[jillybean]

Im running a tournament on BBO when a player calls me complaining playerX has psyched. I remind the player psyches are legal but I’m interested and look at the hand anyway.

Dealer: North Vul: EW Scoring: IMP

♠ K98765 ♥ AQ943 ♦ 32 ♣

West North East South

 -     1♦    Pass  1♠
 Pass  1NT   Pass  2♥
 Pass  2NT   Pass  3♣
 Pass  Pass  Pass  



So I go back to the player and suggest this wasn’t a psyche anyway and now the player tells me they direct games in the USA, ban psyches at their club and indeed this is a psyche. Obviously we were poles apart in our opinions and agreed to leave it and post here.

#1 IMO this isn’t a psyche and #2 do clubs have the right to ban psyches?

[brianshark]

#1. No it's not
#2. They shouldn't.

It looks like a system misunderstanding to me. And anyway, why would anyone want to psyche in this situation and play in a ridiculous contract.

[DJNeill]

Hi jillybean,
I'm not the expert TD you want but I do know that
1) you are running a free tourney, you can do what you want (99%)
2) there is no damage here (played in 3-0/4-0 fit at 3-level with easy plus in major)
3) a psyche is a deliberate gross mistatement of values - this is a 4th suit bid intended as forcing

Thanks,
Dan

[hrothgar]

Hi Kathyrn:

1. The ACBL gives club directors very wide lattitude in what they allow. I don't think that the ACBL policy with regards to private clubs has any bearing on actual "bridge".

2. I assume the hand in question is South's and that the player who called for the director felt aggrieved by the 3♣ bid. I don't think that the 3♣ bid was a psyche. I think that it was intended as artificial and forcing.

In theory, the best course of action is to explain to the aggrieved party that

1. They aren't directing here and what they do or do not allow at their club has no relevance to how you run your tournaments

2. Ask South if 3♣ was a psyche

If the player says that it was a psyche, case closed. Psyches are legal. If South doesn't like it, they should stop playing Bridge. [Or, potentially, they should retreat off to the exciting world of Pattya bridge)

If the player says that it wasn't a psyche, case closed. South complained about a psyche. There was no psyche.

Please note: It is possible that there was a failure to alert the 3♣. In theory, this failure to alert could have cause damage. However, thats a whole different kettle of fish.

[blackshoe]

Your complainant is mistaken. This is not a psyche. Well, it might be, if south is crazy. But I don't believe it.

As for banning psyches in clubs in the acbl, no, that's not legal. Tell the player who tells you he bans psyches in his club to go and read the laws and his ACBL sanction.

[jillybean]

There seems to be a lot of misinformation regarding psyches and a reluctance to listen, how can clubs illegally ban psyches? if indeed that is what is happening. The player cited a “local club option” which permitts a club to ban psyches.

Is it my imagination or is there an increase in players who believe psyches are evil and should be illegal. Its one thing for a new player to misunderstand psyches but when I hear this from a person who directs lives games its down right scary!

[hrothgar]

Hi Kathryn

You might find the following thread of interest

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.b...hailand&lnk=ol&

[jillybean]

Thanks Richard, what a sad state of affairs. Why not educate these players rather than make an outright ban. Would they really lose business if players were well informed from the start?

[blackshoe]

To my mind, education is indeed the key. I don't think clubs would lose business if they educated players, but maybe that's just me.

If you are running games per the laws of bridge (and if you have a sanction from ACBL or some NBO, you are supposedly required to follow the laws) then there is no such thing as a "local club option" to ban psyches.

[jdonn]

blackshoe, on Aug 13 2008, 01:39 PM, said:

To my mind, education is indeed the key. I don't think clubs would lose business if they educated players, but maybe that's just me.

I am quite convinced that trying to teach players why psyching is ok would be more damaging to the membership of a club than failing to ban people the first time for acting like jerks.

[fred]

jdonn, on Aug 13 2008, 07:33 PM, said:

blackshoe, on Aug 13 2008, 01:39 PM, said:

To my mind, education is indeed the key. I don't think clubs would lose business if they educated players, but maybe that's just me.

I am quite convinced that trying to teach players why psyching is ok would be more damaging to the membership of a club than failing to ban people the first time for acting like jerks.

Agree with this completely.

My own experience is clubs consists mostly playing more or less daily for much of the 1980s in a couple of clubs in Toronto. In general, the bridge in Toronto is very strong and the average players at these clubs were more experienced and more highly-skilled than typical club players I have faced in other North American cities.

Of the likely several 1000 people who played in Toronto clubs on a regular basis during this time, I would guess that 99% of them would never even consider psyching. At one time I was a member of the other 1%. If I recall correctly the Toronto clubs I frequented had a policies like "over 2 psychs per session per partnership".

I have no idea if such limits are legal or not or if the managers of these clubs knew. But even if illegal, I believe they were absolutely doing the right thing by trying to keep the number of psychs under control. Same would be true if they set a limit of 0 psychs per partnership per session.

The bottom line as far as these clubs go is that psychs tend to upset the vast majority of their average players, even in Toronto where the average club players were relatively strong and most of them were "educated" enough to know that it is legal to psych. More often than not, when my partner or I psyched, the opponents would not have a good time playing the hand in question and would be left with a bad taste in their mouths after the hand was over. It would not surprise me in the least if our psychs caused at least some players to play less or even to stop playing completely. Why play a game if it is not any fun for you?

Eventually I grew up enough to appreciate the damage that our psychs caused to the fabric of the club. Besides that, once I started to become a better player, psyching against club players started to feel like "taking candy from babies" - it was not fun for me either. In addition, I also came to be of the opinion that frequent random psychs are not conducive to a serious partnership (or to winning bridge for that matter).

So I stopped psyching in club games (and mostly in other games too).

Psychs make "average players", even "educated average players", upset and less likely to want to play more bridge in the future. If a club manager really has to choose between adhering perfectly to the Laws and providing a environment in which people will actually want to play (thereby keeping the club in business) that is not a difficult choice.

I suspect the ACBL knows that some of their sanctioned clubs have rules regarding psychs (and other things) that are not officially legal. If so then it would smart for the ACBL to turn a blind eye to this in my view - they also want people to want to play bridge.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[jillybean]

If this is the general feeling among bridge players then I think it would be wise for the ACBL etc to rewrite the laws rather than turn a blind eye to law breakers. The TD here would then need to decide if this was a bad bid, strategic bid or a psyche and rule accordingly.

[jonottawa]

I completely disagree with the notion that clubs should be permitted to ignore the laws. I'm quite appalled at the suggestion, in fact. If you don't like the laws, rewrite the laws.

And FWIW I've never been a fan of psychs as a tactic and once had a regular partner who drove me absolutely nuts by psyching about once every other session, but they are a time-honored part of the game.

I don't know if this link is current/accurate, but it seems to address the legality of it (if it's still valid.)

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~copyrght/wc...les/psychs.html

[blackshoe]

Trying to keep the number of psyches under control is a good thing. Doing it by violating — or ignoring — the rules of the game is something else.

Psyches are legal. Frivolous psyches, or frequent random psyches, are not. Psyching when you've done it enough to establish an implicit partnership understanding is not legal. There are laws for dealing with all that. What constitutes "too many" psyches is a matter for TD judgment. An arbitrary "no more than <pick a number>" regulation negates that judgement, so is not legal.

Toronto is the home of the "Zero Tolerance Policy". There are laws against doing what the ZT policy prohibits already. We don't need a ZT policy, and we don't need a ban on psyches.

I frankly do not understand the attitude that we have to have a ZT policy, or a ban psyches policy. Just enforce the laws that already exist.

The ACBL is not the one to be rewriting the laws, although they have a pretty big say in how they might be rewritten. It's the WBF that would have to do the rewriting though.

That article is still there, and valid. The only caveat I would have is that the bit about reporting (and particularly sanctions against the psycher if he doesn't report himself) would require a regulation. Currently, the ACBL doesn't have one. The EBU does, and it's a reasonable one - see the EBU Orange Book. A club in ACBL-land could easily adopt this or a similar regulation.

[fred]

blackshoe, on Aug 13 2008, 09:46 PM, said:

Toronto is the home of the "Zero Tolerance Policy". There are laws against doing what the ZT policy prohibits already. We don't need a ZT policy, and we don't need a ban on psyches.

Las Vegas, the city I live in now, is probably about half the size of Toronto, but to me it feels like Toronto has about 10 times as many bridge players. When I lived in Toronto (probably it is the same now) it was not at all unusual to walk into either of 2 bridge clubs and find 30-40 tables in play. There were several other smaller clubs that were healthier the most successful club in Las Vegas (which doesn't even run games every session and I believe typically has about 8 tables worth of players).

As far as I know I was the youngest bridge player in Las Vegas until my friend Geoff Hampson (who is about 40) moved here last year. In Toronto there are plenty of players in their 20s and 30s. Here there are none.

Sorry - just thought of one - Jdonn also lives here!

Rumors suggest that the health of bridge in most major American cities is similar to that of Las Vegas.

Toronto must be doing something right.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[cherdano]

If the LAW doesn't reflect how bridge is played in 95% of all bridge clubs world wide (my conservative guesstimate), is this a problem of the bridge clubs, or a problem of the LAWS?

[jdonn]

fred, on Aug 13 2008, 05:02 PM, said:

Sorry - just thought of one - Jdonn also lives here!

If my parents didn't have me come play with them, I doubt I would play in more than 1 or 2 club games a year here. In the other places I lived I usually played in several every month.

By FAR the largest club I have ever regularly played in, which is 30 minutes outside New York City and had games as large as 20 tables, banned psychs. As far as I know no other club I have ever played in does so.

[fred]

jonottawa, on Aug 13 2008, 08:59 PM, said:

I completely disagree with the notion that clubs should be permitted to ignore the laws.

I am not suggesting that they should be permitted to do it - my point is that they should do it regardless of whether or not they have permission. The alternative is to drive players away and possibly to cease to exist.

Quote

If you don't like the laws, rewrite the laws.

That is exactly what these clubs effectively do, but neither they nor the ACBL have been officially granted authority to change this particular law.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[blackshoe]

Maybe so, but that doesn't mean that the ZT policy is it.

In some places, at least (like here in Rochester NY) the ZT policy is a joke anyway. Club owners pay lip service to it, but when push comes to shove, they don't enforce it.

[jonottawa]

fred, on Aug 13 2008, 10:17 PM, said:

jonottawa, on Aug 13 2008, 08:59 PM, said:

I completely disagree with the notion that clubs should be permitted to ignore the laws.

I am not suggesting that they should be permitted to do it - my point is that they should do it regardless of whether or not they have permission. The alternative is to drive players away and possibly to cease to exist.

Quote

If you don't like the laws, rewrite the laws.

That is exactly what these clubs effectively do, but neither they nor the ACBL have been officially granted authority to change this particular law.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

I don't really want to argue semantics with you but when you say the ACBL should turn a blind eye to it, knowing it goes on, you are indeed suggesting that they should be permitted to do it.

I have no doubt that 90% of the players who are happy with a 'no psychs' policy would be equally happy with a 'no bidding/carding systems that I didn't learn from Audrey Grant' policy as well. It may be fun for them. It may well be what they prefer. It is NOT bridge.

And since someone brought up the ZT policy I concur that it is a travesty. I'm one of the more rambunctious players I know and I've NEVER received a ZT penalty. I've seen plenty of ZT warnings and even received a couple, even though such warnings are completely at odds with the explicit wording of the policy.