[mycroft]

hmm, sorry to overpost this thread, but:

By the way, I believe and listen very strongly to what Fred says. He has more bridge experience than I will have in 20 years, and is a better bridge player than I will ever be. He is also likely a better system theorist and regulator than I will ever be.

And I remember watching on BBO Vugraph the Canadian Team trials where Fred was commentating. He went to great lengths to explain to the multiple outraged spectators, that, no, that 1S call was legal, and very much a proper bridge tactic (subject to the restrictions he has pointed out here, as he did there). He also explained that it was dangerous, but how this situation lowered the risk (I believe the psyching team was 40 behind at the half and had had a bad 4th set).

In this, as in everything else he does, he was at least at the call of duty, if not above and beyond - and this is for a bridge tactic that he has the opinions he has shown in this thread.

Thank you again, Fred.
Michael.

[DrTodd13]

I can't take the transmission out of my car and then advertise "car for sale." If someone buys the car, I'll get sued because I advertised it as a car but a car must
have a transmission. Likewise, you can't take psyches away from bridge and still call it "bridge." Call it whatever you want but you shouldn't call it bridge. I don't have a problem with people running tournaments that ban psyches or clubs or anyone banning psyches because I believe in freedom. Those people shouldn't call themselves bridge clubs because the global rules of bridge state that psyches are part of the game.

[fred]

Thanks Mycroft.

Please note that although my posts in this thread may sound "anti-psych", I do strongly believe that psychs are an integral part of our game (though if you read my last post carefully you will see that I have strong feelings about the ethics of frequent psychs).

I even psych myself every few years. If you want to read about the last time I can remember that I psyched (it was in 2002), log in to BBO, click Explore Bridge!, then Bridge Library, then English, the Deal of the Week, then DOTW #284. It is quite an amusing story and includes some additional thoughts on my opinions about psychs.

Yes, I do believe that psychs have their place in our game, but I also believe that it is entirely appropriate for club and tournament organizers to say that "psychs have no place in MY games".

For the record, I would never psych in a club game (or an online ACBL tourney which I consider to be the same thing) regardless of what the rules were. The reason is that I do not really care about my score when I play in these things. I play because I want to have an enjoyable time and I have learned the hard way that a significant % of club-level players get upset when someone psychs against them. That tends to ruin their enjoyment of their experience and my enjoyment of the experience is ruined as a result.

Besides that, it just doesn't seem fair (clubbing baby seals or taking candy from babies is what it seems like). Yes, I am willing to falsecard against these people and I am willing to play and defend as well as I can, but this doesn't feel like the same thing as trying to win by psyching. I can't put my finger on the exact difference, but I know that I feel very differently after psyching against lesser players than I feel after falsecarding or squeezing lesser players.

Fred Gitelman
Birdge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[Brandal]

DrTodd13, on Feb 28 2005, 06:13 PM, said:

I can't take the transmission out of my car and then advertise "car for sale." If someone buys the car, I'll get sued because I advertised it as a car but a car must
have a transmission. Likewise, you can't take psyches away from bridge and still call it "bridge." Call it whatever you want but you shouldn't call it bridge. I don't have a problem with people running tournaments that ban psyches or clubs or anyone banning psyches because I believe in freedom. Those people shouldn't call themselves bridge clubs because the global rules of bridge state that psyches are part of the game.

I can't remember where I said I wanted to ban psyches,
or take it out of bridge,I am merely asking questions
that interests me.

I am however concerned about what happens when what
Fred describes becomes a "reality":

[they become unusual agreements that are part of their
systems and, as such, they should then be alerted.]

To me that is not bridge anymore either,and even though
some depict me as a ludoplayer,I feel my game has integrity.

I don't need to be better than I am now,I enjoy the occiasional
tournament win,or occasional top 3 place.


Bottom line since some assume I'm in favor of banning psyches,
I'm NOT

[luke warm]

i've told this one before, but i played in a tourney with richard once and he opened 1nt in 3rd seat... i, of course, believed him (tho i had to pass, luckily )... it was a stone cold psych

but the point is, we played in another tourney a week or so later and he again opened 1nt in 3rd seat... i pm'd both opps and said "he's been known to psych in that position"... was i right to do so? i believe i was because *the thought entered my mind that he could be psyching*... to me the ethics of the situation were clear, even tho i'd only seen him do it once before

i don't think psychs are a problem for anyone, or for any partnership, as long as the opps are made aware of anything approaching a p'ship understanding... and for me, if it happens once that's enough

[mycroft]

luke warm, on Mar 1 2005, 01:14 AM, said:

i don't think psychs are a problem for anyone, or for any partnership, as long as the opps are made aware of anything approaching a p'ship understanding... and for me, if it happens once that's enough

And so does the WBF (assuming the psych was recent enough, or memorable enough). I think the WBF goes too far, but they have the right idea. But playing with my regular partner from Ontario (not the starred and circled Frequent psychs partner, but we still probably psyched 4 times out of every 10 made at a tournament - i.e. three or four times a year), I couldn't tell you more than two psychs he made. I know he made at least 10, but I don't remember the rest. I'm sure he could say the same thing about me.

So it doesn't have to be once - but when it's the psych that gave Mr. and Mrs. N. their only club win of the year, and they still gripe about it (the exact quote was "Even with the psych, we still won" - yeah, +800 into nothing really hurts your chances, doesn't it?), then once is enough.

Michael.

[Brandal]

luke warm, on Feb 28 2005, 07:14 PM, said:

i've told this one before, but i played in a tourney with richard once and he opened 1nt in 3rd seat... i, of course, believed him (tho i had to pass, luckily )... it was a stone cold psych

but the point is, we played in another tourney a week or so later and he again opened 1nt in 3rd seat... i pm'd both opps and said "he's been known to psych in that position"... was i right to do so? i believe i was because *the thought entered my mind that he could be psyching*... to me the ethics of the situation were clear, even tho i'd only seen him do it once before

i don't think psychs are a problem for anyone, or for any partnership, as long as the opps are made aware of anything approaching a p'ship understanding... and for me, if it happens once that's enough

I might start psyching one day,I've already falsecarded on occasion



I like your take on this,mr. warm,thx

[Brandal]

The_Hog, on Feb 28 2005, 04:50 PM, said:

There is more to it than hotShot suggests. Psyches are an integral part of the game because it is important that the opponents don't trust your bidding 100%

Why's that?

I want my partner to trust my bid,
it's an obvious "downside" that
most opps will also understand my bid
but for me that is a part of the game.

That all 4 at the table "enjoy" bridge
and may still be able to pull a satisfactory
result if doing their job.

I've played against people I feel inferior to
and think we'll never get a result here and I
don't like that feeling,especially since the
"seed" sown usually is arrogant and patronising
behavior.

Bridge is no fun then,and I happen to
think bridge should be fun first,results second.

Noone likes the feeling of being fooled,or being
ridiculed....do they?

ps. this is just my take,not inferring anything about you
or anyone else.

[inquiry]

luke warm, on Feb 28 2005, 08:14 PM, said:

he again opened 1nt in 3rd seat... i pm'd both opps and said "he's been known to psych in that position"... was i right to do so? i believe i was

Technically, I would say it was probably not right to send this PM if you know of only one time that richard made this psyche. If, on the other hand, you saw him do this twice or more, then it is not only appropriate, it should be required.

I had a parntner that use to alert pretty much all my non-vul bids (well not quite that bad) and tell the opponents I have been know to psyche a weak two, a 1NT opening bid, a new suit when opponents make a takeout dble, 3NT after partners preempt not vul, on and on... but never alerted similar bids when I was vul. Why is that? Because I very seldom psyche vul... but psyche relatively frequently (not crazy mind you) not vul.

Ben

[Brandal]

hrothgar, on Feb 28 2005, 01:59 PM, said:

For what its worth, from my perspective, the most interesting element of bridge is modelling the bridge auction as an information channel. Take this away and we might as well be playing Spades...

Regulators and players pretend that psychic calls are ?deliberate and gross misstatements of honor strength or suit length?. In actuality, so-called psychic calls are a subset of a more complex meta-agreement involving mixed bidding strategies.

I agree that take away the bidding,and we
might as well play spades

How a psyche can be part of an "information channel"
is more blurry to me,the way I "define" psyches.

My partner isn't supposed to know or suspect it is
a "deliberate and gross misstatements of honor strength
or suit length" if I psyche?

Maybe there is more to psyching as some people
point out.

I'm no authority in any way,I'm curious tho

---------------------------------------------------

To me,psyche is a "deliberate and gross misstatement of
honor strength or suit length" in order to ruin the "fun"
for the opps,obstruct their chances of finding a contract
that way.

Some say that asking bids or cuebids or trialbids and tactical
bids are psyches,but aren't these to be alerted and explained?

And are people serious when they claim if I play,say from T642
the 2 first instead of the 4 or the 6 if that would be what my
partner would expect,a psyche?

If so,then I psyche alot

[helene_t]

A practical implementation issue. Consider two scenarios:

1) Psyches are allowed. Somebody gives an explanation that turns out not to be true. You call the director because you think it was a concealed agreement and that you were dammaged. The opponents say: "We are allowed to psyche!". You say "This has nothing to do with psyching, it is misinformation!". (Think of somebody calling an intermediate jump overcall "weak", or whatever). Unfortunately, this is a low-level tournament, and the director is not sure what the term "psyche" actually means, either.

2) Psyches are not allowed. You make some call that according to some people's taste was outradgeous, which (at this level) could be a 1NT opening with a 5-card major, or a 1NT opening with a void, or anything in between. Opps call the director because they were damaged by your "psyche". Now it could be that you thought it was a normal call. Or that it was your style which you knew is slightly deviating but hardly enough to require an alert. Or that you made a mistake, you had just learned in the BIL lesson that a 4441 is not ballanced but in a moment of excitement you forgot. The director is unable to tell, of course.

My point is this: Forbidding psyches is fine if that's what the players want. But even if I play in such a tournament, I assume I have the right to follow my own style, to give common sense priority above agreed conventions, even if the opps and the director think a have a weired notion of common sense. Even if not playing Walsh, I reserve the right to conceal a diamond suit if I think it is more interesting for the opps than for partner. I reserve the right to play random signals whenever I think signalling would benefit declarer more than partner. And I reserve the right to make stupid mistakes. Can I expect the director to judge if I'm crossing the line and it becomes psyching?

[hotShot]

Well judgement can never be a gross misdescription.

If you ban psyches how do you call:
- bidding NT without a stopper in opponents suit
- bidding a 3 card suit like xxx to prevent opps to lead that suit against a NT contract (or maybe because you play 2/1 and have to bid this minor now)

[uday]

But look at what Hrothgar said on page 3 about "Mixed Strategies as applied to Bridge"

If you subscribe to this, couldnt we argue that there *are* no psyches?

A 1NT in 3rd seat could be alerted as

15-17 balanced 90% of the time
or
weak 1 suiter 10% of the time (or whatever).

I've never, in 20 years of bridge, run across someone who alerted this way, or even bid this way as a partnership style.

Are there any systems which try to make explicit use of this mixed strategy ?

[helene_t]

Uday, what you describe is not (necessarily) a mixed strategy. It is, in principle, something like a strong 2♣ opening announced as "can be strong but in order to discourage preemption it can also be a weak two in diamonds". A kind of controlled psyche, in effect, but it's announced so it's just a convention. We do not mention the probability that it is weak but that's just because it's unfeasible to require an unbiased estimate.

Suppose that the opps know that you follow a particular textbook 100%, including the rule that you never preempt with Qxxx in a major side suit but that Jxxx will never hold you back. You may reason that the negative inference that can be made when you fail ton preempt is more useful for the opps than for partner, in which case you change the rule to: if logit (1.3x+0.8y+2.2z+ ...... ) = p preempt with probability p. x,y,z etc are parameters describing the quality of you primary suit, the quality of your best major side suit etc. At game theory classes at college we solved that kind of optimization problems. As I understood it they have been developed for military purposes.

Some animals studies have shown that even insects can solve such optimization problems. There can be no doubt that poker players do the same. I'm not so sure for bridge players. If you play a very long team match, maybe. However, if the opps ask me under what circumstances my partner would preempt with a 4-card major side suit, my explanation would by in vague terms such as "overall defensive potential" etc. Our inability to operationalize our bidding style introduces enough randomness already. I don't think it would be necesary to add further randomness.

[hrothgar]

uday, on Mar 1 2005, 06:52 PM, said:

But look at what Hrothgar said on page 3 about "Mixed Strategies as applied to Bridge"

If you subscribe to this, couldnt we argue that there *are* no psyches?

A 1NT in 3rd seat could be alerted as

15-17 balanced 90% of the time
or
weak 1 suiter 10% of the time (or whatever).

I've never, in 20 years of bridge, run across someone who alerted this way, or even bid this way as a partnership style.

Are there any systems which try to make explicit use of this mixed strategy ?

Hi Uday

I'm not aware of any bidding systems that explicitly take the notion of a mixed strategy. I'm guessing that any number of players are intuitive aware of this aspect of the game, however, I doubt that many have explicit agreements on the subject. I know that my MOSCITO notes explicitly describe this type of strategy, however, I've never seen it formally discussed anywhere else. Zia's discussion about sting cue bids is one of the most explict discussion that I've seen...

I can offer four plausible explanations for this:

1. The dominant mental paradigm is based on the assumption that a "psyche" is a deliberate violation of an explicit egreement rather than part of a more comprehensive meta-agreement.

2. Existing regulatory structures within many Zonal bodies don't permit mixed strategies. As a result, players who apply this type of bidding strategy hide behind the notion of the psyche...

3. Operationalizing a bidding system based on mixed strategies is extremely difficult. While I'm sure that the basic application of mxied strategies is the "right" way to go, the math required to come up with precise percentages is well beyond me.

4. Point 3 means that full disclosure of methods becomes extremely difficult.

In short, this is one of those areas where I'm sure that I'm right and the rest of the world is wrong.

Personally, I think that the "correct" way to proceed is to eliminate the notion of psyches from the game. Restructure the laws and regulations based on the notion of mixed strategies. Finally, make a deliberate decision to either sanction or ban this type of bidding strategy.

I'm firmly convinvced that the arguments that constantly surround psyches are primarily based on the inherent tension between the framework used to construct the regulatory structure and the mental models that players are really applying...

[TimG]

uday, on Mar 1 2005, 10:52 AM, said:

But look at what Hrothgar said on page 3 about "Mixed Strategies as applied to Bridge"

If you subscribe to this, couldnt we argue that there *are* no psyches?

A 1NT in 3rd seat could be alerted as

15-17 balanced 90% of the time
or
weak 1 suiter 10% of the time (or whatever).

I've never, in 20 years of bridge, run across someone who alerted this way, or even bid this way as a partnership style.

What youhave described here is not a psyche, but rather a two-way agreement of some sort. Those are common and I'm sure you've run into them from time to time:

1) Stayman: usually invitational or better with a four-card major, rarely a weak three-suiter short in clubs (and traditionally also rarely the prelude to a sign-off in 3C);

2) Polish club: often natural with clubs, often a weak or mini NT and sometimes a string hand;

3) traditional multi: either weak with one of the majors or some variety of strong hands.

The difference between these types of agreements (and the 1NT call you describe, which is similar to a comic NT overcall) and psyches is the "agreement" part. There may also be a difference between these types of methods and Richard's "mixed strategy" in that Richard does not seem to want to include his partner in the information exchange -- the mixed strategy is intentionally designed to keep partner in the dark while not affecting the effectiveness of the strategy. That is, they present problems, but only to the opponents, not to partner.

I think we're dealing with three different things (multi-meaning bids, psyches and mixed strategies) and that it is important to remember this when discussing them.

Tim

[cherdano]

fred, on Feb 28 2005, 10:34 PM, said:

I also believe that if Zia really randomly cuebids Axxx or xxx and, especially if he has discussed this with his partner, that it is would very wrong of him not alert all of his cuebids. The reason is that such a bid is not a psych anymore - it is part of his partnership's system and it is also an unusual agreement (so it should be alerted). The opponents have a right to know that xxx is just as likely as Axxx when Zia or his partner cuebids.

Please note that I have great respect for Zia and his regular partner (Michael Rosenberg), not just as highly skilled players but also as highly ethical players. Perhaps they don't really play this way or perhaps they do alert their cuebids, I am not sure. I am quite sure that it would be important for them to do the right thing.

I am pretty sure you are right about suspecting that they do the right thing. For one thing, Sabine Auken once mentioned in a BBO vugraph comment that Zia had told her to alert all his game tries (I think she was supposed to explain something like "Could be showing genuine help-suit game try, could be lead-misdirecting psych, or could be showing nothing at all." Not clear to me how they were supposed to help them reach the right games ). Their CC is also very explicit about psychic run-out sequences after a weak NT opening.

Arend

[Free]

You got to just love all these threads about psychs. Imo it's very simple: people learn bridge, but they don't learn all the rules. For example, they just assume you always have to bid what you have. When something funny happens, they assume it's wrong and get angry.

Where's the real problem? Not with the psycher imo (it's allowed), not with the people who get angry as well (if they don't know everything, you can't expect people to react the propper way), but with the people who teach bridge and don't tell them it's allowed to lie! A lot of advanced players don't even know what a psych is exactly.

If you can fix the heart of the problem, then nobody will whine about someone fooling them. They'll just accept that they were framed and that it's allowed, next board plz. Ofcourse, it will take several years (read decades) before everybody would feel this way, but the sooner we begin, the sooner these threads will disappear and everybody will be happy.

[mycroft]

Brandal, on Mar 1 2005, 03:33 PM, said:

The_Hog, on Feb 28 2005, 04:50 PM, said:

There is more to it than hotShot suggests. Psyches are an integral part of the game because it is important that the opponents don't trust your bidding 100%

Why's that?

I want my partner to trust my bid,
it's an obvious "downside" that
most opps will also understand my bid
but for me that is a part of the game.

I guess my hidden footnote needs a bit more explanation.

Psyches work in two situations:
1) You get lucky. You make a WAC (ref WAG, def. 2) and it successfully throws a monkey wrench into their bidding or play. This doesn't happen often, but is spectacular when it does. One of my favourites was a psychic double of a 7NT contract, in hopes that declarer would need a finesse or a squeeze and go after the wrong opponent.

Oh, and like anything, you get better at it with experience, so they gradually morph into SWACs (*Scientific* WAC). What is it they say, "the more I practice, the luckier I get"? But it's still a loser when you do it - but you learn how to maximize the chance of success and minimize the potential loss.

2) Your opponents doubt what you are saying. As soon as they start thinking "he psyched that call last time, he might not have it, let's push" or "what if he doesn't have hearts this time?" you win. Not much, I will admit, but you win - because you get to tell the exact truth to partner, secure in the knowledge that the opponents will try to work out what lie you're making *this time*. And you win that little a lot.

If you don't believe me, ask Zia. He's a great player, but what makes him incredible is that he throws you, and you stay thrown. And the media sells it - it's part of his mystique - so now everybody "knows about Zia". I'll bet he doesn't psych much more than I do - okay, his "imaginative" plays are probably more frequent - but every single one of them are reported, so everybody hears about them. So he's "unreadable". And he does it to world-class players, again and again. Even though they know better. And there's quiet little Michael Rosenberg, bidding 'em sound, believing his partner *absolutely*, and on the other 999 of 1000 hands, they get that small win.

Similarly, there's two ways a psych loses:

1) You make that WAC and it works out spectacularly badly. You fool partner instead of opponents, and sometimes, what's worse, *she* has to play the disaster. Funny how nobody spreads those hands around - in fact, they just forget them. It's only successful psychs that are remembered.

2) Your partner doubts what you are saying. If this *ever* happens - short of you passing a forcing bid, or there being 75 points in the deck, or any of those "obvious" things. I mean that on this hand you open 1H and partner thinks "he might not have his bid" - you're sunk. Probably your partnership is sunk, too, because there is almost *no way* you can regain partner's trust once that doubt is settled in the core.

And guess what? You know all those "little wins" you got when your opponents don't trust you? They become "little losses" when partner doubts. And it will be "little loss"*26 boards a session instead of "little win"*2 boards*# opponents you've succeeded in instilling doubt on. And I can guarantee that isn't 13, even if your name is Zia.

Quote

I've played against people I feel inferior to
and think we'll never get a result here and I
don't like that feeling,especially since the
"seed" sown usually is arrogant and patronising
behavior.

I agree. And as a TD one of my jobs is to disabuse those "experts" from that attitude. It hurts the opponents, the expert, and the game, and people don't come back from that kind of nonsense. Note that the real experts usually don't have that attitude. They tend not to be arrogant - except in dealings with their almost-equals; and they don't patronize. It's the "thinks they're experts" that do that.

Remember, though, that if you're this pair's bunny - and everybody is somebody's bunny - they don't need to play games to win. You'll do that all by yourself. Don't I just know this...

But I don't see what that has to do with psyching in any way. I psych, I get a great result, I record it on the scoresheet and go on to the next hand. I try to minimize any discussion, because I don't *want* to gloat. The same thing applies when they walk into a weak NT sandwich and go for 800 into a shaky game, or when I pull off a double squeeze, or any other time I get a system or skill win. If I psych and it loses, I apologize to partner, score it up, and go on to the next hand. The same thing happens when we play weak 1NT+1 and the field is in 2M+1, or I stretch for a slam and it's not there, or I just lose my mind for a hand, or any other time I get a system or skill loss.

If the people who psych against you play mind games afterwards, call the TD, and get this straightened out. But please distinguish the legal psychic call from the improper (therefore illegal) intimidation.

One of the things I tell people when they complain to me about psychs is that they should feel honoured. Psychs are a losing tactic in most cases, never more than when the psychers are better than you are. So if they do it - and usually only the better players will do it, because only the better players are aware of it - then they must think that either you're killing them in the match, or you're good enough to be worth not playing down the middle and trying to win on merit.

And bridge is mucho fun when the experts take you out of the "fish" category!

Michael.

[DrTodd13]

To answer Uday's question, I know several people that will bid in third seat with a real opener or a very weak hand (especially a distributional one). The reason you never hear anybody alert such bids is that if you do it that much then you have a partnership understanding and then you are subject to the ACBL rule that such an agreement is illegal. It is also not necessary to alert in situations where psyches are very common. People are expected to know what those positions are...for example, 1H-(X)-1S.