psychique prohibit ?

[helene_t]

A practical implementation issue. Consider two scenarios:

 

1) Psyches are allowed. Somebody gives an explanation that turns out not to be true. You call the director because you think it was a concealed agreement and that you were dammaged. The opponents say: "We are allowed to psyche!". You say "This has nothing to do with psyching, it is misinformation!". (Think of somebody calling an intermediate jump overcall "weak", or whatever). Unfortunately, this is a low-level tournament, and the director is not sure what the term "psyche" actually means, either.

 

2) Psyches are not allowed. You make some call that according to some people's taste was outradgeous, which (at this level) could be a 1NT opening with a 5-card major, or a 1NT opening with a void, or anything in between. Opps call the director because they were damaged by your "psyche". Now it could be that you thought it was a normal call. Or that it was your style which you knew is slightly deviating but hardly enough to require an alert. Or that you made a mistake, you had just learned in the BIL lesson that a 4441 is not ballanced but in a moment of excitement you forgot. The director is unable to tell, of course.

 

My point is this: Forbidding psyches is fine if that's what the players want. But even if I play in such a tournament, I assume I have the right to follow my own style, to give common sense priority above agreed conventions, even if the opps and the director think a have a weired notion of common sense. Even if not playing Walsh, I reserve the right to conceal a diamond suit if I think it is more interesting for the opps than for partner. I reserve the right to play random signals whenever I think signalling would benefit declarer more than partner. And I reserve the right to make stupid mistakes. Can I expect the director to judge if I'm crossing the line and it becomes psyching?

[hotShot]

Well judgement can never be a gross misdescription.

 

If you ban psyches how do you call:

- bidding NT without a stopper in opponents suit

- bidding a 3 card suit like xxx to prevent opps to lead that suit against a NT contract (or maybe because you play 2/1 and have to bid this minor now)

[uday]

But look at what Hrothgar said on page 3 about "Mixed Strategies as applied to Bridge"

 

If you subscribe to this, couldnt we argue that there *are* no psyches?

 

A 1NT in 3rd seat could be alerted as

 

15-17 balanced 90% of the time

or

weak 1 suiter 10% of the time (or whatever).

 

I've never, in 20 years of bridge, run across someone who alerted this way, or even bid this way as a partnership style.

 

Are there any systems which try to make explicit use of this mixed strategy ?

[helene_t]

Uday, what you describe is not (necessarily) a mixed strategy. It is, in principle, something like a strong 2♣ opening announced as "can be strong but in order to discourage preemption it can also be a weak two in diamonds". A kind of controlled psyche, in effect, but it's announced so it's just a convention. We do not mention the probability that it is weak but that's just because it's unfeasible to require an unbiased estimate.

 

Suppose that the opps know that you follow a particular textbook 100%, including the rule that you never preempt with Qxxx in a major side suit but that Jxxx will never hold you back. You may reason that the negative inference that can be made when you fail ton preempt is more useful for the opps than for partner, in which case you change the rule to: if logit (1.3x+0.8y+2.2z+ ...... ) = p preempt with probability p. x,y,z etc are parameters describing the quality of you primary suit, the quality of your best major side suit etc. At game theory classes at college we solved that kind of optimization problems. As I understood it they have been developed for military purposes.

 

Some animals studies have shown that even insects can solve such optimization problems. There can be no doubt that poker players do the same. I'm not so sure for bridge players. If you play a very long team match, maybe. However, if the opps ask me under what circumstances my partner would preempt with a 4-card major side suit, my explanation would by in vague terms such as "overall defensive potential" etc. Our inability to operationalize our bidding style introduces enough randomness already. I don't think it would be necesary to add further randomness.

[hrothgar]

But look at what Hrothgar said on page 3 about "Mixed Strategies as applied to Bridge"

 

If you subscribe to this, couldnt we argue that there *are* no psyches?

 

A 1NT in 3rd seat could be alerted as

 

15-17 balanced 90% of the time

or

weak 1 suiter 10% of the time (or whatever).

 

I've never, in 20 years of bridge, run across someone who alerted this way, or even bid this way as a partnership style.

 

Are there any systems which try to make explicit use of this mixed strategy ?

Hi Uday

 

I'm not aware of any bidding systems that explicitly take the notion of a mixed strategy. I'm guessing that any number of players are intuitive aware of this aspect of the game, however, I doubt that many have explicit agreements on the subject. I know that my MOSCITO notes explicitly describe this type of strategy, however, I've never seen it formally discussed anywhere else. Zia's discussion about sting cue bids is one of the most explict discussion that I've seen...

 

I can offer four plausible explanations for this:

 

1. The dominant mental paradigm is based on the assumption that a "psyche" is a deliberate violation of an explicit egreement rather than part of a more comprehensive meta-agreement.

 

2. Existing regulatory structures within many Zonal bodies don't permit mixed strategies. As a result, players who apply this type of bidding strategy hide behind the notion of the psyche...

 

3. Operationalizing a bidding system based on mixed strategies is extremely difficult. While I'm sure that the basic application of mxied strategies is the "right" way to go, the math required to come up with precise percentages is well beyond me.

 

4. Point 3 means that full disclosure of methods becomes extremely difficult.

 

In short, this is one of those areas where I'm sure that I'm right and the rest of the world is wrong.

 

Personally, I think that the "correct" way to proceed is to eliminate the notion of psyches from the game. Restructure the laws and regulations based on the notion of mixed strategies. Finally, make a deliberate decision to either sanction or ban this type of bidding strategy.

 

I'm firmly convinvced that the arguments that constantly surround psyches are primarily based on the inherent tension between the framework used to construct the regulatory structure and the mental models that players are really applying...

[TimG]

But look at what Hrothgar said on page 3 about "Mixed Strategies as applied to Bridge"

 

If you subscribe to this, couldnt we argue that there *are* no psyches?

 

A 1NT in 3rd seat could be alerted as

 

15-17 balanced 90% of the time

or

weak 1 suiter 10% of the time (or whatever).

 

I've never, in 20 years of bridge, run across someone who alerted this way, or even bid this way as a partnership style.

What youhave described here is not a psyche, but rather a two-way agreement of some sort. Those are common and I'm sure you've run into them from time to time:

 

1) Stayman: usually invitational or better with a four-card major, rarely a weak three-suiter short in clubs (and traditionally also rarely the prelude to a sign-off in 3C);

 

2) Polish club: often natural with clubs, often a weak or mini NT and sometimes a string hand;

 

3) traditional multi: either weak with one of the majors or some variety of strong hands.

 

The difference between these types of agreements (and the 1NT call you describe, which is similar to a comic NT overcall) and psyches is the "agreement" part. There may also be a difference between these types of methods and Richard's "mixed strategy" in that Richard does not seem to want to include his partner in the information exchange -- the mixed strategy is intentionally designed to keep partner in the dark while not affecting the effectiveness of the strategy. That is, they present problems, but only to the opponents, not to partner.

 

I think we're dealing with three different things (multi-meaning bids, psyches and mixed strategies) and that it is important to remember this when discussing them.

 

Tim

[cherdano]

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.

I am pretty sure you are right about suspecting that they do the right thing. For one thing, Sabine Auken once mentioned in a BBO vugraph comment that Zia had told her to alert all his game tries (I think she was supposed to explain something like "Could be showing genuine help-suit game try, could be lead-misdirecting psych, or could be showing nothing at all." Not clear to me how they were supposed to help them reach the right games :D). Their CC is also very explicit about psychic run-out sequences after a weak NT opening.

 

Arend

[Free]

You got to just love all these threads about psychs. Imo it's very simple: people learn bridge, but they don't learn all the rules. For example, they just assume you always have to bid what you have. When something funny happens, they assume it's wrong and get angry.

 

Where's the real problem? Not with the psycher imo (it's allowed), not with the people who get angry as well (if they don't know everything, you can't expect people to react the propper way), but with the people who teach bridge and don't tell them it's allowed to lie! A lot of advanced players don't even know what a psych is exactly.

 

If you can fix the heart of the problem, then nobody will whine about someone fooling them. They'll just accept that they were framed and that it's allowed, next board plz. Ofcourse, it will take several years (read decades) before everybody would feel this way, but the sooner we begin, the sooner these threads will disappear and everybody will be happy.

[mycroft]

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.

 

I guess my hidden footnote needs a bit more explanation.

 

Psyches work in two situations:

1) You get lucky. You make a WAC (ref WAG, def. 2) and it successfully throws a monkey wrench into their bidding or play. This doesn't happen often, but is spectacular when it does. One of my favourites was a psychic double of a 7NT contract, in hopes that declarer would need a finesse or a squeeze and go after the wrong opponent.

 

Oh, and like anything, you get better at it with experience, so they gradually morph into SWACs (*Scientific* WAC). What is it they say, "the more I practice, the luckier I get"? But it's still a loser when you do it - but you learn how to maximize the chance of success and minimize the potential loss.

 

2) Your opponents doubt what you are saying. As soon as they start thinking "he psyched that call last time, he might not have it, let's push" or "what if he doesn't have hearts this time?" you win. Not much, I will admit, but you win - because you get to tell the exact truth to partner, secure in the knowledge that the opponents will try to work out what lie you're making *this time*. And you win that little a lot.

 

If you don't believe me, ask Zia. He's a great player, but what makes him incredible is that he throws you, and you stay thrown. And the media sells it - it's part of his mystique - so now everybody "knows about Zia". I'll bet he doesn't psych much more than I do - okay, his "imaginative" plays are probably more frequent - but every single one of them are reported, so everybody hears about them. So he's "unreadable". And he does it to world-class players, again and again. Even though they know better. And there's quiet little Michael Rosenberg, bidding 'em sound, believing his partner *absolutely*, and on the other 999 of 1000 hands, they get that small win.

 

Similarly, there's two ways a psych loses:

 

1) You make that WAC and it works out spectacularly badly. You fool partner instead of opponents, and sometimes, what's worse, *she* has to play the disaster. Funny how nobody spreads those hands around - in fact, they just forget them. It's only successful psychs that are remembered.

 

2) Your partner doubts what you are saying. If this *ever* happens - short of you passing a forcing bid, or there being 75 points in the deck, or any of those "obvious" things. I mean that on this hand you open 1H and partner thinks "he might not have his bid" - you're sunk. Probably your partnership is sunk, too, because there is almost *no way* you can regain partner's trust once that doubt is settled in the core.

 

And guess what? You know all those "little wins" you got when your opponents don't trust you? They become "little losses" when partner doubts. And it will be "little loss"*26 boards a session instead of "little win"*2 boards*# opponents you've succeeded in instilling doubt on. And I can guarantee that isn't 13, even if your name is Zia.

 

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.

 

I agree. And as a TD one of my jobs is to disabuse those "experts" from that attitude. It hurts the opponents, the expert, and the game, and people don't come back from that kind of nonsense. Note that the real experts usually don't have that attitude. They tend not to be arrogant - except in dealings with their almost-equals; and they don't patronize. It's the "thinks they're experts" that do that.

 

Remember, though, that if you're this pair's bunny - and everybody is somebody's bunny - they don't need to play games to win. You'll do that all by yourself. Don't I just know this...

 

But I don't see what that has to do with psyching in any way. I psych, I get a great result, I record it on the scoresheet and go on to the next hand. I try to minimize any discussion, because I don't *want* to gloat. The same thing applies when they walk into a weak NT sandwich and go for 800 into a shaky game, or when I pull off a double squeeze, or any other time I get a system or skill win. If I psych and it loses, I apologize to partner, score it up, and go on to the next hand. The same thing happens when we play weak 1NT+1 and the field is in 2M+1, or I stretch for a slam and it's not there, or I just lose my mind for a hand, or any other time I get a system or skill loss.

 

If the people who psych against you play mind games afterwards, call the TD, and get this straightened out. But please distinguish the legal psychic call from the improper (therefore illegal) intimidation.

 

One of the things I tell people when they complain to me about psychs is that they should feel honoured. Psychs are a losing tactic in most cases, never more than when the psychers are better than you are. So if they do it - and usually only the better players will do it, because only the better players are aware of it - then they must think that either you're killing them in the match, or you're good enough to be worth not playing down the middle and trying to win on merit.

 

And bridge is mucho fun when the experts take you out of the "fish" category!

 

Michael.

[DrTodd13]

To answer Uday's question, I know several people that will bid in third seat with a real opener or a very weak hand (especially a distributional one). The reason you never hear anybody alert such bids is that if you do it that much then you have a partnership understanding and then you are subject to the ACBL rule that such an agreement is illegal. It is also not necessary to alert in situations where psyches are very common. People are expected to know what those positions are...for example, 1H-(X)-1S.

[bearmum]

Why is that? Because I very seldom psyche vul... but psyche relatively frequently (not crazy mind  you) not vul.

 

Ben

Edited quote

 

Ben I am not sure if you are refering f2f or online bridge BUT surely

 

1. in f2f it should be on your CC that you "frequently" psych NON vul in 3rd position (and MAYBE should be brought to the attention of opps as it takes a LONG time to read CC s)

 

2. ONLINE surely YOU should be self alerting tha same thing ?

 

3. Waht are "frequent psyches" ?? :)

 

NOW the question I have IF both you and your partner KNOW you "frequently psyche" in 3rd position NON vul does that not mean u have a "special agreement" with partner [and is that not against the SPIRIT of the laws {rather that the letter of the laws}]

[inquiry]

Why is that? Because I very seldom psyche vul... but psyche relatively frequently (not crazy mind  you) not vul.

 

Ben

Edited quote

 

Ben I am not sure if you are refering f2f or online bridge BUT surely

 

1. in f2f it should be on your CC that you "frequently" psych NON vul in 3rd position (and MAYBE should be brought to the attention of opps as it takes a LONG time to read CC s)

 

2. ONLINE surely YOU should be self alerting tha same thing ?

 

3. Waht are "frequent psyches" ?? :rolleyes:

 

NOW the question I have IF both you and your partner KNOW you "frequently psyche" in 3rd position NON vul does that not mean u have a "special agreement" with partner [and is that not against the SPIRIT of the laws {rather that the letter of the laws}]

My profile includes comments that I psyche. On line I do not psyche "frequenlty" as I agree with comments that psyching frequently against novice/beginners/ or pickup partnershipship is not ethical. I do psyche both vul and nonvul. Obviously the risk of psycing vulnerable are much greater, so these are more careful psyches.

 

Ben

[Brandal]

My profile includes comments that I psyche. On line I do not psyche "frequenlty" as I agree with comments that psyching frequently against novice/beginners/ or pickup partnershipship is not ethical. I do psyche both vul and nonvul. Obviously the risk of psycing vulnerable are much greater, so these are more careful psyches.

 

Ben

I still have problems "getting my head around" the fine

ethical lines here.

 

Is including comments that you psyche entirely a "good

ethical" thing to do?

 

Isn't that sowing a seed of doubt "for free"?

 

Isn't it more "ethical" to psyche with a pickup partner

than someone who knows you?

 

Once again,I am not for banning psyches,as this thread

started out asking.

I am very concerned about the ethical side of psyches.

 

 

:rolleyes: Frode

[inquiry]

My profile includes comments that I psyche. On line I do not psyche "frequenlty" as I agree with comments that psyching frequently against novice/beginners/ or pickup partnershipship is not ethical.  I do psyche both vul and nonvul. Obviously the risk of psycing vulnerable are much greater, so these are more careful psyches.

 

Ben

I still have problems "getting my head around" the fine

ethical lines here.

 

Is including comments that you psyche entirely a "good

ethical" thing to do?

 

Isn't that sowing a seed of doubt "for free"?

 

Isn't it more "ethical" to psyche with a pickup partner

than someone who knows you?

 

Once again,I am not for banning psyches,as this thread

started out asking.

I am very concerned about the ethical side of psyches.

 

 

:rolleyes: Frode

You misunderstood me. The pick up partner is not MY partner, the pickup partnership I am talking about is the pair I am playing against. The same with I don't psyce against novice or beginners...

 

If I was to play against JRG and Pclayton, I would feel perfectly fine with psyching like crazy against them. If my regular partner and I are at a table and one fellow joins on my right, and another fellow joins on my left, and they talk back and forth about what to play and settle on sayc or 2/1 (so obvious very new to each other), I would never psyche against them (well, never is strong, if parnter preempt 3 of a minor and I am go bust not vul, and next hand passes, I might try 3NT...something like that, but it would be extremely rare).

[Brandal]

I would never psyche against them (well, never is strong, if parnter preempt 3 of a minor and I am go bust not vul, and next hand passes, I might try 3NT...something like that, but it would be extremely rare).

Thanks for clearing up my misunderstanding Ben :rolleyes:

 

Another thing which I quoted,is "gambling" on a 3NT

bid after pd preempt say 3C a psyche?

 

Say with one honor third in pd's suit and 1 stop in

the other suits?

 

I thought a psyche bid was somewhere you don't

want to be at the end of the bidding?

[luke warm]

if my partner opened 3 anything and i was honor 3rd, with stoppers, i'd surely bid 3nt... if he had psyched, well so be it... i can't speak for ben, but i suspect he'd do the same

[Brandal]

if my partner opened 3 anything and i was honor 3rd, with stoppers, i'd surely bid 3nt... if he had psyched, well so be it... i can't speak for ben, but i suspect he'd do the same

I guess I misunderstood Ben again,I thought he

referred to the 3NT bid as some sort of psyche

 

:)

 

I better give up now :D

[the hog]

Ben was!

What he was saying was that opposite a say 3C opening nv vs vul he would bid 3N on

xx

xxxx

xxxx

Kxx

or similar. This is a very common psyche! Even 9 off gains on the hand.

[Brandal]

Ben was!

What he was saying was that opposite a say 3C opening nv vs vul he would bid 3N on

xx

xxxx

xxxx

Kxx

or similar. This is a very common psyche! Even 9 off gains on the hand.

:)

[fred]

Ben was!

What he was saying was that opposite a say 3C opening nv vs vul he would bid 3N on

xx

xxxx

xxxx

Kxx

or similar. This is a very common psyche! Even 9 off gains on the hand.

Agree with everything Hog says here, except I would not consider this a psych!

 

A psych can only take place if a partnership has an agreement as to the type of hand that should be expected for a bid. 3NT is not the type of bid that "shows" anything (other than desire to play in 3NT).

 

You can psych a 1H opening, because 1H "promises" 5 or more hearts and 12 or more points (or whatever) so it is easy to decide if a given player that opens 1H on a given hand is psyching or not.

 

However, the 3NT response to a 3C preempt doesn't "show" or "deny" anything. It is a purely natural bid that means "I think it is in the best interest of our partnership to try to win 9 tricks at notrump". That doesn't imply that you think you can *make* 3NT, just that you are willing to play there.

 

Sure you would usually have stoppers in the other suits and some kind of club fit to bid 3NT here, but you might be lacking a stopper and gambling on the lead, have another solid suit on the side, or have something like 4441 and 25 HCP. As Ben and Hog point out, you also might have a hand that offers absolutely no hope of winning 9 tricks, but that doesn't make your 3NT call a psych (since your partnership has no agreements in this area that you can deviate from).

 

In contrast, a forcing 3S response to a 3C response is different since, if you make this call, you are "showing" something specific (spade length and strengh as well as some high card values). Therefore the 3S call can be psyched.

 

This view is probably somewhat radical (and I must admit that I never thought about this before I read Hog's post), but after reading it over a couple of times it still makes sense to me :)

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[the hog]

"This view is probably somewhat radical (and I must admit that I never thought about this before I read Hog's post), but after reading it over a couple of times it still makes sense to me"

 

This is a really interesting post, Fred, as we had this very discussion here 2 weeks ago on the very same auction. The perp argued the same case - 3NT is not a psyche, it is a desire to play 3NT (undoubled), and says nothing else. I agree with this definition btw. The director - a very competent td - also agreed with this view.

 

The question then arose as to what a 2NT enquiry and sign off means over a multi auction or even a 2NT ogust bid over a weak 2.

 

eg

2S 2N

3C 3S on say Kxx xx xxxx xxxx or similar

I guess you would need to alert that the 2NT bid could possibly be of this nature.

[hrothgar]

Agree with everything Hog says here, except I would not consider this a psych!

 

A psych can only take place if a partnership has an agreement as to the type of hand that should be expected for a bid. 3NT is not the type of bid that "shows" anything (other than desire to play in 3NT).

 

...

 

This view is probably somewhat radical (and I must admit that I never thought about this before I read Hog's post), but after reading it over a couple of times it still makes sense to me :)

Feel the POWER of the dark side... With a few more steps, your journey will be complete!

 

Lets assume for the moment that partner opens 3♣ and you hold the magic hand

 

♠ xx

♥ xxx

♦ xxxx

♣ Kxxx

 

There are a number of bids that could be considered with this hand...

 

A simple raise to 4♣

A jump raise to 5♣

Bidding 3N "to play"

 

I pose the following question:

 

Will you always chose to make the same bid with the hand in question?

[Brandal]

Ben was!

What he was saying was that opposite a say 3C opening nv vs vul he would bid 3N on

xx

xxxx

xxxx

Kxx

or similar. This is a very common psyche! Even 9 off gains on the hand.

Agree with everything Hog says here, except I would not consider this a psych!

 

A psych can only take place if a partnership has an agreement as to the type of hand that should be expected for a bid. 3NT is not the type of bid that "shows" anything (other than desire to play in 3NT).

 

You can psych a 1H opening, because 1H "promises" 5 or more hearts and 12 or more points (or whatever) so it is easy to decide if a given player that opens 1H on a given hand is psyching or not.

 

However, the 3NT response to a 3C preempt doesn't "show" or "deny" anything. It is a purely natural bid that means "I think it is in the best interest of our partnership to try to win 9 tricks at notrump". That doesn't imply that you think you can *make* 3NT, just that you are willing to play there.

 

Sure you would usually have stoppers in the other suits and some kind of club fit to bid 3NT here, but you might be lacking a stopper and gambling on the lead, have another solid suit on the side, or have something like 4441 and 25 HCP. As Ben and Hog point out, you also might have a hand that offers absolutely no hope of winning 9 tricks, but that doesn't make your 3NT call a psych (since your partnership has no agreements in this area that you can deviate from).

 

In contrast, a forcing 3S response to a 3C response is different since, if you make this call, you are "showing" something specific (spade length and strengh as well as some high card values). Therefore the 3S call can be psyched.

 

This view is probably somewhat radical (and I must admit that I never thought about this before I read Hog's post), but after reading it over a couple of times it still makes sense to me :)

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

thank you Fred

 

This makes sense.

 

I'm still concerned with psyches easily becoming

an ethical problem,an unusual "agreement" after

only a few psyches within the partnership.

 

What's your take on that?

 

Where do "we" draw the line?

 

How many times before "Oh,I didn't know..." becomes

a "lie"?

 

:D

 

My wording isn't very good,I hope you understand

what I mean

[fred]

thank you Fred

 

This makes sense.

 

I'm still concerned with psyches easily becoming

an ethical problem,an unusual "agreement" after

only a few psyches within the partnership.

 

What's your take on that?

 

Where do "we" draw the line?

 

How many times before "Oh,I didn't know..." becomes

a "lie"?

 

:)

 

My wording isn't very good,I hope you understand

what I mean

I think there are 2 issues here:

 

1) Partnerships should "alert" when specific psychs become part of their system (assuming these systems are still legal - otherwise they must stop making these specific psychs, at least for a while).

 

2) Partnerships should not be allowed to "field psychs" (to me this means successfully guessing that your partner has psyched when your hand and the auction don't give you enough information to be close to certain about this).

 

Unfortunately there are no clear answers as to where the line(s) should be drawn. Some clubs/tournaments try to draw lines by limiting the number of psychs per session or by making specific types of psychs illegal. Others try to keep detailed records of partnerhships' psyching histories and use knowledgable players to look over these records and try to determine if abuses have taken place.

 

In my experience none of these measures work in the real world. Between this, the sad fact that a significant percentage of regular partnerships who psych are either unaware of or intentionally ignore their ethical responsibilities in this area, and that psyching causes so many people to get upset, I have a lot of sympathy for the TDs and club managers who choose to ban psychs in the events they run. This is despite the fact that agree 100% that, in a perfect world, psyching should be part of our game.

 

I agree that you should be concerned that many regular partnerships who psych do not follow 1) and 2) above. Some know better. Others do not. Of those that do not know better, player educational will hopefully make a difference. Those that intentionally ignore their ethical responsibilities regarding psychs are basically cheating. Better TD education will help us to catch these people and remove them from our communities ("real" and/or online), but to do this properly you really need to to start a "psych registry" to depend on all players to call the TD whenever they think a psych has occurred, and to depend on highly skilled, objective, and trustworthy volunteers to maintain and review these records. As I said above, I don't think this is a practical solution.

 

So I think that we had all better get used to the fact that some pairs with questionable ethics regarding psyching will always exist and that some of these are going to always get away with it. The same is true of players who take advantage of their partners' hesitations or talk on the phone with their partners when they are playing online bridge. All we can do is hope to educate new players concerning right and wrong and hope that most of our fellow bridge players are also decent human beings and good sportsmen.

 

Or we could change the rules of bridge and outlaw psychs completely. No I am not suggesting that this is the right answer.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[Gerben47]

I agree with Fred that 3NT is not a psych. 3NT takes complete control so there is no agreement about what hands should bid 3NT. The agreement is: "If I bid 3NT you pass".

 

Another example of a non-natural bid that is not a psyche:

 

1NT dbl rdbl and you have:

xxxx

xxxx

xxxx

x

 

Opponents are about to double you in anything your bid. Great... The solution is to bid 2♣ and make an SOS redouble afterwards.

The 2♣ shows willingness to play 2♣ undoubled (but not doubled) and is not alertable, or banned by any psych regulations. It is not a psych, it's a tactical bid (i.e. making a bid on a hand that would not be standard for the bid but will probably work best after all).

The SOS redouble must be alerted as is it an agreement or at least "agreed Bridge logic".

 

I would adopt a mixed strategy (here we go again!) on hrothgar's magic hand. Sometimes I would bid 4♣ or 5♣, sometimes I would bid 3NT.

 

An example where a mixed strategy is the best strategy:

 

[hv=n=sat983&w=s76&e=sqj&s=sk542]399|300|[/hv]

Declarer cashes the king, small, small and you have several strategies:

a) Always play the Queen

B) Always play the Jack

c) Sometimes play the Queen, sometimes play the Jack.

 

One can calculate that the best strategy of this position is to play the Queen 50% of the time and the Jack 50% of the time. Now no one would disallow that, so a mixed strategy in the bidding is also allowed.