[jdonn]

awm, on Jun 12 2009, 05:05 PM, said:

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?

Fill out a recorder form if you want. wtp?

[barmar]

olegru, on Jun 12 2009, 04:42 PM, said:

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?

My partner and I have agreed to lead low from 3 small against suits. But sometimes he worries that I'm going to take him for having an honor in the suit, so he decides to lead top of nothing instead. When he does this, I always play him for a doubleton -- that's what we've agreed, and that's what I expect. It usually hurts our defense, since I get the count of the hand wrong, or try to give him a ruff, etc.

Is there an concealed partnership understanding here? He's done it on a number of occasions, but I continue to assume that he should have learned his lesson and stopped. If I defend as if his carding is honest, what's my obligation to the opponents?

ACBL requires that both members of a partnership play the same system, I believe. We're not allowed to agree "I lead bottom of nothing, he leads top of nothing."

[Mbodell]

matmat, on Jun 12 2009, 11:10 AM, said:

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

I've said that because with one of my regular partners she didn't know/very rarely gave count signals and the only signals we regularly gave were standard attitude on our leads and suit preference in obvious ruffing situations. So I'd say we play standard everything but we rarely give count.

[matmat]

Mbodell, on Jun 12 2009, 06:35 PM, said:

matmat, on Jun 12 2009, 11:10 AM, said:

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

I've said that because with one of my regular partners she didn't know/very rarely gave count signals and the only signals we regularly gave were standard attitude on our leads and suit preference in obvious ruffing situations. So I'd say we play standard everything but we rarely give count.

that's all very good, but what guarantee do I have that you do not have a tacit carding understanding (and I am not saying you do, in particular, but just as an example).

[AnJoe]

glen, on Jun 7 2009, 09:54 PM, said:

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).

Hey, I am way over 80 and I play in a club game mostly of retired people and we don't ask to be mollycoddled. We can psyche = and do == with the best of them.

A sweet little old lady that I thought was a rank beginner flat psyched me out of a vulnerable game the other day. Sweetest smile on her face when she apologized as she wrote down her score.
love
joan

[Cascade]

AnJoe, on Jun 13 2009, 01:29 PM, said:

glen, on Jun 7 2009, 09:54 PM, said:

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).

Hey, I am way over 80 and I play in a club game mostly of retired people and we don't ask to be mollycoddled. We can psyche = and do == with the best of them.

A sweet little old lady that I thought was a rank beginner flat psyched me out of a vulnerable game the other day. Sweetest smile on her face when she apologized as she wrote down her score.
love
joan

Best post in the thread

[jillybean]

AnJoe, on Jun 12 2009, 06:29 PM, said:

Hey, I am way over 80 and I play in a club game mostly of retired people and we don't ask to be mollycoddled.  We can psyche = and do == with the best of them. 

A sweet little old lady that I thought was a rank beginner flat psyched me out of a vulnerable game the other day.  Sweetest smile on her face when she apologized as she wrote down her score. 
love
joan

Whoooo hoooo Joan Great to hear this, dont ever lose that spirit!

[jdonn]

Cascade, on Jun 12 2009, 08:31 PM, said:

AnJoe, on Jun 13 2009, 01:29 PM, said:

glen, on Jun 7 2009, 09:54 PM, said:

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).

Hey, I am way over 80 and I play in a club game mostly of retired people and we don't ask to be mollycoddled. We can psyche = and do == with the best of them.

A sweet little old lady that I thought was a rank beginner flat psyched me out of a vulnerable game the other day. Sweetest smile on her face when she apologized as she wrote down her score.
love
joan

Best post in the thread

I'm surprised you aren't bothered that the lady apologized.

[Cascade]

jdonn, on Jun 13 2009, 03:37 PM, said:

Cascade, on Jun 12 2009, 08:31 PM, said:

AnJoe, on Jun 13 2009, 01:29 PM, said:

glen, on Jun 7 2009, 09:54 PM, said:

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).

Hey, I am way over 80 and I play in a club game mostly of retired people and we don't ask to be mollycoddled. We can psyche = and do == with the best of them.

A sweet little old lady that I thought was a rank beginner flat psyched me out of a vulnerable game the other day. Sweetest smile on her face when she apologized as she wrote down her score.
love
joan

Best post in the thread

I'm surprised you aren't bothered that the lady apologized.

Well there really isn't any need to apologize for getting a good score.

I wouldn't personally apologize for something that I had done deliberately in an attempt to get a good score.

I sometimes apologize when I have made a mistake that turns out good e.g. 6 months or so ago we had a relay stuff up and got to a stupid 7♣ that rolled in. I do this in much the same way that I apologize on the squash court after winning a point through a mishit. And tennis players raise their hand apologetically after hitting a net chord.

[blackshoe]

matmat, on Jun 12 2009, 06:46 PM, said:

what guarantee do I have that you do not have a tacit carding understanding (and I am not saying you do, in particular, but just as an example).

None. Are you entitled to one? Are your opponents entitled to guarantees from you?

[matmat]

blackshoe, on Jun 13 2009, 12:15 AM, said:

matmat, on Jun 12 2009, 06:46 PM, said:

what guarantee do I have that you do not have a tacit carding understanding (and I am not saying you do, in particular, but just as an example).

None. Are you entitled to one? Are your opponents entitled to guarantees from you?

point taken. none, of course.

though i have no reason to believe that any particular person is being truthful in their disclosures and ambiguous descriptions do not really help in that regard.

[gnasher]

barmar, on Jun 12 2009, 11:40 PM, said:

My partner and I have agreed to lead low from 3 small against suits.  But sometimes he worries that I'm going to take him for having an honor in the suit, so he decides to lead top of nothing instead.  When he does this, I always play him for a doubleton -- that's what we've agreed, and that's what I expect.  It usually hurts our defense, since I get the count of the hand wrong, or try to give him a ruff, etc.

Is there an concealed partnership understanding here?

Yes.

Quote

He's done it on a number of occasions, but I continue to assume that he should have learned his lesson and stopped.  If I defend as if his carding is honest, what's my obligation to the opponents?

Your obligation is to tell them what you know to be your partner's leading style. It doesn't matter whether you yourself are going to act on that knowledge - you still have an implicit agreement that should be disclosed.

Quote

ACBL requires that both members of a partnership play the same system, I believe. We're not allowed to agree "I lead bottom of nothing, he leads top of nothing."

Maybe, but having an illegal agreement and not disclosing it is far worse than having an illegal agreement and disclosing it.

Either make an agreement that you're both willing to stick to, or circle both cards and tick the "special carding" box. When asked, explain that systemically you might lead either card from xxx, but that your partner sometimes leads top from xxx and you never do. I imagine that most opponents will appreciate the honesty and not worry about whether what you're doing is allowed.

[Cascade]

Playing the same system does not mean doing identical things with identical hands. Individuals within a partnership are allowed to exercise their own judgement.

I suppose it is moot whether your judgement never to take a certain action among choices on your convention card means that you really are playing a system with choices. Although I could see how you could argue that it is no different than other choices. Three small is just a subset of combinations that you might lead from. One partner always taking some action with that hand and the other always taking a different action is no different logically from a bidding situation in which with a narrow subset of hands one partner say always opens and the other never opens.

[blackshoe]

matmat, on Jun 13 2009, 01:09 AM, said:

Though i have no reason to believe that any particular person is being truthful in their disclosures and ambiguous descriptions do not really help in that regard.

You have, generally, no reason to believe that any particular person is deliberately lying to you, either. Since the laws of the game require him to tell you the truth, I would think one should suppress one's paranoia and give the player the benefit of the doubt until there is evidence that he's not following the laws — at which point one should call the TD and present that evidence.

[JoAnneM]

barmar, on Jun 12 2009, 10:22 PM, said:

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.

Wow, that is very patronizing. Do you play in clubs often? Declaring is the easiest part of the game and I would put some 80 year old club players who have been playing 60 years against the people I have been watching on VuGraph anyday. Just when it comes to declaring.

[Cascade]

JoAnneM, on Jun 14 2009, 04:43 AM, said:

barmar, on Jun 12 2009, 10:22 PM, said:

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.

Wow, that is very patronizing. Do you play in clubs often? Declaring is the easiest part of the game and I would put some 80 year old club players who have been playing 60 years against the people I have been watching on VuGraph anyday. Just when it comes to declaring.

I thought that you advocated patronizing behaviour like no psyching against beginners.

[JoAnneM]

If you are a beginner and want to psyche I have no problem, even against other beginners. What I have a problem with is sharks feeding off of tadpoles. You don't have a problem with that, even think it's fun. We just have different opinions.

[hackenbush]

LOL @ this thread.

[jillybean]

JoAnneM, on Jun 13 2009, 03:58 PM, said:

If you are a beginner and want to psyche I have no problem, even against other beginners.  What I have a problem with is sharks feeding off of tadpoles.  You don't have a problem with that, even think it's fun.  We just have different opinions.

I dont believe there is a problem with shark eating tadpoles.
This entire debate was started after a minnow scared off a couple of sharks.

I do agree that sharks, who for some reason are able to play in novice games shouldn't psyche, I doubt they would. Novices who leave the sanctuary of the "sayc" novice game must swim with big fish.

[Cascade]

JoAnneM, on Jun 14 2009, 10:58 AM, said:

If you are a beginner and want to psyche I have no problem, even against other beginners. What I have a problem with is sharks feeding off of tadpoles. You don't have a problem with that, even think it's fun. We just have different opinions.

I think you should play by the rules.

You think that some players should be further restricted. And further you and others think that one should adopt some insulting and patronizing policy against some players.

I think that is specifically against the rules (and ethics if they exist) of the game that we play.