Is this ruling good?

[lucky81]

[hv=d=e&v=e&n=sajt7632hqt85dtcj&w=skq9hj973dj86cq96&e=shak62dkq973ckt83&s=s854h4da542ca7542]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

This was in an individual goulash tournament. I was East. We had no agreements with my partner. I opened a psychic 1♠.

 

East South West North

1♠ - Pass - 1 NT - Pass

4♥ - Pass - 4♠ - X

5♦ - Pass - 5♥ - X

Pass - Pass - Pass

 

During the play, North kept saying "What was that 1♠ bid??" and he called the TD. The contract went down 2. The director corrected it to 6♥X -3.

 

He explained that W should have corrected to 5♠ after a double. Then he said that laws are against those who use psychic bids and even if only 5% of players would correct to 5♠, he must change the score. Also he said that I could have 7 spades + 5 hearts and my partner should take that into account.

 

I think I showed that my hearts are better than spades - thus the 4♥ bid and later I took out the 4♠X. Also I passed 5♥X. It seems to me that my partner had the right to assume that I prefer hearts, plus the fact that his hearts were longer than spades.

 

Edit: I will add that this was a BBO LAND Midnight Goulash $1 tournament.

[fred]

Well it could have been worse - he might have forced you to play 7S doubled :)

 

I don't agree with the TDs ruling. Your 5D bid exposed your psych and partner was on his own after that.

 

I have to admit, however, that if I was the TD of an individual tourney and a player in my tourney bid the way you did here, I would issue that person a very strong warning. If it happened a 2nd time, that person would no longer be welcome to play in my tournaments. Bidding like this, while certainly legal, ruins the enjoyment of the game for the other players in my opinion. This is especially true in an individual tournament.

 

I am sure you did not do anything wrong on purpose (and I am sure many would think you did nothing wrong at all), but try to look at this from the partner's and opponents' points of view. Would you enjoy playing with or against someone who bid this way and essentially turned one of their 12 boards into an exercise in complete randomness?

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[lucky81]

I am sure you did not do anything wrong on purpose (and I am sure many would think you did nothing wrong at all), but try to look at this from the partner's and opponents' points of view. Would you enjoy playing with or against someone who bid this way and essentially turned one of their 12 boards into an exercise in complete randomness?

This was a goulash tournament.

 

I don't know how the goulash hands were generated and what the "hand distribution probability" was. But after seeing the previous 6 hands in which one side had 11 hearts and the other 13 clubs, or something similar, and the bidding by both sides went up to the level of 6 in all but one hand, I decided that bidding 1 spade might work out here.

 

I think goulash hands are supposed to be quite random and full of surprises and I thought 1♠ would be fun too.

[fred]

I am sure you did not do anything wrong on purpose (and I am sure many would think you did nothing wrong at all), but try to look at this from the partner's and opponents' points of view. Would you enjoy playing with or against someone who bid this way and essentially turned one of their 12 boards into an exercise in complete randomness?

This was a goulash tournament.

 

I don't know how the goulash hands were generated and what the "hand distribution probability" was. But after seeing the previous 6 hands in which one side had 11 hearts and the other 13 clubs, or something similar, and the bidding by both sides went up to the level of 6 in all but one hand, I decided that bidding 1 spade might work out here.

 

I think goulash hands are supposed to be quite random and full of surprises and I thought 1♠ would be fun too.

Do you think you would find it fun for you if your partner, a complete stranger, opened 1S on a hand like yours?

 

Wouldn't you prefer to have a chance to let your bridge skills and judgment come into play regardless of how the boards were shuffled?

 

You are certainly entitled to disagree with my opinion. All I am saying is that if I was your partner, one of your opponents, or the TD, I wouldn't appreciate your choice of actions.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[lucky81]

Do you think you would find it fun for you if your partner, a complete stranger, opened 1S on a hand like yours?

Yes, I see no problem with that. Especially in a goulash.

 

I have seen some bluffs from my partners, some worked, some did not, but I never felt bad or angry at my partner. It's part of the game, it's his decision, even if it's a bad decision - everybody has a right to be a bad player.

 

Edit:

 

I understand you might not like my bidding if you were my partner. But what do you mean that you would not appreciate it if you were a TD? Isn't TD's job to apply the rules rather than appreciate the plays?

[fred]

I understand you might not like my bidding if you were my partner. But what do you mean that you would not appreciate it if you were a TD? Isn't TD's job to apply the rules rather than appreciate the plays?

Suppose for the sake of argument that:

 

1) I am the TD of a tourney and I have the right set whatever rules I want regarding things like psychs.

 

2) The vast majority of players in my individual tournaments do not enjoy playing in these tournaments if their partners frequently make absurd psychs.

 

I think that the only reasonable way for me to handle this situation would be for me to establish rules that prevented participants from making frequent absurd psychs. Otherwise very few people would want to play in my tournaments.

 

So to answer your question, yes, part of the TD's job is to apply the rules. On BBO at least, another part of the TD's job is to define those rules over which he has control (for example, psyching, alerting, and which conventions and systems are allowed).

 

In defining the rules over which he has control, the TD's goal should be to maximize the enjoyment of the players. In my opinion, allowing players to frequently make absurd psychs is contrary to that goal.

 

Obviously you disagree which is your right, but I believe you are in the minority.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[the hog]

As all who post here know, I see no problem with psyches, but I see a problem with this auction.

 

Fred is correct, 1S on this hand with a 15 count is an absurd psyche that is not likely to gain anything - Goulash tournament or not. I would also like to know where the 4H bid came from.

 

After yesterday having played in an individual where my passed hand partner overcalled 2C in a live auction on KQxx of C, got X and went for 800 against nothing, I know how frustrating such actions can be. Anyway to answer your question, "No" the ruling was incorrect, but you deserved your result.

[lucky81]

On BBO at least, another part of the TD's job is to define those rules over which he has control (for example, psyching, alerting, and which conventions and systems are allowed).

Psyches were allowed in that tournament. The TD said that at my table - "psyches are allowed, but your partner protected your psyche".

[scoob]

i make a it a personal goal to never psych in a tournament on bbo where i don't know from personal experience that the TD will rule correctly should he be forced to do so.

 

that rules alot of the tourneys here.

 

did you have the right to psyche? yes

should you be surprised that it was ruled poorly? i don't think so

[fred]

On BBO at least, another part of the TD's job is to define those rules over which he has control (for example, psyching, alerting, and which conventions and systems are allowed).

Psyches were allowed in that tournament.

Well if you paid attention to my posts, what I have said was that, if I was the TD, I would not be happy to see this sort of thing in my tournament and I would take whatever steps I could to prevent such actions.

 

I never suggested or implied that you did anything illegal. All I have done is offer my opinion (which is that bids like your 1S, especially in an individual tournament, ruin the game for most of the participants).

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[olegru]

bids like your 1S, especially in an individual tournament, ruin the game for most of the participants

Totally agree.

 

But look how funny is TD reasoning:

"psyches are allowed, but your partner protected your psyche"

 

Accident partner in an individual tournament choose bid to protect Partner. They didn't have any agreements, didn't have any common expirience. Partner just thought and choose safest bid. Director forbid him to do it.

 

Meaning: Playing in INDI with that particular director you do not have right to think what is going on.

[Guest Jlall]

Interesting Fred. The question I have is where does one draw the line? Is it all psyches that you would frown upon if you were the TD? Or just a ridiculous one like this. Say someone opened 1N in third seat favorable with x xxx xx KQJTxxx. This is a less absurd psyche, but would you issue a warning to the player who perpetrated it? What about 1C X ? and the player bid 1H wtih xxx --- xxx KJxxxxx... What about a third seat opener of 1S with AJTxx x xxx xxxx. There are varying degrees of "absurdity" to psyches and I think that having each TD draw the fine line of which ones are ok and which are not is not a good idea. It would seem better to adopt an "all or nothing" type of approach so that the players no where they stand. All psyches are allowed, or none, but there shouldnt be some line. If there was one, it should be well documented.

[Brandal]

Interesting Fred. The question I have is where does one draw the line? Is it all psyches that you would frown upon if you were the TD? Or just a ridiculous one like this. Say someone opened 1N in third seat favorable with x xxx xx KQJTxxx. This is a less absurd psyche, but would you issue a warning to the player who perpetrated it? What about 1C X ? and the player bid 1H wtih xxx --- xxx KJxxxxx... What about a third seat opener of 1S with AJTxx x xxx xxxx. There are varying degrees of "absurdity" to psyches and I think that having each TD draw the fine line of which ones are ok and which are not is not a good idea. It would seem better to adopt an "all or nothing" type of approach so that the players no where they stand. All psyches are allowed, or none, but there shouldnt be some line. If there was one, it should be well documented.

I for one don't have an issue with the psycher,

but with what the partner does later in the auction.

 

Fielding,isn't that the English word?

[Guest Jlall]

if the auction makes it obvious a psyche has been made, its perfectly fine to field it. When partner runs from 4S to 5D what else could have happened but a psyche? You are still allowed to use bridge logic when partner psyches.

[helene_t]

It takes practice to learn not to make absurd calls, including absurd psyches. With the possible difference that if you are afraid of being accused of making absurd psyches, you can decide not to psyche. You can't decide not to lead if you are afraid of making absurd leads. For that reason, I rarely psyche. When I do psyche, it might be absurd psyches but maybe one day I'll learn.

 

If you realy thought this 1♠ opening was a good idea, then go for it. If it's an ethical issue it wouldn't have been allowed so you can draw the conclussion that it's not an ethical issue. But some people might suspect that you don't take the game (or maybe just goulasch) serious, that your 1♠ bid was similar to opening 7NT, redouble and claiming zero tricks. So also for that reason it was probably not such a good idea.

[hotShot]

A psyche is a FUD-strategie (google for FUD and IBM for know more information).

Fear, uncertainty and doubt are spread, if you bid opponents fit suit or if you show strength even if you don't have it.

They might fear an unfaivorable trump split or feel uncertain their side has enough strength or doubt if their (pickup) partner has what he bids.

 

It's hard to show partner that the suit your opponent bid, is in fact your best suit too although he hold a good length of his own there. Even long term partnerships might not have a method for that.

How do you decide who lied about his points, if bidding says that there must be 50+ hcp on this deck.

 

The player who wants to psyche needs 3 conditions to come together for a "good" psyche.

 

1) The board belongs to the opps, and they might score big.

2) He has a save harbor to land on e.g. a long suit of his own.

3) A partner that knows a escape bid, when it's on.

 

This was a bad psyche because 1) is not clear. You are to strong.

The decision of the TD was wrong, because both partner and opps are allowed to learn from the bidding.

 

People should accept, that there are players that prefer top competition, and those (perhaps even the majoraty) who like to stay in some sort of "protected environment" where everybody is playing the same system and nothing weird happens.

 

Talking about fielding in an Indy at BBO is crap. Players can only hope to play with someone they now. It rarely happens.

But i don't feel sympathy with people who take "candy from babies". I think psyching against pickup partnerships in an Indy, that can hardly agree on a system perhaps do not even speak a common language, is about the same.

[Brandal]

if the auction makes it obvious a psyche has been made, its perfectly fine to field it. When partner runs from 4S to 5D what else could have happened but a psyche? You are still allowed to use bridge logic when partner psyches.

How about when your opps psyche and you feel

"wow...this auction sure died fast and weird...."?

 

With English not being my native language,I thought

fielding was not ok?

 

So passing 5D would be ok then,or passing 4H,or

what?

[the hog]

Brandal, if it becomes obvious in the auction that something stinks, then there is no law that says you can't use logic to determine what is going on - this is what Justin is saying.

 

Let me give you a totally obvious example. You are nv vs vul

 

1S (X) and you hold say a 20 count. Something smells, doesn't it? Psychic doubles are very unlikely, so there is a reasonable chance your pd has psyched. Say you pass and the next opp bids 3C, showing some values and it comes back to you. Would you truly tell me that if I passed here this is fielding a psyche? Sorry but this is a nonsense.

 

Ron

[hotShot]

It is not allowed to build up some sort of "safty net" partnership agreement, to escape from psyches.

Examples:

I agree with my partner that a new suit after a supporting bid:

1♠ - 2♠

3♦ means i have ♠s while:

1♠ - 2♠

2[NT] means i psyched the spades.

Or if I agree with my partner, that after an opening of 1♠ he may not raise with support, because I might be psyching. This way it is save for us to psyche 1♠, because partner will not jump to game if strong. It makes it even harder to detect the psyche. Because our combined number of spades might make sence.

 

In this case opps dbled 4♠ for penalty, partner offered a second and a 3rd suit. 3 Suits is sort of unusual, it can raise suspision. Partner is running from the ♠ suit after the double. Why would you want to play the suit doubled, when you have another choice?

Without the double it gets far more interesting. Any bid by east, will be understood as cue bid on the way to a slam by west. 4♠ will go down a lot about -7 or so.

[luke warm]

this isn't the first time there's been a seeming misunderstanding of psychs/fielding... as hotshot says, the opps are allowed to know your partnership agreements, and/or what your expectations are, based upon those agreements... they aren't allowed to benefit from your bridge logic

 

p (p) 1nt (x) p (p) 2d ... if i'm the partner of the nt bidder i'd be pretty damn sure he didn't have a 1nt bid... i'd expect everyone at the table to know the same thing

[Brandal]

Brandal, if it becomes obvious in the auction that something stinks, then there is no law that says you can't use logic to determine what is going on - this is what Justin is saying.

 

Let me give you a totally obvious example. You are nv vs vul

 

1S (X) and you hold say a 20 count. Something smells, doesn't it? Psychic doubles are very unlikely, so there is a reasonable chance your pd has psyched. Say you pass and the next opp bids 3C, showing some values and it comes back to you. Would you truly tell me that if I passed here this is fielding a psyche? Sorry but this is a nonsense.

 

Ron

Yes Ron,sometimes,and as long as the opps have the

same "information" and also can use logic,I agree with you.

 

When one side is the winner based on pd of psycher using

logic before the opps do(or can) then I certainly would

feel bad,I just don't equal "get away with it" to fair play.

 

But that's me,I know I'm very much outnumbered when

it comes to the way you advanced players feel about the

full package(saying I might be better off playing spades etc).

 

When it comes to your example,sure,something fishy there.

[Brandal]

this isn't the first time there's been a seeming misunderstanding of psychs/fielding... as hotshot says, the opps are allowed to know your partnership agreements, and/or what your expectations are, based upon those agreements... they aren't allowed to benefit from your bridge logic

 

p (p) 1nt (x) p (p) 2d ... if i'm the partner of the nt bidder i'd be pretty damn sure he didn't have a 1nt bid... i'd expect everyone at the table to know the same thing

Couldn't NT opener have a strong 5 card diamondsuit

and maybe takeout the dbl because of one or two suits

barely stoppable in NT?

[luke warm]

it's possible, but the point is nobody should be surprised, partner or opps, if it turns out to be a weak hand with diamonds

[Brandal]

it's possible, but the point is nobody should be surprised, partner or opps, if it turns out to be a weak hand with diamonds

I would :D

 

:)

[the hog]

Why would you be surprised, Brandal? Seriously a pd who bids this with a "strong 5 card D suit" is violating all rules of partnership bidding. He DOES NOT KNOW what pd has for his pass, which could be anything ranging form a hand just below invitational to a pile of garbage, and, (and this is an important consideration), depending on the system of responses you play, even a 4405 shape.

 

I would not play with a pd who made unilateral decisions to pull 1NTX just because he had a good 5 card D suit!