[blackshoe]

Tonight at the club game I run, a guy showed up partnerless, so I played with him, as I occasionally do. This guy, when he first started playing in the local clubs, quickly gained a reputation for, well, pretty much doing what he wanted at the table (in terms of bidding and play). IOW, he's not a "partnership" player. He's toned that down a lot since he first started, but the reputation still clings to him. Tonight, we had a short, uncontested auction: 1♣ by him, 1♥ by me, 2♠, 4♠. After I put down my dummy (I was 4=4=0=5 with about 4 high card points), I left to enter scores into the computer. At the end of the hand, our opponents called me back to the table. Seems my partner psyched - he had a six card spade suit, a stiff club, and about 16 points. They misdefended, he made the contract (should probably have been down one). "He psyched", they lamented. They did agree that there was no question of a CPU, but "he does this a lot". Turns out what they meant was that he apparently psychs rather frequently (with different partners) against them. I don't know how accurate their assessment is, but given this guy's reputation, I wouldn't be real surprised either way. The question is, what, in general, should I do about it? He could be held in violation of Law 74A2, but there's not much to that - the law suggests a PP should be rare, and doesn't provide any other sanction or rectification. One player commented that "he shouldn't be allowed to psych more than x times against a particular player or pair" and "there ought to be a regulation about how many times he can psych". This player isn't usually given to "sour grapes", so I don't dismiss these comments out of hand, but...

Any suggestions?

[Trinidad]

Obviously, he should have bid 3♠ at his second turn. Then you should have alerted it and explained as a "Canapé autosplinter".

As to your problem: I would take the "mediating route". Psyching is part of the game. The opponents will have to live with that. Suggest to your opponents that they should bid their own hands, rather than rely on the opponents' bidding.

You can suggest to your partner to take it a little easier on the psyching. Point out that lasting partnerships are more succesful in bridge. Tell him that he is allowed to psych, but that his psyches are one of the reasons why he can't form a lasting partnership. That way, you show him that he would score better if he would psyche less.

Rik

[Hanoi5]

If there is not a clear regulation you should try talking to him. And also talking to the other players. They should start guessing what's going on with the guy.

Anyway, did you win the tournament?

[blackshoe]

We came fifth. Our opponents came third.

Edit: we did get a shared top on this board.

[Cyberyeti]

You might find that the pair psyched against showed their lack of appreciation of the psyches on previous occasions, and this encouraged the psycher. I know that years ago, there was one husband/wife pair who did this when I psyched, so if I had something I felt might work, I psyched against them. No discussion with partner, but I knew that even if the psyche didn't work, they'd be chuntering enough for the rest of the set that I'd get some good boards.

Sometimes the other pair don't help themselves.

[aguahombre]

interesting movement, Cyber, where pissing off a pair in the other direction can do anything but help their opponents and not you. Even with a Howell it would not seem to be a good idea, unless that particular pair was your only real competition.

[barmar]

If the opponents know that he "does this alot", then they should be prepared for it.

In the long run, frequent psyching is more likely to hurt his game than help it. It may be annoying to the opponents when they get psyched against, but it's probably even more annoying to his partners who have to deal with the bad scores that usually result.

[bluejak]

A certain London married couple goes ballistic if anyone psyches against them, and this is well known. I heard them asking "Why do so many people psyche against us?" but since they were not asking me I did not tell them.

Upsetting a pair who over-react to psyches is a winning policy because of the next times you play against them.

As to the question, I would suggest you ask the pair why it matters if he psyches against them a lot since psyches lose more than they gain. [That may or may not be true, but it is worth saying.]

[jeremy69]

I agree with the above comments but I also think that if he psyches a lot but with a sufficient number of partners that a CPU is unlikely it is worthwhile recording the psyches so that when it builds up to a significant number(as it seems it is likely to do) the club committee can tell him that whilst psyching is part of the game the amount he does it is spoiling others enjoyment of the game so either cool it or look for another club.

[helene_t]

A friend of mine discovered that he could upset a particular pair by psyching against them, so he does that very frequently. But their hyper-sensitivity to his psyches have reached a point where he doesn't have to psyche since they will perceive everything he does as a psyche anyway. Once they called the TD because he passed his partner's 2NT opening with a bad 4-count. They thought that was a psyche since according to the book you are supposed to have max 3 points when you pass a 2NT opening.

[jdonn]

helene_t, on Nov 2 2009, 08:56 AM, said:

A friend of mine discovered that he could upset a particular pair by psyching against them, so he does that very frequently. But their hyper-sensitivity to his psyches have reached a point where he doesn't have to psyche since they will perceive everything he does as a psyche anyway. Once they called the TD because he passed his partner's 2NT opening with a bad 4-count. They thought that was a psyche since according to the book you are supposed to have max 3 points when you pass a 2NT opening.

Well yes there are those pairs. I got the director called on me once for doubling a 1♥ opening with a 4153 10 count. The opponents said you can only count 2 points for a singleton when no fit is known and therefore I did not have the 13 points I had promised.

[Pig Trader]

The last two posts lead me to recollect one of my most amazing experiences as a TD. I was at the big EBU Summer meeting at Brighton in August TDing the Swiss Teams and North South at one table called me to report a psyche. West had opened Vul first in hand 3♠ and his partner responded 3NT with ♠Axx ♥Ax ♦Axxx ♣Jxxx and NS felt that the 3NT was a psyche. This was not near the bottom of the field. All four players are current or recent Internationals!

Barrie

[Cyberyeti]

Pig Trader, on Nov 2 2009, 10:35 AM, said:

The last two posts lead me to recollect one of my most amazing experiences as a TD. I was at the big EBU Summer meeting at Brighton in August TDing the Swiss Teams and North South at one table called me to report a psyche. West had opened Vul first in hand 3♠ and his partner responded 3NT with ♠Axx ♥Ax ♦Axxx ♣Jxxx and NS felt that the 3NT was a psyche. This was not near the bottom of the field. All four players are current or recent Internationals!

Barrie 

Can do better than that, the married couple above insisted that I got put in the club psyche book for opening a 12-14 1N with an 11 count with 4 10s and 2 9s.

Bluejak and Helene sum up my attitude to this, I no longer need to psyche in local club bridge here because I have a reputation for it.

The only time I was tempted was when I played in a club where I wasn't known but my partner was, and the lol on my left looked at her partner, pointed at my partner and said "watch out for him, he psyches". (Un)fortunately I was dealt 2 opening hands so there was no issue.

[bid_em_up]

Pig Trader, on Nov 2 2009, 10:35 AM, said:

..

Barrie

I can't help but wonder.

What did you get for the pig?

[blackshoe]

jdonn, on Nov 2 2009, 10:17 AM, said:

The opponents said you can only count 2 points for a singleton when no fit is known and therefore I did not have the 13 points I had promised.

Rofl. I think it was Edgar Kaplan who said something to the effect that an agreement with partner is not a promise to opponents.

[blackshoe]

jeremy69, on Nov 2 2009, 09:39 AM, said:

I agree with the above comments but I also think that if he psyches a lot but with a sufficient number of partners that a CPU is unlikely it is worthwhile recording the psyches so that when it builds up to a significant number(as it seems it is likely to do) the club committee can tell him that whilst psyching is part of the game the amount he does it is spoiling others enjoyment of the game so either cool it or look for another club.

The "club committee" consists of three people - the woman who owns the club, who has not had anything to do with the day-to-day running of things for the last two years, me, and the woman who was most upset at the "psycher" last Friday. We don't have a procedure for recording psychs (this is the ACBL, afaik, no one does). I suppose we could start one. I'll talk to my "committee".

I have a suspicion that he psychs against certain players because he knows it annoys them. As I said, I'm going to have a talk with him — we'll see how that goes.

[Sadie3]

No one seems to mention that this was the first time blackshoe had been told that his partner was a frequent psycher. As a truely impartial TD, blackshoe had an obligation to treat this as a first time psyche (IMO). I also think that the reporting pair should be advised that they need to report this player every time he psyches so that a history may be established. In other words, "what is the problem?" Psyches are part of the game.

[bluejak]

Quote

I think it was Edgar Kaplan who said something to the effect that an agreement with partner is not a promise to opponents.

Terence Reese.

Quote

An agreement between partners is not an undertaking to the opponents.

[mycroft]

Hey, the reputation is better than the psyching. You should only psych enough to get and keep the reputation (and when it looks right, of course). The best part is when they say "Watch out, partner, this guy psychs" - you've already won. Partner will trust you right down the line (of course; if *he* doesn't trust you, the partnership's over, and there's nothing you can do about it); the opponents are always looking for the "hook", and you pass all the correct information for the entire round to partner, secure in the knowledge that the opps aren't getting it.

And if you do it early in the round, yes, the following pairs opposing the freakout pair get a benefit, but not as much as you do from the first two post-freakout boards.

Of course, I would never recommend that. And I never did it, with nice people who freaked out. Of course there was that one married couple...if they weren't so obnoxious to begin with, it wouldn't be so much fun to get my (and all the other psychers Down At That Club) own back by freaking them out.

Yet another reason I like having moved; even with all the problems we have in the local community (who doesn't have problems?), it's a lot less venomous.

[blackshoe]

I had a talk with the guy today, and told him most of what's been said here, particularly about a reputation for psyching. He listened, at least. Whether he'll change his ways remains to be seen.