[hanp]

Last summer there was a weakish hand in the world mind games where both rogerclee and jlall decided to open 1NT in third seat. I don't remember the exact hand, I believe it had 6 diamonds and they were white against red. Apparently they thought it was a good idea at the time.

For top players most opponents suck and most bridge games are minor. It is a shame that there are only few opportunities for them where it is ethical for them to make these kinds of bids, especially if they think that these are good bids.

I have never psyched in a US or Canadian bridge club, but I do believe that here are many players who would be offended if you psyched against them. Very unfortunate.

[kfay]

hanp, on Jun 9 2009, 11:54 AM, said:

Last summer there was a weakish hand in the world mind games where both rogerclee and jlall decided to open 1NT in third seat. I don't remember the exact hand, I believe it had 6 diamonds and they were white against red. Apparently they thought it was a good idea at the time.

It was a good idea in the post mortem as well.

[1eyedjack]

Benoit35, on Jun 9 2009, 03:02 PM, said:

We have a no-psych club here.  A couple of stories that will echo some of the comments and illustrate whom the no-psych rule is meant to protect.

Here are two players at our club.  Player A is very experienced and consistently places near the top.   Player B is equally consistent, scoring between 25% and 30% every time.

Situation 1: After I open a 12-14 1NT on both boards, my LHO tells us that we should pre-alert about our weak notrump.  Player A or Player B?

Situation 2: After 1♠ - 2♣ (Drury) - 3♣ - 4♠ and before the lead is made, my partner explains the "help suit game try" concept.  I make the contract and open the score sheet: nobody else bid game!  A thunderous top.  Opponents ask to see my hand.  I show them my three club losers opposite dummy's singleton, and how the shape benefit allowed us to make game with a combined 23 HCP.  "We should try it sometimes," says LHO to RHO.  Player A or Player B?

Situation 3: I overhear some complaining at the table behind me.  I had played the same board the prevous round.  The player in my seat had opened 1♣, and partner had reponded 1♦ with 3 HCP and ♦KT9865 or the like, helping opponents miss the fact that they had 25 HCP between them.  "I should call the Director about this", "Psych aren't allowed here", "You should alert about very weak responses" and such.  Turns out my partner and I had just gone through the very same auction.  Player A or Player B?

I think you know the answers.  If psyching were allowed, I think you also know against whom I would find it unethical to psych, and against whom I would consider it my God-given duty.

I am sorry but this went right over my head. I read the three examples and I have no clue what they have to do with psychs. In situation 1, whether the 1NT should be prealerted, alerted or announced is a question of law as delegated to the sponsoring organisation which has jurisdiction over the event, but whatever it is not a psych. Situation 2 again there appears to be no departure from partnership agreement, and you got a top through accurate bidding that was not replicated elsewhere. Situation 3 comes closest but falls short, but even if it were a psych I am not sure what point it illustrates.

At the outset you say that these examples "illustrate whom the no-psych rule is meant to protect", but I'm afraid I am none the wiser.

[Phil]

hanp, on Jun 9 2009, 11:54 AM, said:

I have never psyched in a US or Canadian bridge club, but I do believe that here are many players who would be offended if you psyched against them. Very unfortunate.

I played a LOT of ftf bridge over the past eight months. I made a some tactical bids, but I never made an out and out psyche.

Come to think of it, I can count on one hand when I've made a true psyche face to face. This is over about a 30 year period.

[Benoit35]

Sorry if I wasn't clear enough, 1eyedjack. I wanted to paint a picture of the kind of player who would take offense from a psych, using non-psych examples (the only ones I have at my disposal, since psychs aren't allowed where I play).

[awm]

Phil, on Jun 9 2009, 12:18 PM, said:

hanp, on Jun 9 2009, 11:54 AM, said:

I have never psyched in a US or Canadian bridge club, but I do believe that here are many players who would be offended if you psyched against them. Very unfortunate.

I played a LOT of ftf bridge over the past eight months. I made a some tactical bids, but I never made an out and out psyche.

Come to think of it, I can count on one hand when I've made a true psyche face to face. This is over about a 30 year period.

The line between "psych" and "tactical bid" is very fuzzy. Perhaps some of what you call tactical bids, other people would call psychs. To give some examples:

(1) After two passes, I open in third seat on a very bad hand (but in a suit where I have some length). Tactical bid, psych, or neither? Does it depend on just how bad the hand is?

(2) I open 1NT (15-17) on a 2326 hand with 12 hcp. Tactical bid, psych, or neither?

(3) I respond to partner's weak two bid in a new suit (forcing one round) on a very bad hand with length in both the suit I bid and partner's suit. Tactical bid, psych or neither? What if I respond in a suit where I don't have length?

(4) Partner opens a weak two and I bid Ogust on a four-count with a fit. Tactical bid, psych, or neither?

(5) Partner opens a weak 1NT and I blast to 3NT despite holding a six-card major. Tactical bid, psych, or neither? What if I also don't have "enough points" for my 3NT bid? What if I'm not even close?

(6) Partner opens 1M and I respond 1NT on a very bad hand with three-card support. Tactical bid, psych, or neither? Does it matter if we play 1NT forcing or not?

(7) I open 4♥ preemptive in first chair on a hand with six good hearts and 16 hcp. When opponents balance, I double them off. Was my opening a tactical bid, psych, or neither?

(8) Partner opens 1♠ and I have a balanced eight-count with six-card support. I bid 2NT jacoby. Tactical bid, psych, or neither?

(9) I open 1NT on a 1444 hand because I don't like my rebid options. Tactical bid, psych, or neither? Does it matter the range of my notrump?

(10) Partner opens 1♦ and I bid 1NT on a 9-count with five-card diamond support and a major suit singleton. Tactical bid, psych, or neither? Does it depend on my minor suit raise structure?

In any case, I think it's possible to categorize any of these as a psych or a tactical bid. If you categorize every single deviation as a psych then I'm probably up to a psych per session!

[jdonn]

awm, on Jun 9 2009, 01:07 PM, said:

(3) I respond to partner's weak two bid in a new suit (forcing one round) on a very bad hand with length in both the suit I bid and partner's suit. Tactical bid, psych or neither? What if I respond in a suit where I don't have length?

(10) Partner opens 1♦ and I bid 1NT on a 9-count with five-card diamond support and a major suit singleton. Tactical bid, psych, or neither? Does it depend on my minor suit raise structure?

3. Something tells me that responding with a forcing bid in a short suit on a very bad hand, it's a psych!

10. Why would anyone do that in any case? I classify that as a bad bid.

[EricK]

It's one of those irregular verbs: We make tactical bids; you psyche; they have an undisclosed partnership agreement.

[NickRW]

My experience is that it is often not the poor or inexperienced players that worry about unusual tactics from opponents. Rather it is the average to good players who don't like being hustled in an environment where they assume they can do well - and if they can call what you did in some way a psyche or otherwise unethical (even if it wasn't) then they will object.

That such players are often club regulars or committee members and it is bad for business - well - if you play in Rome you must play as the Romans do or otherwise live with the consequences.

But anyway, lets stop worrying about genuine beginners or the poorer player - it isn't them who need or want protecting in my experience. In fact it could be said that it is quite the reverse.

I play something other than usual Stayman and transfers over 1NT - one lady who is really quite a poor player politely asked if I would give her a write up of our 1NT responses. In other words, despite being not very good, she wanted to learn. Contrast that with the puttering and down right grilling to the point of being rude or harrassment partner can get over what the responses mean from some of the better ones. They don't harrass me because I can give as good as I get and am one of the club TDs - but my teenage children have been on the receiving end. It has sometimes been difficult to know when to call the TD to get the harrassment to stop or when one should just quietly put up with it. Fortunately most of them have learnt our responses the hard way after some months!

Nick

[mycroft]

It isn't the beginners. It never is.

It isn't the real experts, either. It never is.

There's two groups in the middle, though. First are the two-to-three-year players, who see someone lie for the first time, and grumble. Then everybody who's had a psychic call work against them grumbles. Fix: Tell them early that it's part of the game. Continue to remind them. That way when it does happen, they know. If you don't, by the time they get to this level, it's too late. Please note: the more people say "you can't psych against novices", the higher the level this is before someone springs it on them (because they think they're good enough now).

Second are the hidebound average+ people - the "player A"s of Benoit's world. But for them, a psychic call is another "weirdie" that they aren't as confident they play better than you do with. The same gripes about psychics are made about Precision, 10-12 (or 12-14) NT, and just possibly one or two things that start with M (including, of course "they only play it because it's unfamiliar" Note, "it's unfamiliar, so" is a valid argument (I don't like it, but it's valid). But it's not *only*). It's still legal, and they know it, but if they make life uncomfortable enough for the opponents, they'll go away.

As to the original question, the answer, probably, is "whenever I feel comfortable playing EHAA".

[the hog]

jillybean2, on Jun 9 2009, 02:06 PM, said:

Phil, on Jun 8 2009, 10:31 PM, said:

jillybean2, on Jun 8 2009, 12:50 AM, said:

Phil, on Jun 7 2009, 10:01 PM, said:

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

experts psyching 'and such' , what else would you ban in order to protect beginners who chose to play in open games?

I'd give them a lot of latitude in tempo situations. Other than that, they need to follow the rules I think.

I was thinking more along the lines of restricting methods advanced+ players could use against beginners. Gambling 3nt, weak openings, false carding and such like are also difficult for a beginner to cope with and could leave them feeling duped.

But these simplified games are available now in new comer/SAYC/novice games. As Elianna points out, this leaves those who have been playing faithfully for 20+ years as the ones demanding protection.

I understand club managers wanting to keep these players but I think they should lobby the WBF to change law40 rather than banning or penalizing those who psyche.



One last question, where do the 57 or so people who voted “Usually okay” play bridge?

I don't think you can restrict false carding Jilly. If this were made a rule, I would play absolutely no signals whatsoever against a beginner. I think they would get more annoyed when the answer to a question about carding is "We play no signals. That card has no significance whatsoever."
Also I disagree with your comments about gambling 3NT. That is not hard to play against at all and is a suggestion of a reasonable contract.

[the hog]

jdonn, on Jun 9 2009, 09:54 PM, said:

It sounds to me that by "bridge ethics" you mean "rules of bridge" and by "general ethics" you mean "bridge ethics". There are other examples like cherdanno's too.

For example many in baseball consider it unethical to bunt in a late inning against a no-hitter in progress.

In mixed martial arts players often touch gloves in the center after the fight starts, or often choose not to as well and either is ok. But it is horribly unethical, and I have seen it once, for a player to walk out with arm extended as though he is touching his opponent's glove purely for a decoy, then when his opponent sticks out his arm attack him.

I don't know what it would even mean to call situations like this 'general ethics'. They are not illegal within the rules of the game, but the possibilities don't exist at all outside the game, so in what way are they "general"?

I think a better term is sportsmanship rather than ethics.

[jdonn]

The_Hog, on Jun 9 2009, 07:33 PM, said:

jdonn, on Jun 9 2009, 09:54 PM, said:

It sounds to me that by "bridge ethics" you mean "rules of bridge" and by "general ethics" you mean "bridge ethics". There are other examples like cherdanno's too.

For example many in baseball consider it unethical to bunt in a late inning against a no-hitter in progress.

In mixed martial arts players often touch gloves in the center after the fight starts, or often choose not to as well and either is ok. But it is horribly unethical, and I have seen it once, for a player to walk out with arm extended as though he is touching his opponent's glove purely for a decoy, then when his opponent sticks out his arm attack him.

I don't know what it would even mean to call situations like this 'general ethics'. They are not illegal within the rules of the game, but the possibilities don't exist at all outside the game, so in what way are they "general"?

I think a better term is sportsmanship rather than ethics.

I disagree. Arguing with a referee is poor sportsmanship but not unethical. Not shaking hands with your opponent after the game is perhaps poor sportsmanship but not unethical in any way (my second example points out the difference well regarding that point). They are not the same thing, my examples were about ethics.

[Phil]

[quote name='awm' date='Jun 9 2009, 01:07 PM'] In any case, I think it's possible to categorize any of these as a psych or a tactical bid. If you categorize every single deviation as a psych then I'm probably up to a psych per session! [/quote]
My opinion here. I could be wrong:
[quote]
The line between "psych" and "tactical bid" is very fuzzy. [/quote]

Totally agree. The definition of a psyche is a little fuzzy itself, so this isn't surprising.

[quote] (1) After two passes, I open in third seat on a very bad hand (but in a suit where I have some length). Tactical bid, psych, or neither? Does it depend on just how bad the hand is?[/quote]

I would say it depends on how bad the hand is. I would not open [he]AJTx and out. But add a King and I would, which fits within the acbl guidelines I think.

[quote]
(2) I open 1NT (15-17) on a 2326 hand with 12 hcp. Tactical bid, psych, or neither? [/quote]

Not tactical and probably a psyche. Kx, xxx, AQTxxx, Kx I would never open 1N, but I would consider it 3rd chair green with full knowledge I am psyching. This is sort of a semi-bluff.
[quote]

(3) I respond to partner's weak two bid in a new suit (forcing one round) on a very bad hand with length in both the suit I bid and partner's suit. Tactical bid, psych or neither? What if I respond in a suit where I don't have length?[/quote]

Tactical for me. If I don't have length, that's a psyche. To me, "forcing" is different than "promising strength".

[quote](4) Partner opens a weak two and I bid Ogust on a four-count with a fit. Tactical bid, psych, or neither?[/quote]

Thsi is similar to "3A". Call this a baby psyche if you want. I'll let others decide if abuses of this call become conventional.

[quote]
(5) Partner opens a weak 1NT and I blast to 3NT despite holding a six-card major. Tactical bid, psych, or neither? What if I also don't have "enough points" for my 3NT bid? What if I'm not even close?[/quote]

Tactical I guess, but this seems like bad tactics to me.

[quote]
(6) Partner opens 1M and I respond 1NT on a very bad hand with three-card support. Tactical bid, psych, or neither? Does it matter if we play 1NT forcing or not?[/quote]

Depends how weak I guess. With 5-7 this is normal bridge against anyone with any seasoning. Slightly weaker and its tactical. A yarb: xxx xx xxxx xxxx - probably a psyche.

[quote]
(7) I open 4[he] preemptive in first chair on a hand with six good hearts and 16 hcp. When opponents balance, I double them off. Was my opening a tactical bid, psych, or neither?[/quote]

100% tactical. This may miss a slam when pard passes the right 12 count.
[quote]

(8) Partner opens 1[sp] and I have a balanced eight-count with six-card support. I bid 2NT jacoby. Tactical bid, psych, or neither?[/quote]

This feel like a cousin of 3. I suppose if I were forcing to game with this 8 count, it isn't too far off.

[quote]
(9) I open 1NT on a 1444 hand because I don't like my rebid options. Tactical bid, psych, or neither? Does it matter the range of my notrump?[/quote]

Neither. You are making a bridge judgment based on your hand.


[quote](10) Partner opens 1[di] and I bid 1NT on a 9-count with five-card diamond support and a major suit singleton. Tactical bid, psych, or neither? Does it depend on my minor suit raise structure?[/quote]

Probably depends on your minor suit raise options.

By the way, it seems to me that you are trying to label these instances by determining a player's intent. For instance in some cases we are strictly trying to screw with our opponents with little risk to partner. In some other cases we are making a gross mischaracterization of our expected strength or length in a suit or overall shape.

[blackshoe]

jdonn, on Jun 9 2009, 09:54 AM, said:

It sounds to me that by "bridge ethics" you mean "rules of bridge" and by "general ethics" you mean "bridge ethics".

No. By "general ethics" I mean "ethics in general". Perhaps "personal ethics". Those principals which guide everyday life. That, I think, is where the sense of fair play, or sportsmanship, comes from. By bridge ethics I suppose I mean something related to, but not quite the same thing, as the rules of the game. For example, it is legal to psych. So in the "bridge ethics" sense (as I'm using the term) it would be wrong to say that someone who psyched is unethical. In the general sense, the question of "against whom?" may be germane.

In practice, where the word "ethical" is concerned, I suppose what matters is not what you do, but what you are perceived to have done. A person may act scrupulously within the letter of the laws at all times, but if he gains a reputation for being "unethical" he's in the ***** anyway, even if there's no basis for it save (mis?)perception. A sad commentary on human nature, I suppose.

My teacher told me, as I said, that "the ethics of the game are defined by its rules". I suppose the flaw in this is that, willy-nilly, people will apply their personal ethics to what others do, whatever anyone else says.

The word "ethical" appears in the laws once:

Law 72A said:

Duplicate bridge tournaments should be played in strict accordance with the Laws. The chief object is to obtain a higher score than other contestants whilst complying with the lawful procedures and ethical standards set out in these Laws.

Note that it doesn't say anything about what I've called "general ethics" or "ethics in general" as above. Again, I don't suppose what this law says will stop anyone from applying their personal opinions of what is and is not ethical to what people do in the game.

NB: for the record, I haven't psyched since about 1972, and if I were to start doing it again, I wouldn't do it against novices. But the law making psychs legal makes no distinction according to the level of skill of the opponents. It is a blanket provision. So there can be no legitimate suggestion that one who psychs has violated the ethical standards of the game.

I think that any time you're going to talk about someone's "unethical" behavior you need to be damn sure of two things: first, that you distinguish between "unethical" in the sense of what Law 72A describes as "the ethical standards set out in these laws" and "unethical" in some broader, general, or perhaps personal sense, and second, since most people will perceive an accusation of being unethical as tantamount to an accusation of cheating, you better be damn sure you're right.

[Echognome]

I guess I never really think in terms of "tactical bids" vs. "psychs". Psychs are defined (albeit fuzzy) in the laws, "tactical bids" are not. So to me, the question is simply what is a psych and what is not. A psych is a gross deviation from your agreement. If you agree to bid aggressively in certain positions and vulnerabilities, then bidding aggressively under those circumstances is simply following your agreement. What you have to be careful of is to not play illegal agreements and to not have concealed partnership understandings.

I believe this makes many of Adam's questions moot (no offense as he brings up several good examples where people that are supposedly playing natural methods are really not). We can't really answer any of them unless we assume the methods in use.

Let's take two similar examples of his:

2♠ - 2NT on a weak hand with 4-spades. If you alert and explain as "asking bid, can be made on a strong hand or a weak hand with support," then I can't imagine anyone having a problem with that.

1♠ - 2NT on a weak hand with support. If you are playing this as "Jacoby" then you are already explaining an agreement by name, which is frowned upon and you are likely psyching. If you explained it as "asking bid, can be either a game forcing hand with support or a weaker distributional hand with extra length in support," then again, I can't see the problem with it.

[peachy]

The definition of a psychic bid as given in the laws, is not that fuzzy IMO. I think it would help in discussing psychs to remember what it is:

"A gross and deliberate deviation from partnership agreement as to suit length or general strength"

The definition does not have anything to do with the reason why a player makes the GROSS and DELIBERATE deviation from PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT. Also, the deviation must be from partnership agreement, not a deviation from standard or what "you", "I", or "somebody else" considers standard. For example, using Ogust with a weak hand with support is not a psych if the partnership has agreed to use it that way.

[blackshoe]

jdonn, on Jun 9 2009, 08:37 PM, said:

Arguing with a referee is poor sportsmanship but not unethical.

It is in bridge. The Scope of the laws says

Quote

Players should be ready to accept gracefully any rectification or adjusted score awarded by the director.

If that doesn't set out an ethical standard (see Law 72A) I don't know what does.

[barmar]

peachy, on Jun 10 2009, 12:25 AM, said:

The definition of a psychic bid as given in the laws, is not that fuzzy IMO. I think it would help in discussing psychs to remember what it is:

"A gross and deliberate deviation from partnership agreement as to suit length or general strength"

The word "gross" is pretty fuzzy. How many points do you have to deviate from your agreed strength for it to be a gross deviation? 1-2 is generally agreed to be not enough, while most would probably consider 5 or 6 to be gross. But 3-4 is in the fuzzy category. And that's just when you count Work points, it becomes more tricky when you have to account for individual hand evaluation. One player might look at a hand and think it's 11 HCP, while another might decide that it's worth 13 HCP because of the 5-card suit and good spot cards; if the former opens it as a 15-17 1NT he would probably be considered to be psyching, but the latter would only be deviating by 2 points.

[jdonn]

blackshoe, on Jun 9 2009, 11:45 PM, said:

jdonn, on Jun 9 2009, 08:37 PM, said:

Arguing with a referee is poor sportsmanship but not unethical.

It is in bridge. The Scope of the laws says

Quote

Players should be ready to accept gracefully any rectification or adjusted score awarded by the director.

If that doesn't set out an ethical standard (see Law 72A) I don't know what does.

It doesn't. But this discussion is clearly a road to nowhere.