[david_c]

hilou, on Nov 4 2006, 06:03 PM, said:

A 9 POINT HAND IN  FIRST  POSITION CANNOT  BE  CONSIDERED AS
A  NORMAL  OPENING  AND  IF  YOU  USE AS  I  DO  THAT NOT 70ֵPERCENT
OF  THE  PLAYERS OF  THE  DECLARERS LEVEL WILL   OPEN  1H   THEN
THEIR  IS  NO OTHER  CHOICE  THEN CONSIDERING  THIS  AS  A  PSYCHOLOGICAL BID.

You're making a big mistake here.

It's probably true that this is not a "normal" opening bid. However you seem to think that if it is not normal, then it must be a psyche. That is definitely not right.

First of all, as hrothgar said, it is not a psyche if the player has agreed to play a system which allows for opening 1♥ on this sort of hand. So, if you are considering whether it is a psyche, first of all you have to find out what the player's agreements are.

Secondly, even if opening this hand 1♥ would not be normal in their system, it's only a little bit weaker than it should be. A small distortion like this is NOT a psyche. For it to be a psyche, it has to be a lot different to what it expected (the laws say "a gross misstatement"). While it is up to the TD to decide whether a bid is a gross distortion or not, the hand in question is nowhere near being a psyche.

[ArcLight]

>My hand was ♥J54 ♥9532 ♦3 ♣AK1086

Since when is 4 card support, with a singleton, and a 5 card suit headed by the AKT only worth a 1 level response?
This is worth a Limit Raise. Unless you use some other kind of system.
(you count distributional points, not just HCP for responses, spade Jack = 0, stiff dime = 3, thats 10, plus the clubs length may be vluable, and maybe the spade J may help)

Is it possible the TD felt that the 2H bid was abnormally low, and that a psyche was being fielded?

I don't know all the facts, but look at it form the TDs point of view:

An opening bid on the light side in terms of HCP, ok that happens.
But then pard with a very good hand, only makes a 2H response?
Couldn't that be interpreted as an agreement to open very light and respond at a lower level?

With the right 13 HCP opposite this dummy, you can make slam.

[inquiry]

This hand was played 30 times, 7 tables opened with the hand in question (one 2H, others 1H). The only one the director adjusted was the one with the squeking opponents, despite a second table having 100% same auction, where 3Hx was allowed to make for a top.

It seems this tournament ahs a bunch of scofflaws in it, or an opening of 1H is considered "normal" by about 25% of the players in this tournament.

A problem with not allowing psyches is turning normal bids into psyches based upon the bridge analysis of one person (the director). This is a rule of 20 opener, this is a zar opener, and is an opening bid in another of other evaluation criteria. Ah, the eye of the beholder seems all important here.

[helene_t]

hilou, on Nov 4 2006, 07:03 PM, said:

IF  YOU  USE AS  I  DO  THAT NOT 70ֵPERCENT
OF  THE  PLAYERS OF  THE  DECLARERS LEVEL WILL  OPEN  1H

According to this definition, you might as well adjust all boards to ave-/ave- since there's virtually always something with which less than 30% would agree. For example, it could be that less than 30% of intermediate players would open 1NT with a 2452-shape or that less than 30% of experts would open 1M with a 5332 16 points (playing a 15-17 1NT).

I strongly suggest you abandon this no-psyche rule:
- It serves no purpose whatsoever.
- It turns bridge into a lottery since you never know if the TD will consider your call a psyche.
- Players with limited knowledge of their own bidding system (including many "experts") have no chance of producing a bid with which more than 30% would agree so they are in a constant danger of "psyching".
- It creates a tremendous workload for the TD as players are "psyching" all the time.

[hrothgar]

ArcLight, on Nov 4 2006, 09:53 PM, said:

I don't know all the facts, but look at it form the TDs point of view:

An opening bid on the light side in terms of HCP, ok that happens.
But then pard with a very good hand, only makes a 2H response?
Couldn't that be interpreted as an agreement to open very light and respond at a lower level?

Exactly.... All of these points suggest that the partnership has an agreement to open light. And (obviously) if the partnership has an agrrement to open light, you can't nail them for making a psyche.

It's entirely possible that the side that opened 1♥ failed to adequately disclose their methods, however, we don't have enough information to know whether or not this happened and can't really comment on this.

[barmar]

david_c, on Nov 4 2006, 01:47 PM, said:

First of all, as hrothgar said, it is not a psyche if the player has agreed to play a system which allows for opening 1♥ on this sort of hand. So, if you are considering whether it is a psyche, first of all you have to find out what the player's agreements are.

Remember, this was an INDY. While it's technically possible for there to be some system discussion at the beginning of the round, in practice this never really happens on BBO. So everyone assumes partner and opponents are playing something relatively standard and natural. A psyche should be judged relative to that understanding.

The alternative is to say that NOTHING is a psyche, because there are absolutely no agreements to have deviated from, but that way lies madness (i.e. then you also don't know what normal bids mean).

[barmar]

Walddk, on Nov 4 2006, 12:43 PM, said:

There is nothing psychic about it as long as it's not a partnership understanding. I do not have enough evidence to determine that responder knows about this 9 count opening.

Actually, if it's a partnership understanding, then it's by NOT a psyche, since a psyche is defined to be a gross deviation from partnership agreements or understandings. If there's a partnership understanding then the violation is the misinformation from the lack of alert. And if partner bids in a way to take the possibility of the psyche into account (i.e. "fields" it), this can be evidence of this concealed understanding.

In an indy there's very little chance of concealed partnership understandings, unless you're lucky enough to sit opposite a regular partner. So the normal issues that psyches raise don't really apply in this context.

I'm not sure why banning psyches is so prevalent in BBO tourneys. I suspect it may be for the same reason some other misbehavior is common in online bridge: there are many players who don't take it as seriously as f2f bridge. So the tourney organizers are worried that without any such regulation, there's likely to be random bidding by people who just want to be mischievous (see the other thread about random 7NT bids). So they've done this to discourage the miscreants from ruining the fun for everyone else.

[1eyedjack]

barmar, on Nov 4 2006, 11:05 PM, said:

I'm not sure why banning psyches is so prevalent in BBO tourneys.  I suspect it may be for the same reason some other misbehavior is common in online bridge: there are many players who don't take it as seriously as f2f bridge.  So the tourney organizers are worried that without any such regulation, there's likely to be random bidding by people who just want to be mischievous (see the other thread about random 7NT bids).  So they've done this to discourage the miscreants from ruining the fun for everyone else.

That may be one of the reasons. I think that much of the time it should be possible to identify whether a bid is a genuine psyche or a bid purely to disrupt the result (ie with no realistic chance of gain).

Another reason is that there is a significant body of players who do not wish to be subjected to psychic bids by opponents (despite their legality), even genuine ones made in an attempt to win, and they are prepared to forego their own right to psyche in the interests of establishing that environment.

Another reason is that there is no mechanism to police psychic bidding the way that there is in F2F games, ie by recording their frequency in order to identify whether there is in fact a concealed partnership agreement, however implied.

A shame that it has come to this, I agree. Best just to steer clear of those tourneys. There are enough that don't ban.

[hrothgar]

barmar, on Nov 5 2006, 01:05 AM, said:

I'm not sure why banning psyches is so prevalent in BBO tourneys.  I suspect it may be for the same reason some other misbehavior is common in online bridge: there are many players who don't take it as seriously as f2f bridge.

I chalk it up to ignorance and lack of oversight...

Throw in a 30 year program by the ACBL trying to convince players that psyches are dirty and its not surprising that some directors go crazy.

[amfnz]

awm, on Nov 5 2006, 11:28 AM, said:

But partner's choice of action might be seen as a clue. Perhaps the director felt that partner's conservative single raise indicated that he expected a light opening bid to be within the range of possibilities, and that this might therefore imply an undisclosed agreement

I would agree if the pair were a regular partnership, however in this case it was an individual and this was the first time I had ever played with this person.

The raise to 2♥ may have been a conservative bid but the subsequent action suggests that I took it as a genuine opener.

The director made the adjustment without even talking to either of us.

[kenberg]

My online experience is that rulings are much more autocratic than in f2f bridge. I chalk this up to practicality trumping best practice. A practical response is to avoid directors whose approach you don't like.

Your partner was not so much psyching as, imo, overactively bidding. This is a common practice online, especially in indys. You were, imo, underbidding. Everyone has his own ideas about bidding, and sometimes they mesh, sometimes they don't. I often don't agree with my opponet's bidding. Getting an adjustment because I don't like their bidding is not my style.

Just play elsewhere.

[badderzboy]

I read this post with sheer despair!

I guess I better not play in that Tourney as I play a weak NT I bet 70% don't

I guess if I TD I should pander to a results merchant who dbld got it wrong and even when to the trouble of finding a whinge!

When will people realise that its a game , we not playing for glory or money (well not in this tourney).

I better not use judgement when I bid - guess thats naughty too?

I better not make a strange lead or signal is that verboten too?

Jes

Steve

[jillybean]

Oh, it was an individual - one of the ones that asks you to 'alert and explain all artificial bids' and no psyches if youve had cornflakes for breakfast or in position 1 or 2?

I think indys are simply meant to be fun, if you rock the boat some TD's will give these sort of rulings - read the rules and buyer beware.
jb

[1eyedjack]

In my opinion the one tourney format in which the banning of psyches is least justified (assuming that it ever can be) it is in an individual, wherein partners are unlikely to have concealed agreements.

[blackshoe]

Walddk, on Nov 4 2006, 11:43 AM, said:

There is nothing psychic about it as long as it's not a partnership understanding.

There is nothing psychic about this 1 ♥ opening whatever the partnership understanding. It's a light opener. It is sufficiently light that if opener's partner is aware that he does this, that fact should be disclosed, but that's a different kettle of fish.

[glen]

imo, the problem is less about psyche or not psyche, and more about:

- fairness: adjust all the 1♥ openings or none.
- openness: discuss adjustments with players when making them.

Tourneys without fairness and openness are long term losers, for the tourney itself, for the hosting site, and for bridge.

[jillybean]

officeglen, on Nov 7 2006, 05:16 PM, said:

Tourneys without fairness and openness are long term losers, for the tourney itself, for the hosting site, and for bridge.

The majority of BBO does not agree with this, these tournaments are very well supported.

There is no hope of fairness when TD's are going to make rulings like this, as Ben pointed out other tables opened this hand ♥ but it was only this table who squeaked and got an adjustment.

I don't see this changing at all, read the tournament description and let your feet do the talking.

[matmat]

hilou, on Nov 4 2006, 12:03 PM, said:

ACCORDING THE RULES OF THE BBOFANS TOURNEYS A PSYCHOLOGICAL
BID IS FORBIDDEN.

hmm... what if i want to make a psychic bid?

[the hog]

matmat, on Nov 8 2006, 11:58 AM, said:

hilou, on Nov 4 2006, 12:03 PM, said:

ACCORDING  THE  RULES OF  THE  BBOFANS TOURNEYS A  PSYCHOLOGICAL
BID  IS  FORBIDDEN.

hmm... what if i want to make a psychic bid?

Well, I guess as all bids are psychological to some extent you are not allowed to bid in this particular tournament at all.