[mikl_plkcc]

N/S vul, East dealer, I sat at South holding 17 HCP, 0=4=4=5 and opened 1♣. LHO overcalled 1NT and RHO raised to 3NT, without any alerts.

I thought for a very long time because the math didn't add up, and I had no idea what happened because it was impossible for them to hold 25 HCP. I started to think what sort of hands it would be possible to get this auction, assuming that partner held 0. I finally passed thinking that RHO would have long running spades and some sort of entries that would make 3NT playable, and our system had no provision for 3-suited hands.

Then my partner doubled. I passed it and LHO escaped to 4♠, and my partner doubled again (he held 9 points). It was then obvious from the play that LHO psyched. Of course the director was called, by them because of my hesitation and by me because there was a psyche.

The director recorded the facts and would make a judgement later.

It was the 8th board in the 9x3-board session for the night and I had already overwhelmed by my previous misunderstandings with a new partner and my misdefence on the earlier boards, and on the remaining board of the round, there was a competitive auction where my partner preempted 3♠ over their 1♥, then competed to 4♥ by RHO, 4♠ by me, 5♥ and I bid 5♠ and got doubled, and the contract made.

After that board I literally broke down and cried at the table, and had to go to the bar to recover, and I continued to make further mistakes in defence later rounds, including twice the same mistake (not returning partner's void for a second ruff, trying to cash winners in a second suit but got ruffed by declarer instead - my first defence mistake before the psyche happened was that I forgot to count the distribution from the bidding and didn't overtake partner's opening lead Q with my A while the auction had already told me that the declarer, holding the K, had a singleton)

I am still a relatively new player for a few months after years of break, and just starting back in a club environment, and even normal competitive auctions with multiple suits shown, and partner making unexpected bids, can lead me to think a while how the four hands will look like.

I am not playing anywhere near Bermuda Bowl, not even a county tournament, just expecting having some enjoyable games to build up my experience before going into tournaments. However, I felt that such action I encountered tonight was something close to deliberately taking advantage of inexperienced players by inducing UI. Although I knew that psyche was totally part of the game, I didn't expect that they would be used to induce UI by the opponents. If I held a 12-count instead of a 17-count I would have passed in tempo as the math would add up and there would unlikely be any UI issues.

Any thoughts?

[smerriman]

What was the director's ruling? If your partner had values opposite an opening bid, then the fact you hesitated (which is perfectly understandable and not against any rules) doesn't mean in any way that they're forced to pass 3NT.

[mikl_plkcc]

The director hadn't make a ruling yet by the time we finished and left.

[hrothgar]

mikl_plkcc, on 2025-March-21, 18:15, said:

After that board I literally broke down and cried at the table

Any thoughts?

You're an adult
This is a game

Grow up and learn to comport yourself better.

The opposing pair did nothing unethical
They didn't not break the rules

They used a valid tactic
It gave them a good board.

Move on

Please note: If players figure out that you're going to completely self destruct if they make a psych and it goes poorly for you then you really want to keep far far away from long team matches

[mikl_plkcc]

hrothgar, on 2025-March-22, 04:03, said:

You're an adult
This is a game

Grow up and learn to comport yourself better.

The opposing pair did nothing unethical
They didn't not break the rules

They used a valid tactic
It gave them a good board.

Move on

Please note: If players figure out that you're going to completely self destruct if they make a psych and it goes poorly for you then you really want to keep far far away from long team matches

I was totally intimidated by the behaviour that someone made an illogical bid (regardless if it was a misbid or a psyche), then took advantage of my hesitation from the illogical auction (an act of bullying).

I was a player new to the club for just two months and playing in a first-time partnership (as my regular partner was sick) and I didn't expect someone would use such an expert tactic (psyching) against an inexperienced partnership in a club environment.

Of course I am not good enough to do long team matches and I have never done one in my whole life. I did tournaments many years ago in another country but it was in pairs. A psyche is an expert-level tactic well beyond my ability (it is already hard enough for me to decide how to bid when in a normal competitive auction) and I am still at a stage where I will be unhappy when my partner opens 2NT with a singleton honour, or with 2 doubletons.

The club I am playing in is the only EBU-affiliated club in London which runs weekly IMP pairs games, and later I found out that the player and the partnership who psyched was actually an expert (NGS A) in an established expert partnership.

[hrothgar]

mikl_plkcc, on 2025-March-22, 06:04, said:

I was totally intimidated by the behaviour that someone made an illogical bid (regardless if it was a misbid or a psyche),

This is your problem, not theirs

> then took advantage of my hesitation from the illogical auction (an act of bullying).

Calling the director over an infraction is not "bullying".
The way in which someone called the director might turn this into bullying, but you've provided nothing to support this claim.

> I was a player new to the club for just two months and playing in a first-time partnership

How is anyone supposed to know that you a such a fragile little flower?

From the sounds of things, the expert partnership had enough respect for you to treat you as a serious bridge player....

Hopefully no one will make this mistake again

[mikl_plkcc]

 hrothgar, on 2025-March-22, 06:16, said:

This is your problem, not theirs

> then took advantage of my hesitation from the illogical auction (an act of bullying).

Calling the director over an infraction is not "bullying".
The way in which someone called the director might turn this into bullying, but you've provided nothing to support this claim.

Of course calling the director over an infraction is not bullying, but I feel that making actions deliberately to trigger infractions by inexperienced opponents is bullying. Comparable actions include deliberately asking inexperienced opponents about certain bids not listed in the system notes (especially in competitive auctions), in order to induce them passing UIs.

Quote

> I was a player new to the club for just two months and playing in a first-time partnership

How is anyone supposed to know that you a such a fragile little flower?

From the sounds of things, the expert partnership had enough respect for you to treat you as a serious bridge player....

Hopefully no one will make this mistake again

I am not sure if EBU has something similar to the below, which is a document from another jurisdiction (emphasis added by me):

Quote

Unsportsmanlike action apparently designed to help the opponents, or against pairs or teams in contention, against inexperienced players, or psyches used merely to create action at the table.

[hrothgar]

> I feel that making actions deliberately to trigger infractions by inexperienced opponents is bullying.

And I feel that you are inventing facts in order to slander another player

[hrothgar]

> I am not sure if EBU has something similar to the below, which is a document from another jurisdiction

If they do, then I really hope that they have some manner by which players know whether they are playing against inexperienced players.

Perhaps from now on, the director should make you carry around a little sign that says

"I'm a preciously little hot house flower and will burst into tears if distressed.
Please treat me as if I am a spoiled six year old."

[akwoo]

You are trying too hard.

Just accept that you're going to play badly.

When you're confused, just do the first thing that comes to mind and accept that bad result. (The opponents were NOT hoping to induce UI. They were hoping to induce a confused pass that would get them a good score of -300 for down 6 undoubled. It's okay if they succeed.)

Stop trying to count everything and make all the correct inferences - you're still working on understanding basic bidding and making routine card plays, and trying to catch everything is overwhelming you. Honestly, you're already playing far better than all the beginners, and all the life novices, in my area.

Also, as already has been explained to you, Young Chelsea is not a normal club game. The standard of play is far higher than the average county tournament. Go find a beginner/intermediate game somewhere. The kind where players routinely pass forcing bids not knowing they are forcing and where defense consists of cashing aces and hoping for the best.

[pescetom]

smerriman, on 2025-March-21, 19:59, said:

What was the director's ruling? If your partner had values opposite an opening bid, then the fact you hesitated (which is perfectly understandable and not against any rules) doesn't mean in any way that they're forced to pass 3NT.

And did East have the hand to bid 3NT?

[mikl_plkcc]

Yes, East had a flat 4333 11 HCP, it was an obvious 3NT raise from 1NT. It was well beyond my ability to construct a pair of hands where it would reasonably overcall 1NT and raise to 3NT with at most 23 HCP combined, with only possible length in spades.

[pescetom]

mikl_plkcc, on 2025-March-22, 12:30, said:

Yes, East had a flat 4333 11 HCP, it was an obvious 3NT raise from 1NT. It was well beyond my ability to construct a pair of hands where it would reasonably overcall 1NT and raise to 3NT with at most 23 HCP combined, with only possible length in spades.

So fair enough, it was a good psyche although the TD may give reason to your partner.
After the jump bid you did have 10 seconds to do the math without being accused of hesitation, have a bit more lucidity and courage next time

[mikl_plkcc]

pescetom, on 2025-March-22, 17:16, said:

So fair enough, it was a good psyche although the TD may give reason to your partner.
After the jump bid you did have 10 seconds to do the math without being accused of hesitation, have a bit more lucidity and courage next time

I had 10 seconds to do the math, and it turned out that they couldn't have 25 HCPs. Then I spent minutes to think about all sorts of possible hands that 3NT would make with only 23 HCPs and length in spades because it would be a disaster if I doubled and the bids were genuine.

For example, if they held
♠AKJ98 ♥Q98 ♦73 ♣KJT
and
♠Q7 ♥JT6 ♦KQJ42 ♣983

3NT would make, possibly with overtricks. It would clearly be legitimate bridge to systematically overcall 1NT then raise to 3NT. Constructing these kinds of hands would take me minutes thinking.

[mycroft]

It may not help, but the thing I say every time I get griped at by someone's first psych against by a good player:

"You should take it as a compliment. Players who are a lot better than you can beat you just fine by playing their game, which is better than yours. They don't have to "roll the dice" with a randomizing, and frequently negative (but when positive, *spectacularly positive*) action like a psych.

It's only when they feel they *can't* beat you straight up, that you're worth psyching against. So, again, take it as a compliment."

Now, hrothgar is - shall we say - a little less comforting than I am; and to give him credit, I am laying on the sweet sound a bit. There are definitely those who think they can push for 90% instead of 65% against the weaker players; there are those who think they need a 90% to win, and 65% won't be enough, so they roll the dice for 1st or 5th; there are those who started drinking at 1630 and it's now 2145 and they are feeling no pain; and all the rest. But by and large, I'm not *wrong* - the better players don't psych against the weaker players, because they're going to beat them playing straight up.

But you have to listen to hrothgar, too - especially you. You have decided to get back into bridge by jumping into the deep end of the pool. More power to you! You will 100% learn faster and more against the denizens of the Young Chelsea in months than you will in years at my club here (or even in Calgary, since the days of the Wednesday night Shark Tank pairs are over). You will get better faster, or you will burn out from the frustration - which is why all the "easy lanes" in bridge exist. If you look on That Other Site, you will see many wishing for the Good Old Days before stratification, Gold Rush/intermediate events, where the mornings were (only) a seeded KO...because you only get to be an A player by playing against, and beating, the A players. And they're right - and in the days where we could afford to lose half the tournament players back to the kitchens when they said "sod this for a lark, I'm tired of getting beat up every night and gloated at to boot, and paying for the privilege", okay, fine.

These days aren't those, and things have changed, in many cases for the good of the game, even if those same survivors of the Good Old Days make smart-**** comments about the easy lanes.

But - you've decided to play it the hard way. The most rewarding way, the best way to learn and get better, the "Right Way" according to the Real Experts. Frankly, the only harder line and better way to learn is to go to TGR's instead and play rubber for "more than you can afford to lose" (the other thing Real Experts said was necessary).

And since that's the case, you're going to get hardballed. You're going to get treated as a YC Player and a diehard, not a newbie who we have to treat well or we won't see them next week. You're probably going to get told, by the opponents and the director, "it's legal, deal with it" rather than any sugarcoating. And you can choose to deal with it, or you can choose to give up. But that's not going to happen, is it? Not as someone who has chosen this path?

And hrothgar is giving you the "it's legal. Learn to live with it." Along with the "if you show weakness, they'll use it against you, that's how it works." Straight, no chaser, by frankly being Like That Himself. And it is something you need to learn.

But also learn that those experts really wouldn't have psyched against you if they weren't sure they could get you enough just playing straight, and take it as a compliment that they don't think that any more.

[jillybean]

May I add, fresh out of learn to play bridge school, one Friday night I wandered into the best game in town and was paired up with some guy who turned out to be #389 in Canada with about 5800 masterpoints, if you are counting.
I already had plenty on my CC, one of those being Drury which I either forgot to use or didn't recognize when my partner did.
By the end of the night my partner was masterminding every hand and after the last board, got up and said "I need to go for a drink"

I slunk out of the club, somewhat oblivious to my mistakes but with a thicker skin.

I play against him now, he's a fine player and good guy. The game aint for the faint of heart.

[shyams]

akwoo added a nugget in his reply to OP that this occurred at Young Chelsea. So I looked up the Friday evening results at Young Chelsea Bridge Club [FYI, this is board 2 of 27 from the evening session].

I find it weird that OP was so distraught by a board on which his side scored +1100 (4♠x -5 NV). If I had recorded a +1100 due to an opponent's psyche, I can't imagine myself experiencing negative emotions.

[mikl_plkcc]

I passed UI to the partner, so the expected would be that the director would adjust the result to 3NT undoubled by them if passing turned out to be a logical alternative, which it was way out of my ability to know if it would be the case (my partner held 9 HCP balanced against my opening 1C in a longer minor system). I broke down because at that situation it was out of my ability to act ethically, and placed my partner at a very difficult place.

Of course next week I would ask the director about that.

I was so close to doubling because I had 4 1/2 quick tricks (A, AK and AQ in the remaining suits). If I had 5 I would have doubled without second thought, so only after minutes of thinking of a possibility that they could get all 9 remaining tricks, I decided to pass.

Btw, as the 3NT raise showed 10-11 HCPs (couldn't be more because the hand was not opened), and the psycher had 3, would there be any split of the 26-27 between the remaining two hands where not doubling 3NT is logical, when one of them had shown 12-20 by the opening bid (so one was between 12-20 and the other was 6-13)?

Btw whenever I discussed my performance here someone would inevitably point out that I played at Young Chelsea, although I occasionally play at Wimbledon and Richmond on other days of the week.

The following are all the reasons I have decided to join Young Chelsea, and it would be unfortunate for me if the reasons below equate to a strong field in England:

1. I want to play IMP pairs. At least I can relax on some of the boards where it is a clear 4S by the field which can't go down, as overtricks don't matter. If playing MPs, I have to work for every single overtricks for all the 27 boards for the night, which is too demanding for me, and I have to probe for the 10 extra points when playing in NT when a major suit contract is safe as well, which I'm not comfortable. In IMPs, as long as I "keep to the field" and do not make silly mistakes, I should get a result close to 0, and I can immediately know that I made a silly mistake if there is a huge negative score shown on the scoresheet.

2. I want to play on a Friday evening. I have other sports to do on Monday, Tuesday, Thursday evenings and weekends.

3. I have been told that Young Chelsea has more players who play 5-card majors and strong NT by Acol Bridge Club (which is not EBU affiliated). So I thought it would be a better starting place for me in a country where 4-card majors and weak NT are the norm, as there are a lot of ambiguity in the number of trumps, for example, in 1H-2H in Acol, and when a second suit bid would show 7 in the first, where I would need expert-level judgement to handle. And I would need expert-level card play technique as well when faced with 7-card fit. A 5-card major is safer at my level because of the scientific methods to find 8-card fits.

[mycroft]

If you need to think, you think. You pass UI, and put partner in a bind; there are ways to mitigate, but not totally counter that. One of my partner's teachers said early "if you go into the tank about two options, and one of them is pass, take the other one" (unless you're, say, passing out partner's double). It's not that pass is for wimps and action is better; it's that tank-pass and pull (or tank-pass and double) gets ruled against for "use of UI" more frequently than tank-action and anything; and the number of times each option is wrong is about the same.

So, you had to think. You did. Partner doubled after that, and the opponents called the director. Again, good - many here would grumble under their breath, or say "you know that's not legal, right? But we won't call the director because we're being nice" (frequently, in situations where the director might just say "pass isn't a LA. Score stands." or "for a player of this level of experience, the pass says 'I've never seen a 60 point deck before'. No UI to use, score stands." So they get the "I'm better than you" in, the "next time they'll let me play my sacrifice undoubled if there's even a small think on the other side" bonus, *and* they don't have to worry about what the director would actually decide. Win-win-win (for them. You're leaving the table crying, partly because you don't understand what you did.)(*)

You're worried about what the director will do? Don't be. There's nothing, *literally nothing*(**), you can do about it after you state your case and the opponents state theirs, and the director goes off to rule. Forget it, the ruling will come back when it comes back, and if you don't forget it, it will affect your play on the rest of the hands. That's another one of the "toughen up" things you have to learn (although it really isn't tough, you already are learning "when a hand's over, it's *over*. Forget it and go on to the next one"; just have to apply it here too.)


(*) This happened to a pair in Another City at the table below mine, pretty much exactly. We had to calm them down (including, as a known TD, explaining that "they might have a point, but only the director can decide it. The only way to know if they do is to call the TD yourself and take the ruling against you if it turns out there was a violation. But at least the TD will be explaining the issue, not the opponents who don't have your interests at heart.") before being able to play *our* three boards.
(**) Okay, you can appeal the ruling after you get it(**a). But there's nothing you can do until you get it, and if you do appeal, nothing you can do until the game is over and the appeal is heard. So again, get it out of your head and play the 13 cards in front of you.
(**a) But look at the conclusion to PaulG's comment on the other thread; he's not wrong.

[mycroft]

shyams, on 2025-March-22, 20:11, said:

I find it weird that OP was so distraught by a board on which his side scored +1100 (4♠x -5 NV). If I had recorded a +1100 due to an opponent's psyche, I can't imagine myself experiencing negative emotions.

Especially in an IMP pairs, yes.

But again, that's something we all have to learn. But note, the issue was "is the director going to take it away from us because I'd never seen this before?", which is a reasonable negative emotion.

I still remember a game I ran back in Ontario at That Club. There was a pair who hated being psyched against. And was also kind of obnoxious (about this, and about other things). So, for some reason they got psyched against more often than even what would be expected in a club 30% full of University students. They also weren't very good - sure, they'd get 52, 53% sometimes, but they weren't really in contention.

But this one game, they end up winning. Clearly; like by almost a board over 2nd place. The expected surprise and cheers for the winners when I announced it, and as they walked by me on the way out, I hear him say "yes, despite the psych against us, we still won."

The psych was a 12-14 NT bid on a 6 count and raised to game, that went for 800 into partscore. How do I know? Because they called me at the time, and had me investigate if the psych was fielded(!)