[JoAnneM]

What I meant was that you have to expect opponents to be upset when they get beat by a psychic bid. They shouldn't, but they will be. If the opponents had not complained we would not be having this conversation, right? I wasn't referring to the "suits".

[Cascade]

JoAnneM, on Dec 3 2008, 06:00 PM, said:

What I meant was that you have to expect opponents to be upset when they get beat by a psychic bid.  They shouldn't, but they will be.  If the opponents had not complained we would not be having this conversation, right?  I wasn't referring to the "suits".

Why expect that.

I don't expect it when i bid to a good slam or win my contract via a squeeze. Why should i expect it when i psyche?

Someone has created an unhealthy environment if legal tactics induce players to be irrationally upset.

[matmat]

Cascade, on Dec 3 2008, 12:12 AM, said:

Someone has created an unhealthy environment if legal tactics induce plays to be irrationally upset.

i sort of feel like there is a culture of viewing psychs as unsportsmanlike... it's total BS, but still.

[JoAnneM]

Of course there is that attitude. It is because wannabe experts use them on novices or low intermediate players, which I do think is unsportsmanlike. In my opinion psyches are fine used at tables with players of comparable abilities. But when you use a psyche against new players you are just shoving that win down their throats, and maybe they won't come back. And you laugh at that but it takes a while to develop the thick skin that we wear as more experienced players.

I doubt if you would seldom, if ever, see a pro-level player use a psyche at a Flight C table in a stratified game. But I do have a good story about that......

[Cascade]

JoAnneM, on Dec 3 2008, 06:50 PM, said:

Of course there is that attitude. It is because wannabe experts use them on novices or low intermediate players, which I do think is unsportsmanlike. In my opinion psyches are fine used at tables with players of comparable abilities. But when you use a psyche against new players you are just shoving that win down their throats, and maybe they won't come back. And you laugh at that but it takes a while to develop the thick skin that we wear as more experienced players.

I doubt if you would seldom, if ever, see a pro-level player use a psyche at a Flight C table in a stratified game. But I do have a good story about that......

That is utter nonsense.

Psyching is a legitimate part of the game. Claiming that it is unsportsmanlike is exactly the attitude that perpetrates the idea that there is something wrong with psyches.

[Elianna]

matmat, on Dec 2 2008, 09:20 PM, said:

Cascade, on Dec 3 2008, 12:12 AM, said:

Someone has created an unhealthy environment if legal tactics induce plays to be irrationally upset.

i sort of feel like there is a culture of viewing psychs as unsportsmanlike... it's total BS, but still.

I think that the question is when is it an actual psych and when is it an illicit partnership agreement.

And yes, that does seem like a process for the recorder, but the recorder process is not something that your average person knows about, so it may seem to them that pair AB get to "get away" with having secret agreements with no consequences, because they don't know that the director has investigated by speaking to the pair. Or that a recorder form will last further longer than that day.

[Cascade]

Elianna, on Dec 3 2008, 07:40 PM, said:

matmat, on Dec 2 2008, 09:20 PM, said:

Cascade, on Dec 3 2008, 12:12 AM, said:

Someone has created an unhealthy environment if legal tactics induce plays to be irrationally upset.

i sort of feel like there is a culture of viewing psychs as unsportsmanlike... it's total BS, but still.

I think that the question is when is it an actual psych and when is it an illicit partnership agreement.

And yes, that does seem like a process for the recorder, but the recorder process is not something that your average person knows about, so it may seem to them that pair AB get to "get away" with having secret agreements with no consequences, because they don't know that the director has investigated by speaking to the pair. Or that a recorder form will last further longer than that day.

I have no problem with investigating whether the pair has an improper agreement.

The problem is players getting upset and using bully tactics against others who are using a legitimate tactic.

It is made worse when officials pamper to those inappropriate reactions.

[kenrexford]

I don't understand how or why any particular tactic at bridge would be deemed unsportsmanlike simply because the opponents are lousy. Would you not reach out a tad further to bid a slim game because you expect poor defense? Would you not offer a baby falsecard to a newbie because you know that this will probably induce an error by them?

I agree(d) with the concept that the TD might make inquiry in the event of a psychic call to ensure that there is no funny-business going on.

However, in this situation, you have to be an utter idiot to not see that the timing of the psychics was non-partnership and situation-specific. The apparent conclusion drawn was obviously not based on anything other than a dislike for the tactic and, by extension, a dislike for the rule. To extend one's own dislike for the tactic and for the rule into accusations of borderline unethical conduct is absurd and offensive. After taking successful action that I believed necessary and advisable and supported by basic bridge principles, I end up almost on trial?

The TD at the table? No problem. The opponents angry and scowling and making comments? Use to it. The between-sessions explanation? Expected, and fruitful because the TD's on site followed completely and agreed, as they should. The show of force with people in suits (I call them "suits" because I am convinced that they actually dressed up for the "matter") and accusations and warnings of disciplinary action? A joke.

[brianshark]

While we obviously only have one side of this argument based on Ken's account, if it's true they went out of their way, over the heads of the director, to get you a warning because they felt cheated by the psyche, then I have to say that the opponents sound like big cry babies and I have no sympathy for them whatsoever.

Psyches are part of the game and I feel very sorry for you that you have to deal with 'suits' people who pander to the complaints of whingers. But don't feel too bad because having a reputation for psyching can be a powerful weapon against paranoid opponents sometimes too.

[TimG]

kenrexford, on Dec 3 2008, 08:38 AM, said:

Would you not reach out a tad further to bid a slim game because you expect poor defense? Would you not offer a baby falsecard to a newbie because you know that this will probably induce an error by them?

At MP, stretching to the slim game in hopes of a mis-defense is wrong since a mis-defense in the normal partscore will score you the same top. At IMPs, I'm not sure I'd do it either. If we're flat out better than the other team, adding the randomness of overbidding can open the door to the opponents to score IMPs when they do the normal thing and I don't want to increase the variance.

Newbies don't notice falsecards.

[kenrexford]

Figuring out the "side" of the argument by the "reporters" is quite simple. "This guy responded 2♠, and he only had three of them! And then, later, he overcalled 1NT with one point!" That was the complaint.

I know this, because I actually ran into some friends of theirs later who told me about a guy who did these two things. They had no clue until I started to chuckle.

The "other part" of the story, if anything, was whether my partner did anything inappropriate.

On the first hand, passing throughout with 1-6-3-3 seems fairly safe as decisions.

On the second, the question was a tad more difficult. My RHO had opened 1♣, and these two had already given off an image as very sound. I overcalled 1NT, white on red. My LHO overcalled 2♣ after a LONG hesitation. Given this set-up, what would you do with a basically balanced hand and...

(1) about 6 HCP
(2) about 8 HCP
(3) about 10 HCP
(4) about 12 HCP
(5) about 14 HCP

If you assume that Opener should have at least 11 HCP (low for these opponents) and Responder at least 5 HCP, the opponents will have 16 combined, at a minimum. Adding a stretcher 14-count for partner, that's 30. With 1/2/3, nothing seems odd. With 4, suspicions mount. With 5, someone is not being truthful. Can Advancer, with a 14-count, rely on bridge logic and tailor his bids accordingly? If he cannot, but does anyway, then Advancer might need some education, and Overcaller might need a warning that, because his partner fields too easily, psychics are problematic in this partnership. All of that makes sense, if the premise makes sense. However, the problem would not be the psychic itself but the fielding predisposition, right?

IMO, a pass by Advancer with (3) or maybe even (4) would be more problematic than with (5), but maybe that's just me.

[TimG]

I agree with those who suggest that the recorder system is under-utilized. Much of that is probably due to two factors: 1) people not knowing about is; and 2) the stigma of making an accusation when using the system.

[ASkolnick]

White on Red, you tend to psyche a lot of the time. If I have played with you for a few times, I can probably generate a pattern being established about when psyches would be available to you.

Theoretically, I should not make any actions that is inconsistent with the auction, but I already have the heads up that funny business is going on. I am holding a 10 count and it goes

1S-1N (You)-dbl-??? (I can sit and you can run, but I am already aware that funny business is going on, not necessarily that the spade opener was light). If you tend to do it on an unbalanced 6 card suit, I may be prone to raise once you run from the double.

Ken, do you record your own psyches? Since you seem to be the experimental type:

For the next X tournaments, record your own psyches(tactical bids) and see if you can establish a pattern. If you can establish randomness, I can see the psyches being OK. If you use psyches always in a specific situations, don't you think someone who plays with you will be able to establish the same pattern?

[Hanoi5]

I don't know Ken, I think. Anyway, it's perfectly normal for people to get angry and suspicious about psychics and the like. What I think happened here is that one of the persons at Ken's table is friend or relative or really close to one of the 'suits' or someone else who is important and they are making a big fuss about it. No need to get angry unless your psychic is the only one being investigated or if you're really cheating (which I guess isn't the case or you wouldn't be here telling us about it).

[awm]

I wonder if the right action in these cases is to ask for a disciplinary committee.

I take issue with this business of threatening a committee, kind of like threatening to call the director. If you just say "if you have a problem then please arrange a hearing, otherwise please stop lecturing me" the vast majority of the time the "suits" will just back off. If they do arrange a committee, it is not unheard of for the accusers to be reprimanded for a frivolous committee...

[Hanoi5]

Quote

Newbies don't notice falsecards.

Or psychics. It's just part of the game. Not psyching against (provided it's really psychic and not bullying) newbies is like not playing a long suit against bad opponents for they won't know how to discard, the poor things.

On a side thought, if you're prohibited from psyching, wouldn't this be some sort of previous knowledge that your opponents should know about (and therefore should be pre-alerted)?

[bid_em_up]

Cascade, on Dec 3 2008, 01:29 AM, said:

JoAnneM, on Dec 3 2008, 06:50 PM, said:

Of course there is that attitude.  It is because wannabe experts use them on novices or low intermediate players, which I do think is unsportsmanlike.  In my opinion psyches are fine used at tables with players of comparable abilities.  But when you use a psyche against new players you are just shoving that win down their throats, and maybe they won't come back.  And you laugh at that but it takes a while to develop the thick skin that we wear as more experienced players.

I doubt if you would seldom, if ever, see a pro-level player use a psyche at a Flight C table in a stratified game.  But I do have a good story about that......

That is utter nonsense.

Psyching is a legitimate part of the game. Claiming that it is unsportsmanlike is exactly the attitude that perpetrates the idea that there is something wrong with psyches.

I happen to disagree with you, Wayne.

I think most everyone here agrees that psyching is a legitimate part of the game. Psyches can certainly be an effective weapon in your arsenal.

However, to employ a psyche against a novice, beginner or even an intermediate player is to some degree unsportsmanlike, imo. It's kind of like taking candy from a baby, or adding insult to injury. You are (most probably) going to beat them anyway, why make them feel foolish on top of it? JoAnne is not claiming that psyches, in and of themselves, are unsportsmanlike. She is claiming that they are unsportsmanlike when employed against players of a much lesser caliber than yourself.

There is a difference.

[awm]

bid_em_up, on Dec 3 2008, 12:01 PM, said:

However, to employ a psyche against a novice, beginner or even an intermediate player is to some degree unsportsmanlike, imo.  It's kind of like taking candy from a baby, or adding insult to injury.  You are (most probably) going to beat them anyway, why make them feel foolish on top of it?  JoAnne is not claiming that psyches, in and of themselves, are unsportsmanlike.  She is claiming that they are unsportsmanlike when employed against players of a much lesser caliber than yourself.

There is a difference.

This is really a kind of strange view.

I mean, most beginners can't execute a double-squeeze. Does this mean if I am playing against beginners I should not execute a double-squeeze? Perhaps if they have already given me a trick on defense I should not execute a double-squeeze?

Perhaps when the beginners come to the table I should ditch my convention card and just play SAYC, because I can probably beat them without using weird conventions like gazzilli and 2-way new minor force that they won't understand?

If no one ever psychs against beginners (because beginners don't think of psyching and players of higher standard are expected never to psych against beginners) then won't this contribute to them viewing psychs as unsportsmanlike? If the first psych they ever see is after they have been playing bridge for a couple years, won't they be more likely to be "out to get that psycho"?

With this said, psyching against beginners is often a poor expected-value tactic, simply because psychs occasionally lead to utter disasters. Even a "great psych" might well lead to a bottom board 25% of the time (and a top board the other 75%) -- occasionally partner hangs you. Great average, but playing against a pair of beginners I might expect 75% or so just by playing normal bridge.

[brianshark]

@bid_em_up: But does a newbie feel any more foolish after you have successfully psyched against them than they do if they have just made a stupid play and let in a hopeless vulnerable game? It's all part of the game. They just have to pick themselves up and learn from their mistakes.

[blackshoe]

I'm with Adam. It is unconscionable of people like Gary Blaiss to act as these "suits" (he was, I think Ken said, one of them) reportedly did.

On the general question of the ethics of psychs, the ethics of the game are defined by its rules. The laws allow psychs. They do not make a distinction based on the levels of the players involved. Neither, afaik, do acbl regulations. The "Code of Active Ethics", for example, nowhere mentions psychs. It does say "Actively ethical bridge players do everything they can within the scope of the game to defeat their opponent at the bridge table while making that experience an otherwise enjoyable one for them." Since psychs are legal, they fall, imo, "within the scope of the game", and actively ethical players can certainly use them (within the constraints of the law regarding partnership understandings).

If a player decides that his or her personal ethics dictate not psyching against certain players, or classes of players, more power to them, but that is not something mandated by law or regulation.

On the general question of getting angry at the bridge table, well, it seems people just naturally do, but acting on it is imo a really stupid way to behave. And I don't believe officials, whatever their relationship with the angry player(s), should do anything at all in support of such behavior. On the contrary, they should act so as to defuse it, without supporting it in any way.

On the subject of JoAnne's "be prepared to be hassled", I say thee Nay! I would much rather see players educated to expect that psychs might happen, and to treat them just as they would any other legal situation at the table: with acceptance and aplomb. In fact, given good opponents who (as IME most do) subscribe to the "don't psych against noobs" position, I would (and did, when it happened a few months ago) consider having one psych against me as somewhat of a compliment. After all, he has now decided that I am a good enough player to handle it! Of course, if you feel that psycher's partner is "fielding" you should certainly call the director — calmly and reporting only the relevant facts (and "it pisses me off" may be a fact, but it is not relevant).

On the particular case as reported by Ken, I think his ethics are fine. I think the ethics of the "suits" are the questionable ones.