Hand Hogging

[blackshoe]

From Duplicate Decisions, pp. 36-37:

 

Psychic Calls – While psychic bids are an integral part of bridge, a player does not have the right to psych as frequently as he wishes simply because he enjoys doing so. A series of tops and bottoms so earned by one pair can unfairly affect the final results of a tournament.

 

ACBL’s Policy on Psychs: Psychs are regulated by taking disciplinary action against a player who disrupts a game with frequent, random psychs. The ACBL Board of Directors has defined types of disruptive bidding that make the offenders subject to penalty.

 

The following definitions and explanations should prove helpful to all Directors trying to enforce this regulation.

Excessive Psychic Bidding — When three or more psychic initial actions by members of a partnership have been reported in any one session and are called to the attention of the Director, the Director should investigate the possibility that excessive psyching is taking place. A presumption of inappropriate behavior exists, and it is up to the players to demonstrate that they were not just horsing around. It is up to them to show that they happened, this once, to pick up a string of hands unusually appropriate for psychs.

The continued use of undisciplined psychic bids tends to create partnership understandings that are implied from partnership experience.

 

Example: If a player opens 1♦ three times in one session with two or fewer diamonds, partner finds it hard to take any 1♦ opening bid seriously. When the psychic bidder’s partner, because of prior usages, has a better chance of catching a psych than either opponent, there is presumptive evidence that an undisclosed partnership understanding exists, and the result of the board may be adjusted.

 

Frivolous Psychic Bidding — Any psychic action inspired by a spirit of malicious mischief or lack of will to win may be interpreted as frivolous.

 

Unsportsmanlike Psychic Bidding — Action apparently designed to give the opponents an abnormal opportunity to get a good score, psychs against pairs or teams in contention, psychs against inexperienced players and psychs used merely to create action at the table are examples of unsportsmanlike psychic bidding.

 

Note: The book claims that what is written above is an ACBL regulation, and that the different "types of disruptive bidding" were so defined by the BoD. I have not verified either of those things. It does appear though, that this new proposed regulation is consistent with the above.

[awm]

My view is that the proposed rule amends what blackshoe posted to clarify that various (usually more delicately stated) forms of "partner is an idiot" are not considered acceptable reasons for frequent psychics. Such psychic actions are not really "malicious mischief" nor attempts to give away good boards to the opponents... in fact in some circumstances they may be the best way to achieve a good table result! They are also arguably not "random."

 

To give an example, suppose our stated notrump range is 15-17 (balanced) but I always open 1NT with any 13-18 point hand regardless of shape. I do this because: 1. it makes sure I will declare, which is worth multiple tricks over partner's play 2. it avoids delicate auctions, because partner knows our notrump system reasonably well but cannot be trusted to bid in other sequences 3. it may confuse/deceive the opponents. Partner bids normally opposite a 15-17 range and I know that sometimes this will get me to a dumb contract, but I hope that the combination of deceptiveness in the bidding and my superior declarer play will bring some of these contracts home, and in any case letting partner declare a normal contract is a clear bottom board.

[barmar]

I just had a weird thought -- I wonder if they could go after players like Leo Lasota for hand-hogging in the ACBL robot tourneys. He has described his strategies for playing with robots, and they include aggressive NT openings and frequent preempting.

[ggwhiz]

I just had a weird thought -- I wonder if they could go after players like Leo Lasota for hand-hogging in the ACBL robot tourneys. He has described his strategies for playing with robots, and they include aggressive NT openings and frequent preempting.

 

Further, if someone is penalized the 10-50% of their masterpoints those points should be distributed pro rata to their partners. With separate categories for robot lm's of course, lead, pewter etc.

 

Clients have better lawyers than pro's so this could be fun. How about calling it the Rueful Rabbit Rule?

[aguahombre]

I think you mean rueful robot rule.

[Fluffy]

Opening a bit offshape or offrange 1NT has nothing to do with psyches.

 

I have managed to play full sessions without becoming dummy, and to do so I use various complex bidding techniques that are not easy to learn.

 

But none of them is a partnership understanding, because my partner doesn't understand them!, he is not aware that my 1NT openings happen much more often than his. I've tried that he stops explaining my 1NT opening as 16-18 but he doesn't.

 

 

We do however play an unbalanced system, because my partner does things no other human being on the planet does, he bids 1NT-2NT with a 5 count, to be followed by 1NT-2NT on the next with 14. He jump raises my responses with 3 cards and minimums, and he also bids opponent's suit natural, like (1♥)-pass-(1NT)-2♥ with ♥AQxxx or even with transfer like 1NT-(2♠)-3♥ transfer to spades with ♠Jxxxx and 4 HCP. And he also thinkgs 1♣-pass-1NT-pass-2♣ is stayman.

 

I alert this kind of bids, because I know the opponents are not familiar to them, and they have in fact become a partnership understanding, but there is no way that partner could alert my 'different' bids, because he has never ever been aware of them. So they are not partnership understandings, because that would mean both of us understand them, when in fact only one does.

[ggwhiz]

that would mean both of us understand them, when in fact only one does.

 

So who is going to haul you (or anyone else) before the bridge gods and take away 1/2 your masterpoints? The "affected" partners are oblivious.

 

I can't wait to see the results of the vote on this motion as a litmus test to the relative sanity in the room.

[CamHenry]

This line concerns me:

[unsportsmanlike psychs include...] psychs against pairs or teams in contention.

 

What if I hold xx/xxxx/xxx/xxxx in third seat, favourable; it's the final of a knockout and we're in the last set trailing 30 IMPs? I want a swing, the other team are in contention, I psych 1♠. This is unsportsmanlike?! Isn't it unsportsmanlike of LHO to hold most of the deck when we know oppo have good slam judgment in 25HCP facing 10HCP situations?

 

Argh!

[nige1]

Opening a bit offshape or offrange 1NT has nothing to do with psyches. I have managed to play full sessions without becoming dummy, and to do so I use various complex bidding techniques that are not easy to learn. But none of them is a partnership understanding, because my partner doesn't understand them!, he is not aware that my 1NT openings happen much more often than his. I've tried that he stops explaining my 1NT opening as 16-18 but he doesn't. We do however play an unbalanced system, because my partner does things no other human being on the planet does, he bids 1NT-2NT with a 5 count, to be followed by 1NT-2NT on the next with 14. He jump raises my responses with 3 cards and minimums, and he also bids opponent's suit natural, like (1♥)-pass-(1NT)-2♥ with ♥AQxxx or even with transfer like 1NT-(2♠)-3♥ transfer to spades with ♠Jxxxx and 4 HCP. And he also thinkgs 1♣-pass-1NT-pass-2♣ is stayman.

 

I alert this kind of bids, because I know the opponents are not familiar to them, and they have in fact become a partnership understanding, but there is no way that partner could alert my 'different' bids, because he has never ever been aware of them. So they are not partnership understandings, because that would mean both of us understand them, when in fact only one does.

I admire Fluffy's honesty but, as in so many other IBLF topics, the consensus here is surreal :(

 

Suppose (just for the sake of argument) that "1N opener = flat 15-17" is written on a pro's system-card but he opens off-shape with a wider range. And the pro also employs a variety of other undeclared "tactical variations". His client partner isn't aware of these deviations (or, more likely, doesn't want to admit to them). Anyway, the client can't (or won't) disclose them. If his opponents don't know that the hog is a pro (or even a hog), then how are they meant to cope with all these undisclosed treatments?

 

Why do so many posters write that this is perfectly acceptable? How can directors be so complacent about regular deviation from declared methods? Do they really believe that this is a minor matter of style? Even then, isn't style disclosable?

 

IMO, assymetric systems should be legal (even simpler -- all declared systems should be legal). Then the hog's disclosure problem would disappear.

[billw55]

Fluffy, I find your story funny. Is this partner a paying client? If so I am surprised that he is willing to pay and rarely declare a hand. Perhaps he is just paying for someone to play with him at all - if nobody else will?

[GreenMan]

This line concerns me:

[unsportsmanlike psychs include...] psychs against pairs or teams in contention.

 

What if I hold xx/xxxx/xxx/xxxx in third seat, favourable; it's the final of a knockout and we're in the last set trailing 30 IMPs? I want a swing, the other team are in contention, I psych 1♠. This is unsportsmanlike?! Isn't it unsportsmanlike of LHO to hold most of the deck when we know oppo have good slam judgment in 25HCP facing 10HCP situations?

 

I suspect that line refers to pairs or teams not in contention facing those that are; this would apply to Swiss or BAM teams but not KOs, IMHO -- a "what the hey" tactic rather than the reasonable high-variance approach you describe. But I may be wrong.

[CamHenry]

I suspect that line refers to pairs or teams not in contention facing those that are; this would apply to Swiss or BAM teams but not KOs, IMHO -- a "what the hey" tactic rather than the reasonable high-variance approach you describe. But I may be wrong.

 

I hope you're right - but the wording I quoted, at least, is poor.

[barmar]

I hope you're right - but the wording I quoted, at least, is poor.

I think people are expected to understand the general concept of "unsportsmanlike", which sets the context for it.

[Fluffy]

Fluffy, I find your story funny. Is this partner a paying client? If so I am surprised that he is willing to pay and rarely declare a hand. Perhaps he is just paying for someone to play with him at all - if nobody else will?

He enjoys playing, and he enjoys winning, this year in panama we managed to finish 8th over a 6 session tournament, ahead of Fredin, Brenner, 3 southamerican champions and a couple of world junior subchampions, I could write a book about all that tournament. I've been spannish champion, NEC cup subchampion, 9th in world transnational teams. But I am thinking that perhaps my best bridge achievement came in Panama.

 

He had a great tournament (and so did I) I am not yet sure of why, he has a disease, he is bipolar but instead of using the medicine for it, he used alcohol instead. He had been hiring players for many years because only a couple of close friends would want to play with him, when I started to play with him 3 years ago he would literally make 2 or 3 revokes per session and refuse to ruff when I played the suit he was void.

 

Its really incredible how much he has progressed in 3 years, I sometimes wonder what were the other pros doing, it is true that he finally became scared due to a medical problem and is not taking as much alcohol, this probably helped. But now does normal things, he switches to trump when I lead dummy's singleton, he tries to cross suits where dummy has xxx, and on Panama he even drew the exact amount of trumps every time he was declarer except one (the second time ever he was declarer with me he drew 5 rounds of trumps with the 5-5 fit) I think he averaged around 40% MPs as declarer, when I started to play with him he would not get close to 15%. I mean he was so bad that one pair at the club switched to play penalty doubles whenever he was declarer. But not anymore, or at least not unless he has one of the bad days.

 

 

So who is going to haul you (or anyone else) before the bridge gods and take away 1/2 your masterpoints? The "affected" partners are oblivious.

 

They can take 15/2 if they please, I don't have any. Never been in USA or Canada yet. But I suspect I'd earn a few if I ever play there, would they be so kind as to take half of them before they give me the ones I earn? :P

[mycroft]

One of the reasons that psyching against teams in contention is considered unsportsmanlike (especially if you're not) is that you're affecting the nature of the contest pretty much by coinflip. One of the major psyching issues is "he's a friend of mine, and he's in contention, I'm not, and I psyched and went for Two Bills." Oh, interesting.

 

Or, conversely, trying to knock them out because you *don't* like them, knowing that playing your normal game won't do it, and that it doesn't matter to you anyway.

 

Of course, knowing that this pair is "in contention" is somewhat of a requirement for this category to trigger. Good Conditions of contest will either not make that easy, or avoid situations where contestants known not to be in contention are playing contestants known to be so.

 

The issue I have with "asymmetric systems", especially ones where "nobody knows what's going on but me", is that there *are* going to be unavoidable disclosure issues that get good results because of the lack of disclosure. People keep saying "it's okay, they're only robots, and anyway everybody else does the same thing (if they're good)"; well, here, they're not robots.

[barmar]

Of course, knowing that this pair is "in contention" is somewhat of a requirement for this category to trigger. Good Conditions of contest will either not make that easy, or avoid situations where contestants known not to be in contention are playing contestants known to be so.

Swiss Teams is a popular form of the game, and it's hard to avoid knowing who's leading. And unless the field is large, when you get to the late matches the teams in contention have played most of each other, so several of them end up playing against lower-ranked teams.

[gnasher]

I admire Fluffy's honesty but, as in so many other IBLF topics, the consensus here is surreal :(

 

Suppose (just for the sake of argument) that "1N opener = flat 15-17" is written on a pro's system-card but he opens off-shape with a wider range. And the pro also employs a variety of other undeclared "tactical variations". His client partner isn't aware of these deviations (or, more likely, doesn't want to admit to them). Anyway, the client can't (or won't) disclose them. If his opponents don't know that the hog is a pro (or even a hog), then how are they meant to cope with all these undisclosed treatments?

 

Why do so many posters write that this is perfectly acceptable? How can directors be so complacent about regular deviation from declared methods? Do they really believe that this is a minor matter of style? Even then, isn't style disclosable?

 

IMO, assymetric systems should be legal (even simpler -- all declared systems should be legal). Then the hog's disclosure problem would disappear.

Repeated hogging by departing from your declared system is already covered by the disclosure rules. If one player keeps opening 1NT on 14-counts, it's an implicit agreement even if the other partner hasn't noticed.

[aguahombre]

Repeated hogging by departing from your declared system is already covered by the disclosure rules. If one player keeps opening 1NT on 14-counts, it's an implicit agreement even if the other partner hasn't noticed.

Agreement with whom? I would rather argue from the standpoint that it is unlikely partner hasn't noticed than concede he hasn't noticed and try to call it an agreement.

[mycroft]

Swiss Teams is a popular form of the game, and it's hard to avoid knowing who's leading. And unless the field is large, when you get to the late matches the teams in contention have played most of each other, so several of them end up playing against lower-ranked teams.

I don't know how that invalidates anything that I said there :-)

 

But Swiss teams are (by and large) popular with the punters (even the ones contending for strat X that are basically in a last-round lottery of "who gets to play which Flight A team that has played all of each other", at least except for that last round), so we deal with the fact that it's fundamentally a bad CoC (it's just that anything fairer, like taking the top of the field out of the game after X rounds swisses them out, and letting the rest of the field play for the "top" spots of the rest, is even worse - as people don't really pay to win, they pay to play).

[nige1]

Repeated hogging by departing from your declared system is already covered by the disclosure rules. If one player keeps opening 1NT on 14-counts, it's an implicit agreement even if the other partner hasn't noticed.

But isn't that the kind of thing that hogs do? How else can they keep partner from declaring? Wouldn't a perusal of score-records easily reveal suspicious patterns? How often do such "implicit agreements" attract an adverse ruling? Rule-makers and enforcers seem to be "in denial", again :( Although some may find this regulation-engendered problem amusing :)

[iviehoff]

Agreement with whom? I would rather argue from the standpoint that it is unlikely partner hasn't noticed than concede he hasn't noticed and try to call it an agreement.

There is a question of how systematic this is. If your partner frequently makes bids that depart from the stated system in assorted ways through incompetence, whisky, or whatever, I don't think this is disclosable.

[nige1]

There is a question of how systematic this is. If your partner frequently makes bids that depart from the stated system in assorted ways through incompetence, whisky, or whatever, I don't think this is disclosable.

Here, "Whatever" is "hogging". In practice, Iviehoff's interpretation seems to coincide with that of other directors :(

[blackshoe]

Hm. This is, as I understand it, usually a "pro-client" problem - or at least one where one player thinks he's much better at declaring than his partner. How do they arrange to disclose this? The "client" may not even pick up on what's going on unless somebody points it out. Is the "pro" going to want to say "you have to tell the opponents that I tend to try to become declarer"?

[ggwhiz]

I see that this motion has been dropped. Too bad, I would like to know who is crazy enough to vote for it.

[gordontd]

When making up the numbers as a playing director, I used to tell my partners that the aim of the early part of the evening was for them to play as many hands as possible, so that I could go and do my administrative duties. Then as soon as I became dummy, I would claim the board as a success, regardless of the outcome.