[Cascade]

JoAnneM, on Jun 8 2009, 05:30 AM, said:

"Personally I think not psyching against weaker players could be considered patronizing - "I'm not going to psyche against you because you aren't good enough"."

I would like to reply to that remark. I don't care if it sounds patronizing to some of the experts around here. It doesn't sound patronizing to the novice or low intermediate player who just got totally snookered in a hand, and got zip because the opps were playing around them. These players may not be back for the next game!

You say, "So what". I say we don't need to drive bridge players away from the game, and if you want to psyche do it against someone at your own playing level. Why do you need to psyche against someone you can already outplay with normal methods? Are you showing off? Is it a macho thing? I think we should encourage players with gracious table presence, and make them think that when they play against good players they might learn something, not that they should come to the table fearing tricks and psyches.

Psyches are a legitimate part of the game.

I suppose you also think that I should not finesse against those who do not know what a finesse is, nor endplay someone who doesn't know what an endplay is etc, nor cue-bid to slam against someone who doesn't understand cue-bids.

No you don't think like that. I agree that would be ridiculous.

Why then it is not ridiculous that one shouldn't employ the lawful tactic of psyching?

[1eyedjack]

I half sympathise with Joanne's comments but I think that they are mistaken. Certainly we should strive not to behave in a manner that drives beginners away from the game, when playing against them, and if psyching is likely to do so then perhaps beginners should be protected.

Personally I do not think that it has that effect. Some players, many quite experienced, have a deep-seated objection to opposition psychs, not aided by the psycher gloating when it works. There is also a perpetual nagging doubt, in the minds of those by nature suspicious, that the partner of the psycher is not so surprised at the psych as are the opponents.

Maybe if the establishment were to take a more proactive approach in educating beginners (and experienced players alike, where an attitude adjustment is called for) it might provide an alternative solution to the sledgehammer ban on psychs without diluting the richness of the game.

I don't go as far as Matmat. If psychs really do put off beginners then protect them until they are sufficiently experienced and, more importantly, hooked on the game. Then educate them. It occurs to me that some of the experienced players who object to psychs may have been overly protected at the outset and subsequently missed out on the educational attitude readjustment that is required as their experience grew.

The reality is that most psychic manoeuvers fail, and that is one strong argument for allowing market forces to govern their use.

Neither concern is relevant to the original post. Being a pickup partnership there can be no question of advantage by undisclosed implicit agreement. Both opponents were star players, so there can be no question of rabbit-bashing. Glen's partner might have been a novice, I wouldn't know, but it seems unlikely that he was the one who complained.

So I was slightly taken aback by Fred's censureship of Glen's action on this hand, without commenting on the action of his opponents. It was Fred and his staff who were responsible for bestowing stars on players, and with that honour came (I thought) a responsibility to act as an ambassador for the game; on this occasion I believe falling short.

Directors do make the odd poor ruling, both in face to face and on BBO, and the response should be kept in proportion. Likewise, few players behave perfectly without the occasional fall from grace, and star players are no exception. But they are experienced and should know better, and maybe they, as well as transgressing directors, should be informed when they are rumbled.

At the risk of thread-drift, because it has already been established that psychs are not banned in ACBL tourneys, it is my observation that psychs are banned in the vast majority of tourneys on BBO that are not fettered by a higher authority. Those who make the decision to ban psychs in those tourneys sometimes claim that the purpose is to protect beginners. I sometimes wonder whether the real reason is their own prejudicial attitude against psychs and the quoted protection of beginners is just a convenience that they hope will be better received as a justification.

[PassedOut]

1eyedjack, on Jun 7 2009, 01:51 PM, said:

So I was slightly taken aback by Fred's censureship of Glen's action on this hand, without commenting on the action of his opponents. It was Fred and his staff who were responsible for bestowing stars on players, and with that honour came (I thought) a responsibility to act as an ambassador for the game; on this occasion I believe falling short.

Directors do make the odd poor ruling, both in face to face and on BBO, and the response should be kept in proportion. Likewise, few players behave perfectly without the occasional fall from grace, and star players are no exception. But they are experienced and should know better, and maybe they, as well as transgressing directors, should be informed when they are rumbled.

Having thought about this a bit more, I realize that I should have considered the possibility that Glen's opponents simply reported the psyche and had no knowledge of any adjustment in their favor.

If that is the case, Glen's opponents are blameless, but the director simply needs more instruction.

[jdonn]

I don't think psyching against beginners is illegal, unethical, or ridiculous. But I agree that it's not classy. There is no law saying that when I walk through a door I have to hold it for the person behind me, but it wouldn't be classy of me to let it slam in someone's face even if it is not illegal of me.

Btw the argument that this perhaps wasn't a psych is one of the biggest LOLs I have ever seen.

Also the argument "so what if dumb people or people who get offended for no reason don't come back to bridge ever again" is so stupid to me that words fail me.

[glen]

What exactly is a psychic call?

[Cascade]

jdonn, on Jun 8 2009, 07:18 AM, said:

Btw the argument that this perhaps wasn't a psych is one of the biggest LOLs I have ever seen.

A psychic call is "a deliberate and gross misstatement of honour strength and/or of suit length."

Honour Strength

I assume the 1NT opening showed 15-17 HCP. 13 HCP is argueably not a gross misstatement. I certainly wouldn't routinely call a two point deviation "gross".

Suit Length

It is relatively common for 1NT openings to have a stiff honour so the singleton spade king is not gross.

Two cards are allowed in hearts for a 1NT opening so that is not gross.

Four cards are allowed in diamonds so that is not gross.

Six card minors are also relatively common in 1NT openings so that is not gross.

The decision to open this hand 1NT if deliberate and I assume it was appears to be based on a number of minor and no gross deviations.

LOL

[matmat]

jdonn, on Jun 7 2009, 02:18 PM, said:

Also the argument "so what if dumb people or people who get offended for no reason don't come back to bridge ever again" is so stupid to me that words fail me.

it's not really an argument, it's more of a statement of opinion.

[jdonn]

Wow I managed to get a post with three comments to be followed by one disagreement about each comment. Glen I don't see your point nor do I understand what you even mean when you ask whether my comment was classy since it was neither classy nor un-classy, Cascade I always love when people LOL someone who correctly pointed out their LOL, and matmat you are right I suppose but the point remains.

[glen]

Can anybody explain that?

[Cascade]

jdonn, on Jun 8 2009, 11:37 AM, said:

Wow I managed to get a post with three comments to be followed by one disagreement about each comment. Glen I don't see your point nor do I understand what you even mean when you ask whether my comment was classy since it was neither classy nor un-classy, Cascade I always love when people LOL someone who correctly pointed out their LOL, and matmat you are right I suppose but the point remains.

No doubt you will laugh again but ...

where is the boundary?

I mean what makes something gross for you?

For me gross conjures up the feeling of extreme and the minor deviations in this hand don't measure up.

Although as I said earlier I can understand if you think together they constitute gross.

Like other matters we really need to know the boundary or at least in this case have some guidelines as the boundary will be different in different situations.

Or is this just a case where we need to be omniscient and recognize a psyche when we see one.

[qwery_hi]

fred, on Jun 6 2009, 07:54 PM, said:

Assuming you got the facts right (and I believe you) I agree that the TD made a poor ruling but, I must say that I do not think it is very classy for an expert player like Glen to psych in what is basically a club game, especially when filling in as a sub.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

I disagree - no sure why anyone would have an issue with this psyche. It's vs stars, and in a first time partnership.

[awm]

Cascade, on Jun 7 2009, 07:59 PM, said:

For me gross conjures up the feeling of extreme and the minor deviations in this hand don't measure up.

Although as I said earlier I can understand if you think together they constitute gross.

It's a slippery slope when you start considering multiple "minor" deviations. On this hand, any one of: having a six-card minor, having only 13 hcp, and having a singleton honor could be categorized as a "minor deviation." But when you add these up it's a gross deviation.

Otherwise I could say... well... I opened 15-17 NT on a balanced nine-count, but it's not a psych. It's just three minor (2 hcp) deviations from a normal opening.

[fred]

qwery_hi, on Jun 8 2009, 01:50 AM, said:

fred, on Jun 6 2009, 07:54 PM, said:

Assuming you got the facts right (and I believe you) I agree that the TD made a poor ruling but, I must say that I do not think it is very classy for an expert player like Glen to psych in what is basically a club game, especially when filling in as a sub.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

I disagree - no sure why anyone would have an issue with this psyche. It's vs stars, and in a first time partnership.

In my opinion...

When a typical expert decides to play in an ACBL club game (online or not), he/she is typically not that interested in the possibility of winning 1.2 masterpoints and he/she typically does not get a great deal of satisfaction from scoring well (unless perhaps if he/she also gets a great deal of satisfaction from clubbing baby seals).

The normal and laudable mentality that I have observed in such circumstances is that the expert is either hoping to have a nice time playing with a friend, playing with a lesser partner in the hope of teaching that person something, or just trying to "give something back" to the game by being friendly and perhaps helpful to the average players of the world that make up the VAST majority of bridge players and, without whom, we would not have much of a game to play.

If your level of maturity is at or below that of Matmat's you might not care about that, but fortunately most bridge players are at least beginning to approach adulthood.

Whether you think it is rational or not, a lot of players in this vast majority get upset about psychs. When experts psych it tends to ruin the game for them in the same way that people who take candy from babies tend to really upset the babies.

IMO it is not only classy, but it is in the expert's self-interest to do whatever he/she can to ensure that lesser players keep coming back, especially when said experts have nothing to gain (except perhaps a moment of demented self-amusement) by behaving in a way that is contrary to such goals.

If Glen can honestly say "I never would have done that if we weren't playing against 2 stars", then maybe it is different. But the worst part of this, in my opinion, is that he was acting as a sub when this happened (hence my bolding of especially in my previous post).

If you still don't understand why, then maybe someone else will be kind enough to explain it to you.

Fred Gitelmn
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[glen]

?

[cherdanno]

Fred, if the intentions of these two "stars" are as noble as you assume, why did they complain to the TD about an utterly normal psych? Just to preemptively protect other players, by teaching glen a lesson not to psych in ACBL games?

Well, it's possible, but I don't think it's the most likely version of the story.

[the hog]

Adam, why do you consider the possession of a 6 card minor in a 1NT opening to be unusual? This really seems like a strange view.

[qwery_hi]

fred, on Jun 7 2009, 06:50 PM, said:

qwery_hi, on Jun 8 2009, 01:50 AM, said:

fred, on Jun 6 2009, 07:54 PM, said:

Assuming you got the facts right (and I believe you) I agree that the TD made a poor ruling but, I must say that I do not think it is very classy for an expert player like Glen to psych in what is basically a club game, especially when filling in as a sub.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

I disagree - no sure why anyone would have an issue with this psyche. It's vs stars, and in a first time partnership.

In my opinion...

When a typical expert decides to play in an ACBL club game (online or not), he/she is typically not that interested in the possibility of winning 1.2 masterpoints and he/she typically does not get a great deal of satisfaction from scoring well (unless perhaps if he/she also gets a great deal of satisfaction from clubbing baby seals).

The normal and laudable mentality that I have observed in such circumstances is that the expert is either hoping to have a nice time playing with a friend, playing with a lesser partner in the hope of teaching that person something, or just trying to "give something back" to the game by being friendly and perhaps helpful to the average players of the world that make up the VAST majority of bridge players and, without whom, we would not have much of a game to play.

If your level of maturity is at or below that of Matmat's you might not care about that, but fortunately most bridge players are at least beginning to approach adulthood.

Whether you think it is rational or not, a lot of players in this vast majority get upset about psychs. When experts psych it tends to ruin the game for them in the same way that people who take candy from babies tend to really upset the babies.

IMO it is not only classy, but it is in the expert's self-interest to do whatever he/she can to ensure that lesser players keep coming back, especially when said experts have nothing to gain (except perhaps a moment of demented self-amusement) by behaving in a way that is contrary to such goals.

If Glen can honestly say "I never would have done that if we weren't playing against 2 stars", then maybe it is different. But the worst part of this, in my opinion, is that he was acting as a sub when this happened (hence my bolding of especially in my previous post).

If you still don't understand why, then maybe someone else will be kind enough to explain it to you.

Fred Gitelmn
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

Its funny how I, who don't know Glen except from his blog and who has never praised him on the forums, is willing to give Glen the benefit of the doubt and assume that if it he were playing vs novices he wouldn't have psyched, and therefore not question his class

[matmat]

fred, on Jun 7 2009, 09:50 PM, said:

The normal and laudable mentality that I have observed in such circumstances is that the expert is either hoping to have a nice time playing with a friend, playing with a lesser partner in the hope of teaching that person something, or just trying to "give something back" to the game by being friendly and perhaps helpful to the average players of the world that make up the VAST majority of bridge players and, without whom, we would not have much of a game to play.

If your level of maturity is at or below that of Matmat's you might not care about that, but fortunately most bridge players are at least beginning to approach adulthood.

Thanks for that, Fred. That was very classy.

The grown-up and mature thing to do is to try to shame others into not utilizing a perfectly legal tactic, because you think it unsporting.

As an aside, I am not at all opposed to banning psychs, or any system/play/tactic/whatever, but to then call it bridge, or acbl bridge, in particular, is false advertisement and charging $$ for the privilege of being bamboozled by a combination of the TD and opponents is ridiculous.

We have had several threads on here about directors in the past, and I still feel that a sizable fraction of these people are either out on a power trip or completely ill-prepared for the task. Posts like the OP here are just signal of the existing problem.

[JoAnneM]

I agree with jdonn completely.

[awm]

The_Hog, on Jun 7 2009, 11:19 PM, said:

Adam, why do you consider the possession of a 6 card minor in a 1NT opening to be unusual? This really seems like a strange view.

I'd say that this is unusual and unexpected, and that if it's your practice to very frequently open 1nt with a six card minor (i.e. all 2326 patterns judged to be in range) that it should be disclosed. Obviously this depends on where you come from -- for example if it is my policy to frequently open 1M with four card suits of any quality then this should really be disclosed in places where "five card majors" are the norm but doesn't require disclosure in a region where most people bid this way.

Apparently I am in the minority (judging by the actions of certain local expert players who are widely thought to be ethical) but I feel that if you routinely open 1nt "15-17" in regular partnerships on twelve and thirteen counts including a six-card minor suit, some disclosure of this practice really ought to be required.