as likely to be fooled as the opponents. If so, then there is no advantage to psyching so why do it? Say rather it is "offset" by the fact that partner is as likely to be fooled as the opponents and I would agree with that. Then my main point survives and this is that unestablished partnerships have a tool that established partnerships restrict themselves from having for ethical purposes. It's a small thing maybe, but it doesn't feel right to me.

[fromageGB]

Is this encouragement documented anywhere?

Not "encouragement" in the literal sense, just suggesting that it can/should be done.

 

Orange book 6C Reporting and Recording

"6C1 Psychic bids do not have to be reported but a player may request the TD to record them if he wishes. To do so is not to accuse the opponents of malpractice. The TD may record any hand if he thinks fit."

Sections 6 B and D go on at length about assigning colour categories, and give the strong impression that psyching is "BAD".

 

The whole approach of recording is public (in a club setting), and the record in the register for all to see has an upsetting effect on a sensitive person to whom what other people think of her is more important than practically anything. While I have a thick skin, she doesn't, and many people think psyching is immoral, if not illegal.

[ggwhiz]

I have a partner who gets so upset when I have psyched that she has banned me from psyching

 

I read about a guy that psyched so often his pard told him that every one of those will cost you 20 bucks in the future.

 

Sat down against a pair he didn't like and he said "By the way, here's that 20 bucks I owe you. 1♠."

[aguahombre]

Chris' answer is mine also, about the psyches themselves.

 

It is often the aftermath of psyches which decreases my enjoyment. Fielding, psyches opposite psyches, reaction of inexperienced opponents, etc. Let's not mess with currently legal psychic bids. They are part of the game.

[RMB1]

The whole approach of recording is public (in a club setting), and the record in the register for all to see has an upsetting effect on a sensitive person to whom what other people think of her is more important than practically anything. While I have a thick skin, she doesn't, and many people think psyching is immoral, if not illegal.

 

The EBU does not encourage clubs to have a publicly readable psyche book - the procedure of what a TD does when asked to record a psyche at club level is up to the club. Psyche forms from EBU events are not made available outside the Laws and Ethics committee.

[straube]

I read about a guy that psyched so often his pard told him that every one of those will cost you 20 bucks in the future.

 

Sat down against a pair he didn't like and he said "By the way, here's that 20 bucks I owe you. 1♠."

 

lol

[fromageGB]

The EBU does not encourage clubs to have a publicly readable psyche book - the procedure of what a TD does when asked to record a psyche at club level is up to the club. Psyche forms from EBU events are not made available outside the Laws and Ethics committee.

I would happily go along with this approach. Seeing as the EBU seems anti-psyches (my perception, and that of others), I think it should go further and suggest that as psyches ARE a legal part of the game, recording is not public. And a space on the EBU convention card for likelihood of/attitude to psyching would be a help.

[barmar]

I understand this explicit requirement, but I disagree that psyching is "balanced" out by the fact that partner is as likely to be fooled as the opponents. If so, then there is no advantage to psyching so why do it? Say rather it is "offset" by the fact that partner is as likely to be fooled as the opponents and I would agree with that. Then my main point survives and this is that unestablished partnerships have a tool that established partnerships restrict themselves from having for ethical purposes. It's a small thing maybe, but it doesn't feel right to me.

Well, unfamiliar partnerships are also at a disadvantage simply because the players aren't often on the same "wavelength".

 

And I think you're exaggerating the idea that established partnerships don't have this "tool". You can psyche in a regular partnership, you just can't make the same kind of psyche often enough that your partner is more likely to expect it than the opponents.

 

I'm not sure what you would like as an alternative. Full disclosure is a cornerstone of the game: the opponents are entitled to as much information about your methods as your partner is. So it would be unfair for partner to expect an alternate meaning of your bid without disclosing it to the opponents.

[straube]

Well, unfamiliar partnerships are also at a disadvantage simply because the players aren't often on the same "wavelength".

 

Yeah, but they shouldn't get a handicap for that. If I'm in an established partnership and sit down against a new partnership and they feel free to psyche while I don't, then that doesn't seem fair.

 

And I think you're exaggerating the idea that established partnerships don't have this "tool". You can psyche in a regular partnership, you just can't make the same kind of psyche often enough that your partner is more likely to expect it than the opponents.

 

Whether I'm exaggerating or not, I don't think they have this tool to the extent that a new pair does. If I'm in an established partnership I have to be concerned with whether partner will recognize my psyche or not...and to what extent he may suspect a psyche. I also will be concerned with how others view our partnership. Even if I catch partner off guard with a "new" psyche, the opponents and others in the community won't know that I gave him the same problem I gave the opponents.

 

I'm not sure what you would like as an alternative. Full disclosure is a cornerstone of the game: the opponents are entitled to as much information about your methods as your partner is. So it would be unfair for partner to expect an alternate meaning of your bid without disclosing it to the opponents.

 

I'd like psyches to be outlawed. I'd suggest a simple definition of what a psyche is (deviation of more than one suit card or 2 points or something like that). I'd make a distinction between a psyche and a bluff. For example, 2H-3N with a bunch of hearts I'd regard as a bluff because the bid is to play and carries no conventional meaning. Responding 1S to partner's hearts with short spades I'd count as a psyche.

 

I think psyches were more fun when bidding theory was less developed. As system has improved and hopefully partnerships have improved, I think many find psyches to be less useful, more destructive to the trust within their own partnership and more prone to ethical problems. I mean, doesn't it seem like psyches are less frequent than they used to be and less welcomed by the opponents? Game rules sometimes need to change as the game develops. I write this as someone who occasionally psyches but would be happy to give this up if the laws were changed.

[cargobeep]

Psyching does not decrease my enjoyment of the game.

The fact that my opponents/partner might be psyching does not.

If psyching were banned, it would affect my enjoyment of the game a little. There are some situations where psyching is the best way to avoid disaster.

[Finch]

I would happily go along with this approach. Seeing as the EBU seems anti-psyches (my perception, and that of others), I think it should go further and suggest that as psyches ARE a legal part of the game, recording is not public. And a space on the EBU convention card for likelihood of/attitude to psyching would be a help.

 

Obviously I can't argue with what you consider to be your perception, but I do wonder where you can possibly get the idea from that the EBU is 'anti-psyches'. The Orange Book states explicitly that psyches are legal. What isn't legal is a concealed partnership agreement, and that is what the whole 'recording psyches' thing is about. That's why the form asks how often you carry out that particular psyche in that particular partnership. Nowhere does any regulation state or suggest that psyches are a bad thing.

 

I see all the psyche report forms submitted from EBU events and I can promise you that psyches are alive and well certainly in EBU tournaments. And certainly nothing like all psyches get reported (mine tend to because (i) I"m on the L&E and (ii) I play in a very experienced and regular partnership). In fact, the majority are perpetrated by weaker players (I think in general because the strong players tend to do them more against other strong players, who can't be bothered to record them)

 

To be honest, maybe I'm missing something, but I also honestly don't understand why anyone would be concerned whether they are kept privately on on display. As it happens, the reports are kept confidential, but if you don't have a CPU, really, who cares? Many people think it is a badge of honour to have their first psyche report form sent in!

 

Some (many?) clubs and club players don't like psyches. That's not the same as the EBU being anti-them.

[Finch]

Yeah, but they shouldn't get a handicap for that. If I'm in an established partnership and sit down against a new partnership and they feel free to psyche while I don't, then that doesn't seem fair.

 

Whether I'm exaggerating or not, I don't think they have this tool to the extent that a new pair does. If I'm in an established partnership I have to be concerned with whether partner will recognize my psyche or not...and to what extent he may suspect a psyche. I also will be concerned with how others view our partnership. Even if I catch partner off guard with a "new" psyche, the opponents and others in the community won't know that I gave him the same problem I gave the opponents.

 

 

You seem to be tying yourself into knots here. If you know you are ethical, why shouldn't you psyche? I play a lot of boards with the same partner. The last 3 deliberate psyches that we have done in partnership (at least that I can remember- they are quite rare) have been:

 

3D P 4H on a 2731 3-count (-450 for 9 off against +1430)

P P 1D on a 4333 8-count with KJ10 of diamonds (-500 against nothing)

1NT on a 2227 11-count (showing 15-17) (+180 against a major suit game)

 

a 2/3 success rate is about normal for us, as we tend to pick them quite carefully.

 

What I (and the EBU) object to is people bidding, say, 3C P 3NT on a weak hand with big club support repeatedly, but explaining it as 'strong and natural' when asked. (We alert it and say it's one or the other.)

[jogs]

You seem to be tying yourself into knots here. If you know you are ethical, why shouldn't you psyche? I play a lot of boards with the same partner. The last 3 deliberate psyches that we have done in partnership (at least that I can remember- they are quite rare) have been:

 

 

Did you catch the psyche? Are you obligated to tell opponents

of this psyche? This game claims to be full disclosure.

When the Laws were first written, players were unsophisticated.

Today the psyching pair has a huge unfair advantage. The

easiest way to catch opponents' psyches is by partner's BIT.

And that is illegal, against the Law.

[Zelandakh]

What would be nice is if you could disclose a potential psyche without falling foul of system regulations. I think this is the crux of straube's issue here. Say Albert have a pattern of occasionally and randomly opening hands of 0-2hcp in third seat with 1♠ but partner is not expected to compensate or allow for this possibility in any way. If Albert does it with a random partner it is a psyche and no problem. If Albert does it often enough with a regular partner, or discusses this tendency with a partner, then it is no longer a psyche but rather (in most RA regulations) an illegal agreement. So there is an incentive for regular partners not to discuss or disclose. Providing these hands turn up infrequently enough, the CPU is unlikely to be noticed. I think Albert's partner should be able to disclose the psyche possibility without the system being declared illegal (providing there is no fielding) and/or for regulations to be relaxed so that such agreements are allowed and the incentive to avoid disclosure is reduced.

[helene_t]

totally agree with trevahond and cascade.

 

I see psyching by opps and partners very rarely so it's not like it would make a big change to the game if psychs were to disappear. But I try to avoid bbo tournaments that state a no-psyche policy, because I have heard enough stories about directors who applied the psyche criterion to more or less normal calls that just weren't to the TDs taste.

 

Of course this wouldn't be the case in events with professional TDs but still I wouldn't be sure where the line goes. I have sometimes bid a 3nt without stoppers in opps' suit, hoping that they would believe me and lead something else. I don't think that is extreme enough to count as a psyche but with a psyche ban I would be scared of those kind of things. Even if TDs were able to enforce the rule in a sensible and transparent way (which could easily be the case), there would still be plenty of issues with opps calling the TD about something they thought would count as a psyche.

[billw55]

You seem to be tying yourself into knots here. If you know you are ethical, why shouldn't you psyche? I play a lot of boards with the same partner. The last 3 deliberate psyches that we have done in partnership (at least that I can remember- they are quite rare) have been:

 

3D P 4H on a 2731 3-count (-450 for 9 off against +1430)

P P 1D on a 4333 8-count with KJ10 of diamonds (-500 against nothing)

1NT on a 2227 11-count (showing 15-17) (+180 against a major suit game)

 

a 2/3 success rate is about normal for us, as we tend to pick them quite carefully.

 

What I (and the EBU) object to is people bidding, say, 3C P 3NT on a weak hand with big club support repeatedly, but explaining it as 'strong and natural' when asked. (We alert it and say it's one or the other.)

Impressive, only one trick with 7 trumps, how did you pull that off? :P

 

(I assume the shape or contract was actually something else - or that I misunderstood)

[wodahs]

I think 'strength' psyches have lost much of their effectiveness (assuming they had any) in the past few years what with 9- and 10- point openings, responding with air, etc. They just get ignored. 'Length' psyches still pack some punch but partner should never be sniffing them out more often than the opps ...

[fromageGB]

Impressive, only one trick with 7 trumps, how did you pull that off? :P

 

(I assume the shape or contract was actually something else - or that I misunderstood)

♥AKQJT9 were with RHO

[Finch]

No, sorry, it was a 7231. He was planning to bid 4S if doubled.

[billw55]

No, sorry, it was a 7231. He was planning to bid 4S if doubled.

I wonder, if partner passed that holding equal length (or more hearts), would it be ruled fielding? And if so, what adjustment/penalty?

[ArtK78]

I wonder, if partner passed that holding equal length (or more hearts), would it be ruled fielding? And if so, what adjustment/penalty?

There comes a point when bridge logic has to overcome the idea that "He fielded a psyche, he must die!" (Sort of like "If it hesitates, shoot it!")

 

There is no possible explanation to pulling 4♥x other than it was a psyche. That is not fielding.