[jtfanclub]

jonottawa, on Aug 13 2008, 05:23 PM, said:

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.

But it is completely legal to run such a game. Law 40B2.

http://www.worldbridge.org/departments/law...awsComplete.pdf

[jonottawa]

jtfanclub, on Aug 13 2008, 10:41 PM, said:

jonottawa, on Aug 13 2008, 05:23 PM, said:

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.

But it is completely legal to run such a game. Law 40B2.

http://www.worldbridge.org/departments/law...awsComplete.pdf

Then that's the solution. Just bar all conventions except Stayman, Blackwood (you could run a special event called RKCB Friday!), Gerber, Negative Doubles and Jacoby transfers and all carding methods except standard. Then the future Fred Gitelmans of the bridge world will stay home.

What's next? Squeeze-free Thursday? No endplays on Saturday?

And Austin's bridge scene is a pale shadow compared to what Ottawa's was (is?). I chalk that up to personalities rather than psych policies. In Las Vegas of all places, it's hardly surprising that with all the other options available people aren't gravitating to bridge.

[fred]

jonottawa, on Aug 13 2008, 11:05 PM, said:

And Austin's bridge scene is a pale shadow compared to what Ottawa's was (is?). I chalk that up to personalities rather than psych policies. In Las Vegas of all places, it's hardly surprising that with all the other options available people aren't gravitating to bridge.

I never claimed that the health of Toronto's bridge clubs or the lack of health of Las Vegas bridge clubs was related to psych policies. I actually have no idea what the psych policies of the Las Vegas clubs are.

My original mention of Toronto was because I was making reference to my experience at the club level with respect to psychs and because most of these experiences for me happened to take place is Toronto.

FWIW I chalk of the success of bridge in Toronto to a group of extraordinary people who have been involved in running clubs in that city for a long time. These people have, in general, figured out that it is smart to listen to the players and to offer them the kind of games and environment that they want. Their attitude toward psychs is just one example of this.

One of these people was the person who invented ZT. Knowing nothing about the details, I am not in a position to pass judgment on ZT, but I will note that the person in question ran an extremely successful club for many years (and may still be doing so today for all I know). People genuinely seemed to appreciate being able to go into this club and know that they would not be abused.

I doubt you would last there very long.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[kenrexford]

Our local club has a lady player who is over 100 years of age and escaped Nazi Germany during the Holocaust. She still has an incredibly sharp mind and occasionally wins. She is about as tall as my shin, and incredibly cute.

The other day, her partner opened with a stiff against my suit contract, and I played the King from KJx under her Ace, with the Queen in dummy. She switched. Later, when I showed up with the Jx in that suit, and she realized that she could have given her partner a ruff, she looked at me and asked me if I was allowed to falsecard. I felt a little dirty. Her partner noted that falsecarding is allowed and is actually a really good idea. But, I recalled reading where one of the OLD British pros of the 30's, some military officer, had refused to accept takeout doubles as fair, because he thought doubling should be penalty, showing shortness instead being akin to cheating. I told her that I agreed that falsecarding really should be disallowed. She liked that.

There is definitely a place for more "gentlemanly discretion" at the club game, with the proper elders.

[jonottawa]

fred, on Aug 13 2008, 11:25 PM, said:

jonottawa, on Aug 13 2008, 11:05 PM, said:

And Austin's bridge scene is a pale shadow compared to what Ottawa's was (is?).  I chalk that up to personalities rather than psych policies.  In Las Vegas of all places, it's hardly surprising that with all the other options available people aren't gravitating to bridge.

I never claimed that the health of Toronto's bridge clubs or the lack of health of Las Vegas bridge clubs was related to psych policies. I actually have no idea what the psych policies of the Las Vegas clubs are.

My original mention of Toronto was because I was making reference to my experience at the club level with respect to psychs and because most of these experiences for me happened to take place is Toronto.

FWIW I chalk of the success of bridge in Toronto to a group of extraordinary people who have been involved in running clubs in that city for a long time. These people have, in general, figured out that it is smart to listen to the players and to offer them the kind of games and environment that they want. Their attitude toward psychs is just one example of this.

One of these people was the person who invented ZT. Knowing nothing about the details, I am not in a position to pass judgment on ZT, but I will note that the person in question ran an extremely successful club for many years (and may still be doing so today for all I know). People genuinely seemed to appreciate being able to go into this club and know that they would not be abused.

I doubt you would last there very long.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

LOL

Fred, you crack me up.

Sunscreen is your friend.

[blackshoe]

Legitimate opportunities to psych are rare. However, they do happen, and in a bridge sense whether to take the opportunity is, and should be, down to the judgement of the player. To make a regulation restricting that judgement is not, IMO, in the spirit of the game.

In my early bridge days, I played a variant of the game (i.e., not using the "official" laws of either rubber or duplicate) in which psyching was an integral part. Maybe that's why I don't see it as a problem. That was some 40 years ago, or more. Then I didn't play any bridge for about 25 years. In the last 18, since I started up again, playing duplicate almost exclusively, I have never psyched, and I have had a player psych against me once. Maybe that's another reason.

[fred]

blackshoe, on Aug 13 2008, 11:43 PM, said:

Legitimate opportunities to psych are rare. However, they do happen, and in a bridge sense whether to take the opportunity is, and should be, down to the judgement of the player. To make a regulation restricting that judgement is not, IMO, in the spirit of the game.

So on the subject of bridge as opposed to bridge clubs...

I am not trying to be argumentative here. I really don't understand some of the things you are saying and, since you seem to know more about the Laws then just about anyone here, I hope you can explain.

Didn't you say before that a TD can use his (presumably bridge) judgment to decide that a pair is psyching "too much"?

Since you seem to hold a player's right to use his bridge judgment so dearly (I agree), isn't it hard to justify that the TD has the right to effectively nullify a player's bridge judgment with his own?

I mean, if you are the TD you will be bringing your "legitimate opportunities to psych are rare" attitude to the table. But maybe another TD who believes "legitimate opportunities to psych are frequent" or "legitimate opportunities to psych don't exist" will randomly arrive instead.

Can this be a good thing?

From a pure bridge point of view I can buy "no psychs" and I can buy (and very much prefer) "unlimited psychs", but "TD-limited psychs" doesn't feel right to me.

Perhaps needless to say for some of you, my previous posts in this thread have been mostly about marketing as opposed to bridge. I do think psychs are bad for bridge at the lowest levels, but I think they are a necessary part of bridge at the highest levels (and that this is good).

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[jkdood]

I am not sure if newer guidelines have been issued since 2004, but the instruction book for club directors of sanctioned games covers the subject fully and in depth. Part of it:

NOTE TO CLUB MANAGERS: Clubs should regulate the use of uncontrolled psychs by saying that the burden of proof will be on the player, if he makes more than two psychic calls per session, to prove that he is not using excessive, frivolous or unsportsmanlike psychic bidding. Disciplinary action (not score adjustments; these should be made only when the result was affected because the partner may have allowed for the psych due to previous experience) should be taken against a player whose bidding does not conform to these regulations.

Other aspects of these official guidelines, adjunct to 2003 laws for clubs (ref: http://web2.acbl.org.../cdHandbook.pdf ) include a directive to automatically investigate a pair after 3 reported psyches in any one session (to make players prove hands were "special cases" not random.)

Additionally, random psyches "to creat action", affect the leaders, help certain opps, or "take advantage of inexperienced players" are in fact among many aspects of psyching expressly prohibited by ACBL.

[jonottawa]

Pet peeve: psych/psychs not psyche/psyches

Main Entry: psy·che
Pronunciation: \ˈsī-kē\
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin, from Greek psychē soul
Date: 1590
1capitalized : a princess loved by Cupid
2[Greek psychē] a: soul, personality <the nation's consumer psyche — D. J. Kevles> b: mind 2

[jkdood]

Thank you Jonathan,
I would go back and edit my inaccurate spellings, but then your post might look like a psyche!!

[jonottawa]

Arguably it's 'optional' Jay (the document you linked has 2 'psyches' and 11 'psychs') and if enough people make the same 'mistake' it will be optional (since language/spelling is mainly a function of usage), but I'd definately rather keep psychs as psychs and reserve psyches for psychEEs.

(Irony intended.)

[blackshoe]

fred, on Aug 13 2008, 08:11 PM, said:

blackshoe, on Aug 13 2008, 11:43 PM, said:

Legitimate opportunities to psych are rare. However, they do happen, and in a bridge sense whether to take the opportunity is, and should be, down to the judgement of the player. To make a regulation restricting that judgement is not, IMO, in the spirit of the game.

So on the subject of bridge as opposed to bridge clubs...

I am not trying to be argumentative here. I really don't understand some of the things you are saying and, since you seem to know more about the Laws then just about anyone here, I hope you can explain.

Didn't you say before that a TD can use his (presumably bridge) judgment to decide that a pair is psyching "too much"?

Since you seem to hold a player's right to use his bridge judgment so dearly (I agree), isn't it hard to justify that the TD has the right to effectively nullify a player's bridge judgment with his own?

I mean, if you are the TD you will be bringing your "legitimate opportunities to psych are rare" attitude to the table. But maybe another TD who believes "legitimate opportunities to psych are frequent" or "legitimate opportunities to psych don't exist" will randomly arrive instead.

Can this be a good thing?

From a pure bridge point of view I can buy "no psychs" and I can buy (and very much prefer) "unlimited psychs", but "TD-limited psychs" doesn't feel right to me.

Perhaps needless to say for some of you, my previous posts in this thread have been mostly about marketing as opposed to bridge. I do think psychs are bad for bridge at the lowest levels, but I think they are a necessary part of bridge at the highest levels (and that this is good).

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

Thank you for the compliment. I'll try to explain.

A TD is, at least if he acts in accordance with the laws, constrained to rule within those laws. There is a law that tells him so. A TD who brings "legitimate opportunities to psych don't exist" to the table is not doing that.

Can it be a good thing to for a TD to "replace a player's judgement with his own"? Well, maybe, maybe not. Depends on how good his judgement is, I suppose. And how objectively he applies it. But the fact is that the laws require him to apply it in many cases, not just for psychs. Some examples: did a player take advantage of UI? Is a contested claim valid? Was a player's call really inadvertent? Some rulings are mechanical (revokes, for example) and don't require much judgement, but there are many rulings that do require judgement. Good TDs — and I grant you not all TDs do this — consult where judgement is required. They ask other TDs, and good players, for opinions. In the end though it's the TD's decision. He may get it wrong — that's why the laws provide an appeals process.

If the lawmakers decide to remove the permission to psych from the laws, I will rule that a player who psychs gets whatever the laws decree. But as long as the laws allow psychs in some circumstances I am required to use my judgement to decide whether a psych was in fact made in allowable circumstances. I will, of course, consult others before deciding, as above.

I agree that psyching at the lowest levels is not good for bridge, and at the highest levels is good for bridge. There is a spectrum in between, though, that requires judgement. You could place that judgement in the hands of the "tournament organizer" (new laws) or "sponsoring organization" (old laws) — the club owner, at that level, but the laws don't do that. They place the judgement, not of whether to ban psychs, but of whether a psych was allowable, in the hands of the TD. yes, I know that in North America they're often one and the same, but I'm talking about a principle here.

The "note for club managers" that jkdood quotes is from "Duplicate Decisions" (DD), which is indeed subtitled "A Club Director's Guide for Ruling at the Table". However, it is just a guide, and I am told (by Rick Beye, ACBL CTD) that the guidance in there is not always in accordance with the laws or with ACBL policy. In this case, though, I think the principle is good, that a club should have a requilation dealing with psychs, and the TD should enforce it. But the laws themselves say that regulations must not be in conflict with the laws - and the laws don't specify a particular number of psychs as being illegal. Nor should a regulation. Maybe the player happened to pick up five hands in a session where a psych is justified. If you have an lesser arbitrary number (two and three are often cited), then he can't, per that regulation, psych after the first however many. But that's not what the laws say. Besides, what's he supposed to do, decide early on that maybe he better not psych, because a better opportunity might come up? No, that can't work.

There's also more to the guidance on psychs in DD than was quoted. Most of it is pretty helpful.

We currently have one player in this area who has a reputation for psyching. He does it very rarely - and never against weak players. So even though he has the reputation, there's no intimation of concealed partnership understanding, or of frivolous or unsportsmanlike psyching (all of which are against the laws). If a player did violate a law when psyching, the TD should (and I would) definitely rule accordingly. BTW, I felt pretty good when the aforementioned player psyched against me a few months ago. I felt I'd sort of "arrived".

I know that you were talking about marketing as opposed to bridge earlier. I just don't believe that the former should trump the latter.

I hope this answers at least some of your questions.

[Echognome]

Maybe it's a bit aside from the point, but suppose we took the hypothetical of allowing no psychs. Are we also going to allow no misbids? One of the things I like about the laws is that they treat psychs and misbids pretty similarly (yes not exactly the same, but similar). In England, if you field a misbid, it is judged to be green, amber, or red the same as psychs are. I believe this makes the TDs job much easier in not having to base all of his (or her) rulings on intention (which could be very difficult to ascertain). So it would seem silly to put an arbitrary limit on psychs. I agree with the etiquette that psychs should not be perpetrated against beginners or intermediates. I certainly understand Fred's views about marketing the game. Perhaps a rule that "psyching is frowned upon in 199er, 299er games" etc. should be tolerated. Whether that should have any bite in the laws, I don't know.

[NickRW]

jtfanclub, on Aug 13 2008, 10:41 PM, said:

jonottawa, on Aug 13 2008, 05:23 PM, said:

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.

But it is completely legal to run such a game. Law 40B2.

http://www.worldbridge.org/departments/law...awsComplete.pdf

Point of order guv'. The document you referenced says, "(d) The Regulating Authority may restrict the use of psychic artificial calls.". It does not say that the Regulating Authority may restrict all psyches.

As a point illustrating this, in England the EBU permits the multi 2♦ at level 3, but, from the Orange book, "A player may not psyche a Multi 2♦ opening in a Level 3 event". (Quite why they single out the multi in this way and not all manner of other artificial bids seems a bit strange - but, never the less, they do and are permitted to do so by the WBF).

Nick

[zasanya]

It seems to me that a psyche most of the time makes 2 players out of 4 on the table unhappy.When the psyche succedes psycher's opponents are unhappy.When the psyche leads to disaster psycher and his partner are unhappy.Now when I am running a serious tournament I dont care who gets unhappy with psyches so I will allow them but when I am running a non-serious no stakes tournament why shouldn't I ensure that this particular source of unhappiness is eliminated?

[Gerben42]

To start out with the original hand: Sometimes players misbid, or have a misunderstanding. This also seems to upset opponents. This is where a "no psyche" policy is unworkable.

How do you decide if something was a psyche or just bad bridge? (or even good bridge!).

It is very similar to a pet peeve of mine: Tournaments where you force a fixed system. How do you decide is some auction is part of the system or not?! And what do you do when there is a fight about this?

Example, you play the ultimate "natural" system, no conventions. You now bid:

1♥ - 1♠ - 2♣ - 2♦ without ♦, because for you it is just bridge logic that if you HAD the 4th suit, you would bid NT instead. Partner also catches this bridge logic. Is that part of the "no conventions" system?

[david_c]

jonottawa, on Aug 14 2008, 02:35 AM, said:

Pet peeve: psych/psychs not psyche/psyches

FWIW, "psyche" is the British spelling; "psych" is (apparently) the American spelling. Similar to humour/humor.

[hotShot]

The laws allow psyches, but they put some constrains to them.
A psyche must be a surprise to the partner as well, because otherwise it's an implicit partnership agreement.
Partner is not allowed to field a psych.

How often can you psyche, to make it a surprise to your partner?
Are you surprised if your partner opens a strong NT?
I guess not, because it happens about once in 20 boards your partner has a chance to open.
Are you surprised if you partner opens a strong 2♣ (strictly 22+)?
I guess so, because that only happens once in about 300 boards your partner has the chance to open.

I would consider 1 psyche per 50 boards an upper limit.

[hrothgar]

This is obviously a fairly complex and (somewhat) controversial topic. Here’s a couple comment that frame my own thoughts.

I believe that folks attitude towards psyches is primarily a social convention. Their attitude is determined by the environment in which they start playing. If beginners are bombarded with messages that state that psyches are equivalent to cheating they will internalize this belief. Later, if someone happens to psyche against them, they’re going to get quite offended. Conversely, if you teach beginners that psyches are part and parcel of the game they’re not going even going to take notice. I think that the most obvious proof of this assertion is how bluffing is considered an integral and valued part of poker. I don’t believe that players who like to lie gravitate towards poker and that young ladies and gentleman are naturally drawn to the game of bridge. Rather, poker players are introduced to concepts like bluffing the very first time that they play. Conversely, ACBL the ACBL chose to give Don Oakie a very prominent platform that he used to convince generations of players that psyches are unethical.

I think that it is a VERY big mistake to teach players that tactics that are considered legal and legitimate under the laws are unethical. Players in real events are permitted to psyche and many of them will psyche. You’re going to encounter very big problems when those social players from the clubs start encountering psyches for the first time, complain to the director, and get zero satisfaction. No one is going to end up happy.
In theory, there are two ways to handle this problem:

1. Change the Laws of Bridge to ban psyches
2. Stop teaching players that psyches are unethical

My own belief is that the first option is completely impractical. No one out there has perfect system notes or perfect recall. You’re never going to be able to distinguish a psyche from a misbid from a tactical agreement from a mistake about meta agreements. Even if folks don’t like the idea about “lying” being enshrined in the rules of the game, I hope that folks recognize that this is the most practical solution.

To me, the conclusions from this all are pretty clear: Given that psyches are here to stay the best course of action is to promote a social structure that will minimize the source of conflict. To me, this suggests using the power of the bully pulpit to let folks know that this is part and parcel of the game. At the very least one should stop promoting the assertion that psyches are in some way unethical.

[helene_t]

Echognome, on Aug 14 2008, 06:34 AM, said:

Maybe it's a bit aside from the point, but suppose we took the hypothetical of allowing no psychs.  Are we also going to allow no misbids?

There will certainly be many situations where one could argue about whether or not some strange bid was a psyche. This is my main concern about the no-psyche rules. I have no strong opinion about taking action against players who habitually make absurd bids with the only plausible explanation that they want to randomize the results. I am concerned about players complaining about opps making creative bids, wasting the TD's time, and getting very upset if the TD is sensible enough to rule that it was not evidently an intentional psych, or that it was only a minor deviation from agreements (or even that it was a completely normal bid).

I think I can recall five times where my partner psyched (my most regular p loves psyching and has AFAIK psyched a whole 3 times during the last 8 years!), two times where I psyched myself, and two times where I was psyched against. These nine incidents stand against hundreds of cases of completely normal bids, misbids, or minor tactical actions that have often made players angry.

It is food for thought that Fred argues that clubs should restrict psyches if players want that. However, I remain unconvinced that it's a good idea to formally ban psyches. Since what the psyche-allergics perceive as pscyhes is in most cases misbids or even normal bids, something that obviously can't be banned.

If a particular player causes nuisance to other players by frequently psyching (and I mean genuine psyches, not just creative bidding), then I can understand that a board member might want to have a word with him.