[Phil]

 blackshoe, on 2016-January-20, 16:42, said:

Oakie went on an anti-psyching crusade. I don't know why he did it, and I don't much care. I think he did a disservice to the game.

Indeed. I've heard this diatribe before and there are players to this day that accept this as Gospel.

I never played against Oakie but I'm pretty sure he was west-coast based. Would have fun to psyche against him.

[vmsmith]

Psyching is best done against strong opposition. They are easy to mess with because they play a plethora of conventions which keep their hands tied.

If one studies the subject there are some really good books on the subject. They were self published but can be found but are very expensive.

[from_mars]

Good Players don't need to psych against bad players to win. Furthermore, psychs tend to harm the enjoyment of the game for lesser ranked players. Without lower ranking players there are no higher ranked players. So why push the lower ranked players out of the game by hurting their enjoyment of the game? Yes, psyching is legal and part of the game, but it is not the smart thing to do for the long term benefit of the game.

[hrothgar]

 from_mars, on 2016-January-21, 05:55, said:

Good Players don't need to psych against bad players to win. Furthermore, psychs tend to harm the enjoyment of the game for lesser ranked players. Without lower ranking players there are no higher ranked players. So why push the lower ranked players out of the game by hurting their enjoyment of the game? Yes, psyching is legal and part of the game, but it is not the smart thing to do for the long term benefit of the game.

If the special little snowflakes are so fragile that they can't cope with a psyche, then they aren't long for the game...
I think that its a lot better if players a taught from early that this is a legitimate and legal part of the game and nothing for them to get upset about.

Somehow poker players are able to deal with (and even admire) bluffing.
Psyches in bridge are no different and if players can't deal with it, the issue is with them rather than the one making a legal call.

[billw55]

 hrothgar, on 2016-January-21, 06:59, said:

If the special little snowflakes are so fragile that they can't cope with a psyche, then they aren't long for the game...
I think that its a lot better if players a taught from early that this is a legitimate and legal part of the game and nothing for them to get upset about.

I agree. But I also realize that these fragile snowflakes make up a significant portion of players, supporting NBOs with their dues, and supporting clubs with their card fees. I think that some accommodations in certain settings would be considerate. No, not in a national tournament. But I do want to remember that driving them out of the game ultimately hurts all of us.

[helene_t]

I learned psyches from the very start when I started learning bridge. And I have seen psyches being discussed and even sometimes recommended in the intermediate-level section of the Dutch BF magazine. So I would say that surely players who attend national events should be familiar with the concept.

[tfoerster]

Why would you want to? Why give weak opps a chance with a psych that may backfire, when you are much more likely to beat them on skill?

And, if you psych only against weak opps and your partner knows it, then your partner has unauthorized information. (Unless of course you tell your opps that you consider them weak and therefore will be psyching more than typical against them.)

[Zelandakh]

 tfoerster, on 2016-January-21, 11:06, said:

Why would you want to? Why give weak opps a chance with a psych that may backfire, when you are much more likely to beat them on skill?

And, if you psych only against weak opps and your partner knows it, then your partner has unauthorized information. (Unless of course you tell your opps that you consider them weak and therefore will be psyching more than typical against them.)

The OP at no point suggested that he only psyches against weak pairs, only that he considers them just as much fair game for the tactic as advanced players, at least within this context. Knowing how and when to psyche is itself a bridge skill and clearly one that the OP feels is not only beneficial to his game but also either increases the likelihood of beating those opps or increases the amount of the win. If you felt certain there was a legitimate and legal tactic you could use in a national competition that would improve your score, would you choose not to use it because someone else (me for example) told you they did not think it was a successful strategy?

[tfoerster]

 wank, on 2016-January-19, 04:48, said:

this was sort of an issue here. i opened a strong NT and passed stayman which is a pretty pathetic effort really. when the director came, the opp accused my partner of fielding the psyche. he being a good player, obviously pointed out that i had exposed it myself by passing stayman. this was beyond the opp who hadn't made any such connection.

Did you have a Stayman bid?

[jodepp]

I'm a bit surprised that nobody - so far - has spoken for the side that was psyched against.

The argument that 'it was a national event' does carry weight, a position I have taught learning players in an effort to prepare them for 'playing up'. However, given the state of our game I wonder how many people would say psyching here was forgivable if the other pair decided to give up the game as a result.

Playing this game as competitively as we do, I think it's hard to 'shift gears' and put ourselves in the shoes of much less experienced pairs. Many such pairs - not all, true - feel embarrassed when a psych works against them and they get frustrated. Rather than work to build their bridge skills, they take the view - understandably IMO - that they'd rather spend their leisure time doing something else than getting embarrassed by what they think - rightfully or not - are 'sharp practices'.

Many former students of mine confess to getting irked because of psyches, and a few have given up the game for this reason. So, before we all blindly support such actions, let's be sure to consider the health of the game at large before we say 'yea' or 'nay' here.

[hrothgar]

 jodepp, on 2016-January-21, 12:50, said:

Playing this game as competitively as we do, I think it's hard to 'shift gears' and put ourselves in the shoes of much less experienced pairs. Many such pairs - not all, true - feel embarrassed when a psych works against them and they get frustrated. Rather than work to build their bridge skills, they take the view - understandably IMO - that they'd rather spend their leisure time doing something else than getting embarrassed by what they think - rightfully or not - are 'sharp practices'.

Many former students of mine confess to getting irked because of psyches, and a few have given up the game for this reason. So, before we all blindly support such actions, let's be sure to consider the health of the game at large before we say 'yea' or 'nay' here.

"Everything needs to be done my way, regardless of the rules" is not a quality that I look for in my playmates...

Indeed, I thought that a large part of kindergarden involves teaching children that they shouldn't take their toys and go home...

[steve2005]

 kenrexford, on 2016-January-19, 20:00, said:

Actually, the very high risk against bad players is to get averages when the field gets tops. You almost have to leave some tables with 75% to stay par. A psychic turning an average plus to a top is a hedge against the wall of 4H making 10 tricks on the first board.

is imps

[plieber]

I once psyched against my girlfriend. I got a zero and she was insulted.

[jodepp]

 hrothgar, on 2016-January-21, 14:08, said:

"Everything needs to be done my way, regardless of the rules" is not a quality that I look for in my playmates...

Indeed, I thought that a large part of kindergarden involves teaching children that they shouldn't take they toys and go home...

I'm not sure that analogy applies. If we follow the 'kindergarten' thought concerning experience, it's more like kindergartners playing against high schoolers.

Speaking from purely competitive position, I agree that as far as national-level competition goes, 'all's fair.' I was attempting to get people to consider the 'psychees' position before passing judgment.

[quiddity]

Something that hasn't been mentioned (I don't think.. I just skimmed most of the other posts) is that there are some tricky legal issues which can come up when someone psyches - implicit partnership agreements, rules around fieldable methods, UI, full disclosure etc - and the weaker opponents are less likely to know the rules and less likely to call the director/recorder etc.

[hrothgar]

 quiddity, on 2016-January-21, 17:37, said:

Something that hasn't been mentioned (I don't think.. I just skimmed most of the other posts) is that there are some tricky legal issues which can come up when someone psyches - implicit partnership agreements, rules around fieldable methods, UI, full disclosure etc - and the weaker opponents are less likely to know the rules and less likely to call the director/recorder etc.

Sadly, when you play a game of skill, there are consequences for not being skilled

[jogs]

 mikestar13, on 2016-January-20, 17:20, said:

Read S.J. Simon's Why You lose at Bridge. the chapter "Fixed by Palookas" is on point for this discussion--psyching against weak players is self-defeating.

Some players like to equate psyching in bridge to bluffing in poker. There is a difference. In poker every other player at the table is your opponent. After you psych, your partner is now playing against 3 opponents. The game is tough enough against 2 opponents.

[quiddity]

 hrothgar, on 2016-January-21, 17:42, said:

Sadly, when you play a game of skill, there are consequences for not being skilled

We're talking about unethical behavior. This is not a skill that I'd want to reward, nor do I think being cheated is a reasonable consequence of inexperience.

Of course I don't think psyching is unethical in itself, just that by its nature (intentional deception) it involves particular potential for abuse. Since the entire field could be damaged, it's another reason perhaps to discourage psyching against opponents who are incapable of policing such abuse.

[TheKurgan]

 wank, on 2016-January-19, 03:19, said:

i psyched against a bad pair. obviously this was legal and the director told them so. later he unofficially suggested i behave myself and that psyching against clueless people was a bit low. i have heard this view expressed before.

it's not a view i share. this was a national event, albeit not a very high standard one (it was a swiss running alongside a BAM, so all the good teams were in the BAM assuming they had qualified for the final). the opps were the perennial beginner types - played for a very long time without ever progressing. but anyway, i consider psyching to be an important part of the game. yes, it's very out of fashion compared to the early days of bridge (1930s and whatnot), but I don't think bidding fashion should be a factor in deciding how i play the game.

comments?

please don't send this to the laws forum. there is no doubt my actions were legal. it's an issue of taste.

Personally, I have the following opinions:

1) Some players enjoy playing up so that the learn. I regularly play in A/X events because I enjoy the challenge. They belong in whichever event they choose to play.

2) Legal or not, if you have to psych to get good results against a weaker pair, then maybe you're not as strong as you think you are, no matter how many points or trophies you have.

3) If you live by the sword, you're going to die by the sword too. Case in point. Some schmuck decided once to psych a 1H opening bid, vul vs. not, against me. Holding eight hearts to the AQJ and a total of 21 HCP, I passed. Partner, holding nine points, reopened. I, of course, passed. Schmucko had a heart void. To his credit, he took his assigned phone number like a man.

Psyching is part of the game; I agree. On average, I MIGHT throw one every 18 months, on a lark. As you know, though, Law 40 states that you can't psych if it's part of a partnership understanding. As frequently as you psych, you might run into problems with this.

[1eyedjack]

Novices only get upset about psychs because they are taught that that is the appropriate reaction. If they get so upset that they leave the game (I personally would expect that to be rare) then unfortunate though the result, it speaks more to the severity of their indoctrination rather than to the behaviour of the psycher.

It is an education thing, and the way forward is not to ban psychs from low level events (or censure those who do it) but if anything to wipe away those restrictions and educate the players properly.