[Kaitlyn S]

It's okay if somebody bids 2S over 2H with heart support and a small doubleton spade the first couple of times he does it.

However, if 2S over 2H is more often "not spades" than "spades", then it is a treatment, not a psyche. Treatments that aren't natural need to be alerted. It wouldn't surprise me if this as a treatment was on a higher level chart than allowed in the event than the OP was playing in.

I haven't seen the Bridgewinners discussion but I'll bet nobody else said this.

When I used to play a lot, there were pre-alerts (I even had to pre-alert upside down carding.) I wouldn't be surprised that as a treatment, this would have to be prealerted, if they still do such a thing.

[the hog]

You can't pre alert a psyche. Secondly Richard is not the Hog. He needs to play far better to attain Hog status.

[woodjohnd]

 Kaitlyn S, on 2016-December-03, 19:28, said:

It's okay if somebody bids 2S over 2H with heart support and a small doubleton spade the first couple of times he does it.

However, if 2S over 2H is more often "not spades" than "spades", then it is a treatment, not a psyche. Treatments that aren't natural need to be alerted. It wouldn't surprise me if this as a treatment was on a higher level chart than allowed in the event than the OP was playing in.

I haven't seen the Bridgewinners discussion but I'll bet nobody else said this.

When I used to play a lot, there were pre-alerts (I even had to pre-alert upside down carding.) I wouldn't be surprised that as a treatment, this would have to be prealerted, if they still do such a thing.

Thanks again Kaitlyn for another constructive comment. Regardless of whether we agree on all points, it is a pleasure to have a thoughtful and courteous exchange.

I originally created the post on Bridge Winners, and then decided to also try it on BBO to see if there was a different audience. And at least, in the form of yourself, that turned out to be the case.

My initial quixotic goal was to try to create a groundswell of support for an outright ban of psych bidding. I have understood from the start that this is a minority view, although I was encouraged a bit when I found the Larry Cohen link I mentioned earlier.

Here is the link to the Bridge Winners version if you are interested: http://bridgewinners...um/psyched-out/

Indeed 'Bid and Make' didn't get much positive feedback on Bridge Winners. And the comment you made above is EXACTLY what I have been trying to get at the whole time. It seems pretty clear to me that at some stage, those 'well-known' psychs are no longer psychs but agreements, and therefore should be subject to the usual disclosure rules. Maybe they should be on the convention card for frequent practitioners.

Here is a link to another Bridge Winners thread of interest on the subject: http://bridgewinners...e-psych-bids-2/
This latter thread is a long one, but I found it interesting to wade through. A fellow called Ken Cohen (since banned from Bridge Winners) made a number of contributions on this thread all related to these 'well-known' psychs and the fact that, in Ken's view, they weren't good for the game and should be banned. He too didn't get much love from the Bridge Winners crowd.

I find it ironic that the folks who are so willing to run 'Bid and Make' down because they were unaware of a specific 'well-known' psych, at the same time are unable (or unwilling) to accept that if they believe that everyone should know about that psych, then it can't possibly be considered as such.

[hrothgar]

 woodjohnd, on 2016-December-04, 14:49, said:

Indeed 'Bid and Make' didn't get much positive feedback on Bridge Winners. And the comment you made above is EXACTLY what I have been trying to get at the whole time. It seems pretty clear to me that at some stage, those 'well-known' psychs are no longer psychs but agreements, and therefore should be subject to the usual disclosure rules. Maybe they should be on the convention card for frequent practitioners.

...

I find it ironic that the folks who are so willing to run 'Bid and Make' down because they were unaware of a specific 'well-known' psych, at the same time are unable (or unwilling) to accept that if they believe that everyone should know about that psych, then it can't possibly be considered as such.

FWIW, I agree that the existing legal structures that bridge uses are inadequate to govern psyches.

I would very much prefer the notion of a psyche was removed from the legal structure and, instead, that "mixed strategies" were incorporated into the governance structure.
This would provide a much more useful vocabulary for players to describe their actual behavior.

With this said and done

1. Today, the notion of a psyche is the best that we have
2. It may be that at some point in time, psyches do become a matter of agreement, however, it is also quite clear that the regulatory structure allows the same player to repeatedly make the same psyche without crossing the line

You might not like this, but such is the nature of the game...

(And, for someone who claims to have been so very very ignorant about this whole topic a short time ago, you sure seem to have strong opinions about the frequency with which this sort of thing happens)

[1eyedjack]

 woodjohnd, on 2016-December-04, 14:49, said:

My initial quixotic goal was to try to create a groundswell of support for an outright ban of psych bidding. I have understood from the start that this is a minority view, although I was encouraged a bit when I found the Larry Cohen link I mentioned earlier.

Here is the link to the Bridge Winners version if you are interested: http://bridgewinners...um/psyched-out/

I have had a read of Larry Cohen's link to which you refer, and it does not seem to support a ban on psyching. It is mainly an observation that for the most part psyching is a losing strategy. That is not an argument for banning psyching. If anything it is an argument for encouraging its proliferation, provided not conducted by oneself or one's partner.

Personally I am pleased that banning it remains a minority view. In the few events that I have seen where a ban is illegally imposed (ie Acol club tourneys on BBO), the incompetent policing of that ban raises more problems that the act of psyching ever could have done.

[jogs]

 1eyedjack, on 2016-December-04, 17:28, said:

I have had a read of Larry Cohen's link to which you refer, and it does not seem to support a ban on psyching. It is mainly an observation that for the most part psyching is a losing strategy. That is not an argument for banning psyching. If anything it is an argument for encouraging its proliferation, provided not conducted by oneself or one's partner.

Personally I am pleased that banning it remains a minority view. In the few events that I have seen where a ban is illegally imposed (ie Acol club tourneys on BBO), the incompetent policing of that ban raises more problems that the act of psyching ever could have done.

I do favor a ban on psyching. If you want to psych, play poker.
It is relatively easy to field psyches by partner. But when
your side psyches both opponents must field the psych to
survive the board. Also fielding psyches often creates a
BIT.
If there were a rule that the psyching pair is not entitled
to protection, then I would agree to allowing psyches. Meaning
if your side psyches, their side is allowed to bid whatever they
like even if there is a BIT.

[hrothgar]

 jogs, on 2016-December-04, 18:05, said:

I do favor a ban on psyching. If you want to psych, play poker.

If you don't want to face psyches, go play hearts...

You might not like this, but your personal aesthetics don't trump the rules of the game

[Vampyr]

If psyches were made illegal, what would happen to misbids? Or even poor bids?

[the hog]

As Jack points out, L. Cohen does not suggest a ban on psychic bidding at all, far from it. He states HE does not psyche. I suggest you read his article again. Do you also want to ban pre emptive bids because they make life difficult for players? When I was a little tacker many years ago I played many times against a very strong pair who frequently used the following sequence (3?) P (3NT) on minimal values and a fit. Do you regard this as a psyche? It is not. 3NT undoubled nv vs vul is the optimum place to play a contract. Even -450 as against -620 will gain Imps for you. The first couple of times this caught me unaware but you learn to live and deal with it.

[mike777]

 the hog, on 2016-December-04, 20:20, said:

As Jack points out, L. Cohen does not suggest a ban on psychic bidding at all, far from it. He states HE does not psyche. I suggest you read his article again. Do you also want to ban pre emptive bids because they make life difficult for players? When I was a little tacker many years ago I played many times against a very strong pair who frequently used the following sequence (3?) P (3NT) on minimal values and a fit. Do you regard this as a psyche? It is not. 3NT undoubled nv vs vul is the optimum place to play a contract. Even -450 as against -620 will gain Imps for you. The first couple of times this caught me unaware but you learn to live and deal with it.

welcome Hog,,,,,you are missed.


regarding pysches you seem to miss or think your main point is not important.


I dont have a better answer. The result is that many perhaps more than most acbl player leave bridge...this is one of many ...I dont have a good answer but it does piss off players below the median ACBL master point list.....

[jogs]

 hrothgar, on 2016-December-04, 18:10, said:

If you don't want to face psyches, go play hearts...

You might not like this, but your personal aesthetics don't trump the rules of the game

I care less, if opponents psyche. In America, most of the new players are over fifty.
They can't handle psyches. One bad experience may make them give up the game.
The ACBL needs new players more than new players need the ACBL.

A compromise would make psyches is mid-chart treatment. Expert players should be able
to deal with psyches. The masses would never see one at the table.

Also a psyche is a bid to deceive. Pre-empts are not psyches. Neither are bids
which may be undervalued(in the opinion of opponents).

[hrothgar]

 jogs, on 2016-December-05, 18:13, said:

A compromise would make psyches is mid-chart treatment. Expert players should be able
to deal with psyches. The masses would never see one at the table.

I'll stick with the Laws of the game as they are written (especially since the number of Midcharts events is effectively zero)

[hrothgar]

 jogs, on 2016-December-05, 18:13, said:

Also a psyche is a bid to deceive.

And why do I care about this?

[wank]

if players are put off by psyches it's the fault of those teaching them the game who leave them unprepared or unaware. as i wrote here previously, a director at a national EBU event had a word with me to suggest i shouldn't have psyched against my previous opponents. this was an attitude i disagreed with entirely. if the opps thought this underhand, it's the job of the ebu or other authorities to disabuse them of this notion.

[1eyedjack]

It is my observation that there is a strong correlation between those who express aggravation at successful opposition psychs and those who adopt a sanctimonious smug glow of self-righteous gloating when the opposition psych (more frequently) fails. In that context I find it slightly surprising that they are so keen to have them banned.

[billw55]

The whole concept of seeking rectification here baffles me. I would be happy to have learned something useful from a stronger pair.

ACBL is already a "safe space" type organizer, what with all the system restrictions. How far does it need to go?

[glen]

 billw55, on 2016-December-06, 09:12, said:

How far does it need to go?

Clearly it must extend to "falsecards". Can you imagine that dishonesty is allowed during play?

[Vampyr]

What's the OP and ever inexperienced player needs to realise is that people generally psyche maybe once a year, twice tops (probably even including "baby psyches") and some explicitly do not psyche at all. So it's not as if the game were being overrun by psyches; in the vast majority of sessions, you will not encounter one at all. Basically, it's not worth worrying about, except to be sure that you can handle (1♥)-X-(1♠) and the like.

[billw55]

 Vampyr, on 2016-December-06, 12:22, said:

What's the OP and ever inexperienced player needs to realise is that people generally psyche maybe once a year, twice tops (probably even including "baby psyches") and some explicitly do not psyche at all. So it's not as if the game were being overrun by psyches; in the vast majority of sessions, you will not encounter one at all. Basically, it's not worth worrying about, except to be sure that you can handle (1♥)-X-(1♠) and the like.

I was thinking same, the OP meets his first psyche in 20 years and makes a ruckus about it. I could probably count psyches against me on one hand over the years. I don't think it's worth the fuss.

[mycroft]

Yes, compared to misbids, "oh, we play a different system against weak NTs" (well, half of 'we' do), miscounting aces (whether in response to blackwood or passing a "9-count" 13), system forgets (including double system forgets),... the issue with psyches is vanishingly small. But like lightning strikes, if you do get hit with one, you'll remember it for a long time. And remember:

"A tactical bid is a psych, made by an expert against a lesser player (aren't we all?), that convinces the lesser player to do something that allows the expert to get away with something. A psych is a tactical bid made against that same expert that got them to do something wrong, and gives a good score to that lesser player. Psyches should be outlawed; but of course that doesn't apply to tactical bids."