[LghtnngRod]

Psychs are defined in the laws. Can someone explain to me why?
Perhaps I should clarify.
In real life there seems to be a distinction drawn between "psychs" and "mere deviations". However generally the consequences seem (to me) to be the same regardless.

To recap, to be a psych it must be
1) Deliberate
2) A deviation from the system, whether of strength or distribution
3) A deviation so extreme as to be considered "gross"

A "mere deviation" seems to be one which satisfies the first two criteria but not the third.

But I remain confused about circumstances where the distinction might be relevant to the players. And if there are no circumstances why enshrine the third condition in the laws?

Thanks

[gnasher]

LghtnngRod, on 2014-June-14, 03:57, said:

Psychs are defined in the laws. Can someone explain to me why?

Law 40 says "The Regulating Authority may restrict the use of psychic artificial calls". It seems very sensible for the lawmakers to define what they mean by that, rather than leaving us to guess.

[LghtnngRod]

Thanks. Yes sensible. What I was looking for.

[Bbradley62]

gnasher, on 2014-June-14, 04:06, said:

Law 40 says "The Regulating Authority may restrict the use of psychic artificial calls".

Some club games might even prohibit psyches; they'd still allow "deviations".

[blackshoe]

Bbradley62, on 2014-June-14, 06:40, said:

Some club games might even prohibit psyches; they'd still allow "deviations".

Prohibiting psychs of artificial calls is legal - see the quote from law 40 upthread.

Prohibiting psychs of natural calls is not legal. Clubs do it anyway.

[ggwhiz]

LghtnngRod, on 2014-June-14, 03:57, said:

why enshrine the third condition in the laws?

Just an opinion but it reads to me that satisfying the first 2 conditions define a deviation and it is the satisfaction of #3 that turns it into a psyche. Clumsy wording? ie. It can't be a psyche unless it's a deviation first and then it has to be gross as spelled out to the nth degree by Mr. Obvious.

[LghtnngRod]

Yes, regardless of the legality of banning them, it does create additional headaches. As soon as you decide to ban them you open up the question of where is the borderline between a "gross" psyche (banned) and a "borderline" treatment (allowed).

A week or so ago I was playing in a BBO Acol Club tourney (psyches banned, except, interestingly, in team games I believe) and the TD sent a polemic to the club in mid tourney to the effect that 5 card suit weak 2s would be adjusted (presumably prompted by one such a few moments before).

Ironically, today that same TD of a week earlier was playing as a contestant in today's Acol Club tourney, under same conditions, and that individual's partner opened 1N (12-14) with
♠Q
♥7432
♦QJ
♣AKQT54
for an excellent result against us.
Now, fair credit, I do not complain because of the result. Well done, I say.
Would I have made the same bid in the same situation? Hard to say with hindsight. I like to think that I would at least consider it. But having considered it I would probably have rejected it (in a no psyche contest) as being a psyche and thereby outlawed under the conditions of contest. Is it a psyche? Well that might be open to interpretation. The definition refers to values OR shape. There is no issue with the values. But shape? No-one can hope to cater far all situations, but if a 5 card weak 2 falls the wrong side of the tracks, where is the consistency if this 1N is OK?

And that exemplifies the problem. A level playing field is the most important objective. That trumps all other concerns. I could live with a ban on psyches as long as it is the same for all. But it never can be.

Anyway, I have stored this up for future use in defence when some of my actions get questioned in future tourneys.

[barmar]

Why bother? Because players recognize the qualitative difference between psyching and deviating. When someone psychs against them, it feels like they're not playing the same game as you. That Law is in there to state, explicitly, that it IS part of the game.

Why do they feel that? Consider how bridge is taught -- they're told that a bidding system is a language, and everything has a meaning, and they expect to be able to understand it. They're told to listen to the opponents' auction, and re-evaluate their hand and the likely hands partner can hold (e.g. downgrade honors in the opponent's suit). If you can't trust the opponents' bids (or worse, partner's), all that goes out the window. If they wanted to play a bluffing game, they'd play poker, not bridge.

The difference, of course, is that psychs in bridge are expected to be rare; you can't make similar psychs with the same partner too often, because they'll become implicit understandings that must be disclosed. But that rarity contributes to the feeling that they're not really part of the game.

[Bad_Wolf]

LghtnngRod, on 2014-June-14, 08:52, said:

the TD sent a polemic to the club in mid tourney to the effect that 5 card suit weak 2s would be adjusted

What a tosser. It would be better for all concerned if we weeded out morons like this during the bridge learning process...

[nige1]

LghtnngRod, on 2014-June-14, 08:52, said:

Yes, regardless of the legality of banning them, it does create additional headaches. As soon as you decide to ban them you open up the question of where is the borderline between a "gross" psyche (banned) and a "borderline" treatment (allowed).

A week or so ago I was playing in a BBO Acol Club tourney (psyches banned, except, interestingly, in team games I believe) and the TD sent a polemic to the club in mid tourney to the effect that 5 card suit weak 2s would be adjusted (presumably prompted by one such a few moments before).

Ironically, today that same TD of a week earlier was playing as a contestant in today's Acol Club tourney, under same conditions, and that individual's partner opened 1N (12-14) with ♠Q ♥7432 ♦QJ ♣AKQT54 for an excellent result against us.[SNIP]


And that exemplifies the problem. A level playing field is the most important objective. That trumps all other concerns. I could live with a ban on psyches as long as it is the same for all. But it never can be.[SNIP]

I agree with lightnngrod that distinguishing (ill-defined) deviations from psychs encourages players to bend the rules and results in inconsistent rulings.

[jandrew]

I suppose that I could enter the discussion here about psyches being "gross" "deviations" and throw in a curly or two about un-disclosed partnership agreements or 'known habits' - all of which can bounce around to little effect for days, if not months.

Whatever the rules of the tournament, psyches and deviations are going to be contentious matters determined by reasonably held opinions of the TD with a significant likelihood of inconsistencies between TDs. (Why else would we have ACs?)

Quote

What a tosser. It would be better for all concerned if we weeded out morons like this during the bridge learning process...

Such a comment, however, has no place on any reasonably managed Forum. It is based on a quotation which is taken out of context and very clearly (to people like me who saw the whole comment) was referring to suits which were too short in hands which were too strong to be bid as a "weak 2" being a "deviation" which amounted to a psyche.

You don't need to agree or disagree with that opinion to know that the above quoted language should have been weeded out many hours ago.

[blackshoe]

jandrew, on 2014-June-15, 14:38, said:

Such a comment, however, has no place on any reasonably managed Forum. It is based on a quotation which is taken out of context and very clearly (to people like me who saw the whole comment) was referring to suits which were too short in hands which were too strong to be bid as a "weak 2" being a "deviation" which amounted to a psyche.

You don't need to agree or disagree with that opinion to know that the above quoted language should have been weeded out many hours ago.

If I thought that comment was that far out of line, I'd have deleted it already. Aside from that, how is your comment any better?

[Cascade]

jandrew, on 2014-June-15, 14:38, said:

Such a comment, however, has no place on any reasonably managed Forum. It is based on a quotation which is taken out of context and very clearly (to people like me who saw the whole comment) was referring to suits which were too short in hands which were too strong to be bid as a "weak 2" being a "deviation" which amounted to a psyche.

Bridge is a game played by rules. Directors do not have the power to make rules contrary to the laws on the fly let alone half way through a tournament.

I directed a tournament today and a player bid a 1♠ overcall on a three-card suit and got lucky keeping the opponents out of their 5-4 fit. The opponent complained to me at length that I should adjust the score. This player who I did not know claimed he was an experienced director himself and that the adjustment should be automatic. There was no hint of a partnership understanding, they were not a regular partnership. The attitude that an adjustment is due when a player is undone by a legitimate psyche can only come from attitudes such as that you quoted. I agree with the vehemently with the quote that those attitudes need to be weeded out at the earliest possible stage. Its simply bad for the game if experienced directors promulgate such erroreous regulations.

[barmar]

Cascade, on 2014-June-16, 00:10, said:

Its simply bad for the game if experienced directors promulgate such erroreous regulations.

It's not the director making these regulations, it's the tourney organizer, usually because that's what the club membership wants. If they don't want to play by all the Laws of Duplicate Bridge, why should they be forced to? If you don't like that club's rules, don't play in their tourneys.

[Trinidad]

barmar, on 2014-June-16, 00:17, said:

It's not the director making these regulations, it's the tourney organizer, usually because that's what the club membership wants. If they don't want to play by all the Laws of Duplicate Bridge, why should they be forced to? If you don't like that club's rules, don't play in their tourneys.

That's all fine. But then they should not call it "bridge".

We can define the Laws of PFidge (Psyche Free bridge) basically by copying the Laws of Duplicate Bridge and modify Law 40 to bar psychs and misbids. And then we could have both BRidge (By the Rules bridge) and PFidge tournaments.

Rik

[StevenG]

RAs are allowed to regulate much of what is played. There is, presumably, a purpose to this, in that by restricting what may be played, the powers that be think it makes the game fairer and therefore more enjoyable to the membership.

Allowing psychs is completely against the spirit of this. I assume they are allowed for historical reasons only, also that it is mainly the players at the top of the game who have the most influence who are most vociferous about the retention of psyching.

Virtually all the bridge I see is psych-free. People hate them. I have never seen an intermediate club player complain that the opponents were playing a complicated system they couldn't defend against. I have frequently seen extreme anger about opponents psyching. Of course the bridge I see is full of misbids and misunderstandings, due only to lack of understanding and ability - yet the top players (the pro-psychs) often see red when when they are the victim of a weak player's inaccuracy.

If a vote was held across all bridge players (at all levels), I would imagine that there would be a huge majority in favour of abolishing legal psyching.

I appreciate that the Laws are worded in such a way that make psychs illegal is outside an RA's powers. Yet to me it seems perverse that, in the EBU, were I to play Precision, I could not upgrade an excellent 15-count and open 1♣, whereas I can open 1♠ on nothing and call it a psych.

[hotShot]

I always wonder why the ACBL is banning psyches, since psyches are common practice in poker.

[nige1]

Blatant psychs often misfire, damaging the psycher's own side but so-called "tactical-bids" are virtually risk-free. e.g. psychic cue-bids, exclusion-bids, and trial bids to deter or encourage leads. These vary in pattern and frequency, depending on the player's "style". Partnerships seem to adjust to each other's "style" in such matters but nobody seems to disclose these CPUs.

[jandrew]

blackshoe, on 2014-June-15, 20:01, said:

If I thought that comment was that far out of line, I'd have deleted it already. Aside from that, how is your comment any better?

I certainly think that my comment is better.

I do not have a problem if you disagree with my opinion; nor, I suspect, are you upset if I disagree with your opinion.
Both of us have made our point with acceptable language.

What I object to, as a reader of this forum, is a comment which has no discernible opinion beyond a claim about an unknown person which alludes to their sexual activities and supposed absence of intellectual powers.

It seems to me that such a comment is not intended to further the discussion but to simply be a vehicle for gratuitous insult.

That is why I continue to think that - Such a comment has no place on any reasonably managed Forum

[Cyberyeti]

jandrew, on 2014-June-16, 03:25, said:

What I object to, as a reader of this forum, is a comment which has no discernible opinion beyond a claim about an unknown person which alludes to their sexual activities and supposed absence of intellectual powers.

It seems to me that such a comment is not intended to further the discussion but to simply be a vehicle for gratuitous insult.

That is why I continue to think that - Such a comment has no place on any reasonably managed Forum

While the word used may well have started out as a sexual reference, it's lost that in the UK and means something along the lines of an irritating idiot. It's less strong than the W equivalent. I'm surprised to see you say that given your location.

To give you the idea that this is not really rude here http://www.beeradvoc...ile/8515/14997/ , I recall somebody wearing a T-shirt emblazoned with this and the brewery logo at a bridge event, which chatting to him was actually due to the fact that he played petanque for which it was even more appropriate.