[jtfanclub]

NickRW, on Aug 14 2008, 12:45 AM, said:

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.

I'm not talking about psychs. I was talking about having a "no bidding/carding systems I didn't learn from Audrey Grant" rule. Technically, that isn't absolutely true: they can't ban negative free bids or 12-15 1NT openers, but they can make them unplayable.

[helene_t]

jtfanclub, on Aug 14 2008, 02:44 PM, said:

they can't ban negative free bids or 12-15 1NT openers, but they can make them unplayable.

With the 2008 laws they can ban them.

[fred]

blackshoe, on Aug 14 2008, 05:10 AM, said:

I hope this answers at least some of your questions.

Thanks - appreciate you taking the time to answer.

Your answer has served to clarify that my understanding of the Laws in this area really is pretty close to what I thought they were and how a good TD should work within these Laws.

I must say that, if it had been up to me, I think would have written the Laws in this area differently. Fortunately (probably for everyone including me) that is not one of my responsibilties

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[blackshoe]

hrothgar, on Aug 14 2008, 08:58 AM, said:

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

You should send that to the ACBL Bulletin.

[blackshoe]

Echognome, on Aug 14 2008, 01:34 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?

Bobby Wolfe would like that.

There is also, from the ACBL General Conditions of Contest:

Quote

A partnership is responsible for knowing when their methods apply in probable (to be expected) auctions. A pair may be entitled to redress if their opponents did not originally have a clear understanding of when and how to use a convention that was employed.

I don't know what the legal basis for this is, or even if there is one, but there it is. I also don't know how it's generally applied, but it certainly could be used as a "no misbids" rule.

[uday]

Hrothgar said "Stop teaching players that psyches are unethical"

Does this really happen, or are we referring to the pressure against psyching, whether it be this "2 psych limit", or "no-psych tourneys" ?

[blackshoe]

fred, on Aug 14 2008, 09:48 AM, said:

Your answer has served to clarify that my understanding of the Laws in this area really is pretty close to what I thought they were and how a good TD should work within these Laws.

I thought that might be the case.

Quote

I must say that, if it had been up to me, I think would have written the Laws in this area differently. Fortunately (probably for everyone including me) that is not one of my responsibilties

I too would hate to be on the Drafting Subcommittee. I agree there are places where the laws could have been written better, but, well, perhaps politics got involved. I know that early on there was a suggestion (well received in some quarters, as I understand it) to completely reorganize the laws. Some pretty powerful members of the LC objected to that, so it didn't happen. Or perhaps there just wasn't time to "do it right"*.

unknown said:

There's never time to do it right. There's always time to do it over.

Robert Heinlein said:

A committee is an organism with six or more legs, and no brain.

Well, okay, that's probably an overbid, in this case.
*IIRC, the Drafting Subcommittee was formed and started working in 2002.

[jillybean]

All this seems to be a storm in a tea cup. I am a very inexperienced player but in the club games I have played, I can’t recall being on the receiving end of a psyche. I have psyched once. Are psyches a real problem at clubs?

When I play at the club I chose to play in the open games where I frequently come across unusual bidding; gambling 3nt, precision etc. Rather than run from the game upset that my opps aren’t playing fair I use it as an opportunity to learn and maybe do better next time. I think exposure to different methods helps rather than hinders my confidence and skills in the game. If I was a complete newbie I’d be playing in the new comers games where I doubt very much that I’d have to deal with psyches, gambling 3nt’s and such like.

If there is a young punk Fred in the club who psyches excessively it can be dealt with on a case by case basis within the laws but its no reason to ignore the laws and ban psyches.

So, are we protecting the LOL Life Masters who have been supporting the club for decades and just want a nice game of cards? And is this another reason few really good players play at club games?

[Echognome]

I actually think what's needed is more variety. I've mentioned this before (awhile back), but what I really miss from England is all of the different opportunities for different forms of the game.

I really enjoyed "league" matches in England. There were 5 divisions in our county of about 8 teams each. You would play one match each week against each of the other teams. Monday nights were "league night" and the club would be available only for league matches in one room and teaching in the other. The other nights of the week would feature beginner games, intermediate games, and open games. On top of all that were the once a month type games, such as an imp pairs competition or an individual or a married couples competition or a "pro-am" night where the open players were matched with BILs. And on top of all that were the national competitions, such as the Gold Cup, Crockfords, Hubert Phillips, etc. Finally, on top of all that were the inter-county competitions, such as the NICKO (national inter-club knockout), the Garden Cities, and the county league. Note that this was all in addition to congresses (England's equivalent of sectionals or regionals).

With all that variety you could make up rules that were more tailored to the competition. For example, you could have different convention charts for different divisions in league play, like Divisions 1 and 2 can play midchart, but Divisions 3 to 5 must play GCC.

I'm not saying all this is possible in the U.S. I guess it would have to come down to some ambitious club owners and a good team of organizers to implement. But I can tell you it was a lot of fun playing different forms of scoring, such as Total Points in the Hubert Phillips or the cross imps of the Frank Cup or whatever.

Unfortunately, my work prevents me from being so involved, but if that ever frees up, then I would certainly be willing to help.

[helene_t]

Sounds good, Gnome, but many clubs are too small for more than one field.

I have played in some clubs with more than one field, but they always have the same rules in all fields (except that novices are allowed to call the teacher for advice during the auction). I suppose it would make everyone very confused if different rules applied in different fields. The thing is, most people would play in both fields because of logistics, partnerships and degration/promotion. Players find it hard enough to understand one set of rules. Board members and directors find it hard enough to policy one set of rules.

For the same reason (I guess), very few clubs have rules that differ from the default rules stipulated by the federation.

[NickRW]

hrothgar, on Aug 14 2008, 12:58 PM, said:

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.

I think this is spot on.

I do not buy the notion that permitting psyches in and of itself acts to empty out clubs through annoyance to the opps. I do buy the notion that people have certain beliefs about what is good/proper bridge and (some) tend to be intolerant of ideas which deviate from that.

I myself learnt bridge while still at school. Being young and, in particular because of having a maverick on the team, psyches other bids that simply seemed to be a bit "on the edge" was part of what I grew up with. As a consequence, if I get taken for a ride by an unexpected bid, or a bid which turned out to be different to what I expected - well I might be a bit miffed if the result is poor for me, but I'm not going to be crying off to the director.

As another illustration of this, I play with my partners (kids) no blackwood or any ace asking convention. It seemed to me that arguments over what is and what is not blackwood just too much trouble to teach to beginners. Instead I taught cue bidding. As a result of this, especially if we maybe have a grand on, cue bidding can occupy sometimes 2.5 whole levels of bidding and go on for lots of rounds. This is not in any way psyching, or indeed doing anything else that others don't do - we just do a lot of it. At the local club opps run out of pass cards. Some of them suffer in silence. Others get really quite rude about what they see as "unconventional" or "time consuming". One even goes into a fit of gleeful giggling. Obviously they don't like it and I am probably doing the club atmosphere a disservice. But where does this problem come from? From the fact that we are wrong in some bridge sense? Well, at the level of that club certainly not - we find more slams than almost any other pair. Are we doing something illegal? Again obviously not. I think it is simply that we do something that is outside of what is expected/taught - or at least that is how I see it.

So - if zero tolerance - or what ever label is used to justify it - includes banning or even frowning on (probably genuine) psyches - then I think the policy itself is to blame. Unfortunately it seems to have become a cultural, ingrained thing in some places.

Nick

[barmar]

uday, on Aug 14 2008, 11:09 AM, said:

Hrothgar said "Stop teaching players that psyches are unethical"

Does this really happen, or are we referring to the pressure against psyching, whether it be this "2 psych limit", or "no-psych tourneys" ?

I also wonder whether anyone is explicitly taught anything, positive or negative, about psyches. I'm of the impression that the notion is completely unmentioned during formal bridge lessons.

When we teach bridge, we explain that bidding is a language. We teach students how to speak and understand that language. They learn to listen to the bidding and make inferences. It's simple: you bid X, that means you have Y.

No one ever tells them the caveat: except when you lie. As far as most of these players can tell, the bidding system they learned is part of the rules of the game. The closest anyone ever comes to teaching about psyching is to explain that sometimes you have a hand for which no bid is adequate, and you have to find the closest approximation. This isn't really a lie, it's just stretching the truth.

Over time they learn about other small digressions, like opening light in 3rd seat, or preempting with fewer cards in the suit than they were originally taught. But still, psyches are rarely mentioned.

So is it any wonder that when they encounter them in the "real world", they seem totally foreign and out of place? No one ever told them you can make a bold faced lie.

[hrothgar]

uday, on Aug 14 2008, 06:09 PM, said:

Hrothgar said "Stop teaching players that psyches are unethical"

Does this really happen, or are we referring to the pressure against psyching, whether it be this "2 psych limit", or "no-psych tourneys" ?

Does anyone have a copy of any of the old Don Oakie opinions that were featured so prominently in the Bulletin years back?

[jdonn]

hrothgar, on Aug 15 2008, 07:46 AM, said:

uday, on Aug 14 2008, 06:09 PM, said:

Hrothgar said "Stop teaching players that psyches are unethical"

Does this really happen, or are we referring to the pressure against psyching, whether it be this "2 psych limit", or "no-psych tourneys" ?

Does anyone have a copy of any of the old Don Oakie opinions that were featured so prominently in the Bulletin years back?

This may well be, but I think the belief that psychs are not ethical more of a myth that perpetuates in home games and kitchens when people learn from their parents and neighbors. My strong suspicion is the thinking that psychs should be or are illegal is influenced very little by anything the ACBL or bridge clubs or bridge teachers do.

[blackshoe]

Don Oakie did conduct a very vocal, and very public, crusade against psychs. It seems highly unlikely to me that this had little impact on the players of the day, many of whom are still around.

[helene_t]

I don't recognize this negative attitude towards psychs. Of the nine cases I recall, two seemed to annoy at least one player. In one case it was because of a (somewhat justified) suspension of a concealed agreement. The other was at the Dutch StepBridge online bridge site when I psyched a strong 2♣ opening.

I am not sure why so many online TDs ban psyches. Maybe psyches are less tollerated in other countries than the ones I have played in. Maybe it is an attempt to get rid of the "sabotage bids" which are probably much more of a problem online than IRL.

[blackshoe]

Perhaps there's an attitude of "I'm playing online, so it doesn't count, so I can do whatever I want" on the part of some players, so they misuse or overuse psychs. Or perhaps they're just idiots.

[jillybean]

blackshoe, on Aug 15 2008, 12:26 PM, said:

Perhaps there's an attitude of "I'm playing online, so it doesn't count, so I can do whatever I want" on the part of some players, so they misuse or overuse psychs. Or perhaps they're just idiots.

I dont think this is the case, atleast not in my experience of running 'psyche encouraged' games on BBO and that of another TD who permits psyches; we have not seen an excessive number of psyches at all. its worth noting that forcing bids,unusual bids, bad bids turned lucky are all often called psyches. Look at the 3♣ psyche at the start of this thread.

Speaking from personal experience, I think people have a hard time grasping why a player should be allowed to make an outright lie when making a bid AND then tell opponents another lie when asked what the bid means.

[blackshoe]

Whoa! Back up! Explaining the actual agreed meaning of a call is not a lie, whether the hand matches the agreement or not.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on Aug 15 2008, 04:27 PM, said:

Whoa! Back up! Explaining the actual agreed meaning of a call is not a lie, whether the hand matches the agreement or not.

I think many players have a hard time understanding that explanation requirements don't change just because you're self-explaining. I suspect their intuition is that since your partner doesn't see the explanation, you really have to explain truthfully.

Thus, when you psyche, you're both lying in the bid and lying in the explanation. How many lies are they supposed to tolerate at once?