psyching against bad players

[hrothgar]

 

Playing this game as competitively as we do, I think it's hard to 'shift gears' and put ourselves in the shoes of much less experienced pairs. Many such pairs - not all, true - feel embarrassed when a psych works against them and they get frustrated. Rather than work to build their bridge skills, they take the view - understandably IMO - that they'd rather spend their leisure time doing something else than getting embarrassed by what they think - rightfully or not - are 'sharp practices'.

 

Many former students of mine confess to getting irked because of psyches, and a few have given up the game for this reason. So, before we all blindly support such actions, let's be sure to consider the health of the game at large before we say 'yea' or 'nay' here.

 

"Everything needs to be done my way, regardless of the rules" is not a quality that I look for in my playmates...

 

Indeed, I thought that a large part of kindergarden involves teaching children that they shouldn't take their toys and go home...

[steve2005]

Actually, the very high risk against bad players is to get averages when the field gets tops. You almost have to leave some tables with 75% to stay par. A psychic turning an average plus to a top is a hedge against the wall of 4H making 10 tricks on the first board.

is imps

[plieber]

I once psyched against my girlfriend. I got a zero and she was insulted. :rolleyes:

[jodepp]

"Everything needs to be done my way, regardless of the rules" is not a quality that I look for in my playmates...

 

Indeed, I thought that a large part of kindergarden involves teaching children that they shouldn't take they toys and go home...

I'm not sure that analogy applies. If we follow the 'kindergarten' thought concerning experience, it's more like kindergartners playing against high schoolers.

 

Speaking from purely competitive position, I agree that as far as national-level competition goes, 'all's fair.' I was attempting to get people to consider the 'psychees' position before passing judgment.

[quiddity]

Something that hasn't been mentioned (I don't think.. I just skimmed most of the other posts) is that there are some tricky legal issues which can come up when someone psyches - implicit partnership agreements, rules around fieldable methods, UI, full disclosure etc - and the weaker opponents are less likely to know the rules and less likely to call the director/recorder etc.

[hrothgar]

Something that hasn't been mentioned (I don't think.. I just skimmed most of the other posts) is that there are some tricky legal issues which can come up when someone psyches - implicit partnership agreements, rules around fieldable methods, UI, full disclosure etc - and the weaker opponents are less likely to know the rules and less likely to call the director/recorder etc.

 

Sadly, when you play a game of skill, there are consequences for not being skilled

[jogs]

Read S.J. Simon's Why You lose at Bridge. the chapter "Fixed by Palookas" is on point for this discussion--psyching against weak players is self-defeating.

Some players like to equate psyching in bridge to bluffing in poker. There is a difference. In poker every other player at the table is your opponent. After you psych, your partner is now playing against 3 opponents. The game is tough enough against 2 opponents.

[quiddity]

Sadly, when you play a game of skill, there are consequences for not being skilled

 

We're talking about unethical behavior. This is not a skill that I'd want to reward, nor do I think being cheated is a reasonable consequence of inexperience.

 

Of course I don't think psyching is unethical in itself, just that by its nature (intentional deception) it involves particular potential for abuse. Since the entire field could be damaged, it's another reason perhaps to discourage psyching against opponents who are incapable of policing such abuse.

[TheKurgan]

i psyched against a bad pair. obviously this was legal and the director told them so. later he unofficially suggested i behave myself and that psyching against clueless people was a bit low. i have heard this view expressed before.

 

it's not a view i share. this was a national event, albeit not a very high standard one (it was a swiss running alongside a BAM, so all the good teams were in the BAM assuming they had qualified for the final). the opps were the perennial beginner types - played for a very long time without ever progressing. but anyway, i consider psyching to be an important part of the game. yes, it's very out of fashion compared to the early days of bridge (1930s and whatnot), but I don't think bidding fashion should be a factor in deciding how i play the game.

 

comments?

 

please don't send this to the laws forum. there is no doubt my actions were legal. it's an issue of taste.

 

Personally, I have the following opinions:

 

1) Some players enjoy playing up so that the learn. I regularly play in A/X events because I enjoy the challenge. They belong in whichever event they choose to play.

 

2) Legal or not, if you have to psych to get good results against a weaker pair, then maybe you're not as strong as you think you are, no matter how many points or trophies you have.

 

3) If you live by the sword, you're going to die by the sword too. Case in point. Some schmuck decided once to psych a 1H opening bid, vul vs. not, against me. Holding eight hearts to the AQJ and a total of 21 HCP, I passed. Partner, holding nine points, reopened. I, of course, passed. Schmucko had a heart void. To his credit, he took his assigned phone number like a man.

 

Psyching is part of the game; I agree. On average, I MIGHT throw one every 18 months, on a lark. As you know, though, Law 40 states that you can't psych if it's part of a partnership understanding. As frequently as you psych, you might run into problems with this.

[1eyedjack]

Novices only get upset about psychs because they are taught that that is the appropriate reaction. If they get so upset that they leave the game (I personally would expect that to be rare) then unfortunate though the result, it speaks more to the severity of their indoctrination rather than to the behaviour of the psycher.

 

It is an education thing, and the way forward is not to ban psychs from low level events (or censure those who do it) but if anything to wipe away those restrictions and educate the players properly.

[rhm]

Good Players don't need to psych against bad players to win. Furthermore, psychs tend to harm the enjoyment of the game for lesser ranked players. Without lower ranking players there are no higher ranked players. So why push the lower ranked players out of the game by hurting their enjoyment of the game? Yes, psyching is legal and part of the game, but it is not the smart thing to do for the long term benefit of the game.

Would you say the same for poker? Like Bridge it seems to attract many more bad players (losers) than good players (winners) and the bad players have to pay in real money, while Bridge played for money is nowadays rather rare.

Would you say the same for deceptive play at bridge, say winning in defense with an unnecessary high card like the ace when you hold the ace and queen over king jack ten in dummy?

Should we restrict such plots against bad players, so that they have more "enjoyment"? What's the difference?

Bad players are pissed off by many things, for example when they feel they do not get their fair share of high cards and have to defend for too many boards in a row. For them usually not much joy because they can not cope well with defense.

Should we skew our dealing machines so that bad players get more "enjoyment" out of the game?

Like in real life it takes time to understand what enjoyment this game provides and frustrations are also an important part of it.

Challenges and frustrations in Bridge are like different sides of the same coin. Without them the game would quickly get boring.

Your comment lacks logic and shows a lack of understanding what the substance and the attractions of this game really are.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[Vampyr]

Personally, I have the following opinions:

 

1) Some players enjoy playing up so that the learn. I regularly play in A/X events because I enjoy the challenge. They belong in whichever event they choose to play.

 

Here in the EBU there is usually no such thing as "playing up", as there is no choice of events. So less experienced players have to get their experience somewhere, and it will be in an "A/X" event.

[Zelandakh]

Personally, I have the following opinions:

 

1) Some players enjoy playing up so that the learn. I regularly play in A/X events because I enjoy the challenge. They belong in whichever event they choose to play.

And if they choose to "play up" they should also accept the challenges that brings in terms of better skill in psyches against them just as much as better card play technique or bidding judgement.

 

 

2) Legal or not, if you have to psych to get good results against a weaker pair, then maybe you're not as strong as you think you are, no matter how many points or trophies you have.

Assuming no cheating is involved, the strength of a pair is defined by its results. No pair psychs every hand against weak opponents - that quickly becomes a partnership understanding - so a pair that has to psych to get good results is naturally not strong. But you are unlikely to win trophies regularly in that case.

 

 

3) If you live by the sword, you're going to die by the sword too. Case in point. Some schmuck decided once to psych a 1H opening bid, vul vs. not, against me. Holding eight hearts to the AQJ and a total of 21 HCP, I passed. Partner, holding nine points, reopened. I, of course, passed. Schmucko had a heart void. To his credit, he took his assigned phone number like a man.

It is a good policy for a player that psyches regularly to accept all blame on a board that goes badly after such an action regardless of how ridiculous partner's subsequent action was. And yes, sometimes they do go spectacularly wrong but inventive players have a sense of how the auction is likely to proceed and choose their moments when the odds are rather stacked in their favour.

 

 

Psyching is part of the game; I agree. On average, I MIGHT throw one every 18 months, on a lark. As you know, though, Law 40 states that you can't psych if it's part of a partnership understanding. As frequently as you psych, you might run into problems with this.

If it is part of a partnership understanding then it is not a psych at all. Some pairs probably do cross this line and some systems have a built-in psychic control of sorts, the nebulous 1♦ opening being a decent example. Good players usually psych for a reason rather than "on a lark". Just because it is not part of your game does not mean it is ineffective - perhaps your inability to psych effectively means that you are not as strong a player as you think you are. :P

[steve2005]

1) Some players enjoy playing up so that the learn. I regularly play in A/X events because I enjoy the challenge. They belong in whichever event they choose to play.

So hopefully they learned people psych. Maybe even learned what to do.

The director had the completely wrong reaction.

 

 

 

[mycroft]

As others have said here, and I have in my history repeatedly, this is an education issue, just like hesitations and other UI being nailed by the good players and "they're being obnoxious, I'm not going to play any more if I have to deal with these people" by the newer ones. And people playing "open all 10-counts, Precision" or EHAA or 4cM or whatever.

 

If we taught them while we were teaching what you need to have to bid the fact that it's legal to misbid, it's even legal to misbid deliberately (but it's *not* legal to have any special knowledge about it you don't tell the opponents); that if you learn something from partner's actions that aren't cards or calls, she has put you in a bind and here's what you need to (not) do; that if they make an opening lead out of turn, you have these options and here's some thoughts on deciding; that not everybody agrees with what we're teaching about "what you need to have to bid what", and it's not unfair to do so; a lot of this would go away.

 

It's one of the reasons why I tend to go with the "yes, this is legal. I realize you've never seen this in your three years of playing, and I'm sorry that nobody has taught you about this before. Listen, psyches are a losing tactic against people you expect to beat easily straight up, so if <psycher> decided they needed to to this against you, it's because he's decided you're good enough that he can't beat you anymore easily straight up." Partly it's education, and partly it's giving them the belief that they're getting recognition from good players about their skill. Note - this is usually true; usually when it isn't it's either "this person psyches *only* against bad players; it's time to have A Chat With C&E" or the "drunk/lost interest" issue I mentioned above - oddly enough, that's *also* mentioned in the ACBL guidelines as something to be officially frowned on.

 

The odd psych? Yeah, so? Ya got me, or ya didn't, next hand. Unless, as Phil has it, "I like to psych against people I loathe." I say "more power to you, I do too, but what did I ever do to you?" :-)

[james1071]

Yes, one is allowed to psyche.

 

However, one should appreciate that it may have the effect of scaring off some players who are needed to support the event.

 

That, I would suggest, is why the TD gave his talk.

[JmBrPotter]

This is three replies: One as a club director, One as a player, and One as a generic ACBL official

 

Club Director: I do not care whether or not you psyche in my club, but if I'm called to the table, I'll probably rule against you when any of the following have happened:

 

- Your psyche violated the General Convention Chart

- You were picking on a pair I have reason to believe that you knew were weaker

 

Things like psyching a control on the way to a notrump contract with a suit wide open or bidding notrump over partner's preempt on a couple of major suit stoppers and some fitting cards in partner's suit are fine with me.

 

Player: My bidding methods tend to create an environment where I may legally only psyche 1M openings, overcalls, cue bids, and notrump responses to partner's preempts. Against equal or stronger players, I feel at liberty to psyche the 1M opening in third seat (where partner being a passed hand is unlikely to go nuts), to psyche a simple one-level overcall to suggest a lead, and to psyche a cue bid or "place the contract" notrump bid to attempt stealing a contract. The last tournament I played, I psyched once in eleven sessions.

 

Generic ACBL official: I'll live by the rules and enforce them when and where appropriate. I'll also tell players who complain about a psyche just because it's a psyche does not make it a crime. If the psyche is legal in form and is not picking on players the psyched knew or should have known were weaker, I'll uphold the psycher and chat with the complainant about psyches being part of the game.

[mgoetze]

- Your psyche violated the General Convention Chart

Why the **** do ACBL people feel the urgent need to give ACBL answers to everything? It's really annoying.

[1eyedjack]

Why the **** do ACBL people feel the urgent need to give ACBL answers to everything? It's really annoying.

Well, if in his capacity as a TD he presides (only) over ACBL regulated games, it is at least appropriate that he provides rulings appropriate to that jurisdiction.

[Vampyr]

Why the **** do ACBL people feel the urgent need to give ACBL answers to everything? It's really annoying.

 

Psyching is in any case a very different proposition in the ACBL, where you are not allowed to psyche certain bids.

 

I am sure this regulation is illegal.

[akwoo]

Psyches of artificial bids are not allowed in GCC events.

 

Clubs can basically do whatever they like. Many clubs would view psyching against known to be weak players as unsportsmanlike behavior. Hell there are clubs where you'd be frowned upon for taking the usual 45 seconds to figure out the hand as defender at trick 1 because too much thinking ruins the social aspects of the game when everyone else is just (mis)defending by the seat of their pants.

 

At an average small club of lols, trying seriously to win as a good player is pointless. It would be like actually trying to beat a 6-year-old at chess (except the results are so random that you'll frequently lose on bad luck whatever you do). If you're not willing to treat it as a social activity involving tossing some cards, just stay home.

[1eyedjack]

Psyches of artificial bids are not allowed in GCC events.

I feel that this is thread drift. Surely there must be a presumption throughout the thread that what is being discussed is a psych which is otherwise legal.

 

You might question the constitutional right of the ACBL to ban psychs of artificial bids, and I think that you would be right to do so. Good luck to anyone who tries to get a ruling overturned on appeal under those grounds. It does matter if your case has merit. It is sufficient that those in the judiciary and administration support the unlawful regulation.

[Vampyr]

I feel that this is thread drift. Surely there must be a presumption throughout the thread that what is being discussed is a psych which is otherwise legal.

 

Is there a lot more to be said about this? Is "thread drift" after the initial topic has been exhausted some sort of crime?

[Fluffy]

I had a beginner friend who quit bridge after being psyched by a world master. It is the feeling that they make you feel stupid. Or in this case robbed as this was last round and this world master has a terrible reputation of getting info from hands he is going to play later.

[Phil]

Psyches of game forcing artificial bids are not allowed in ACBL events.

 

fyp. And it's an important distinction.