[barryallen]

mikeh, on Jun 11 2009, 03:23 PM, said:

peachy, on Jun 10 2009, 06:26 PM, said:

jdonn, on Jun 10 2009, 06:16 PM, said:

peachy, on Jun 10 2009, 05:02 PM, said:

Lobowolf, on Jun 10 2009, 02:14 PM, said:

peachy, on Jun 10 2009, 02:12 PM, said:

I don't believe in unwritten rules.  Could you post one of them?

When someone accidentially drops a card on the floor, avert your eyes so as not to see it if it landed face up.

I would turn my head to not see it. Same about seeing somebody else's cards because they are holding them so that others can see. I would tell them I can see them if I looked. Those are my personal values, or ethics if we want to stay within the topic, nothing to do with the laws of bridge. I am sure the majority shares those values.

Exactly, the majority of players are happy to play by the unwritten rules. Some bridge lawyers are not.

I'm not sure what you mean. Bridge lawyers know the law and play by the rules and enjoy the benefit of seldom being on the short end of a ruling because they are as good or better than a TD in applying the laws/rules. It is not unethical to be knowledgeable about the rules and know how they apply. It is also not unethical to be world class and execute a squeeze while other players mess up their transportation and fail. It is a n acquired skill. Some have acquired law skill, why berate them for it.

Personal values are not part of bridge laws. I keep repeating this but it does not sit well with some folks. So I won't say it any more. But personal values should not be instituted into the laws, IMO.

I was reminded, when I read this, of a golf magazine interview with Tom Watson, when he was at the peak of his game... must have been almost 30 years ago or so. He was asked about other leading players, and ethics. If memory serves, and it may not, he was somewhat critical of Gary Player. Not that Gary cheated... but that Watson's impression of Player was that Player would take advantage of absolutely every edge that he could get away with, while complying with the letter of the rules... Watson was a believer in complying with the spirit of the rules, as well as the letter. He was careful to make sure, as I recall the article, that Player's approach was perfectly legal and was followed by a substantial minority of touring pros, but there was no doubt what Watson felt about that approach.

I was already a fan of Watson, but that part of the article has stuck, accurately or otherwise, with me ever since.. and Watson went up in my estimation. I try to emulate Watson in my approach to the rules of bridge...altho sometimes a bit of Player seems to sneak in

What this means, to me, is that most of this thread is misdirected... there is no absolute wrong or right.. only one's sense of the morally correct thing to do. For me, it is a no-brainer. Having said that, many years ago, when I was a young player who was nowhere near as good as I thought I was, but was still one of the top players in my small, isolated community, I psyched successfully, in a local tournament, against novices. The director, a senior ACBL director who liked running these small tournaments, took me to one side, and told me that while I did nothing wrong, he hoped I would never do it again. I shrugged it off at the time, but, looking back, he was absolutely correct.

If you are a Gary Player person, then go ahead... I won't admire you, but I won't begrudge you the wins you pick up by doing it.

Funny you should mention Gary Player, I remember my father reporting him at a minor tournament in the sixties for moving the rough with his foot. Nothing came of it and I doubt he was even asked about it. I do know that cheating was pretty rife in those days but mainly practised by the caddies, due to the low wages and rewards based bonuses. Not uncommon for caddies in Wellington boots and coats held together with string for a belt. I remember one caddy who slept in our hedge during a tournament.

I love the old chestnut of the player who kept addressing the ball in the rough by placing the 3 wood directly behind it and asking his caddy whether he felt he could reach the green. "Not just yet Sir, but it should be possible in a couple of minutes".

[helene_t]

Benoit35, on Jun 12 2009, 11:21 AM, said:

So why is deceptive bidding so frowned upon by many players, while deceptive card play is generally admired?

I don't know if it's the case.

If it is, it could be because some opps wonder if "psych" is sometimes a eufemism for "concealed agreement". The only time I noticed a negative reaction to a psych was when opps said I should have alerted the psych. They didn't say that my p shouldn't have psyched.

[ArtK78]

jdonn, on Jun 11 2009, 07:34 PM, said:

The_Hog, on Jun 11 2009, 07:32 PM, said:

ArtK78, on Jun 12 2009, 03:46 AM, said:

When I play online, I find it inappropriate, if not unethical, if a pair that I am playing against in a pair event fails to prealert my partner and me that they are playing an unusual system (anything other than Standard or 2/1).

My regular partner and I play a light opening system with 10-12 1NT openings.  I always greet each new pair with "Hi all - we open all 10 HCP hands nonvul in 1st and 2nd seats including a 10-12 1NT opening" [by the way, to save time, I have this copied so that I can just paste it into the chat area].

This is especially important in a speedball game where you have limited time to take care of the mechanics of the game, let alone start checking your opponents' convention card.

Art this is a very US centric post. There are other systems which are generic to areas you know, eg Acol. Are you suggesting Acol is unusal? lol

I had the same reaction. Didn't we have a long thread along these lines about Polish Club maybe half a year ago? Times are changing and the world is more connected, so if you are going to play online tournaments it behooves you to gain at least a passing familiarity with systems that are extremely common or even universal in areas with large bridge-playing populations.

You may have misunderstood my post. In the ACBL tournaments on BBO, the most common "unusual" system that comes up is Precision. It is important to know that the opps are playing a strong club system as we need to inform them of our defenses to their strong club. They should be aware of what is likely to happen so they can be prepared for it.

At the time of day that I play (typically after 10:00 pm New York Time) there are few Europeans online. So I have not run into much Acol. I don't consider Acol to be an unusual system. And I am very familiar with the systems played in ACBL tournaments. One rarely runs into Polish Club in ACBL tournaments on BBO, as there are restrictions on conventions allowed in those tournaments. But I am familiar with Polish Club also.

[Apollo81]

glen, on Jun 7 2009, 08:37 PM, said:

mtvesuvius, on Jun 7 2009, 08:26 PM, said:

54 Page Thread, here we come.

Go to "edit my profile", then "board settings", and then for "Number of posts to show for each topic page", select 100 and save

Thanks!

[NickRW]

Benoit35, on Jun 12 2009, 10:21 AM, said:

...So why is deceptive bidding so frowned upon by many players, while deceptive card play is generally admired?

Yeah. This is one thing that makes me almost spit at the "no psyche" brigade. They (well some anyhow) reckon that the hours they've spent on their declarer play - whether that be knowing all the tricks or just plain good technique is 100% allowable - but as soon as you want to bid something 'weird' (just a different system never mind an actual psyche) they want to send in the lynch mob.

I exagerate perhaps - but you know what I mean.

Nick

[TimG]

Benoit35, on Jun 12 2009, 05:21 AM, said:

So why is deceptive bidding so frowned upon by many players, while deceptive card play is generally admired?

Deceptive card-play generally (exclusively in the case of declarer play) does not involve potential concealed partnership understandings.

Also, false cards and other deceptive plays would seem to me to more generally fall into the "tactical" category rather than the "psych" category.

[NickRW]

TimG, on Jun 12 2009, 03:53 PM, said:

Also, false cards and other deceptive plays would seem to me to more generally fall into the "tactical" category rather than the "psych" category.

IMO that is a false distinction. Psyches, (genuine psyches, not misclicks or poor judgement, or stupidity or whatever) are deliberate tactical bids - they are not undertaken purely to randomise the result for the simple reason that there is a substantial chance (in most situations) of misleading partner more than it does opps - so it is (generally) a risky strategy.

Nick

[mycroft]

While I agree with ArtK's last statement (need to know in order to know to explain the defence), I play Precision, I appreciate the thought, but it's not necessary.

I don't need to know your defence (unless it's illegal, of course - which yours, I'm sure, isn't, but I've played against at least two "auto 1S" pairs) - I know my counters. Part of my job playing Precision is to know my counter-defence to 1C interference. If I'm supposed to pre-Alert my system (which I don't have to do in FTF ACBL events, by the way, just present my card just as I do online) only so that I am protected, then should I not do so, I have no recourse if you throw something weird at me, ah well. I realize my Precision partnership is more confident in our system than many (partly because when we don't know it, we trip and fall hard; -800 (or worse, +190) is a good teacher).

I don't feel uncomfortable pre-Alerting our Precision (even if I don't have to); but it isn't for the chaos over "what do we do over 1C" (which usually takes forever, and they don't remember anyway), but so that they know that 1H is limited when partner bids 3H "weak" (and then shows up with an indifferent 9-count).

[mycroft]

Nick: Someone famous said "A tactical bid is a psych an expert makes. A psych is a tactical bid made against that expert." Someone referred to "another one of those irregular verbs", which is the same thing.

While that's somewhat facetious, it does seem that "tactical bids" are very deceptive calls the expert speaking would like to continue to be able to make (and without the potential very stringent "you've formed an implicit partnership misunderstanding" criteria we (whether "we" here are ACBL, WBF, or whatever) use for psychic calls), and psychs are calls that same expert wouldn't use.

The good news is that "psychic call" is defined in the laws; "tactical call" is not, nor in any regulations I know of.

[JoAnneM]

Based on their answers there are several people in this thread I would never play with unless, of course, they are pulling our collective legs.

[jillybean]

JoAnneM, on Jun 12 2009, 11:40 AM, said:

Based on their answers there are several people in this thread I would never play with unless, of course, they are pulling our collective legs.

What was your vote in the poll ?

And nice work on VG thanks

[JoAnneM]

Oh, you must have me confused with Jan. It's happened before, I am always honored. I am not the person who voted "never".

[matmat]

TimG, on Jun 12 2009, 10:53 AM, said:

Benoit35, on Jun 12 2009, 05:21 AM, said:

So why is deceptive bidding so frowned upon by many players, while deceptive card play is generally admired?

Deceptive card-play generally (exclusively in the case of declarer play) does not involve potential concealed partnership understandings.

Also, false cards and other deceptive plays would seem to me to more generally fall into the "tactical" category rather than the "psych" category.

i am pretty sure i've heard, several times, statements like the following:

"we play such-and-such carding and discards, but we hardly ever signal anyway."

doesn't it seem like there is room for unethical behaviour here, akin to concealed partnership bidding agreements?

i think it's just that people notice bidding psychs more, and, certainly, notice patterns in bidding psychs more.

[olegru]

TimG, on Jun 12 2009, 10:53 AM, said:

[Deceptive card-play generally (exclusively in the case of declarer play) does not involve potential concealed partnership understandings.

Not on the leads, by the way.

Could I share the story which bother me a lot.
I am declarer in 3N against well know expert opps. LHO leads Q. I am asking about leads - Q deny J. Ok. I played according the explanation. No luck. LHO had KQJ. Not a problem it was just an missed overtrick in the team game.

Couple of monthes later. The same opps. The same lead. The same question. The same explanation. I learn my lesson - I played for J on the left. I got it right.
Now if I notice that lead of Q from this particular person does not have to deny J, how could his permanent partner does not know about it?

[jdonn]

I think in principle there is no real difference between psychs and falsecards and it would be just as easy for a partnership to have implicit agreements that their carding isn't always what they say it is. But there are a few reasons I treat them differently. Mainly that I think lots of players view them differently, and that I think most of the players who are bothered by psychs don't tend to notice the spot cards I play anyway so it becomes a non-issue.

[blackshoe]

TimG, on Jun 12 2009, 10:53 AM, said:

Also, false cards and other deceptive plays would seem to me to more generally fall into the "tactical" category rather than the "psych" category.

A psych is a tactical bid. Note: that does not say that a tactical bid is a psych.

[awm]

As an aside, I played against a regular partnership a while back. On the first board I declared in a normal 3NT. LHO leads a small card. I looked at their convention card -- fourth best leads against notrump. I proceeded to play the hand out, eventually misguessing the play in part because LHO's lead had been fifth from five cards. There was nothing obviously unusual about the opponents hands (i.e. LHO didn't have all the values or anything like this). I asked why he had chosen to lead 5th after the hand and he said something of the form "I was trying to be tricky / create a swing."

Two boards later against the same pair, partner is declarer in a normal 3NT. RHO (his LHO) leads a small card. Partner plays the hand out, making a routine eleven tricks. Turns out the opening leader has lead fifth from a five card suit. Again, nothing obviously unusual about the opponents hands.

Is there any problem here? Anything I can do about this? And isn't leading 5th from a strong suit when your agreement is "fourth best leads" something like a psych?

[Jlall]

Lol if my partner led fifth and got the opp to go down I would definitely lead fifth on the next board if I had a chance. Great for messing with their head. I think your RHO had a good sense of humor/gamesmanship.

[awm]

Jlall, on Jun 12 2009, 05:10 PM, said:

Lol if my partner led fifth and got the opp to go down I would definitely lead fifth on the next board if I had a chance. Great for messing with their head. I think your RHO had a good sense of humor/gamesmanship.

Amusing sure.. but can't you argue... my partner opened 1♠ on three cards and opponents missed their spade game on the first board... so I would certainly open 1♥ on three cards on the next board too...

In fact your partner even knows that you might do this, because you have seen the spectacular success he had on board one and he knows you like to repeat tactics in such a way. Opponents may or may not know your personality this well.

[barmar]

Benoit35, on Jun 12 2009, 06:21 AM, said:

So why is deceptive bidding so frowned upon by many players, while deceptive card play is generally admired?

I suspect that many of the players who frown on psyching don't even notice falsecards, because they don't pay attention to the opponents' carding (in which case there's not much point in falsecarding against them). But the game is almost impossible to play if you don't take inferences from the auction, so deceptive bidding is noticeable, and therefore annoying when it works to the psycher's benefit.