[uday]

Quote

If you can give an example when playing by the rules is unethical, I'd like to see it.

here is one:

They're bidding constructively

blah blah
blah blah
OINK ARGH

You exercise your right to inquire about every call, for reasons that seem good to you. When you ask about OINK, you are told that it is RKC blackwood. When you ask about ARGH you are told that it shows "two keycards" ( no mention as to whether it shows the Q)

It is probably legal to ask for a clarification whether ARGH shows 2-with-queen or 2-without-queen, regardless of whether you happen to hold the Queen. But many people would think it is unethical to do so with the Queen in your own hand.

[1eyedjack]

I expect that most of the no-psych tournaments on BBO are free tournaments. I have not done any research to back this claim up, but ACBL and robot reward/race tournaments must make up a substantial proportion of pay tournaments, and these are psych-permitted events, while my observation of most of the free tournaments is that they are no-psych.

It is hard to criticise the organisers of free tourneys for banning psychs. We should perhaps just be grateful that they are prepared to give up their time to run them, and if one of the prices that we have to pay in kind for the privilege of playing in those tourneys is to let them run the events their way then so be it. I have one concern about this, however, and it is the lack of consultation that goes into the decision. In most cases there is simply no avenue to provide feedback objecting to the regulation. The tourney hosts may believe, possibly in error, that they are doing the customers a service, based on the shaky premise that they themselves would rather play under such conditions and arrogantly assume that the other players are substantially of the same mind. But I wonder if they would continue the practice if they were to discover that their beliefs are mistaken.

The hosts may even point to the popularity of their events as evidence of the support of the members. And yet it could be that they enjoy that support not because of that rule but for want of an alternative. It could even be that the events are otherwise sufficiently well run to attract the custom in spite of, rather than because of, the psych-ban.

Anyway, it would be nice if some of those TDs who routinely ban psychs were to stand up to the oche and state their reasons. Some of them must be monitoring this thread. I can understand their reticence, given the general hostility to the notion that is expressed here.

[G_R__E_G]

uday, on Jun 8 2009, 02:25 PM, said:

They're bidding constructively

blah blah
blah blah
OINK ARGH

I see that Uday's been playing bridge against my ex-wife.

[1eyedjack]

uday, on Jun 8 2009, 08:25 PM, said:

It is probably legal to ask for a clarification whether ARGH shows 2-with-queen or 2-without-queen, regardless of whether you happen to hold the Queen. But many people would think it is unethical to do so with the Queen in your own hand.

An alert declarer may therefore place you with the Queen, derived from your failure to ask?

[jdonn]

G_R__E_G, on Jun 8 2009, 02:31 PM, said:

uday, on Jun 8 2009, 02:25 PM, said:

They're bidding constructively

blah blah
blah blah
OINK ARGH

I see that Uday's been playing bridge against my ex-wife.

Now that is funny.

[uday]

Quote

An alert declarer may therefore place you with the Queen, derived from your failure to ask?

Or with the Q if you do ask. But that's his problem. I only mentioned this here as a quick example of how following the rules (in asking) could be perceived as unethical, even tho it is perfectly legal.

[Jlall]

olegru, on Jun 8 2009, 10:30 AM, said:

Jlall, on Jun 7 2009, 06:57 PM, said:

The one time I think it's unacceptable is if you are an expert playing against a novice in a minor event

Why on the earth should I care about opponents?

LOL really?

[Ant590]

A uni-bridge club beginner I know was playing a teams-of-four match against opponents who are arguably the best in our county. At one point he psyched which worked well, only to find that the same psyche was made on the other table! He dined out on it for weeks.

Anecdote aside, I think psyching is part of the game, and that the beginners we teach (who are admittedly young, keen and intelligent) treat it as part of the game. Most of our pairs have discussed auctions such as (1♥) - dbl - (1♠) - dbl accordingly.

[Cascade]

1eyedjack, on Jun 9 2009, 07:35 AM, said:

uday, on Jun 8 2009, 08:25 PM, said:

It is probably legal to ask for a clarification whether ARGH shows 2-with-queen or 2-without-queen, regardless of whether you happen to hold the Queen. But many people would think it is unethical to do so with the Queen in your own hand.

An alert declarer may therefore place you with the Queen, derived from your failure to ask?

Exactly restricted choice.

If he didn't have the queen he might have asked about it.

[barmar]

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

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

Is such an agreement even logically possible?

A psyche is a deliberate violation of an agreement. Can you make an agreement covering violations of agreements? And even if you do, what's to prevent you from violating THAT agreement?

Psyches are really tricky to discuss clearly, because the definition is very fuzzy. If someone makes the same psyche frequently, they aren't actually psyching, they're mis-explaining by failing to disclose that the particular hand type is included in the meaning of the bid. If someone ever uses the word "psyche" in an explanation, it's an oxymoron.

I'm pretty sure I've never psyched. My regular partner surely knows that. Is this an implicit partnership agreement that we should disclose?

[barmar]

inquiry, on Jun 8 2009, 12:09 AM, said:

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 wonder about that. There's a very fuzzy line between style and system.

There's a book called something like "Winning Swiss Team Tactics". It has a chapter on what to do when playing against a much better team; IIRC, the basic theme is to bid more aggressively. So when you sit down against Meckwell, does every preempt need to be alerted because it's more likely than usual to be shorter than expected?

If the frequency of a particular tactic varies from 10% to 20% depending on the opponents, is this something that needs to be disclosed? Is it even something you realize consciously, or is it just an adjustment that decent players make automatically without even realizing it?

[blackshoe]

uday, on Jun 8 2009, 02:48 PM, said:

Quote

An alert declarer may therefore place you with the Queen, derived from your failure to ask?

Or with the Q if you do ask. But that's his problem. I only mentioned this here as a quick example of how following the rules (in asking) could be perceived as unethical, even tho it is perfectly legal.

If it is legal, it is ethical, regardless how someone may perceive it.

[jdonn]

Is there a law that says that?

[blackshoe]

Specifically? No.

[jdonn]

So then I don't understand. This unprovable assertion that 'anything legal is ethical' is fact even though others disagree, simply because you believe it?

[TimG]

blackshoe, on Jun 8 2009, 08:30 PM, said:

uday, on Jun 8 2009, 02:48 PM, said:

Quote

An alert declarer may therefore place you with the Queen, derived from your failure to ask?

Or with the Q if you do ask. But that's his problem. I only mentioned this here as a quick example of how following the rules (in asking) could be perceived as unethical, even tho it is perfectly legal.

If it is legal, it is ethical, regardless how someone may perceive it.

I double.

[mikeh]

This post isn't about psyching, so I apologize in advance for any thread-jacking.

Justin is 100% right, imo, about going out of one's way, as an expert or advanced player, to avoid pissing off beginners. However, and without adopting han's somewhat radical view, the truth appears to be that most club players are pissed off simply by an expert turning up to play...if he or she is playing with another expert.

In our club, we had a team game on Thursdays...it was handicapped (the score, that is, not all of the players). My wife, who is advanced rather than expert, played with one of Canada's top women players and I played with her husband, who is no slouch.. a multiple national champion. We'd win maybe half the time, due to the handicap... but attendance plummeted. Thursday shut down and a Monday night 'team of 8' was formed: an A player is 3 points, a B is 2 and a C is one, and the team cannot total more than 8. That effectively killed any hope of any of the best players playing on teams with friends. So the best players, who had gone out of their way to play at the club to show support for the owners, don't play team games at the club...and attendance has skyrocketed.

I recently played golf with a pickup foursome, one of whom, it turns out, plays in the team of 8 event. I had not met him before, and he didn't recognize my name... I mentioned that I played bridge and he described the team game and stated that 'there used to be a game on Thursdays, but there was a team of good players who always won, and everybody else felt that it was unfair for them to play together, so the game died'

The moral of the story is that most club players do not want to play bridge as we know it... and they resent the mere presence of those who do...psyching will piss them off fast but so will cue-bidding to a slam... or taking more than 20 seconds to think about a play...or simply winning consistently...depriving them of the chance to outshine their peers by winning a club game.

Sorry for the rant, and I still won't psyche against most club players... but the rare one who thinks like jb...yes, I will and should (on the right hand) psyche against her

[blackshoe]

It's the way I was taught, Josh. Disagree if you like.

[jdonn]

blackshoe, on Jun 8 2009, 09:22 PM, said:

It's the way I was taught, Josh. Disagree if you like.

I don't mind disagreeing or being disagreed with. But you stated your opinion as fact. That's not like you, who normally backs up everything he says. It was the "regardless how someone may perceive it" that threw me, and still does.

[blackshoe]

There's a difference between the ethics of a game and ethics in general. The ethics of a game, as I learned it, are defined by its rules. So it cannot be unethical, in the context of game ethics, to do something that is legal under the rules. Whether it's ethical in a broader sense is a different question. I suppose the "regardless.." comment arises from my experience that people persist in confusing the two. On reflection, I probably could have worded it better.