psychique prohibit ?

[mr1303]

The comment regarding drury does not reduce the risks of going for -1100

 

Supposing partner held:

 

x AJxxx Axxx xx

 

and you opened in 3rd 1H on the hand that Roland posted. RHO doubled (because he would). Who in their right minds wouldn't bid 4H now? If anyone would bid drury here then this isn't drury as it is meant, it is a psyche control pure and simple. The idea behind drury is that on hands like:

 

Axxx

Kxx

KJx

xxx

 

 

if partner has opened an 11 count, you don't get to a no-play 3H. Not for dealing with hands with 5-6 card support for partner's suit.

[hrothgar]

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?

Hi Uday

 

I don't see anything wrong if private organization decide that they want to modify or customize regulations. However, if they do so, I think that thye have an obligation to specifically note that they have done so. As both The_Hog and TimG note, potential customizers have the right to know that whatever card game is being played here, it sure ain't "Bridge". More importantly, I'd want to be able to understand the regulatory structure is based on the Proprietor's personal whims.

 

I also think that its important to differentiate between the behaviour of what are essentially small fringe organization as opposed to large Zonal organizations. I see nothing wrong if Joe Bob's Bait, Tackel and Bridge shops wants to make a rule that says that Queens are wild. Similar behaviour on the part of major sponsoring organizations strikes me as highly problematic.

 

I'm sure that many people on this mailing list know that I've had some major problems with the ACBL over the years. Historically, my main issues has never been the particiular set of reglations that the ACBL has adopted, but rather what I percieve to be biased and selective enforcement of the existing regulatory structure. As a result, I tend to be somewhat sensitive consistant enforcement of the Laws...

[Walddk]

The comment regarding drury does not reduce the risks of going for -1100

 

Axxx

Kxx

KJx

xxx

Your first example is not valid, because 4th hand has too many hearts, so he won't double. You respond 2♣, because Drury "forbids" you to bid anything but 2♣ with a near opener and support.

 

Opener passes, and 4th hand is left guessing. Is it safe for him to enter the bidding or not? They don't have a heart fit in this example, but they have when responder has

 

Axxx

Kxx

xxx

KJx

 

Again 4th hand has too many hearts to act on his first turn. When 2♣ comes back to him, the situation is intolerable once more.

 

When playing Drury you have a controlled psyche available 3rd in hand. That is what I dislike. An element of risk should always be there when you gamble.

 

By the way, lesser players tend to psyche more than experts! Psyching is not the way to win matches or tourneys. Experts rarely use psyches; perhaps once a year on average.

 

You can travel to the end of the world on a lie, but you can't come back!

 

Roland

[Brandal]

hrothgar,

I'm curious about this,why isn't it bridge without the option

to psyche? :ph34r:

[hotShot]

I playing with my regular partner, anyone may psyche as much as he likes, because i know that i can trust my partner. And we have the ability to make him pay. If not, we learned a "good one".

 

Playing on BBO with a pickup partner, who states he is advanced or better, I always have in mind, that he might use a different style than i am. So the risk you take with a psyche is a lot lower. So i'm less impressed.

 

Psyching agains beginner and novices, just to show off, is bad sportsmanship.

[hrothgar]

hrothgar,

I'm curious about this,why isn't it bridge without the option

to psyche? :ph34r:

I subscribe to the quaint notion that the official laws of bridge actually have some relation to the game. Most notably, Law 75 B states

 

B. Violations of Partnership Agreements

 

A player may violate an announced partnership agreement, so long as his partner is unaware of the violation (but habitual violations within a partnership may create implicit agreements, which must be disclosed). No player has the obligation to disclose to the opponents that he has violated an announced agreement and if the opponents are subsequently damaged, as through drawing a false inference from such violation, they are not entitled to redress.

[Brandal]

hrothgar,

I'm curious about this,why isn't it bridge without the option

to psyche?  :ph34r:

I subscribe to the quaint notion that the official laws of bridge actually have some relation to the game. Most notably, Law 75 B states

 

B. Violations of Partnership Agreements

 

A player may violate an announced partnership agreement, so long as his partner is unaware of the violation (but habitual violations within a partnership may create implicit agreements, which must be disclosed). No player has the obligation to disclose to the opponents that he has violated an announced agreement and if the opponents are subsequently damaged, as through drawing a false inference from such violation, they are not entitled to redress.

I don't question the legality hrothgar,I was more

curious about what you think psyches add to the

"52 cards" making it more bridge than no psyches?

 

I mean,just because it's legal doesn't necessarily

add alot to the game?

 

:ph34r:

[hrothgar]

hrothgar,

I'm curious about this,why isn't it bridge without the option

to psyche?  :ph34r:

I subscribe to the quaint notion that the official laws of bridge actually have some relation to the game. Most notably, Law 75 B states

 

B. Violations of Partnership Agreements

 

A player may violate an announced partnership agreement, so long as his partner is unaware of the violation (but habitual violations within a partnership may create implicit agreements, which must be disclosed). No player has the obligation to disclose to the opponents that he has violated an announced agreement and if the opponents are subsequently damaged, as through drawing a false inference from such violation, they are not entitled to redress.

I don't question the legality hrothgar,I was more

curious about what you think psyches add to the

"52 cards" making it more bridge than no psyches?

 

I mean,just because it's legal doesn't necessarily

add alot to the game?

 

:ph34r:

I would strongly prefer that existing Laws such as 75B were modified to reflect the "realities" of of how Bridge is actually played.

 

I have argued on several occasions that "Psyches" as commonly understood don't actually exist. Rather, this phenomenal is an imperfect approximation of behaviour more properly described as a mixed strategy in bidding. Furthermore, I assert that if Laws aren't properly aligned with the decision making strategies that players actually use there will inevitably be severe tension.

 

For what its worth, from my perspective, the most interesting element of bridge is modelling the bridge auction as an information channel. Take this away and we might as well be playing Spades...

 

The following piece provides a more detailed discussion regarding some of these ideas.

 

Mixed Strategies as applied to Bridge

 

The academic discipline of game theory differentiates between “pure” strategies and “mixed” strategies. Pure strategies are deterministic. Players choosing a pure strategy follow a predictable course of action. In contrast, mixed strategies deliberately incorporate random action. The simplest example of a mixed strategy equilibrium is the Penny Matching game. Two players simultaneous display a penny. If the two coins “match” (both coins are heads or both coins are tails) then Player 1 keeps the two pennies. If the two coins don't match then Player 2 keeps both pennies. The only equilibrium strategy to this game is mixed. Each player should randomly determine whether to display Heads or Tails using a 50/50 weighting scheme.

The concept of a mixed strategy can be applied to a number of areas within bridge. The simplest and best know examples come from declarer play and defense. Many well understood problems like restricted choice make use of mixed strategies. For example, declarer leads a low Diamond into D QJ9 and plays the Queen after LHO plays low. RHO holds both the Ace and the King and needs to determine which card to cover with. Restricted choice analysis presumes that the defender is applying a mixed strategy will randomly chose to cover with the Ace or the King, once again applying a 50/50 weighing scheme.

Mixed strategies can also be applied to the design of bidding systems. Players applying a “pure” bidding strategy will always chose the same bid bid with a given hand. In contrast, players employing a mixed bidding strategy allow deliberate randomization. Consider the following example taken from Bridge My Way by Zia Mahmood. You hold

 

S AQJ3

H K5

D 873

C A653

 

The auction starts

 

1H – 1S

3S - ???

 

and you need to chose a rebid. Zia advocates a bidding style in which players should randomize between 4C and 4D cuebids. Zia never goes so far as to discuss probabilities, but hypothetically he might chose a 4C cuebid 80% of the time and a 4D cuebid 20% of the time. Alternatively, consider the following example: White versus Red partner opens 1H in first seat promising 5+ Hearts and 10-15 HCP. RHO passes. You hold:

 

S 742

H AK762

D 9732

C 4

 

I advocate a hypothetical “mixed” strategy in which players bidders

 

4H: 60% of the time

3NT: 20% of the time

2NT: 10% of the time

2D: 5% of the time

1S: 5% of the time

 

Players who adopt mixed bidding strategies allow for the use of multiple bids to describe a single hand. As a consequence, many responses could show radically different hand types. For example, players adopting Zia's Sting Cue bid style need to describe their 4C cue bids as either “First round control of Clubs or [rarely] no control of clubs”. In an equivalent fashion, my partners would need to describe my 3NT raise of a Precision 1H openings as either a strong balanced hand willing to declare 3NT OR [rarely] a preemptive raise of Hearts.

In turn, this brings us to the last major area in which mixed strategies and bridge overlap: Regulatory structures. Few if any Zonal authorities incorporate mixed bidding strategies into their regulatory structures. Instead, regulators attempt to sidestep the issue using the concept of a psychic call. Regulators and players pretend that psychic calls are “deliberate and gross misstatements of honor strength or suit length”. In actuality, so-called psychic calls are a subset of a more complex meta-agreement involving mixed bidding strategies.

I argue that neither players nor regulators are served by this pretense. Complete disclosure can never be achieved unless the regulatory structure matches the actual strategies employed by players.

[hotShot]

I wonder what poker player would say, if they were not allowed to bluff.

Would they think that with this restriktion it's still poker?

 

Any action that is not illegal, is a legitimate part of the game.

[Brandal]

I wonder what poker player would say, if they were not allowed to bluff.

Would they think that with this restriktion it's still poker?

 

Any action that is not illegal, is a legitimate part of the game.

I guess that depends what would be considered bluffing?

 

Would a pair of aces be considered a bluff with $100.000

on the table?

 

:)

 

Why do "we" need to resort to psyches,what does it add

to "our" game to bid what we don't have?

 

To me it's like athletes on dope :)

 

"haha,fooled you"

 

Or is it just for the heck of it,bridge itself is too boring?

[hotShot]

Brandal, a psyche only works if you trust your opponent more than you trust our partner. So a psyche is a test of partnership understanding and a test of your bidding skills to uncover it.

 

Partnership understanding and bidding skill are two very importent parts of bridge. This has nothing to do with "athletes on dope".

 

There is nothing to bidding without opponents interference, this is what beginner should reach first.

The true challenge is to master this, with opps doing their best to make your life harder.

Every restriction you apply, reduces the challenge.

[the hog]

There is more to it than hotShot suggests. Psyches are an integral part of the game because it is important that the opponents don't trust your bidding 100%

 

Look at Hrothgar's description of Zia's sting cues. The very fact he is known as a perptrator of these gives him an advantage over his opponents.

 

One very good player I know advocates that in a long team match against unknown opponents one should sow the seeds of doubt early so that there is always an element of doubt about your bids.

 

The truth of the matter is that as Richard says Law 75B explicitely allows psychesin Bridge and makes no distinction in the on line game. If you ban psyches ok, but don't call it Bridge; call it something else.

[mycroft]

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.

 

I do agree, Fred. Especially about "not having tournaments". But I play Magic, as do thousands of "juniors". Many of those play "tried and tested" decks, but there are many who go out and experiment. And the range of experimentation is at least as wide as in Bridge.

 

And these are the people who would be interested in Bridge - until they hit all the "silly restrictions" (their words - I ran a University Bridge club, I've heard it at least three times!) that we have put into the game "to make the [existing] players happy". Their response to being psyched is "Oh, really? You can do that? Neat strategy." - the same reaction one gets from them the first time they see a strong club system, or splinters, or...

 

So I worry about Bridge dying from age because we are pushing away the CCG players, which is a *big* target market.

 

I have no feelings about "sanctity of the Laws" - but I do have great problems with Carrollesque administration of those Laws. If the Laws say one thing, one should be able to expect that that's what they mean. If "we" as a community don't like that meaning, we should change the Laws (as you do say later), not tell the readers that "they mean what we say they mean" (which is what's currently happening in a few cases).

 

So until the Laws are rewritten to match what Sponsoring Organizations do, I will rail against the darkness. And that especially pertains to psychic calls and plays.

 

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 assume you've told the new player how to signal. And I'm also going to assume the new player is good and reads the opponents' signals. And goes down when LHO falsecards and he believes her. The new player goes "what just happened there?"

 

And you have to explain...what? That they're allowed to lie?

 

What's the difference, play or bidding?

 

Similarly, what do you do with the new player when the auction goes 1C-1H-(long sequence of asking bids leading to)-7S in for a top, because Standard can't find the CJ? And you have to explain to them that there are other ways of bidding, that have good points and bad points, and the strong club pair will pay for that top later when they pinpoint the killing lead/wrongside the contract/play the wrong partscore because of their system...

 

Or 1NT all float for a top because they play 12-14 NTs and they were the only pair to not pinpoint the killing lead? What about that?

 

Until the Laws get changed, psychic calls are a legal tactic. A losing tactic, in the long run, I believe, but a legal one nonetheless. I agree with you that psyches against new players are not a good idea, but not because they're "bad", but because they're even more losing bridge than normal, because the upside isn't as strong.

 

Select the following footnote to read it, if you care...

 

However, having a reputation as a psychic bidder is a *winning* strategy, in my view, because most opponents start second-guessing *all* your calls. So you and partner trust each other explicitly, the opponents think you're getting them again, and you make unmakeable contracts.

 

To get this reputation, you have to psych occasionally, often enough that the word gets around, and maintain it often enough that the word stays going around. What you lose on the swings, you get back on the roundabouts, if you do it right.

 

 

Also, some of the club games around here are stronger than the tournaments...and at least as competitive.

 

And if we do a "no psyches in clubs" rule, or "no psyches in NLM games" or "no psyches against NLMs in the open games", all we do is delay the onset of this part of the game even farther, so that it's 10 000 hands before they run across their first psychic. Now how hard do you think it's going to be to convince them it's a legal, normal part of the game?

 

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.

 

Proper response to expert is "no, it's just that unlike most people, I actually trust my partner's bids." And smile. Frankly, that's the best defence to psychics.

 

Of course, if you're not playing "extended responsive doubles", you can double 1H, and there might just not be a safe landing spot for Mr. Expert. If you are...well then it's a system loss, you have to eat them occasionally.

 

Bidding goes in waves. One of the reasons for the death of the penalty double is that psychics are "frowned on" so strongly that you don't need a penalty double at the one level to ferret them out any more. And with the death of the penalty double, it becomes safe to overcall on hands that would be considered psychs in 1950. So we do. And when we hit a pair playing 1950's methods, we occasionally get -800s into nothing. Eventually some real experts, who defend well, are going to realize this, start playing 4-card majors (to minimize the loss of negative doubles), and play no artificial doubles invented after 1960. And they're going to win in two ways:

 

1) They'll get all those juicy numbers Simon wrote about in "Why You Lose at Bridge".

2) Eventually their opponents will get to know this, will tighten up their overcalls to safe levels, and give their constructive methods much more free rein than anybody else gets.

 

I don't know if we've got to the point where taking back the penalty double is a winner yet, but it has to be close.

 

As I said, though. another downside to the death of the penalty double is that it is susceptible to psychic interference. But of course today we're safe in a way we weren't in Josephine Culbertson's day from that hole in the system - we just make them either illegal or immoral instead.

 

It was over 40 years ago that the following was penned:

 

"Thanks for the Bulletin's clever
Clarification endeavour.
[space] [space] It seems you may psyche
[space] [space] As much as you like,
[space]As long as you like to psyche never."

 

Ah well.

Michael.

Edited March 11, 2005 by mycroft

[fred]

To me there is a big difference between the psych of a cuebid (or a splinter or a game try or...) and the type of psychs that involve opening the bidding with zero HCP or preempting when you have a singleton in the suit you bid.

 

I also believe that if Zia really randomly cuebids Axxx or xxx and, especially if he has discussed this with his partner, that it is would very wrong of him not alert all of his cuebids. The reason is that such a bid is not a psych anymore - it is part of his partnership's system and it is also an unusual agreement (so it should be alerted). The opponents have a right to know that xxx is just as likely as Axxx when Zia or his partner cuebids.

 

Please note that I have great respect for Zia and his regular partner (Michael Rosenberg), not just as highly skilled players but also as highly ethical players. Perhaps they don't really play this way or perhaps they do alert their cuebids, I am not sure. I am quite sure that it would be important for them to do the right thing.

 

One problem with psyching in general is that there are not very many types of psychs that rate to be effective. Those few top players who psych at all are of course familiar with which psychs are likely to work. Once they try these specific psychs a few times with regular partners, these bids stop being psychs - they become unusual agreements that are part of their systems and, as such, they should then be alerted.

 

I am not an expert on The Laws, but I believe that sponsoring organizations DO have the right to regulate some partnership agreements. If you and your partner play that a 3rd seat opening bid at favorable vulnerability is either 0-4 HCP or a normalish opening bid (which is not an uncommon way to play for some "frequent psychs" pairs), this is no longer about psyching - it is about playing a system that I think would be considered an "illegal system" in just about any tournament that I have ever played in.

 

My partner Joey Silver used to like to psych a 2 of a major response to my weak 1NT openings (we did not play transfers - 2H/S was to play) on weak hands without length in the bid suit. It didn't take long until I started alerting every time he bid 2H/S over my 1NT. Joey's tactic was effective as a psych, but it was not effective once it became an agreement and I felt obligated to let the opponents in on the joke.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[mycroft]

Why do "we" need to resort to psyches,what does it add to "our" game to bid what we don't have?

 

[cut]

 

"haha,fooled you"

 

So, brandal, you never falsecard? You never, as declarer, try a chinese finesse or a pseudosqueeze because "you don't have it"? You never try to muddy up the defenders' signals by hiding the 3, the 2, or both?

 

Playing against you must be fun. And profitable.

 

Oh, but that's different? How, pray tell? Just because it comes in the play, not the bidding? You know, the Laws don't differentiate between bidding and play conventions...

 

And how about so-called "tactical bids"? You've never made a "phantom cuebid"? Or used 2NT feature ask over 2S as a preemptive raise? Or opened just that little bit light in second seat, white against red, against the best pair in the room?

 

Remember, a "tactical bid" is a psychic call made by an expert. A psych is a tactical bid made against the same expert. (<anecdote style="military">No *#$%, there I was, with a BIGNUM MP player, club and Tournament director, trying to tell me that overcalling 1H in third seat with xx -- KQTxxx Jxxxx was a "tactical bid". Last week, no less.</anecdote>)

 

Or is it just for the heck of it,bridge itself is too boring?

 

There are many reasons why I psych. Sometimes I just have a feeling it will work. Sometimes I think it won't, but they're getting to a cold slam if I don't, so why not try to confuse them? Sometimes I know this pair is extremely susceptible to psychs, so I try to find one. (Note, this is no different from the pair that I know has a hard time if they've been jumpovercalled, so I go out of my way to do that. Or the strong club pair I know that live on their reputation (which, mind you, isn't undeserved), so don't get to practice their defence to interference. So I overcall 1C a lot. Or...) Sometimes, as I said in another post, I psych to keep up my reputation, the same way I play a silly system sometimes to keep up my reputation. Sometimes it's necessary to blitz the last round to win and an ordinary hand comes up, where I believe there's no other way to generate a top (okay, so most often it will be the same average, second most often it will be a bottom. But sometimes I win, or make the cut to the second day, or...) Sometimes I'm playing a pair that have an expected score of 70% against me. Again, the chance that the psych will give them 100% is high, but the MP payoff is still in my favour if I win 60-70% 20% of the time and lose 30% 30% of the time.

 

With one partner, back before the ACBL removed the "psychic frequency" from the card in accordance with their "you may have no agreements about psychics whatsoever" policy, I psyched because otherwise, I would have been lying to the opponents about what we played (Frequent marked, and circled a couple of times). And you wouldn't want me lying to my opponents, would you?

 

Michael.

[mycroft]

hmm, sorry to overpost this thread, but:

 

By the way, I believe and listen very strongly to what Fred says. He has more bridge experience than I will have in 20 years, and is a better bridge player than I will ever be. He is also likely a better system theorist and regulator than I will ever be.

 

And I remember watching on BBO Vugraph the Canadian Team trials where Fred was commentating. He went to great lengths to explain to the multiple outraged spectators, that, no, that 1S call was legal, and very much a proper bridge tactic (subject to the restrictions he has pointed out here, as he did there). He also explained that it was dangerous, but how this situation lowered the risk (I believe the psyching team was 40 behind at the half and had had a bad 4th set).

 

In this, as in everything else he does, he was at least at the call of duty, if not above and beyond - and this is for a bridge tactic that he has the opinions he has shown in this thread.

 

Thank you again, Fred.

Michael.

[DrTodd13]

I can't take the transmission out of my car and then advertise "car for sale." If someone buys the car, I'll get sued because I advertised it as a car but a car must

have a transmission. Likewise, you can't take psyches away from bridge and still call it "bridge." Call it whatever you want but you shouldn't call it bridge. I don't have a problem with people running tournaments that ban psyches or clubs or anyone banning psyches because I believe in freedom. Those people shouldn't call themselves bridge clubs because the global rules of bridge state that psyches are part of the game.

[fred]

Thanks Mycroft.

 

Please note that although my posts in this thread may sound "anti-psych", I do strongly believe that psychs are an integral part of our game (though if you read my last post carefully you will see that I have strong feelings about the ethics of frequent psychs).

 

I even psych myself every few years. If you want to read about the last time I can remember that I psyched (it was in 2002), log in to BBO, click Explore Bridge!, then Bridge Library, then English, the Deal of the Week, then DOTW #284. It is quite an amusing story and includes some additional thoughts on my opinions about psychs.

 

Yes, I do believe that psychs have their place in our game, but I also believe that it is entirely appropriate for club and tournament organizers to say that "psychs have no place in MY games".

 

For the record, I would never psych in a club game (or an online ACBL tourney which I consider to be the same thing) regardless of what the rules were. The reason is that I do not really care about my score when I play in these things. I play because I want to have an enjoyable time and I have learned the hard way that a significant % of club-level players get upset when someone psychs against them. That tends to ruin their enjoyment of their experience and my enjoyment of the experience is ruined as a result.

 

Besides that, it just doesn't seem fair (clubbing baby seals or taking candy from babies is what it seems like). Yes, I am willing to falsecard against these people and I am willing to play and defend as well as I can, but this doesn't feel like the same thing as trying to win by psyching. I can't put my finger on the exact difference, but I know that I feel very differently after psyching against lesser players than I feel after falsecarding or squeezing lesser players.

 

Fred Gitelman

Birdge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[Brandal]

I can't take the transmission out of my car and then advertise "car for sale." If someone buys the car, I'll get sued because I advertised it as a car but a car must

have a transmission. Likewise, you can't take psyches away from bridge and still call it "bridge." Call it whatever you want but you shouldn't call it bridge. I don't have a problem with people running tournaments that ban psyches or clubs or anyone banning psyches because I believe in freedom. Those people shouldn't call themselves bridge clubs because the global rules of bridge state that psyches are part of the game.

I can't remember where I said I wanted to ban psyches,

or take it out of bridge,I am merely asking questions

that interests me. :)

 

I am however concerned about what happens when what

Fred describes becomes a "reality":

 

[they become unusual agreements that are part of their

systems and, as such, they should then be alerted.]

 

To me that is not bridge anymore either,and even though

some depict me as a ludoplayer,I feel my game has integrity.

 

I don't need to be better than I am now,I enjoy the occiasional

tournament win,or occasional top 3 place.

 

 

Bottom line since some assume I'm in favor of banning psyches,

I'm NOT

[luke warm]

i've told this one before, but i played in a tourney with richard once and he opened 1nt in 3rd seat... i, of course, believed him (tho i had to pass, luckily :))... it was a stone cold psych

 

but the point is, we played in another tourney a week or so later and he again opened 1nt in 3rd seat... i pm'd both opps and said "he's been known to psych in that position"... was i right to do so? i believe i was because *the thought entered my mind that he could be psyching*... to me the ethics of the situation were clear, even tho i'd only seen him do it once before

 

i don't think psychs are a problem for anyone, or for any partnership, as long as the opps are made aware of anything approaching a p'ship understanding... and for me, if it happens once that's enough

[mycroft]

i don't think psychs are a problem for anyone, or for any partnership, as long as the opps are made aware of anything approaching a p'ship understanding... and for me, if it happens once that's enough

 

And so does the WBF (assuming the psych was recent enough, or memorable enough). I think the WBF goes too far, but they have the right idea. But playing with my regular partner from Ontario (not the starred and circled Frequent psychs partner, but we still probably psyched 4 times out of every 10 made at a tournament - i.e. three or four times a year), I couldn't tell you more than two psychs he made. I know he made at least 10, but I don't remember the rest. I'm sure he could say the same thing about me.

 

So it doesn't have to be once - but when it's the psych that gave Mr. and Mrs. N. their only club win of the year, and they still gripe about it (the exact quote was "Even with the psych, we still won" - yeah, +800 into nothing really hurts your chances, doesn't it?), then once is enough.

 

Michael.

[Brandal]

i've told this one before, but i played in a tourney with richard once and he opened 1nt in 3rd seat... i, of course, believed him (tho i had to pass, luckily :))... it was a stone cold psych

 

but the point is, we played in another tourney a week or so later and he again opened 1nt in 3rd seat... i pm'd both opps and said "he's been known to psych in that position"... was i right to do so? i believe i was because *the thought entered my mind that he could be psyching*... to me the ethics of the situation were clear, even tho i'd only seen him do it once before

 

i don't think psychs are a problem for anyone, or for any partnership, as long as the opps are made aware of anything approaching a p'ship understanding... and for me, if it happens once that's enough

I might start psyching one day,I've already falsecarded on occasion

 

:)

 

I like your take on this,mr. warm,thx

[Brandal]

There is more to it than hotShot suggests. Psyches are an integral part of the game because it is important that the opponents don't trust your bidding 100%

Why's that?

 

I want my partner to trust my bid,

it's an obvious "downside" that

most opps will also understand my bid

but for me that is a part of the game.

 

That all 4 at the table "enjoy" bridge

and may still be able to pull a satisfactory

result if doing their job.

 

I've played against people I feel inferior to

and think we'll never get a result here and I

don't like that feeling,especially since the

"seed" sown usually is arrogant and patronising

behavior.

 

Bridge is no fun then,and I happen to

think bridge should be fun first,results second.

 

Noone likes the feeling of being fooled,or being

ridiculed....do they? :)

 

ps. this is just my take,not inferring anything about you

or anyone else.

[inquiry]

he again opened 1nt in 3rd seat... i pm'd both opps and said "he's been known to psych in that position"... was i right to do so? i believe i was

Technically, I would say it was probably not right to send this PM if you know of only one time that richard made this psyche. If, on the other hand, you saw him do this twice or more, then it is not only appropriate, it should be required.

 

I had a parntner that use to alert pretty much all my non-vul bids (well not quite that bad) and tell the opponents I have been know to psyche a weak two, a 1NT opening bid, a new suit when opponents make a takeout dble, 3NT after partners preempt not vul, on and on... but never alerted similar bids when I was vul. Why is that? Because I very seldom psyche vul... but psyche relatively frequently (not crazy mind you) not vul.

 

Ben

[Brandal]

For what its worth, from my perspective, the most interesting element of bridge is modelling the bridge auction as an information channel. Take this away and we might as well be playing Spades...

 

Regulators and players pretend that psychic calls are ?deliberate and gross misstatements of honor strength or suit length?. In actuality, so-called psychic calls are a subset of a more complex meta-agreement involving mixed bidding strategies.

I agree that take away the bidding,and we

might as well play spades :)

 

How a psyche can be part of an "information channel"

is more blurry to me,the way I "define" psyches.

 

My partner isn't supposed to know or suspect it is

a "deliberate and gross misstatements of honor strength

or suit length" if I psyche?

 

Maybe there is more to psyching as some people

point out.

 

:) I'm no authority in any way,I'm curious tho

 

---------------------------------------------------

 

To me,psyche is a "deliberate and gross misstatement of

honor strength or suit length" in order to ruin the "fun"

for the opps,obstruct their chances of finding a contract

that way.

 

Some say that asking bids or cuebids or trialbids and tactical

bids are psyches,but aren't these to be alerted and explained?

 

And are people serious when they claim if I play,say from T642

the 2 first instead of the 4 or the 6 if that would be what my

partner would expect,a psyche?

 

If so,then I psyche alot :D