[vuroth]

If any of you happen to cross my path, you're more than welcome to psych against me.

[han]

awm, on Dec 3 2008, 12:08 PM, said:

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.

Agree with Adam.

[kenrexford]

ASkolnick, on Dec 3 2008, 10:33 AM, said:

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?

Here's my take on the problem with this analysis:

The ACBL has "judged" that psychics calls may not be "excessive, frivolous, or unsportsmanlike."

http://web2.acbl.org/codification/CHAPTER%...Section%20A.pdf

The definition of "excessive" means that "three or more psychic initial actions" are reported to the TD's in one session. Hence, a report of only two psychic calls is not, by definition, evidence of excessive psyching. Or, put another way, it is expected that two psychic calls may be made with impugnity. Anything above that is a statistical deviation worth investigating. Thus, in one way of looking at this, we are expected to make a psychic call twice per session, or once every 12-13 boards.

"Frivolous" means essentially that the call has no tactical reasoning. My psychic calls had loads of tactical reasons.

"Unsportsmanlike" is complicated. On the one hand, it cannot be a move to nbenefit the opponents, which is akin to "frivolous." That seems redundant.

The second "unsportsmanlike" definition concerns whether partner "fields" the psychic in some manner. However, the definition describes as to the first, redudant portion that a psychic should not be "atypical" or "unnatural." This implies, correctly, that approved psychics occur in "typical" or "natural" circumstances, meaning some basic principles of "good psychics" exists.

The rules further describe the fielding concept. The question is first whether "hunch" action occurred. The second is whether the psychic was "clearly exposed by the opponent's calls." Hence, one is entitled to rely on the opponent's calls as true and as not the psychic calls. Furthermore, those calls can establish the existence of a psychic. When you are looking at 14 HCP, and Opener probably has 12+, and Responder probably has 6+, and Responder hesitates (a lawful inference to read), then the psychic is clearly exposed.

What is interesting, then, is that a few principles can be established.

1. The fact that psychics are made in the correct conditions is not evidence of anything except that your partner is following the rules.

2. The fact that psychics occur up to twice per round is evidence of nothing except that no trigger to even authorizes review exists and that partner is following the rules.

3. The "fielder" is perfectly entitled to rely upon the truthfulness of the opponents when ascretaining whether partner may have made a psychic, and should do so.

4. In no way do the rules describe anything about a "pattern" of psychic calls, as this is irrelevant. A "pattern" is actually required. You must have a "pattern" establishing that psychic calls, up to two per round and perhaps more if duly explained, are always made in sound psychic conditions.

Thus, this concept of "randomness" is something that is made up and actually wrong. If I make "random" psychics, then I will be including some that are atypical or unnatural, which violates the rules. Any evidence I can offer of a pattern of typical or natural psychics proves that I am actually following the rules.

It should be noted, as well, one little nuance. The ACBL rules only analyze the occurrence of "initial action" psychics. Thus, "second call" psychics and later psychics are not even regulated as to the "excessive" standard, nor even included in the psychic count.

[TimG]

kenrexford, on Dec 3 2008, 01:54 PM, said:

The definition of "excessive" means that "three or more psychic initial actions" are reported to the TD's in one session.  Hence, a report of only two psychic calls is not, by definition, evidence of excessive psyching.  Or, put another way, it is expected that two psychic calls may be made with impugnity.  Anything above that is a statistical deviation worth investigating.  Thus, in one way of looking at this, we are expected to make a psychic call twice per session, or once every 12-13 boards.

I would expect better parsing of the language from an attorney. The portion you reference:

Quote

Excessive Psychic Bidding: When three or more psychic initial actions by members of a partnership, in any one session, have come to the attention of the director, the director should investigate the possibility that excessive psyching is taking place.

That does not mean that three psyches in one session is excessive, nor does it mean that psyching less often than three times in any one session is not excessive. What it means is that when three psyches in a single session come to the attention of a director, there should automatically be an investigation.

[ASkolnick]

I agree that you did nothing wrong in this set, but I don't agree that a pattern is not relevant. Actually a pattern very much does define a problem, contrary to what you may believe. By doing so, you are establishing an implicit partnership agreement which is not disclosed to the opponents.

Here is a paragraph from Ethics in Bridge:

Quote

Lastly, when someone deliberately violates his agreements and grossly misstates his hand (#1 above), it’s called a psych.  When someone psyches the same way several times with the same partner, that partner starts adjusting to accommodate for the possibility that this time is a psych.  That partner is no longer fooled along with the opponents.  This has become an implicit agreement and requires alerting.  Psyches are legal, implicit agreements without alerting are not.

Let's say I know 1N shows either a balanced NT (NV vs Vul) or a weak preempt (3-6 HCP) with a 6 card suit because I have seen you do it X number of times in this situation.

Auction:1C-1N-2C-P-
3N-P - P - ???

I am holding a balanced 6 count with no club stopper,
1) Do I double?
Now must I lead naturally or do I realize that you may have a suit that I can hit?

This is where the problem lies.

I should double on 1, but I can construct legitimate hands where everyone could have their bid. The problem is I have information that may suggest that double is not the winning action. I am sure many people can come up with many other auctions where if I have knowledge of some of the unusual possibilities, I can guess right. So unless as a partner, I strive to bury you, I am already acting on "unauthorized" information.

[kenrexford]

This is confusing.

I agree that adjusting to accommodate psychic possibilities would be potentially problematic, because it indicates a change in the real meaning of the bid in the partnership.

That said, any psychic must occur in a situation that is apparently deemed "typical" or "natural," which means that the psychic must, in a sense, be one that any TD would "expect," in a sense. If anyone would expect a possible psychic in such-and-such situation, then why is partner the only one NOT entitled to expect that which the game of bridge suggests?

The quote from "Ethics in Bridge" (what is that?) seems to suggest something that is not against the rules. Partner is not required to be "equally fooled." Partner is required to take normal action unless the opponents' bidding reveals the psychic. As the opponents cannot see partner's hand, partner will have superior knowledge.

Take the 14-count held by advancer after 1C-1NT-2C. As the opponents might expect the 1NT bidder to have these 14 HCP, they are fooled. Advancer is not, because the opposition bidding has revealed the psychic. So, the quote seems wrong, at least in theory.

The question is whether partner takes action without cause other than partnership predisposition. That amounts to an effective "psychic control" that has not been revealed (and would be disallowed even if revealed).

Thus, the onus is NOT on the psychic bidder but on the person whose partner makes psychic calls to follow the rules of basing action on only trust of partners' bids unless opposition bidding merits reconsideration.

The great problem is in determining whether the opposition bidding has or has not provided sufficient "evidence" upon which the partner can rely. That's a toughie.

[TimG]

kenrexford, on Dec 3 2008, 03:43 PM, said:

That said, any psychic must occur in a situation that is apparently deemed "typical" or "natural," which means that the psychic must, in a sense, be one that any TD would "expect," in a sense. If anyone would expect a possible psychic in such-and-such situation, then why is partner the only one NOT entitled to expect that which the game of bridge suggests?

What people expect changes over time. Read some bridge books from the 30s and 40s if you want to get a good idea what sorts of psychic bidding (and with what sort of frequency) was once expected. I do not think it is much of an exaggeration to say that 90% of players in the ACBL would never expect a psyche. So, if you are going to gauge what should be allowed by what anyone would expect, you're going to be rather limited in what you can do in regards to psyches.

[Cascade]

kenrexford, on Dec 4 2008, 07:54 AM, said:

4. In no way do the rules describe anything about a "pattern" of psychic calls, as this is irrelevant. A "pattern" is actually required. You must have a "pattern" establishing that psychic calls, up to two per round and perhaps more if duly explained, are always made in sound psychic conditions.

Thus, this concept of "randomness" is something that is made up and actually wrong. If I make "random" psychics, then I will be including some that are atypical or unnatural, which violates the rules. Any evidence I can offer of a pattern of typical or natural psychics proves that I am actually following the rules.

What a pattern does is begins to create a situation where you have a "partnership understanding" to psyche. When this happens your psyche is no longer a psyche but a "partnership understanding" which needs to be disclosed appropriately.

[TimG]

Cascade, on Dec 3 2008, 03:54 PM, said:

What a pattern does is begins to create a situation where you have a "partnership understanding" to psyche. When this happens your psyche is no longer a psyche but a "partnership understanding" which needs to be disclosed appropriately.

Yes, "partnership understanding to psyche" is something of an impossibility, just like a psychic control is misnamed because once there is a control it is no longer a psyche..

[ArtK78]

TimG, on Dec 3 2008, 04:55 PM, said:

Yes, "partnership understanding to psyche" is something of an impossibility, just like a psychic control is misnamed because once there is a control it is no longer a psyche..

No.

A psychic control is a conventional method of finding out if partner psyched.

If I remember correctly, in the original Roth-Stone or KS (I don't recall which) there were very disciplined psyches and there were psychic controls. Typically, a psyche bid would be made on hands with about 0-3 HCP. So, if you held a 20 count and partner opened the bidding, you presumed that he was psyching. Your correct response was 2NT showing a monster hand. Obviously, opposite a real opener, you would reach a slam as partner would show that he had a real opener. But opposite a psyche partner would make a negative response - I presume it was 3♣ (it might be pass depending on what the range for the 2NT bid was and whether the psyche was made on zero) - and you would avoid a disaster.

In any event, psychic controls have long been prohibited. But it was an interesting idea.

[matmat]

ArtK78, on Dec 3 2008, 05:45 PM, said:

TimG, on Dec 3 2008, 04:55 PM, said:

Yes, "partnership understanding to psyche" is something of an impossibility, just like a psychic control is misnamed because once there is a control it is no longer a psyche..

No.

A psychic control is a conventional method of finding out if partner psyched.

If I remember correctly, in the original Roth-Stone or KS (I don't recall which) there were very disciplined psyches and there were psychic controls. Typically, a psyche bid would be made on hands with about 0-3 HCP. So, if you held a 20 count and partner opened the bidding, you presumed that he was psyching. Your correct response was 2NT showing a monster hand. Obviously, opposite a real opener, you would reach a slam as partner would show that he had a real opener. But opposite a psyche partner would make a negative response - I presume it was 3♣ (it might be pass depending on what the range for the 2NT bid was and whether the psyche was made on zero) - and you would avoid a disaster.

In any event, psychic controls have long been prohibited. But it was an interesting idea.

is that a bit like drury?

[matmat]

not sure why this came to mind in reference to this thread, but it did. so there.

Quote

Have you seen the little piggies
Crawling in the dirt?
And for all the little piggies
Life is getting worse
Always having dirt to play around in

Have you seen the bigger piggies
In their starched white shirts?
You will find the bigger piggies
Stirring up the dirt
Always have clean shirts to play around in

In their styes with all their backing
They don't care what goes on around
In their eyes there's something lacking
What they need's a damn good whacking

Everywhere there's lots of piggies
Living piggy lives
You can see them out for dinner
With their piggy wives
Clutching forks and knives to eat their bacon

[jdonn]

matmat, on Dec 3 2008, 06:08 PM, said:

is that a bit like drury?

That's been an age-old debate for a long time. I think it's Adam who argues it's a psych control if responder MUST pass when opener makes his weakest bid over drury.

When I was much younger I had a partner who liked to play longer-minor drury. Of course if you are psyching that makes it easier to pass the drury bid if you want to, but there is (just a little) technical merit too since opener has more info about responder's hand. Is that a psych control? I won't even try to answer.

[awm]

jdonn, on Dec 3 2008, 06:12 PM, said:

matmat, on Dec 3 2008, 06:08 PM, said:

is that a bit like drury?

That's been an age-old debate for a long time. I think it's Adam who argues it's a psych control if responder MUST pass when opener makes his weakest bid over drury.

My impression is that a psychic control is a bid which, by agreement, makes allowances for a possible holding that partner cannot, by agreement have.

So if your disclosure is that a third seat 1♠ opening is "8+ points and 4+♠" for example... well... there are possible hands for responder that make game opposite 8 points and 4♠. Like:

♠xxxxxx
♥-
♦AKQ
♣xxxx

Most of us don't open this hand, and it's pretty easy to imagine making a game opposite say:

♠AKxx
♥xxx
♦xxx
♣xxx

So if your drury methods require you to bid drury with the six-card support hand above and then pass partner's 2♠ rebid, you are really catering to partner having a much worse hand than what you've disclosed as an opening bid (a zero-count for example, or having only two spades). This seems to imply that your "third seat opening range" wasn't really what you disclosed (i.e. controlled psych).

There is a secondary problem with "no cost" psychs -- i.e. psychs where your system is such that there is really no way that partner can hang you. An example might be if you have an agreement to open all ten-counts, and you play 10-12 NT in third seat. But if it goes pass-pass to you, you can open 1NT with a 4-count or with a 14-count, and there is no real chance to miss game or have partner do anything bad to you (since he can't have a game hand opposite 10-12, or a real penalty double of opponents opposite 10-12, etc). This is a "psych" that is essentially free (nothing bad can happen) but yet it can easily confuse opponents when they are counting the hands on defense etc. To some degree this happens in every system, but if your system is sufficiently non-standard that the situation will be non-obvious to opponents and the psych is one that you've made once or twice before, then some disclosure really must be required.

[TimG]

ArtK78, on Dec 3 2008, 05:45 PM, said:

TimG, on Dec 3 2008, 04:55 PM, said:

Yes, "partnership understanding to psyche" is something of an impossibility, just like a psychic control is misnamed because once there is a control it is no longer a psyche..

No.

A psychic control is a conventional method of finding out if partner psyched.

If I remember correctly, in the original Roth-Stone or KS (I don't recall which) there were very disciplined psyches and there were psychic controls.

These openings were not psyches -- they were by agreement either natural with 12+ HCP or 4-6 HCP with a four-card suit and at least 3 HCP in the suit (if I recall the KS agreement accurately). There was, indeed, a control to find out which of the two possibilities opener actually had. But, because it was all by agreement, these were not psyches.

[Cascade]

awm, on Dec 4 2008, 12:30 PM, said:

So if your drury methods require you to bid drury with the six-card support hand above and then pass partner's 2♠ rebid, you are really catering to partner having a much worse hand than what you've disclosed as an opening bid (a zero-count for example, or having only two spades). This seems to imply that your "third seat opening range" wasn't really what you disclosed (i.e. controlled psych).

Incidentally if your real agreement about 1♠ opening includes hands that can have fewer than 8 hcp or can be a short suit then you are by definition playing a WBF HUM.

"2.2 HUM Systems

For the purpose of this Policy, a Highly Unusual Method (HUM) means any System that exhibits one or more of the following features, as a matter of partnership agreement:

1. A Pass in the opening position shows at least the values generally accepted for an opening bid of one, even if there are alternative weak possibilities
2. By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level may be weaker than pass.
3. By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level may be made with values a king or more below average strength.
4. By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level shows either length or shortage in a specified suit 5. By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level shows either length in one specified suit or length in another. "

[Cascade]

TimG, on Dec 4 2008, 12:46 PM, said:

ArtK78, on Dec 3 2008, 05:45 PM, said:

TimG, on Dec 3 2008, 04:55 PM, said:

Yes, "partnership understanding to psyche" is something of an impossibility, just like a psychic control is misnamed because once there is a control it is no longer a psyche..

No.

A psychic control is a conventional method of finding out if partner psyched.

If I remember correctly, in the original Roth-Stone or KS (I don't recall which) there were very disciplined psyches and there were psychic controls.

These openings were not psyches -- they were by agreement either natural with 12+ HCP or 4-6 HCP with a four-card suit and at least 3 HCP in the suit (if I recall the KS agreement accurately). There was, indeed, a control to find out which of the two possibilities opener actually had. But, because it was all by agreement, these were not psyches.

At the time the system was invented they may well have been psyches.

I am not sure when the definition of psychic call was introduced into the law book but it may well post-date the invention of systems that included psychic controls and mandatory psyches.

[jdonn]

TimG, on Dec 3 2008, 06:46 PM, said:

ArtK78, on Dec 3 2008, 05:45 PM, said:

TimG, on Dec 3 2008, 04:55 PM, said:

Yes, "partnership understanding to psyche" is something of an impossibility, just like a psychic control is misnamed because once there is a control it is no longer a psyche..

No.

A psychic control is a conventional method of finding out if partner psyched.

If I remember correctly, in the original Roth-Stone or KS (I don't recall which) there were very disciplined psyches and there were psychic controls.

These openings were not psyches -- they were by agreement either natural with 12+ HCP or 4-6 HCP with a four-card suit and at least 3 HCP in the suit (if I recall the KS agreement accurately). There was, indeed, a control to find out which of the two possibilities opener actually had. But, because it was all by agreement, these were not psyches.

They were not technically psychs, but the pair called them psychs. They had a dog and named it cat, pretty much.

[TimG]

jdonn, on Dec 3 2008, 06:51 PM, said:

TimG, on Dec 3 2008, 06:46 PM, said:

ArtK78, on Dec 3 2008, 05:45 PM, said:

TimG, on Dec 3 2008, 04:55 PM, said:

Yes, "partnership understanding to psyche" is something of an impossibility, just like a psychic control is misnamed because once there is a control it is no longer a psyche..

No.

A psychic control is a conventional method of finding out if partner psyched.

If I remember correctly, in the original Roth-Stone or KS (I don't recall which) there were very disciplined psyches and there were psychic controls.

These openings were not psyches -- they were by agreement either natural with 12+ HCP or 4-6 HCP with a four-card suit and at least 3 HCP in the suit (if I recall the KS agreement accurately). There was, indeed, a control to find out which of the two possibilities opener actually had. But, because it was all by agreement, these were not psyches.

They were not technically psychs, but the pair called them psychs. They had a dog and named it cat, pretty much.

Right. Although as Cascade points out, the meaning of psyche has probably changed over time.

[xcurt]

awm, on Dec 3 2008, 10:56 AM, said:

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...

Or just ask "is this a C&E hearing you just convened in section F?" and if the answer is no then just walk away. Midsentence if need be. Nobody, not even the DIC, has any reason to ask you to explain your bridge actions. If he says otherwise he is de facto accusing you of cheating and you NEED to be in front of C&E at that point so that everything you say is on the record.