psychique prohibit ?

[adibou]

Can the TD on BBO they prohibit the psys in their tournaments?

 

That seems to me completely insane, since the bridge exists, the share of psychic biddings always held a role.

I think that our more famous couple of the bridge, that which made our play so popular, the Culbertson must be turned over some in their tombs.

 

Do your opinions interest me, the TD have they it right to prohibit the psychic ones in their tournaments?

[inquiry]

Psyche are allowed by the laws of bridge, and technically can not be regulated by any governing body. On the other hand, conventions are regulated... thus you see restrictions against psyching certain conventions (like it is illegal in most events in the world to psyche a conventional strong forcing opening bid).

 

Having said that, BBO tournments are set up and run by volunteers who do so without support of any bridge organization. The BBO gives the TD wide lattitude in how they run their events. They can limit to SAYC only. They can limit to polish club only, they can limit to just their friends or only people with French flags (we do not allow, for example, allow anyone but someone with french flag, however).

 

One option that TD have is make silly rules (As long as they are spelled out before you join) like "no psyches in my tourney" or "no psyche in first/second seat". This is the idea of freedom of choice. The TD is free to choose this, and you are free to choose not to play in that event. Free market forces will cause TD's who make very unpopular rules to not have many "customers". I will not play in a tourney that does not allow psyches... because I come to play bridge. I am not sure what the card game they play in these events are, but without the potential for a pyche it is not bridge.

 

Ben

[luke warm]

amen

[bearmum]

Psyche are allowed by the laws of bridge, and technically can not be regulated by any governing body. On the other hand, conventions are regulated... thus you see restrictions against psyching certain conventions (like it is illegal in most events in the world to psyche a conventional strong forcing opening bid).

 

I only used part of Ben's quote to which I am replying :lol:

 

 

I KNOW the rules Ben about psyching STRONG opening forcing bids [and MOSTLY agree with them] BUT is not the definition of a "psyche" (something like) "a bid which GROSSLY misdescribes your hand as to strength and/or suit"?? ( which a psyche of a Precision 1♣ is (because IMHO cos it's ONLY forcing for ONE round )

 

In my opinion the way of exposing a psyche is easier to a REGULAR partnership as a casual partnership (mostly cos only can agree to MOST basic agreements )

 

1. REG pards have the tools within their agreed bidding system to do so :)

 

AND the "casual" partnerships [one of whom might psyche] his partner may not even REALISE they are "fielding" a psyche :lol:

 

 

Which is why I am TOTALLY happy if director BANNS psyches

[luke warm]

sigh

[hrothgar]

AND the "casual" partnerships [one of whom might psyche] his partner may not even REALISE they are "fielding" a psyche :)

 

 

Which is why I am TOTALLY happy if director BANNS psyches

You really might want to reconsider this one... More specifically, its unclear to me whether its possible for a pickup partner to "field" a psyche.

[mr1303]

Hmmm. Suppose you have:

 

 

KJxx

Kxx

Axx

xxx

 

 

and partner opens 1H in third seat (you didn't like opening a 4333 11 count), and the bidding procedes:

 

1H (x) XX (1NT)

P (3NT)

 

You might be tempted to pass this one on account of the fact that partner clearly has rubbish, but it would be an downright field.

[inquiry]

Hmmm. Suppose you have:

 

 

KJxx

Kxx

Axx

xxx

 

 

and partner opens 1H in third seat (you didn't like opening a 4333 11 count), and the bidding procedes:

 

1H (x) XX (1NT)

P (3NT)

 

You might be tempted to pass this one on account of the fact that partner clearly has rubbish, but it would be an downright field.

Pass is not a field of the psyche. Pass is to put the ball back in your partners court. You already showed your values with your redl. I would interpret pass as decide partner, 4♥ or 3NTX... A side benefit is if partner did psyche, he can pass 3NT. Your pass over 3NT does not end teh auciton.

[the hog]

"Which is why I am TOTALLY happy if director BANNS psyches "

 

So what card game do you like playing, because it is not anything resembling Bridge!

 

"1H (x) XX (1NT)

P (3NT)

 

You might be tempted to pass this one on account of the fact that partner clearly has rubbish, but it would be an downright field. "

 

This is not fielding a psyche; third position openings are notoriously light. This is just a bridge decision.

[keylime]

Hog,

 

Ditto, ditto, ditto, ditto, and ditto. Oh yes, ditto.

 

Even with the anti-psyche policy my duplicate club tries to enforce, we STILL do it when needed.

[fred]

I think the bottom line has to be making the players happy. This is even more important than the "sanctity of The Laws" in my view.

 

The reason I believe this is purely practical. If bridge tournaments are run according to policies that ruin the enjoyment of the experience for most of the people who participate, then eventually these tournaments (and perhaps even the game itself) will die as a result.

 

If I was running a real life bridge club and I knew that 99% of the players in my club preferred that psychs not be allowed, it would be a very bad business decision for me to allow psychs in my club in order to cater to the other 1% (even if I believed that The Laws of bridge were given to Moses from God himself). This would be particularly true if the club across the street had a "no psychs" policy.

 

Our free tourney TDs are not running their own businesses, but they do want people to play in their tournaments. If their judgment suggests that allowing psychs will drive people away from their tournaments, then it makes perfect sense to me that these people should be allowed to do something about it. Why should they be forced to run tournaments that their players won't enjoy?

 

If the "purists" out there don't want to play in these tournaments or don't want to consider such tournaments to be "real bridge" that is entirely up to them. If the purists are dismayed that there are not enough free tournaments on our site in which they are allowed to psych, they are welcome to run their own free tournaments with whatever rules they want.

 

Ultimately if The Laws define a game that most of the players don't enjoy, the game is fundamentally flawed and The Laws should be changed.

 

Please note that I am not making any claims about what % of bridge players would prefer psychs to be banned or what a reasonable threshold % should be before it becomes appropriate to ban them. My only claim is that there is not much point in having a game if its rules result in a lot of the participants not wanting to play.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[MickyB]

This is not fielding a psyche; third position openings are notoriously light. This is just a bridge decision.

In the EBU, 1 level openings must promise Rule of 18/19; In WBF, it is 8 HCP. If you bid taking into account that partner might have less than that, then you are fielding.

[MickyB]

1H (x) XX (1NT)

P (3NT)

 

You might be tempted to pass this one on account of the fact that partner clearly has rubbish, but it would be an downright field.

Pass is not a field of the psyche. Pass is to put the ball back in your partners court. You already showed your values with your redl. I would interpret pass as decide partner, 4♥ or 3NTX... A side benefit is if partner did psyche, he can pass 3NT. Your pass over 3NT does not end teh auciton.

And here was me thinking that pass here exposed your psychic redouble...

[mr1303]

In the UK, a psyche was considered a "red" psyche on the following hand in the following auction

 

 

QT9xxxx

Jxx

Axx

Void

 

 

when it went (you dealer)

 

P (P) 1H (1NT)

2S (3NT) P P

and you didn't double.

[the hog]

In the UK, a psyche was considered a "red" psyche on the following hand in the following auction

 

 

QT9xxxx

Jxx

Axx

Void

 

 

when it went (you dealer)

 

P (P) 1H (1NT)

2S (3NT) P P

and you didn't double.

I don't want to get into this too much, but if that was seriously defined as fielding a psyche, then that is a totally ridiculous suggestion. Does the EBU legislate that a partnership HAS to make bad decisions. Even Stevenson, who is a frequent psycher himself, would think this silly,

[MickyB]

In the UK, a psyche was considered a "red" psyche on the following hand...

Was this in a partnership with a history of psyching Mark? (Translation - had you played with him before?)

[dogsbreath]

It's my experience that inexperienced players are unable to identify/field psyches by opps, even when the auction makes it obvious that there are 50+ HCP in the deck. Since most play for pleasure only, i NEVER psyche against inexpert opps.

In a 'major' tourney or a graded field anything goes.

Rgds Dog

:)

[mr1303]

This, I believe, was in the Tollemanche; Mike Byrne showed the hand to me and asked what I'd do given the auction. I passed like a shot.

[bearmum]

Hmmm. Suppose you have:

 

 

KJxx

Kxx

Axx

xxx

 

 

and partner opens 1H in third seat (you didn't like opening a 4333 11 count), and the bidding procedes:

 

1H (x) XX (1NT)

P (3NT)

 

You might be tempted to pass this one on account of the fact that partner clearly has rubbish, but it would be an downright field.

OK I guess you have a point BUT - IF I had that hand I would bid 2♥ NOT XX because I BELIEVE my partners 1♥ bid

 

NOW no matter WHAT the opps bid surely I could NOT be accused of "fielding" my partner's psyche?

[bearmum]

"Which is why I am TOTALLY happy if director BANNS  psyches "

 

So what card game do you like playing, because it is not anything resembling Bridge!

 

 

I really don't appreciate your comment HOG -- for ONE thing FREQUENT Psyches are (IMO) against the SPIRIT of the great game of Bridge :rolleyes: :blink: :ph34r:

 

I WAS answering a question regarding ONLINE play :P and if tourney directors should have the right to BAN Psyches :o

 

In F2F bridge (where there are more established partnerships) I really believe that it is a little easier to expose psyches ( and POSSIBLY to call director if you feel that psycher's partner HAS "fielded" it and hence you have been disadvantaged)

You also have the right to report relatively frequent Psychers I think??

 

On line this whole thing (calling director for possible disadvantage) is really NOT practical -- which is WHY I think (unless TOP FLIGHT {brown sticker conventions etc etc allowed}) Psyches should be ALLOWED to be banned IF director wishes --- after all you can ALWAYS refuse to play in the tourney :) :blink:

[Brandal]

Even with the anti-psyche policy my duplicate club tries to enforce, we STILL do it when needed.

:rolleyes: why?

 

Isn't that just as bad as ban psyches?

[Walddk]

If I was running a real life bridge club and I knew that 99% of the players in my club preferred that psychs not be allowed, it would be a very bad business decision for me to allow psychs ....

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

Fred raises an interesting point. Should one deliberately violate the Laws of Duplicate Bridge in order to make the members happy? Most club owners and their clubs (at least in Europe) are members of their domestic federations, which in turn are members of the EBU, WBF etc., and are as such subject to the Laws.

 

Consequently, as an example, one should allow the use of psychic bids, because they are not disallowed as part of the game.

 

In theory this is fine, but it doesn't, or shouldn't, work like that in real life. To be honest with you, I don't care much about the Laws if I think that some of them are totally unfair to the members I have in my club. I run a business, and no one is going to interfere with the rules I set.

 

Yes, I have violated the Laws on several occasions. I am fine about it, and I am sure the Danish Bridge Federation would be too if they knew. Maybe they do, but I have not been in trouble during the 16 years I have managed the bridge centre.

 

As far as psychs are concerned, I don't mind them as such (unless my members do, of course!), but I do not like psychs with no risk involved. Let me give you this example:

 

You have decided to play Drury, so you have a psych without risk 3rd in hand, non vulnerable, holding

 

♠10432 ♥7 ♦KJ9 ♣108743

 

when you open 1♥.

 

The worst scenario is 2♣ from partner, and then you just pass. No risk, no 800 or 1100 ever. That is of course completely wrong whether the Laws allow you to bid 1♥ with a hand like this or not.

 

Roland

[hrothgar]

If I was running a real life bridge club and I knew that 99% of the players in my club preferred that psychs not be allowed, it would be a very bad business decision for me to allow psychs ....

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

Fred raises an interesting point. Should one deliberately violate the Laws of Duplicate Bridge in order to make the members happy?

I agree that Fred has raised a very interesting question: I recognize that this posting is going to depart pretty far from bridge, however, I hope to be granted some license.

 

De Tocqueville and John Stuart Mill both spoke, at length of the "Tyranny of the Majority". Given that certain posters on this forum are quite fond her philosophies, its worth noting that she had a great deal to say on this subject as well.

 

While this is a dramatic over-simplicification, its generally accepted that preserving the rights of minorities is one of the appropriate roles of the government. Traditionally, these "rights" are enumerated in a legal structure that embodies both documents and precedence.

 

I certainly don't believe that my right to "Psyche" as documented in the Laws of Bridge is as significant as the Rights that are protected by the US Constitution. I am merely suggesting that there are some interesting parallels in the arguments...

[jdulmage]

I think the bottom line has to be making the players happy. This is even more important than the "sanctity of The Laws" in my view.

 

The reason I believe this is purely practical. If bridge tournaments are run according to policies that ruin the enjoyment of the experience for most of the people who participate, then eventually these tournaments (and perhaps even the game itself) will die as a result.

 

If I was running a real life bridge club and I knew that 99% of the players in my club preferred that psychs not be allowed, it would be a very bad business decision for me to allow psychs in my club in order to cater to the other 1% (even if I believed that The Laws of bridge were given to Moses from God himself). This would be particularly true if the club across the street had a "no psychs" policy.

 

Our free tourney TDs are not running their own businesses, but they do want people to play in their tournaments. If their judgment suggests that allowing psychs will drive people away from their tournaments, then it makes perfect sense to me that these people should be allowed to do something about it. Why should they be forced to run tournaments that their players won't enjoy?

 

If the "purists" out there don't want to play in these tournaments or don't want to consider such tournaments to be "real bridge" that is entirely up to them. If the purists are dismayed that there are not enough free tournaments on our site in which they are allowed to psych, they are welcome to run their own free tournaments with whatever rules they want.

 

Ultimately if The Laws define a game that most of the players don't enjoy, the game is fundamentally flawed and The Laws should be changed.

 

Please note that I am not making any claims about what % of bridge players would prefer psychs to be banned or what a reasonable threshold % should be before it becomes appropriate to ban them. My only claim is that there is not much point in having a game if its rules result in a lot of the participants not wanting to play.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

amen, Fred.

 

If it's one thing I cannot stand it's psyche at the club level. I don't care and can tolerate/workaround psyches at tournament level. It is when I bring out a brand new player and I am trying to teach them the basics of bridge and somebody decides they will open 1♥ with a void in hearts and screw everything up. This is where the new player goes "what just happened there?" and I have to explain to them that they psyched you.

 

I remember once, the bidding went 1C (Dbl) 1H(!!!!) ? - Partner doubles, 1H is overcalled, I have 6 hearts in my hand, there is no way he was bidding 1H with 4 of them. So I bid 4H over it, passed out, making 5. I was right and the expert looks at me and says "You got lucky", well I'm sorry, you are the one who got lucky.

 

So our club has a "Psyche Book". We allow 1 psyche a night per person, if it exceeds this, they get added to the book where people can see that they psyche a lot and to factor that in to their bidding/playing.

 

To work off of Fred's words -- At the tournament level, it's fine, it's highly competitive. However, at the club level, to encourage new players and to keep people coming back, you will always want to cater to the majority FIRST, laws second.

[uday]

Argh, hrothgar has sucked me in again :ph34r:

 

1. Since the community has the ability to create as many tourneys as we please, arent the rights of the minority protected? All it takes is one willing TD.

 

2. Is it inevitable that this online community (here, the pool of TDs and players) will fragment into clusters? If so, won't that allow any minority interest to be protected within its cluster?

 

3. A psyche by an established member of the community is one thing; it is just bridge. A psyche on the first board by some guy who has logged in for the first time is another. Are the players entitled to be protected from frivolity? How can a pair tell if the oppos are just messing around (no cost to the perp to do so). Is this like spam? Free to send out, costly to receive?

 

4. Would it be ridiculous to restrict the psyches to people who have some skin in the game? perhaps people who have logged in XXX times, played YYY hands?

 

5. Why is it that pyches in particular get us going? If the issue was "mad overbidding", no one would care.

 

6. What distinguishes a public event (like ACBL club games) where rules must be followed, from private events where anything could be allowed/disallowed? Our current public events are ACBL games and, well, ACBL games. No one else is bound by the laws of bridge or good taste or anything beyond BBOs own law ("be nice").