[blackshoe]

 Zelandakh, on 2013-July-02, 02:02, said:

Greatly. But luckily I can simply pretend to be stupid and "forget" agreements or pull the wrong card out of the box. Or whatever.

Of course, that would be cheating. But who cares, as long as we get away with it, right?

[Free]

 ArtK78, on 2013-July-02, 06:13, said:

No, the difference is still only one card. Change a heart into a spade and it is 5-5, and everyone would open 1♠.

That's a ridiculous argument, you can't invent cards. In order to change 4-6 to a 5-5 you need to get rid of your ♥ and exchange it for a ♠ which someone else holds, that's 2 cards.

[ArtK78]

 Free, on 2013-July-02, 07:49, said:

That's a ridiculous argument, you can't invent cards. In order to change 4-6 to a 5-5 you need to get rid of your ♥ and exchange it for a ♠ which someone else holds, that's 2 cards.

Suffice it to say that I disagree (both that it is a ridiculous argument and that the opening bid of 1♠ on the hand I provided is not a psyche). I am sure you will find some who will agree with you, but I can't imagine that any reasonable TD would think that opening 1♠ on AKxx AQJxxx xx x is a psyche.

I suppose you would find an opening bid of 1♠ on AKxxx AQJxxx xx --- to be OK? Well, then, he is only one card off - one of his clubs was mixed in with his spades.

Really, this is nitpicking. I disagree with the contention that a 2 card disparity is "gross" whereas a one card disparity is "not gross." Bridge players, and TDs, have enough experience to know when an opening bid is a "gross" misrepresentation of shape and/or strength without setting any hard and fast rules. Here, we are even having an argument over what constitutes one card or two cards. That just points out the absurdity of setting hard and fast rules to govern the situation.To me, opening 1♠ on the given hand does misrepresent the opening bidder's shape. But it is not a "gross" misrepresentation of his shape.

[Free]

 ArtK78, on 2013-July-02, 08:02, said:

I suppose you would find an opening bid of 1♠ on AKxxx AQJxxx xx --- to be OK? Well, then, he is only one card off - one of his clubs was mixed in with his spades.

Then it's not a psych but a mistake... And a bad one if I may add, because that's a clear 1♥ opener planning to reverse imo.

 ArtK78, on 2013-July-02, 08:02, said:

Really, this is nitpicking. I disagree with the contention that a 2 card disparity is "gross" whereas a one card disparity is "not gross." Bridge players, and TDs, have enough experience to know when an opening bid is a "gross" misrepresentation of shape and/or strength without setting any hard and fast rules. Here, we are even having an argument over what constitutes one card or two cards. That just points out the absurdity of setting hard and fast rules to govern the situation.

Agree.

Anyway, I started a poll to avoid further discussion in this thread: http://www.bridgebas...754#entry735754

[straube]

Something that I don't like about psyches is that established partnerships often veer away from psyching lest their partners get used to their particular psyches or lest the partnership be accused of being wired or fielding psyches. For example, I heard that Meckwell doesn't psyche for this reason. So I understand this reasoning, but it also means that the only folks who feel at liberty to psyche are in unestablished partnerhips. So assuming that the ability to psyche has some advantage (else why do it?), why should unestablished partnerships enjoy a particular advantage over established partnerships? Sure, established partnerships have obvious advantages over unestablished partnerships, but it's an advantage that is the result of effort and time and an advantage that should be encouraged if anything.

[Free]

Meckwell doesn't really need to psych (they're considered the best pair in the world so why take any risks?), while Zia keeps psyching on a regular basis (and the crowd loves it).

[RMB1]

 fromageGB, on 2013-July-02, 05:32, said:

Clubs are encouraged by the ebu to write your name in a special book when you do, ...

Is this encouragement documented anywhere?

[jeffford76]

 ArtK78, on 2013-July-02, 08:02, said:

I can't imagine that any reasonable TD would think that opening 1♠ on AKxx AQJxxx xx x is a psyche.

Funny - I can't imagine that any reasonable TD would say it wasn't.

[barmar]

 straube, on 2013-July-02, 08:41, said:

Something that I don't like about psyches is that established partnerships often veer away from psyching lest their partners get used to their particular psyches or lest the partnership be accused of being wired or fielding psyches. For example, I heard that Meckwell doesn't psyche for this reason. So I understand this reasoning, but it also means that the only folks who feel at liberty to psyche are in unestablished partnerhips. So assuming that the ability to psyche has some advantage (else why do it?), why should unestablished partnerships enjoy a particular advantage over established partnerships? Sure, established partnerships have obvious advantages over unestablished partnerships, but it's an advantage that is the result of effort and time and an advantage that should be encouraged if anything.

Whatever "advantage" is gained by psyching in an unestablished partnership is balanced out by the fact that partner is as likely to be fooled as the opponents. This is an explicit requirement in the Laws regarding psyches: if you do it enough for partner to expect it, it's become an implicit agreement, which must be disclosed, and not a psyche.

[straube]

 barmar, on 2013-July-02, 10:02, said:

Whatever "advantage" is gained by psyching in an unestablished partnership is balanced out by the fact that partner is as likely to be fooled as the opponents. This is an explicit requirement in the Laws regarding psyches: if you do it enough for partner to expect it, it's become an implicit agreement, which must be disclosed, and not a psyche.

I understand this explicit requirement, but I disagree that psyching is "balanced" out by the fact that partner is as likely to be fooled as the opponents. If so, then there is no advantage to psyching so why do it? Say rather it is "offset" by the fact that partner is as likely to be fooled as the opponents and I would agree with that. Then my main point survives and this is that unestablished partnerships have a tool that established partnerships restrict themselves from having for ethical purposes. It's a small thing maybe, but it doesn't feel right to me.

[fromageGB]

 RMB1, on 2013-July-02, 09:48, said:

Is this encouragement documented anywhere?

Not "encouragement" in the literal sense, just suggesting that it can/should be done.

Orange book 6C Reporting and Recording
"6C1 Psychic bids do not have to be reported but a player may request the TD to record them if he wishes. To do so is not to accuse the opponents of malpractice. The TD may record any hand if he thinks fit."
Sections 6 B and D go on at length about assigning colour categories, and give the strong impression that psyching is "BAD".

The whole approach of recording is public (in a club setting), and the record in the register for all to see has an upsetting effect on a sensitive person to whom what other people think of her is more important than practically anything. While I have a thick skin, she doesn't, and many people think psyching is immoral, if not illegal.

[ggwhiz]

 fromageGB, on 2013-July-02, 05:32, said:

I have a partner who gets so upset when I have psyched that she has banned me from psyching

I read about a guy that psyched so often his pard told him that every one of those will cost you 20 bucks in the future.

Sat down against a pair he didn't like and he said "By the way, here's that 20 bucks I owe you. 1♠."

[aguahombre]

Chris' answer is mine also, about the psyches themselves.

It is often the aftermath of psyches which decreases my enjoyment. Fielding, psyches opposite psyches, reaction of inexperienced opponents, etc. Let's not mess with currently legal psychic bids. They are part of the game.

[RMB1]

 fromageGB, on 2013-July-02, 10:45, said:

The whole approach of recording is public (in a club setting), and the record in the register for all to see has an upsetting effect on a sensitive person to whom what other people think of her is more important than practically anything. While I have a thick skin, she doesn't, and many people think psyching is immoral, if not illegal.

The EBU does not encourage clubs to have a publicly readable psyche book - the procedure of what a TD does when asked to record a psyche at club level is up to the club. Psyche forms from EBU events are not made available outside the Laws and Ethics committee.

[straube]

 ggwhiz, on 2013-July-02, 11:09, said:

I read about a guy that psyched so often his pard told him that every one of those will cost you 20 bucks in the future.

Sat down against a pair he didn't like and he said "By the way, here's that 20 bucks I owe you. 1♠."

lol

[fromageGB]

 RMB1, on 2013-July-02, 11:21, said:

The EBU does not encourage clubs to have a publicly readable psyche book - the procedure of what a TD does when asked to record a psyche at club level is up to the club. Psyche forms from EBU events are not made available outside the Laws and Ethics committee.

I would happily go along with this approach. Seeing as the EBU seems anti-psyches (my perception, and that of others), I think it should go further and suggest that as psyches ARE a legal part of the game, recording is not public. And a space on the EBU convention card for likelihood of/attitude to psyching would be a help.

[barmar]

 straube, on 2013-July-02, 10:33, said:

I understand this explicit requirement, but I disagree that psyching is "balanced" out by the fact that partner is as likely to be fooled as the opponents. If so, then there is no advantage to psyching so why do it? Say rather it is "offset" by the fact that partner is as likely to be fooled as the opponents and I would agree with that. Then my main point survives and this is that unestablished partnerships have a tool that established partnerships restrict themselves from having for ethical purposes. It's a small thing maybe, but it doesn't feel right to me.

Well, unfamiliar partnerships are also at a disadvantage simply because the players aren't often on the same "wavelength".

And I think you're exaggerating the idea that established partnerships don't have this "tool". You can psyche in a regular partnership, you just can't make the same kind of psyche often enough that your partner is more likely to expect it than the opponents.

I'm not sure what you would like as an alternative. Full disclosure is a cornerstone of the game: the opponents are entitled to as much information about your methods as your partner is. So it would be unfair for partner to expect an alternate meaning of your bid without disclosing it to the opponents.

[straube]

 barmar, on 2013-July-02, 11:49, said:

Well, unfamiliar partnerships are also at a disadvantage simply because the players aren't often on the same "wavelength".

Yeah, but they shouldn't get a handicap for that. If I'm in an established partnership and sit down against a new partnership and they feel free to psyche while I don't, then that doesn't seem fair.

 barmar, on 2013-July-02, 11:49, said:

And I think you're exaggerating the idea that established partnerships don't have this "tool". You can psyche in a regular partnership, you just can't make the same kind of psyche often enough that your partner is more likely to expect it than the opponents.

Whether I'm exaggerating or not, I don't think they have this tool to the extent that a new pair does. If I'm in an established partnership I have to be concerned with whether partner will recognize my psyche or not...and to what extent he may suspect a psyche. I also will be concerned with how others view our partnership. Even if I catch partner off guard with a "new" psyche, the opponents and others in the community won't know that I gave him the same problem I gave the opponents.

 barmar, on 2013-July-02, 11:49, said:

I'm not sure what you would like as an alternative. Full disclosure is a cornerstone of the game: the opponents are entitled to as much information about your methods as your partner is. So it would be unfair for partner to expect an alternate meaning of your bid without disclosing it to the opponents.

I'd like psyches to be outlawed. I'd suggest a simple definition of what a psyche is (deviation of more than one suit card or 2 points or something like that). I'd make a distinction between a psyche and a bluff. For example, 2H-3N with a bunch of hearts I'd regard as a bluff because the bid is to play and carries no conventional meaning. Responding 1S to partner's hearts with short spades I'd count as a psyche.

I think psyches were more fun when bidding theory was less developed. As system has improved and hopefully partnerships have improved, I think many find psyches to be less useful, more destructive to the trust within their own partnership and more prone to ethical problems. I mean, doesn't it seem like psyches are less frequent than they used to be and less welcomed by the opponents? Game rules sometimes need to change as the game develops. I write this as someone who occasionally psyches but would be happy to give this up if the laws were changed.

[cargobeep]

Psyching does not decrease my enjoyment of the game.
The fact that my opponents/partner might be psyching does not.
If psyching were banned, it would affect my enjoyment of the game a little. There are some situations where psyching is the best way to avoid disaster.

[FrancesHinden]

 fromageGB, on 2013-July-02, 11:34, said:

I would happily go along with this approach. Seeing as the EBU seems anti-psyches (my perception, and that of others), I think it should go further and suggest that as psyches ARE a legal part of the game, recording is not public. And a space on the EBU convention card for likelihood of/attitude to psyching would be a help.

Obviously I can't argue with what you consider to be your perception, but I do wonder where you can possibly get the idea from that the EBU is 'anti-psyches'. The Orange Book states explicitly that psyches are legal. What isn't legal is a concealed partnership agreement, and that is what the whole 'recording psyches' thing is about. That's why the form asks how often you carry out that particular psyche in that particular partnership. Nowhere does any regulation state or suggest that psyches are a bad thing.

I see all the psyche report forms submitted from EBU events and I can promise you that psyches are alive and well certainly in EBU tournaments. And certainly nothing like all psyches get reported (mine tend to because (i) I"m on the L&E and (ii) I play in a very experienced and regular partnership). In fact, the majority are perpetrated by weaker players (I think in general because the strong players tend to do them more against other strong players, who can't be bothered to record them)

To be honest, maybe I'm missing something, but I also honestly don't understand why anyone would be concerned whether they are kept privately on on display. As it happens, the reports are kept confidential, but if you don't have a CPU, really, who cares? Many people think it is a badge of honour to have their first psyche report form sent in!

Some (many?) clubs and club players don't like psyches. That's not the same as the EBU being anti-them.