[Brandal]

keylime, on Feb 25 2005, 07:23 PM, said:

Even with the anti-psyche policy my duplicate club tries to enforce, we STILL do it when needed.

why?

Isn't that just as bad as ban psyches?

[Walddk]

fred, on Feb 25 2005, 08:00 PM, said:

If I was running a real life bridge club and I knew that 99% of the players in my club preferred that psychs not be allowed, it would be a very bad business decision for me to allow psychs ....

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

Fred raises an interesting point. Should one deliberately violate the Laws of Duplicate Bridge in order to make the members happy? Most club owners and their clubs (at least in Europe) are members of their domestic federations, which in turn are members of the EBU, WBF etc., and are as such subject to the Laws.

Consequently, as an example, one should allow the use of psychic bids, because they are not disallowed as part of the game.

In theory this is fine, but it doesn't, or shouldn't, work like that in real life. To be honest with you, I don't care much about the Laws if I think that some of them are totally unfair to the members I have in my club. I run a business, and no one is going to interfere with the rules I set.

Yes, I have violated the Laws on several occasions. I am fine about it, and I am sure the Danish Bridge Federation would be too if they knew. Maybe they do, but I have not been in trouble during the 16 years I have managed the bridge centre.

As far as psychs are concerned, I don't mind them as such (unless my members do, of course!), but I do not like psychs with no risk involved. Let me give you this example:

You have decided to play Drury, so you have a psych without risk 3rd in hand, non vulnerable, holding

♠10432 ♥7 ♦KJ9 ♣108743

when you open 1♥.

The worst scenario is 2♣ from partner, and then you just pass. No risk, no 800 or 1100 ever. That is of course completely wrong whether the Laws allow you to bid 1♥ with a hand like this or not.

Roland

[hrothgar]

Walddk, on Feb 28 2005, 07:08 PM, said:

fred, on Feb 25 2005, 08:00 PM, said:

If I was running a real life bridge club and I knew that 99% of the players in my club preferred that psychs not be allowed, it would be a very bad business decision for me to allow psychs ....

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

Fred raises an interesting point. Should one deliberately violate the Laws of Duplicate Bridge in order to make the members happy?

I agree that Fred has raised a very interesting question: I recognize that this posting is going to depart pretty far from bridge, however, I hope to be granted some license.

De Tocqueville and John Stuart Mill both spoke, at length of the "Tyranny of the Majority". Given that certain posters on this forum are quite fond her philosophies, its worth noting that she had a great deal to say on this subject as well.

While this is a dramatic over-simplicification, its generally accepted that preserving the rights of minorities is one of the appropriate roles of the government. Traditionally, these "rights" are enumerated in a legal structure that embodies both documents and precedence.

I certainly don't believe that my right to "Psyche" as documented in the Laws of Bridge is as significant as the Rights that are protected by the US Constitution. I am merely suggesting that there are some interesting parallels in the arguments...

[jdulmage]

fred, on Feb 25 2005, 08:00 PM, said:

I think the bottom line has to be making the players happy. This is even more important than the "sanctity of The Laws" in my view.

The reason I believe this is purely practical. If bridge tournaments are run according to policies that ruin the enjoyment of the experience for most of the people who participate, then eventually these tournaments (and perhaps even the game itself) will die as a result.

If I was running a real life bridge club and I knew that 99% of the players in my club preferred that psychs not be allowed, it would be a very bad business decision for me to allow psychs in my club in order to cater to the other 1% (even if I believed that The Laws of bridge were given to Moses from God himself). This would be particularly true if the club across the street had a "no psychs" policy.

Our free tourney TDs are not running their own businesses, but they do want people to play in their tournaments. If their judgment suggests that allowing psychs will drive people away from their tournaments, then it makes perfect sense to me that these people should be allowed to do something about it. Why should they be forced to run tournaments that their players won't enjoy?

If the "purists" out there don't want to play in these tournaments or don't want to consider such tournaments to be "real bridge" that is entirely up to them. If the purists are dismayed that there are not enough free tournaments on our site in which they are allowed to psych, they are welcome to run their own free tournaments with whatever rules they want.

Ultimately if The Laws define a game that most of the players don't enjoy, the game is fundamentally flawed and The Laws should be changed.

Please note that I am not making any claims about what % of bridge players would prefer psychs to be banned or what a reasonable threshold % should be before it becomes appropriate to ban them. My only claim is that there is not much point in having a game if its rules result in a lot of the participants not wanting to play.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

amen, Fred.

If it's one thing I cannot stand it's psyche at the club level. I don't care and can tolerate/workaround psyches at tournament level. It is when I bring out a brand new player and I am trying to teach them the basics of bridge and somebody decides they will open 1♥ with a void in hearts and screw everything up. This is where the new player goes "what just happened there?" and I have to explain to them that they psyched you.

I remember once, the bidding went 1C (Dbl) 1H(!!!!) ? - Partner doubles, 1H is overcalled, I have 6 hearts in my hand, there is no way he was bidding 1H with 4 of them. So I bid 4H over it, passed out, making 5. I was right and the expert looks at me and says "You got lucky", well I'm sorry, you are the one who got lucky.

So our club has a "Psyche Book". We allow 1 psyche a night per person, if it exceeds this, they get added to the book where people can see that they psyche a lot and to factor that in to their bidding/playing.

To work off of Fred's words -- At the tournament level, it's fine, it's highly competitive. However, at the club level, to encourage new players and to keep people coming back, you will always want to cater to the majority FIRST, laws second.

[uday]

Argh, hrothgar has sucked me in again

1. Since the community has the ability to create as many tourneys as we please, arent the rights of the minority protected? All it takes is one willing TD.

2. Is it inevitable that this online community (here, the pool of TDs and players) will fragment into clusters? If so, won't that allow any minority interest to be protected within its cluster?

3. A psyche by an established member of the community is one thing; it is just bridge. A psyche on the first board by some guy who has logged in for the first time is another. Are the players entitled to be protected from frivolity? How can a pair tell if the oppos are just messing around (no cost to the perp to do so). Is this like spam? Free to send out, costly to receive?

4. Would it be ridiculous to restrict the psyches to people who have some skin in the game? perhaps people who have logged in XXX times, played YYY hands?

5. Why is it that pyches in particular get us going? If the issue was "mad overbidding", no one would care.

6. What distinguishes a public event (like ACBL club games) where rules must be followed, from private events where anything could be allowed/disallowed? Our current public events are ACBL games and, well, ACBL games. No one else is bound by the laws of bridge or good taste or anything beyond BBOs own law ("be nice").

[mr1303]

The comment regarding drury does not reduce the risks of going for -1100

Supposing partner held:

x AJxxx Axxx xx

and you opened in 3rd 1H on the hand that Roland posted. RHO doubled (because he would). Who in their right minds wouldn't bid 4H now? If anyone would bid drury here then this isn't drury as it is meant, it is a psyche control pure and simple. The idea behind drury is that on hands like:

Axxx
Kxx
KJx
xxx


if partner has opened an 11 count, you don't get to a no-play 3H. Not for dealing with hands with 5-6 card support for partner's suit.

[hrothgar]

uday, on Feb 28 2005, 08:03 PM, said:

Argh, hrothgar has sucked me in again

1. Since the community has the ability to create as many tourneys as we please, arent the rights of the minority protected? All it takes is one willing TD.

2. Is it inevitable that this online community (here, the pool of TDs and players) will fragment into clusters? If so, won't that allow any minority interest to be protected within its cluster?

Hi Uday

I don't see anything wrong if private organization decide that they want to modify or customize regulations. However, if they do so, I think that thye have an obligation to specifically note that they have done so. As both The_Hog and TimG note, potential customizers have the right to know that whatever card game is being played here, it sure ain't "Bridge". More importantly, I'd want to be able to understand the regulatory structure is based on the Proprietor's personal whims.

I also think that its important to differentiate between the behaviour of what are essentially small fringe organization as opposed to large Zonal organizations. I see nothing wrong if Joe Bob's Bait, Tackel and Bridge shops wants to make a rule that says that Queens are wild. Similar behaviour on the part of major sponsoring organizations strikes me as highly problematic.

I'm sure that many people on this mailing list know that I've had some major problems with the ACBL over the years. Historically, my main issues has never been the particiular set of reglations that the ACBL has adopted, but rather what I percieve to be biased and selective enforcement of the existing regulatory structure. As a result, I tend to be somewhat sensitive consistant enforcement of the Laws...

[Walddk]

mr1303, on Feb 28 2005, 12:16 PM, said:

The comment regarding drury does not reduce the risks of going for -1100

Axxx
Kxx
KJx
xxx

Your first example is not valid, because 4th hand has too many hearts, so he won't double. You respond 2♣, because Drury "forbids" you to bid anything but 2♣ with a near opener and support.

Opener passes, and 4th hand is left guessing. Is it safe for him to enter the bidding or not? They don't have a heart fit in this example, but they have when responder has

Axxx
Kxx
xxx
KJx

Again 4th hand has too many hearts to act on his first turn. When 2♣ comes back to him, the situation is intolerable once more.

When playing Drury you have a controlled psyche available 3rd in hand. That is what I dislike. An element of risk should always be there when you gamble.

By the way, lesser players tend to psyche more than experts! Psyching is not the way to win matches or tourneys. Experts rarely use psyches; perhaps once a year on average.

You can travel to the end of the world on a lie, but you can't come back!

Roland

[Brandal]

hrothgar,
I'm curious about this,why isn't it bridge without the option
to psyche?

[hotShot]

I playing with my regular partner, anyone may psyche as much as he likes, because i know that i can trust my partner. And we have the ability to make him pay. If not, we learned a "good one".

Playing on BBO with a pickup partner, who states he is advanced or better, I always have in mind, that he might use a different style than i am. So the risk you take with a psyche is a lot lower. So i'm less impressed.

Psyching agains beginner and novices, just to show off, is bad sportsmanship.

[hrothgar]

Brandal, on Feb 28 2005, 09:06 PM, said:

hrothgar,
I'm curious about this,why isn't it bridge without the option
to psyche?

I subscribe to the quaint notion that the official laws of bridge actually have some relation to the game. Most notably, Law 75 B states

B. Violations of Partnership Agreements

A player may violate an announced partnership agreement, so long as his partner is unaware of the violation (but habitual violations within a partnership may create implicit agreements, which must be disclosed). No player has the obligation to disclose to the opponents that he has violated an announced agreement and if the opponents are subsequently damaged, as through drawing a false inference from such violation, they are not entitled to redress.

[Brandal]

hrothgar, on Feb 28 2005, 01:13 PM, said:

Brandal, on Feb 28 2005, 09:06 PM, said:

hrothgar,
I'm curious about this,why isn't it bridge without the option
to psyche? 

I subscribe to the quaint notion that the official laws of bridge actually have some relation to the game. Most notably, Law 75 B states

B. Violations of Partnership Agreements

A player may violate an announced partnership agreement, so long as his partner is unaware of the violation (but habitual violations within a partnership may create implicit agreements, which must be disclosed). No player has the obligation to disclose to the opponents that he has violated an announced agreement and if the opponents are subsequently damaged, as through drawing a false inference from such violation, they are not entitled to redress.

I don't question the legality hrothgar,I was more
curious about what you think psyches add to the
"52 cards" making it more bridge than no psyches?

I mean,just because it's legal doesn't necessarily
add alot to the game?

[hrothgar]

Brandal, on Feb 28 2005, 09:29 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Feb 28 2005, 01:13 PM, said:

Brandal, on Feb 28 2005, 09:06 PM, said:

hrothgar,
I'm curious about this,why isn't it bridge without the option
to psyche? 

I subscribe to the quaint notion that the official laws of bridge actually have some relation to the game. Most notably, Law 75 B states

B. Violations of Partnership Agreements

A player may violate an announced partnership agreement, so long as his partner is unaware of the violation (but habitual violations within a partnership may create implicit agreements, which must be disclosed). No player has the obligation to disclose to the opponents that he has violated an announced agreement and if the opponents are subsequently damaged, as through drawing a false inference from such violation, they are not entitled to redress.

I don't question the legality hrothgar,I was more
curious about what you think psyches add to the
"52 cards" making it more bridge than no psyches?

I mean,just because it's legal doesn't necessarily
add alot to the game?

I would strongly prefer that existing Laws such as 75B were modified to reflect the "realities" of of how Bridge is actually played.

I have argued on several occasions that "Psyches" as commonly understood don't actually exist. Rather, this phenomenal is an imperfect approximation of behaviour more properly described as a mixed strategy in bidding. Furthermore, I assert that if Laws aren't properly aligned with the decision making strategies that players actually use there will inevitably be severe tension.

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...

The following piece provides a more detailed discussion regarding some of these ideas.

Mixed Strategies as applied to Bridge

The academic discipline of game theory differentiates between “pure” strategies and “mixed” strategies. Pure strategies are deterministic. Players choosing a pure strategy follow a predictable course of action. In contrast, mixed strategies deliberately incorporate random action. The simplest example of a mixed strategy equilibrium is the Penny Matching game. Two players simultaneous display a penny. If the two coins “match” (both coins are heads or both coins are tails) then Player 1 keeps the two pennies. If the two coins don't match then Player 2 keeps both pennies. The only equilibrium strategy to this game is mixed. Each player should randomly determine whether to display Heads or Tails using a 50/50 weighting scheme.
The concept of a mixed strategy can be applied to a number of areas within bridge. The simplest and best know examples come from declarer play and defense. Many well understood problems like restricted choice make use of mixed strategies. For example, declarer leads a low Diamond into D QJ9 and plays the Queen after LHO plays low. RHO holds both the Ace and the King and needs to determine which card to cover with. Restricted choice analysis presumes that the defender is applying a mixed strategy will randomly chose to cover with the Ace or the King, once again applying a 50/50 weighing scheme.
Mixed strategies can also be applied to the design of bidding systems. Players applying a “pure” bidding strategy will always chose the same bid bid with a given hand. In contrast, players employing a mixed bidding strategy allow deliberate randomization. Consider the following example taken from Bridge My Way by Zia Mahmood. You hold

S AQJ3
H K5
D 873
C A653

The auction starts

1H – 1S
3S - ???

and you need to chose a rebid. Zia advocates a bidding style in which players should randomize between 4C and 4D cuebids. Zia never goes so far as to discuss probabilities, but hypothetically he might chose a 4C cuebid 80% of the time and a 4D cuebid 20% of the time. Alternatively, consider the following example: White versus Red partner opens 1H in first seat promising 5+ Hearts and 10-15 HCP. RHO passes. You hold:

S 742
H AK762
D 9732
C 4

I advocate a hypothetical “mixed” strategy in which players bidders

4H: 60% of the time
3NT: 20% of the time
2NT: 10% of the time
2D: 5% of the time
1S: 5% of the time

Players who adopt mixed bidding strategies allow for the use of multiple bids to describe a single hand. As a consequence, many responses could show radically different hand types. For example, players adopting Zia's Sting Cue bid style need to describe their 4C cue bids as either “First round control of Clubs or [rarely] no control of clubs”. In an equivalent fashion, my partners would need to describe my 3NT raise of a Precision 1H openings as either a strong balanced hand willing to declare 3NT OR [rarely] a preemptive raise of Hearts.
In turn, this brings us to the last major area in which mixed strategies and bridge overlap: Regulatory structures. Few if any Zonal authorities incorporate mixed bidding strategies into their regulatory structures. Instead, regulators attempt to sidestep the issue using the concept of a psychic call. 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 argue that neither players nor regulators are served by this pretense. Complete disclosure can never be achieved unless the regulatory structure matches the actual strategies employed by players.

[hotShot]

I wonder what poker player would say, if they were not allowed to bluff.
Would they think that with this restriktion it's still poker?

Any action that is not illegal, is a legitimate part of the game.

[Brandal]

hotShot, on Feb 28 2005, 02:16 PM, said:

I wonder what poker player would say, if they were not allowed to bluff.
Would they think that with this restriktion it's still poker?

Any action that is not illegal, is a legitimate part of the game.

I guess that depends what would be considered bluffing?

Would a pair of aces be considered a bluff with $100.000
on the table?



Why do "we" need to resort to psyches,what does it add
to "our" game to bid what we don't have?

To me it's like athletes on dope

"haha,fooled you"

Or is it just for the heck of it,bridge itself is too boring?

[hotShot]

Brandal, a psyche only works if you trust your opponent more than you trust our partner. So a psyche is a test of partnership understanding and a test of your bidding skills to uncover it.

Partnership understanding and bidding skill are two very importent parts of bridge. This has nothing to do with "athletes on dope".

There is nothing to bidding without opponents interference, this is what beginner should reach first.
The true challenge is to master this, with opps doing their best to make your life harder.
Every restriction you apply, reduces the challenge.

[the hog]

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%

Look at Hrothgar's description of Zia's sting cues. The very fact he is known as a perptrator of these gives him an advantage over his opponents.

One very good player I know advocates that in a long team match against unknown opponents one should sow the seeds of doubt early so that there is always an element of doubt about your bids.

The truth of the matter is that as Richard says Law 75B explicitely allows psychesin Bridge and makes no distinction in the on line game. If you ban psyches ok, but don't call it Bridge; call it something else.

[mycroft]

fred said:

I think the bottom line has to be making the players happy. This is even more important than the "sanctity of The Laws" in my view.

I do agree, Fred. Especially about "not having tournaments". But I play Magic, as do thousands of "juniors". Many of those play "tried and tested" decks, but there are many who go out and experiment. And the range of experimentation is at least as wide as in Bridge.

And these are the people who would be interested in Bridge - until they hit all the "silly restrictions" (their words - I ran a University Bridge club, I've heard it at least three times!) that we have put into the game "to make the [existing] players happy". Their response to being psyched is "Oh, really? You can do that? Neat strategy." - the same reaction one gets from them the first time they see a strong club system, or splinters, or...

So I worry about Bridge dying from age because we are pushing away the CCG players, which is a *big* target market.

I have no feelings about "sanctity of the Laws" - but I do have great problems with Carrollesque administration of those Laws. If the Laws say one thing, one should be able to expect that that's what they mean. If "we" as a community don't like that meaning, we should change the Laws (as you do say later), not tell the readers that "they mean what we say they mean" (which is what's currently happening in a few cases).

So until the Laws are rewritten to match what Sponsoring Organizations do, I will rail against the darkness. And that especially pertains to psychic calls and plays.

jdulmage said:

If it's one thing I cannot stand it's psyche at the club level.  I don't care and can tolerate/workaround psyches at tournament level.  It is when I bring out a brand new player and I am trying to teach them the basics of bridge and somebody decides they will open 1♥ with a void in hearts and screw everything up.  This is where the new player goes "what just happened there?" and I have to explain to them that they psyched you.

I assume you've told the new player how to signal. And I'm also going to assume the new player is good and reads the opponents' signals. And goes down when LHO falsecards and he believes her. The new player goes "what just happened there?"

And you have to explain...what? That they're allowed to lie?

What's the difference, play or bidding?

Similarly, what do you do with the new player when the auction goes 1C-1H-(long sequence of asking bids leading to)-7S in for a top, because Standard can't find the CJ? And you have to explain to them that there are other ways of bidding, that have good points and bad points, and the strong club pair will pay for that top later when they pinpoint the killing lead/wrongside the contract/play the wrong partscore because of their system...

Or 1NT all float for a top because they play 12-14 NTs and they were the only pair to not pinpoint the killing lead? What about that?

Until the Laws get changed, psychic calls are a legal tactic. A losing tactic, in the long run, I believe, but a legal one nonetheless. I agree with you that psyches against new players are not a good idea, but not because they're "bad", but because they're even more losing bridge than normal, because the upside isn't as strong.

Select the following footnote to read it, if you care...

Spoiler

However, having a reputation as a psychic bidder is a *winning* strategy, in my view, because most opponents start second-guessing *all* your calls. So you and partner trust each other explicitly, the opponents think you're getting them again, and you make unmakeable contracts.

To get this reputation, you have to psych occasionally, often enough that the word gets around, and maintain it often enough that the word stays going around. What you lose on the swings, you get back on the roundabouts, if you do it right.

Also, some of the club games around here are stronger than the tournaments...and at least as competitive.

And if we do a "no psyches in clubs" rule, or "no psyches in NLM games" or "no psyches against NLMs in the open games", all we do is delay the onset of this part of the game even farther, so that it's 10 000 hands before they run across their first psychic. Now how hard do you think it's going to be to convince them it's a legal, normal part of the game?

jdulmage said:

I remember once, the bidding went  1C (Dbl) 1H(!!!!)  ?  -  Partner doubles, 1H is overcalled, I have 6 hearts in my hand, there is no way he was bidding 1H with 4 of them.  So I bid 4H over it, passed out, making 5.  I was right and the expert looks at me and says "You got lucky", well I'm sorry, you are the one who got lucky.

Proper response to expert is "no, it's just that unlike most people, I actually trust my partner's bids." And smile. Frankly, that's the best defence to psychics.

Of course, if you're not playing "extended responsive doubles", you can double 1H, and there might just not be a safe landing spot for Mr. Expert. If you are...well then it's a system loss, you have to eat them occasionally.

Bidding goes in waves. One of the reasons for the death of the penalty double is that psychics are "frowned on" so strongly that you don't need a penalty double at the one level to ferret them out any more. And with the death of the penalty double, it becomes safe to overcall on hands that would be considered psychs in 1950. So we do. And when we hit a pair playing 1950's methods, we occasionally get -800s into nothing. Eventually some real experts, who defend well, are going to realize this, start playing 4-card majors (to minimize the loss of negative doubles), and play no artificial doubles invented after 1960. And they're going to win in two ways:

1) They'll get all those juicy numbers Simon wrote about in "Why You Lose at Bridge".
2) Eventually their opponents will get to know this, will tighten up their overcalls to safe levels, and give their constructive methods much more free rein than anybody else gets.

I don't know if we've got to the point where taking back the penalty double is a winner yet, but it has to be close.

As I said, though. another downside to the death of the penalty double is that it is susceptible to psychic interference. But of course today we're safe in a way we weren't in Josephine Culbertson's day from that hole in the system - we just make them either illegal or immoral instead.

It was over 40 years ago that the following was penned:

"Thanks for the Bulletin's clever
 Clarification endeavour.
 [space] [space] It seems you may psyche
 [space] [space] As much as you like,
 [space]As long as you like to psyche never."

Ah well.
Michael.

This post has been edited by mycroft: 2005-March-11, 13:40

[fred]

To me there is a big difference between the psych of a cuebid (or a splinter or a game try or...) and the type of psychs that involve opening the bidding with zero HCP or preempting when you have a singleton in the suit you bid.

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.

One problem with psyching in general is that there are not very many types of psychs that rate to be effective. Those few top players who psych at all are of course familiar with which psychs are likely to work. Once they try these specific psychs a few times with regular partners, these bids stop being psychs - they become unusual agreements that are part of their systems and, as such, they should then be alerted.

I am not an expert on The Laws, but I believe that sponsoring organizations DO have the right to regulate some partnership agreements. If you and your partner play that a 3rd seat opening bid at favorable vulnerability is either 0-4 HCP or a normalish opening bid (which is not an uncommon way to play for some "frequent psychs" pairs), this is no longer about psyching - it is about playing a system that I think would be considered an "illegal system" in just about any tournament that I have ever played in.

My partner Joey Silver used to like to psych a 2 of a major response to my weak 1NT openings (we did not play transfers - 2H/S was to play) on weak hands without length in the bid suit. It didn't take long until I started alerting every time he bid 2H/S over my 1NT. Joey's tactic was effective as a psych, but it was not effective once it became an agreement and I felt obligated to let the opponents in on the joke.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[mycroft]

Brandal, on Feb 28 2005, 09:23 PM, said:

Why do "we" need to resort to psyches,what does it add to "our" game to bid what we don't have?

[cut]

"haha,fooled you"

So, brandal, you never falsecard? You never, as declarer, try a chinese finesse or a pseudosqueeze because "you don't have it"? You never try to muddy up the defenders' signals by hiding the 3, the 2, or both?

Playing against you must be fun. And profitable.

Oh, but that's different? How, pray tell? Just because it comes in the play, not the bidding? You know, the Laws don't differentiate between bidding and play conventions...

And how about so-called "tactical bids"? You've never made a "phantom cuebid"? Or used 2NT feature ask over 2S as a preemptive raise? Or opened just that little bit light in second seat, white against red, against the best pair in the room?

Remember, a "tactical bid" is a psychic call made by an expert. A psych is a tactical bid made against the same expert. (<anecdote style="military">No *#$%, there I was, with a BIGNUM MP player, club and Tournament director, trying to tell me that overcalling 1H in third seat with xx -- KQTxxx Jxxxx was a "tactical bid". Last week, no less.</anecdote>)

Quote

Or is it just for the heck of it,bridge itself is too boring?

There are many reasons why I psych. Sometimes I just have a feeling it will work. Sometimes I think it won't, but they're getting to a cold slam if I don't, so why not try to confuse them? Sometimes I know this pair is extremely susceptible to psychs, so I try to find one. (Note, this is no different from the pair that I know has a hard time if they've been jumpovercalled, so I go out of my way to do that. Or the strong club pair I know that live on their reputation (which, mind you, isn't undeserved), so don't get to practice their defence to interference. So I overcall 1C a lot. Or...) Sometimes, as I said in another post, I psych to keep up my reputation, the same way I play a silly system sometimes to keep up my reputation. Sometimes it's necessary to blitz the last round to win and an ordinary hand comes up, where I believe there's no other way to generate a top (okay, so most often it will be the same average, second most often it will be a bottom. But sometimes I win, or make the cut to the second day, or...) Sometimes I'm playing a pair that have an expected score of 70% against me. Again, the chance that the psych will give them 100% is high, but the MP payoff is still in my favour if I win 60-70% 20% of the time and lose 30% 30% of the time.

With one partner, back before the ACBL removed the "psychic frequency" from the card in accordance with their "you may have no agreements about psychics whatsoever" policy, I psyched because otherwise, I would have been lying to the opponents about what we played (Frequent marked, and circled a couple of times). And you wouldn't want me lying to my opponents, would you?

Michael.