[adibou]

Can the TD on BBO they prohibit the psys in their tournaments?

That seems to me completely insane, since the bridge exists, the share of psychic biddings always held a role.
I think that our more famous couple of the bridge, that which made our play so popular, the Culbertson must be turned over some in their tombs.

Do your opinions interest me, the TD have they it right to prohibit the psychic ones in their tournaments?

[inquiry]

Psyche are allowed by the laws of bridge, and technically can not be regulated by any governing body. On the other hand, conventions are regulated... thus you see restrictions against psyching certain conventions (like it is illegal in most events in the world to psyche a conventional strong forcing opening bid).

Having said that, BBO tournments are set up and run by volunteers who do so without support of any bridge organization. The BBO gives the TD wide lattitude in how they run their events. They can limit to SAYC only. They can limit to polish club only, they can limit to just their friends or only people with French flags (we do not allow, for example, allow anyone but someone with french flag, however).

One option that TD have is make silly rules (As long as they are spelled out before you join) like "no psyches in my tourney" or "no psyche in first/second seat". This is the idea of freedom of choice. The TD is free to choose this, and you are free to choose not to play in that event. Free market forces will cause TD's who make very unpopular rules to not have many "customers". I will not play in a tourney that does not allow psyches... because I come to play bridge. I am not sure what the card game they play in these events are, but without the potential for a pyche it is not bridge.

Ben

[luke warm]

amen

[bearmum]

inquiry, on Feb 25 2005, 03:47 AM, said:

Psyche are allowed by the laws of bridge, and technically can not be regulated by any governing body. On the other hand, conventions are regulated... thus you see restrictions against psyching certain conventions (like it is illegal in most events in the world to psyche a conventional strong forcing opening bid).

I only used part of Ben's quote to which I am replying


I KNOW the rules Ben about psyching STRONG opening forcing bids [and MOSTLY agree with them] BUT is not the definition of a "psyche" (something like) "a bid which GROSSLY misdescribes your hand as to strength and/or suit"?? ( which a psyche of a Precision 1♣ is (because IMHO cos it's ONLY forcing for ONE round )

In my opinion the way of exposing a psyche is easier to a REGULAR partnership as a casual partnership (mostly cos only can agree to MOST basic agreements )

1. REG pards have the tools within their agreed bidding system to do so

AND the "casual" partnerships [one of whom might psyche] his partner may not even REALISE they are "fielding" a psyche


Which is why I am TOTALLY happy if director BANNS psyches

[luke warm]

sigh

[hrothgar]

bearmum, on Feb 25 2005, 01:27 PM, said:

AND the "casual" partnerships [one of whom might psyche] his partner may not even REALISE they are "fielding" a psyche


Which is why I am TOTALLY happy if director BANNS psyches

You really might want to reconsider this one... More specifically, its unclear to me whether its possible for a pickup partner to "field" a psyche.

[mr1303]

Hmmm. Suppose you have:


KJxx
Kxx
Axx
xxx


and partner opens 1H in third seat (you didn't like opening a 4333 11 count), and the bidding procedes:

1H (x) XX (1NT)
P (3NT)

You might be tempted to pass this one on account of the fact that partner clearly has rubbish, but it would be an downright field.

[inquiry]

mr1303, on Feb 25 2005, 11:18 AM, said:

Hmmm. Suppose you have:


KJxx
Kxx
Axx
xxx


and partner opens 1H in third seat (you didn't like opening a 4333 11 count), and the bidding procedes:

1H (x) XX (1NT)
P (3NT)

You might be tempted to pass this one on account of the fact that partner clearly has rubbish, but it would be an downright field.

Pass is not a field of the psyche. Pass is to put the ball back in your partners court. You already showed your values with your redl. I would interpret pass as decide partner, 4♥ or 3NTX... A side benefit is if partner did psyche, he can pass 3NT. Your pass over 3NT does not end teh auciton.

[the hog]

"Which is why I am TOTALLY happy if director BANNS psyches "

So what card game do you like playing, because it is not anything resembling Bridge!

"1H (x) XX (1NT)
P (3NT)

You might be tempted to pass this one on account of the fact that partner clearly has rubbish, but it would be an downright field. "

This is not fielding a psyche; third position openings are notoriously light. This is just a bridge decision.

[keylime]

Hog,

Ditto, ditto, ditto, ditto, and ditto. Oh yes, ditto.

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

[fred]

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

[MickyB]

The_Hog, on Feb 25 2005, 11:44 PM, said:

This is not fielding a psyche; third position openings are notoriously light. This is just a bridge decision.

In the EBU, 1 level openings must promise Rule of 18/19; In WBF, it is 8 HCP. If you bid taking into account that partner might have less than that, then you are fielding.

[MickyB]

[quote name='inquiry' date='Feb 25 2005, 03:27 PM'] 1H (x) XX (1NT)
P (3NT)

You might be tempted to pass this one on account of the fact that partner clearly has rubbish, but it would be an downright field. [/QUOTE]
Pass is not a field of the psyche. Pass is to put the ball back in your partners court. You already showed your values with your redl. I would interpret pass as decide partner, 4[he] or 3NTX... A side benefit is if partner did psyche, he can pass 3NT. Your pass over 3NT does not end teh auciton. [/quote]
And here was me thinking that pass here exposed your psychic redouble...

[mr1303]

In the UK, a psyche was considered a "red" psyche on the following hand in the following auction


QT9xxxx
Jxx
Axx
Void


when it went (you dealer)

P (P) 1H (1NT)
2S (3NT) P P
and you didn't double.

[the hog]

mr1303, on Feb 26 2005, 11:57 AM, said:

In the UK, a psyche was considered a "red" psyche on the following hand in the following auction


QT9xxxx
Jxx
Axx
Void


when it went (you dealer)

P (P) 1H (1NT)
2S (3NT) P P
and you didn't double.

I don't want to get into this too much, but if that was seriously defined as fielding a psyche, then that is a totally ridiculous suggestion. Does the EBU legislate that a partnership HAS to make bad decisions. Even Stevenson, who is a frequent psycher himself, would think this silly,

[MickyB]

mr1303, on Feb 26 2005, 01:57 AM, said:

In the UK, a psyche was considered a "red" psyche on the following hand...

Was this in a partnership with a history of psyching Mark? (Translation - had you played with him before?)

[dogsbreath]

It's my experience that inexperienced players are unable to identify/field psyches by opps, even when the auction makes it obvious that there are 50+ HCP in the deck. Since most play for pleasure only, i NEVER psyche against inexpert opps.
In a 'major' tourney or a graded field anything goes.
Rgds Dog

[mr1303]

This, I believe, was in the Tollemanche; Mike Byrne showed the hand to me and asked what I'd do given the auction. I passed like a shot.

[bearmum]

mr1303, on Feb 26 2005, 04:18 AM, said:

Hmmm. Suppose you have:


KJxx
Kxx
Axx
xxx


and partner opens 1H in third seat (you didn't like opening a 4333 11 count), and the bidding procedes:

1H (x) XX (1NT)
P (3NT)

You might be tempted to pass this one on account of the fact that partner clearly has rubbish, but it would be an downright field.

OK I guess you have a point BUT - IF I had that hand I would bid 2♥ NOT XX because I BELIEVE my partners 1♥ bid

NOW no matter WHAT the opps bid surely I could NOT be accused of "fielding" my partner's psyche?

[bearmum]

The_Hog, on Feb 26 2005, 12:44 PM, said:

"Which is why I am TOTALLY happy if director BANNS  psyches "

So what card game do you like playing, because it is not anything resembling Bridge!

I really don't appreciate your comment HOG -- for ONE thing FREQUENT Psyches are (IMO) against the SPIRIT of the great game of Bridge

I WAS answering a question regarding ONLINE play and if tourney directors should have the right to BAN Psyches

In F2F bridge (where there are more established partnerships) I really believe that it is a little easier to expose psyches ( and POSSIBLY to call director if you feel that psycher's partner HAS "fielded" it and hence you have been disadvantaged)
You also have the right to report relatively frequent Psychers I think??

On line this whole thing (calling director for possible disadvantage) is really NOT practical -- which is WHY I think (unless TOP FLIGHT {brown sticker conventions etc etc allowed}) Psyches should be ALLOWED to be banned IF director wishes --- after all you can ALWAYS refuse to play in the tourney