[Fluffy]

There is a player who plays several tournaments in Spain, but he is not well known except for the regulars.


He seems to be making way too many psyches and deviatiions each seasson, specially against weak players. This is making the LOLs scare away from tournaments.

Psyching is not against the rules, but there is a point where it requires proper disclosing. How would you deal with it?

[Jeremy69A]

Ask him not to return!

[ggwhiz]

In the ACBL I think there is a limit on the number of psyches per session and maybe there should be as to a hidden partnership agreement.

The only reason (and I'm guessing) is from playing with the girlfriend of a friend who told me she was being taken advantage of and we played that she was not allowed to pass in 3rd seat when white. An opponent called on her psyche on the 2nd last hand and the Director informed her that she was only allowed 1 more in this session.

Maybe you can get away with telling this bird that his next psyche will be evidence of a concealed agreement and subject to adjustment?

[Fluffy]

I suspect the main problem comes from LOLs not calling director

[aguahombre]

Can you establish from what you observe that the partnership is (in-effect) playing a different system depending on who or (how experienced) the opponents are?

It might be fun to approach it from that angle.

[blackshoe]

There is no legal maximum number of psychs you can make, and a director who says otherwise is just wrong.

You're allowed to psych. If you perpetrate the same psych with the same partner frequently (which to my mind means more than just three times in a session) your partnership will arrive at an implicit understanding that you perpetrate this type of psych in this position. That needs to be disclosed to your opponents, and such an agreement may be illegal (an agreement that an opening bid might be on less than eight HCP, for example.

If you psych frequently in a session (different psychs) you're still not off the hook. You have to demonstrate to the TD that all these psychs are reasonable, or you get done for frivolous psyching.

How to handle this player? Well either you have to get the LOLs to call the TD, or somebody has to watch this guy and see how often he's doing it.

[1eyedjack]

Is he playing with the same partner each time?

[aguahombre]

1eyedjack, on 2015-October-28, 00:41, said:

Is he playing with the same partner each time?

Good question, but it might not matter when all partners are aware of his frequent psychs and aware of whom he does this against/under what conditions, etc.

If the OP knows this, probably most everyone else does as well.

[WellSpyder]

blackshoe, on 2015-October-27, 21:35, said:

If you perpetrate the same psych with the same partner frequently (which to my mind means more than just three times in a session) your partnership will arrive at an implicit understanding that you perpetrate this type of psych in this position.

Wow! In my mind if you perpetrate the same psyche with the same partner three times in a year you will arrive at an implicit understanding, let alone three times in a session.

[gordontd]

WellSpyder, on 2015-October-28, 03:05, said:

Wow! In my mind if you perpetrate the same psyche with the same partner three times in a year you will arrive at an implicit understanding, let alone three times in a session.

I had a partner who perpetrated the same psyche three times in the course of our partnership, over several years. By the third time, I correctly identified it and let the opponents know of her tendency. She didn't do it again after that.

[Vampyr]

I agree with the above two posters, but... what about "baby psyches" eg 1♥(x)1♠, or making a 2NT enquiry after partner's weak two, or the like? Are these types of psyches the kind that "everyone" will make from time to time, and that includes your partner? Disclaimer: I am not myself a frequent perp.

[blackshoe]

Yes, three times a year is sufficient frequency. My point, though perhaps poorly made, is that it's not a specific number of psychs or a specific period that's important. What's important is that you've done it enough that your partner now expects it.

I had a (now former - she has quit playing bridge) partner tell me once "if you ever psych, this partnership is over!" I suspect that had I ever psyched, and she continued to play with me anyway, she would have labelled me as "somebody who psychs" and she would wonder on every call if it was a psych.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2015-October-28, 10:00, said:

Yes, three times a year is sufficient frequency. My point, though perhaps poorly made, is that it's not a specific number of psychs or a specific period that's important. What's important is that you've done it enough that your partner now expects it.

If partner is somewhat dim or has a bad memory, won't there be disclosure issues?

[ggwhiz]

blackshoe, on 2015-October-28, 10:00, said:

Yes, three times a year is sufficient frequency.

Maybe you can label this guy as having a concealed agreement (by reputation) and then what? A lower level for proof of fielding, procedural penalties? I don't envy you your task.

[mycroft]

Does this person play with the same partner? Can we prove/provide evidence for enough experience with these psyches that partner can't but have more information that "this is reasonably likely a psychic call"? If it were a partnership *understanding* rather than "well, if it looks like somebody psyched in this auction it's dollars to donuts it's partner, and he probably has ...", would it be illegal under the regulations for partnership understandings at this tournament?

I give the example of "forget transfers" - thankfully not an issue where I play now, but definitely one where I played out east.

1NT-2♦ "transfer"; 2♥-3 very definite ♦; pass.

"Yes, you're allowed to forget. Yes, partner's allowed to figure it out (without the UI; of course there was *always* UI). However, after the third time or so that partner "forgot" and you "guessed right", it's clear you have an understanding. So, your agreement really is "hearts, or diamonds if partner forgot again." Now (in the ACBL at GCC), that's a legal agreement. But it has to be disclosed. And you can't announce 'transfer', you have to Alert and explain 'hearts, or rarely diamonds.' (you don't *have to* explain 'partner frequently forgets' :-) You can decide that you're not actually playing this, but you will be penalized by me if this happens again in my game; not for the misbid, but for the failure to disclose and potentially for the use of undisclosed information."

s/forget/psychic/ as needed.

Off topic: It got so bad at this club that one of my partners and I discussed (but never actually did) playing 2♦ as "hearts, or diamonds" - Alerting and explaining it as such. I assume we'd have changed our normal "drop dead diamond" sequence to mean "5 hearts, diamonds, game force". Just for the LOLs (multiple meanings definitely intended).

Back on topic: a frequent way of dealing with "experts" who play these sorts of games with the rabbits is peer pressure (or, perhaps pressure from those he considers in his inflated opinion are his peers). "I'm sorry, I thought you were good enough to beat people at that level straight up." From real experts and people who might otherwise be "possible partners" (even if they really aren't), this has been known to work. But the real answer is whatever the Spanish equivalent of the recorder system is (or the unofficial "TDs do talk to each other occasionally" circuit; priming that pump seems doable).

[1eyedjack]

Jeremy69A, on 2015-October-27, 11:35, said:

Ask him not to return!

Better, educate the LOLs not to take offense, accept it as part of the game, and shore up their technique against psychs.

[ehhh]

Fluffy has hit the solution on the head.
If more LOL and LOM would call the D whenever they encounter these characters
then the D could take more affirmative action.
There is a limit/session set in the ACBL.
This applies to all perceived irregularities encountered at the table.

[sfi]

I agree with 1eyedjack. Why are we trying to "deal" with someone who is taking legal actions at the bridge table?

[aguahombre]

sfi, on 2015-October-29, 00:29, said:

I agree with 1eyedjack. Why are we trying to "deal" with someone who is taking legal actions at the bridge table?

One way or the other, the club manager must "deal" with it. He can ask the questions posed in this thread and proceed according to the answers; or he can decide off-hand, as you have, that there is nothing to deal with -- and deal with the results of his inaction.

[Zelandakh]

ehhh, on 2015-October-29, 00:19, said:

There is a limit/session set in the ACBL.

Is this actually allowed? If I psyche 5 times a year and it so happens that I get all of those in a single session, why should I be restricted from bidding those hands in the way I think best providing the laws are being followed?

As it happens I have come across this in Germany too but I later found out that it was a house rule and not something coming from the DBV. At the same club I also got a warning for psyching a weak 2 in third seat with ♥AKQxx and out, not to mention an opponent audibly saying 420 or 500 before doubling was deemed "everything ok here". I wonder if your ACBL session limit is also of this type...