[jillybean]

I should add, my view on psyches has been influenced by people who have helped me understand the laws, how and why psyches are permitted. I think a lot of the fear and loathing comes from lack of understanding.

[mtvesuvius]

jillybean2, on Jun 7 2009, 08:36 PM, said:

I should add, my view on psyches has been influenced by people who have helped me understand the laws, how and why psyches are permitted. I think a lot of the fear and loathing comes from lack of understanding.

Agreed, and I try not to do it at club games and things, and I understand the other point of view, but barring them really is not in the spirit of the game imo.

[blackshoe]

hrothgar, on Jun 7 2009, 08:09 PM, said:

If I were to agree never to psych against beginners in a club game, this would represent a concealed partnership agreement.

Only if your partnership concealed it.

[Mbodell]

Jlall, on Jun 7 2009, 05:35 PM, said:

Unfortunately, in the real world most people do not have jillybean's attitude. From experience, I would say almost always that psyching against beginners at a club game leads them to feel cheated or screwed which really makes them mad, and ruins their afternoon or maybe even leads to them quitting bridge. They probably will dislike you and other experts like you forever.

How much of this is psyching and how much is just doing anything unusual? I mean if you play mini-nt or a strong club system will these same people react all that much differently than when you psych?

Sometimes it isn't even unusual, it is just not what the person expects. I had one person (a nlm, but not a beginner) at the club get very angry and call the director last Tuesday when, after she asked and was correctly informed that we play standard discards, saw me discarded the ♦4 from K8642 sitting behind a dummy that had AQJ9x of diamonds and then she lost a diamond finesse into me. The diamond K was the only honor in my hand, but the declarer was convinced that if we played standard signals I must discard the 8 to show the K and that my much milder signal must deny the K. I wasn't even false carding as I was planning on discarding 4-2-6 if given the chance on the run of trumps!

[glen]

On weekday afternoons there is a local club we go to if we are not working (i.e. rarely). The club is run by one of Canada's top players, and has mostly retired people playing, some over 80. There are two clear rules: 1) never open 1NT with a singleton, 2) no wild psychs. We are cool with these rules: they make his customers more comfortable, and it reduces TD calls. This isn't 100% bridge, but club bridge is never 100% bridge (e.g. in any club game, excluding the Flight A IMP league, we call the TD about once every 10 sessions, which is not the rate of possible infractions).

There are also clubs that allow infrequent psychs, at most 1 per session, or, in actual practice, at most 1 per session that results in a TD call. At these clubs it is clear not to over psych, and some players will even enjoy having you "banned" from making any subsequent psychs for the session. This is cool too - not 100% bridge but everybody remains comfortable, and there are no psych fests.

Even though both these approaches are not ideal for pure bridge, they reflect what is sometimes necessary to impose at the club level to keep everybody comfortable. These approaches are effective when they are done with clear rules, provided by open communications to all players.

[Cascade]

mtvesuvius, on Jun 8 2009, 01:44 PM, said:

jillybean2, on Jun 7 2009, 08:36 PM, said:

I should add, my view on psyches has been influenced by people who have helped me understand the laws, how and why psyches are permitted. I think a lot of the fear and loathing comes from lack of understanding.

Agreed, and I try not to do it at club games and things, and I understand the other point of view, but barring them really is not in the spirit of the game imo.

How hard do you have to try?

[mtvesuvius]

Cascade, on Jun 7 2009, 10:04 PM, said:

mtvesuvius, on Jun 8 2009, 01:44 PM, said:

jillybean2, on Jun 7 2009, 08:36 PM, said:

I should add, my view on psyches has been influenced by people who have helped me understand the laws, how and why psyches are permitted. I think a lot of the fear and loathing comes from lack of understanding.

Agreed, and I try not to do it at club games and things, and I understand the other point of view, but barring them really is not in the spirit of the game imo.

How hard do you have to try?

As a junior, sometimes very hard

[matmat]

hanp, on Jun 7 2009, 08:06 PM, said:

Since it is all love and piece I'll try to add a little controversy:

I don't have a problem with psyching against beginners in a club game.

agree with Hannie

[Jlall]

lol I just read the thread that spawned this and learned that I am saying almost exactly the same things as Fred.

[cherdanno]

Jlall, on Jun 7 2009, 10:25 PM, said:

lol I just read the thread that spawned this and learned that I am saying almost exactly the same things as Fred.

You said it without the digs against other forum posters though.

[awm]

Jlall, on Jun 7 2009, 10:25 PM, said:

lol I just read the thread that spawned this and learned that I am saying almost exactly the same things as Fred.

One of the things I found curious was that Fred seemed to be arguing that psyching is okay "sometimes" but not other times. I have heard this viewpoint before, but on the hand in question that spawned this thread:

(1) The opponents were stars (supposedly world-class). This is different from the usual argument I hear about it being unsporting to psych against beginners.

(2) It was a pickup partnership (sub actually) so there could be no question of partner taking advantage or having additional information.

Fred seemed to be arguing that "it is not sportsmanlike to psych in club games" regardless of the caliber of the opponents you face in that particular round. This seemed strange to me, and would also seem to greatly reduce the opportunities to psych (i.e. it's not enough that your opponents are experts, you can only psych in an "all expert" field) to the degree that it becomes tough to get "psyching practice" as it were and gain the experience to know what sorts of psychs work. Perhaps he didn't intend it this way, but it seemed a weird argument to me. It also seems to me that a world-class player complaining when an opponent made a successful psych against them is not very sporting...

[Jlall]

Yeah if I was playing against Fred for instance I wouldn't feel bad about psyching even if it was at a club game.

Random stars are often not very good players, but I would assume they're good enough that I would not feel bad psyching against them. I would never guess that they are world class though.

[CSGibson]

I think, strategically, psychs should only be used against near equal level opponents, or opponents that are better than you, otherwise you often lose more than you gain from them (i.e., you are throwing away some of your natural advantage).

Other than that, I agree completely with the comments Justin has made about this subject.

[Cascade]

Jlall, on Jun 8 2009, 04:02 PM, said:

Yeah if I was playing against Fred for instance I wouldn't feel bad about psyching even if it was at a club game.

Random stars are often not very good players, but I would assume they're good enough that I would not feel bad psyching against them. I would never guess that they are world class though.

Quite right.

Everyone else is world class

[inquiry]

I wonder if it can be unethical to psyche, is it unethical to false-card. I mean, we have been teaching people about carding, and signaling, and when to play higher of touching honors and when to play lower. Is it fair to screw them up by intentionally falsecarding to trick them?

As to the original thread. I have to admit that I think psyching in the ACBL game as rule is probably not sporting, but it is not unethical. There is a difference. And when you sit down against two gold stars, for that round only, I would no longer consider it unsporting. But here is the problem, if you ONLY psyche in ACBL games when facing expert opponents, that becomes a hidden agreement (well with pick up partner that is not an issue unless he reads post here). This makes all your bids honest against other pairs. This becomes a problem.

I gave the very unpopular answer above... Rarely acceptable; needs more than one of the above conditions, I am thinking maybe once about every four sessions with the obvious caveat that if I need a board to WIN, late in an event, I have to admit I am more likely to create something than at other times... after all 2nd place is just the highest loser. I rather have a shot at first or tenth than to end up 2nd to 4th.

[aguahombre]

What do we think about psyching in various situations --at various levels? My regular partner (spouse) and I don't like to use them ourselves. I have psyched once in a 23-year partnership. if I ever do it again I will get the same ration of crap i got the first time from her. Do we have a private understanding? Yes, that our bids mean what they are supposed to mean.

We also think the opponents should bid however they like, within the rules. It is up to us to judge whether we believe a player has unduly "fielded" his partner's psych through other than logic, call the director in those rare instances, and abide by the decision of the director or commitee.

[jillybean]

How often does any player psyche or encounter psyches? Playing on BBO, I rarely encounter one and nowhere near once every 4 sessions. TD’ing on BBO I get a call about a psyche perhaps once in every 3 tournaments and most of the calls complaining of psyches aren’t psyches at all.

[Phil]

Jlall, on Jun 7 2009, 08:35 PM, said:

Unfortunately, in the real world most people do not have jillybean's attitude. From experience, I would say almost always that psyching against beginners at a club game leads them to feel cheated or screwed which really makes them mad, and ruins their afternoon or maybe even leads to them quitting bridge. They probably will dislike you and other experts like you forever.

Is this rational? No. But tbh I do not think that bridge at the club is just about the game of bridge for these people, it's something that is social and fun rather than killer attitude competitive. I feel like I am on their turf and should accomodate them, much like if they were at a tournament they are on my turf and should expect whatever I have to throw at them.

Perhaps I should adopt the attitude "psyching is part of bridge, we are playing bridge, if they can't handle it tough." Perhaps I should even psyche frequently since it is like stealing candy from babies. But instead I adopt the practical attitude that it isn't worth it, and it isn't nice to do something that will ruin their bridge experience in a stupid non serious event.

This captures my views perfectly.

Please don't feed me the line about 'psyching is bridge'. This is for those that live in ivory towers and are detached from what happens on a day to day basis in clubland.

Once you've seen a nice beginner leave a duplicate game because of experts psyching and such, you'll understand this viewpoint.

[mike777]

I see this often, people get confused over the meaning of rational.

In fact most behavior is in fact rational that often seems other.


For example something may be legal, yet we hate it, despise it.
Some behavior maybe illogical but rational.

[1eyedjack]

I am supportive of measures that encourage beginners to retain their interest and motivate them to return. If banning psychs in their protective environment is the best way to do this then I would go along with it. At some point they will have to progress beyond that stage and educating them not to get upset about such measures at an early point is in my opinion an important task which should hopefully reduce the period in which they have to rely on this crutch.

That said, I observe that a "no psych" rule on BBO tournaments is now the norm, contrary to the laws. ACBL tournaments (and a few others) excepted. Some have introduced a "semi-ban", forbidding a psych in 1st or 2nd seat. These bans are now so prevalent on BBO that I cannot believe that they are motivated by a desire to protect beginners. The tournaments concerned are generally open to all and my guess is that beginners form only a small proportion of the entrants.

There must be some other motive behind the regulation being imposed by the TD/host in most of these cases. It may be down to TD-laziness: If psychs are banned the TD does not get troubled by so many TD calls, or if someone psychs despite the ban then the TD finds the ruling easier to resolve. I think that this is a false economy. You still get lumbered with whether a marginal deviation is a psych (TD normally rules that it is, by the way, which is another deviation from the laws). But I suspect that the rule is more because the TD personally dislikes being psyched against and believes that everyone else ought to feel the same way, and feels safety in numbers now that every other TD feels that banning psychs is flavour of the month.

My fundamental objection to no psych tournaments is only partly based on the laws. It certainly has nothing to do with my desire to psych. As psychs fail more often than succeed I positively want my opponents to have the opportunity to psych against me.