[Oof Arted]

fred, on Jun 14 2009, 03:24 AM, said:

IMO experts are supposed to know better and should be held to a higher standard.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

Right on the head fred

that to me is what this no psyching in some tournies is all about

[hrothgar]

Oof Arted, on Jun 14 2009, 05:56 PM, said:

fred, on Jun 14 2009, 03:24 AM, said:

IMO experts are supposed to know better and should be held to a higher standard.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

Right on the head fred

that to me is what this no psyching in some tournies is all about

Let me get this straight

Fred made that claim that experts should refrain from psyching against noobs based on an external aesthetic standard.

You are now stating that this is in some way equivalent to random private TDs passing regulations that violate the rules of the game.

This is one of the most fallacious lines of reasoning that I've seen in a long, long time.

[Oof Arted]

hrothgar, on Jun 14 2009, 10:08 AM, said:

Oof Arted, on Jun 14 2009, 05:56 PM, said:

fred, on Jun 14 2009, 03:24 AM, said:

IMO experts are supposed to know better and should be held to a higher standard.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

Right on the head fred

that to me is what this no psyching in some tournies is all about

Let me get this straight

Fred made that claim that experts should refrain from psyching against noobs based on an external aesthetic standard.

You are now stating that this is in some way equivalent to random private TDs passing regulations that violate the rules of the game.

This is one of the most fallacious lines of reasoning that I've seen in a long, long time.

well if the only way one can be sure of winning is by psyching against lesser opponents rather than by what should be better card play technique then i suppose it takes all sorts

[jillybean]

Oof Arted, on Jun 14 2009, 11:18 AM, said:

hrothgar, on Jun 14 2009, 10:08 AM, said:

Oof Arted, on Jun 14 2009, 05:56 PM, said:

fred, on Jun 14 2009, 03:24 AM, said:

IMO experts are supposed to know better and should be held to a higher standard.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

Right on the head fred

that to me is what this no psyching in some tournies is all about

Let me get this straight

Fred made that claim that experts should refrain from psyching against noobs based on an external aesthetic standard.

You are now stating that this is in some way equivalent to random private TDs passing regulations that violate the rules of the game.

This is one of the most fallacious lines of reasoning that I've seen in a long, long time.

well if the only way one can be sure of winning is by psyching against lesser opponents rather than by what should be better card play technique then i suppose it takes all sorts

eh?

[slothy]

lol

I have spent over 20 mins reading this thread and still cant figure out what the point of it was.

Fred, i think you made your point, and you tried, with bited tongue, to make it again and again. Personally, i agree with most of what you said but I think you're wasting your breath and you are preaching, with respect to a couple of personae, to the inconvertible

[qwery_hi]

slothy, on Jun 14 2009, 07:33 PM, said:

lol

I have spent over 20 mins reading this thread and still cant figure out what the point of it was.

Fred, i think you made your point, and you tried, with bited tongue, to make it again and again. Personally, i agree with most of what you said but I think you're wasting your breath and you are preaching, with respect to a couple of personae, to the inconvertible

The point of this thread is simply this -

Either knowingly and willingly, or unknowingly and unwillingly, some people in real life have tried to make me feel as if I did something wrong at the table when -

1. I had no intention of doing wrong, (hence I have them mirrors still)
2. I followed the rules.

Couple of examples -

1. Opponents are having a long auction, with some alerted, and are in the 8/9 round of bidding. RHO bids something, and when it is my turn to call, I ask about the alerted bids, and RHO looks annoyed with me and after explaining, asks me ' why do you want to know, will you bid something now?' (they were already at the 5 level). This is the kind of holier than thou attitude that I find disgusting. Either call the director after the hand, or don't lecture me about ethics.

2. The classic lead the jack from the board and then think about finessing - I have done this on a few hands in the past and think I will do it in the future too - the reason being I'm too lazy, or perhaps I've already got the contract in the bag at imps and wondering about overtricks, or maybe this is the crucial guess - whatever, if someone thinks this is unethical, they should work to get it banned by the ACBL, and get off the podium.

Like Joan Walsh said, instead of calling them baby killers and inciting the fanboys, if you believe something is wrong, work to change the laws.

[helene_t]

I think it is classy to behave in whatever way makes fellow bridgeplayers enjoy their bridge evening. OK, if there is a single fellow bridge player who has unreasonable requirements, say he doesn't enjoy a bridge evening with opps who use judgment rather than bean counting, then I suppose it is OK to ignore him. If there are many such players, the best thing to do is to go somewhere else.

I.o.w. I have no strong opinions about which specific behavior is or is not classy.

It may be that a substantial part of the local bridge players don't like opps who wear jeans. Or opps who psyche. Or claim, or play a singleton from dummy at trick one immediately. Or postmortem the previous deal during play. Some of these objections are reasonable (IMHO), others less so. But I probably shouldn't try to educate them so it doesn't really matter whether it is reasonable or not.

[blackshoe]

Heh. I have had RHOs who, seeing in dummy a singleton in the suit led, immediately play a card. Or sometimes pause a second or two, and then play when I don't immediately play. As far as I'm concerned, my choices are to call the TD, or do and say nothing. In my younger days, I might have asked LHO "what is the significance of your partner's play out of tempo and out of turn" but that falls into the category "wrestling with pigs", so I don't ask that any more.

[helene_t]

blackshoe, on Jun 15 2009, 04:03 PM, said:

Heh. I have had RHOs who, seeing in dummy a singleton in the suit led, immediately play a card.

Is it true that when RHO plays out of turn, declarer is allowed to let dummy revoke, since RHO already condoned whatever dummy would play?

[blackshoe]

helene_t, on Jun 15 2009, 10:05 AM, said:

Is it true that when RHO plays out of turn, declarer is allowed to let dummy revoke, since RHO already condoned whatever dummy would play?

Nope.

[Cascade]

Oof Arted, on Jun 15 2009, 06:18 AM, said:

hrothgar, on Jun 14 2009, 10:08 AM, said:

Oof Arted, on Jun 14 2009, 05:56 PM, said:

fred, on Jun 14 2009, 03:24 AM, said:

IMO experts are supposed to know better and should be held to a higher standard.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

Right on the head fred

that to me is what this no psyching in some tournies is all about

Let me get this straight

Fred made that claim that experts should refrain from psyching against noobs based on an external aesthetic standard.

You are now stating that this is in some way equivalent to random private TDs passing regulations that violate the rules of the game.

This is one of the most fallacious lines of reasoning that I've seen in a long, long time.

well if the only way one can be sure of winning is by psyching against lesser opponents rather than by what should be better card play technique then i suppose it takes all sorts

Followed by more fallicious reasoning.

Psyching is a legitimate tactic.

It is equally legitimate with good card play as a way of getting a good result.

[Oof Arted]

yes wayne but which would you get more pleasure out of

Knowing your card play was the reason you got good results

or

that you needed to psyche against lesser players

???????????

[jdonn]

Oof Arted, on Jun 16 2009, 02:01 AM, said:

yes wayne but which would you get more pleasure out of

Knowing your card play was the reason you got good results

or

that you needed to psyche against lesser players

???????????

Please don't ask...

[Oof Arted]

lets up the ante

If you need to psyche against rabbits to enable you to win then so be it;

If you are going to psyche then do it against experienced players who when the dust has settled will at least be in a position of recognising the psyche but more importantly whether your partner has 'fielded' the psyche and fetch the TD

[hrothgar]

Oof Arted, on Jun 16 2009, 01:34 PM, said:

lets up the ante

If you need to psyche against rabbits to enable you to win then so be it;

If you are going to psyche then do it against experienced players who when the dust has settled will at least be in a position of recognising the psyche but more importantly whether your partner has 'fielded' the psyche and fetch the TD

All fine and dandy, so long as the bunnies are willing to walk around carrying signs that say

"I'm incompetent, but I like to pretend that I'm engaged in a competitive endeavor. Please be nice to me, or I'm gonna take my toys and go back home"

[Oof Arted]

hrothgar, on Jun 16 2009, 06:17 AM, said:

Oof Arted, on Jun 16 2009, 01:34 PM, said:

lets up the ante

If you need to psyche against rabbits to enable you to win then so be it;

If you are going to psyche then do it against experienced players who when the dust has settled will at least be in a position of recognising the psyche but more importantly whether your partner has 'fielded' the psyche and fetch the TD

All fine and dandy, so long as the bunnies are willing to walk around carrying signs that say

"I'm incompetent, but I like to pretend that I'm engaged in a competitive endeavor. Please be nice to me, or I'm gonna take my toys and go back home"

mmm I am not talking now about Regional or National Competitions I am refering mainly to online play or local Club bridge

[TimG]

Oof Arted, on Jun 16 2009, 09:37 AM, said:

mmm I am not talking now about Regional or National Competitions I am referring mainly to online play or local Club bridge

I think the differences can quite easily be summarized by noting that there are two camps: those who feel every sanctioned duplicate game is a "real" bridge game and those who feel bridge should be (and is) "unreal" at many levels.

It seems to me that forcing everyone to play under the same conditions at every level would be bad for the overall popularity of bridge. And, it would be shortsighted not to accommodate the wishes of the club players whose primary purpose may be social rather than competitive.

[awm]

When you execute a squeeze against novices, there is often a great deal of consternation at the table. The person squeezed is convinced that he has discarded incorrectly, and somewhat insulted that declarer "played him for discards" rather than just claiming his top winners (for a trick fewer). Meanwhile the victim's partner is convinced that a stupid mistake was made, and embarks on a lecture about how he "should have known" not to discard the key guard, not realizing that in fact there was no winning option. The end result is a great deal of acrimony at the table. Even if declarer tries to explain what has occurred, a fair percentage of the time opponents will not "get it" and will insist that they could've pitched differently.

Given this issue, and the fact that a good player should be able to win in a club game simply by not making stupid mistakes (the average club player makes so many stupid mistakes that this is usually true), perhaps it would be classy for a good player to avoid executing squeezes at the club level?

[jdonn]

Adam sometimes I don't know where you get this stuff from. I have never, in my entire life, seen any situation like you have just described. Most of the time they aren't even aware anything has happened when they have been squeezed. And novices are the ones who don't claim, they never get upset when someone plays out a hand against them!

Simply put, right or wrong, I have seen psychs lead to opponents getting upset over half the time they are made at the table (referring to blatant psychs, not anything that could be disputed), and never, not one single time, seen a squeeze lead to any acrimony at all other than perhaps a bit between opponents who think their partner messed up. Definitely none ever directed at the squeezer, and not that much in any case.

On rereading your post, I think a bigger problem is you try to explain it to them, which would tend to fuel the fire...

[TimG]

jdonn, on Jun 16 2009, 11:46 AM, said:

I have never, in my entire life, seen any situation like you have just described. Most of the time they aren't even aware anything has happened when they have been squeezed. And novices are the ones who don't claim, they never get upset when someone plays out a hand against them!

This is exactly my experience. I've never even seen anyone get upset with declarer over a successful pseudo squeeze.