[woodjohnd]

PSYCHED OUT - A BRIDGE FAIRY TALE
____________________________________________________________________________

Players’ Systemic Agreements - Partnership understandings as to the methods adopted by a partnership may be reached explicitly in discussion or implicitly through mutual experience or awareness of the players.
- ACBL LAW 40(A)1(a)

Players’ Systemic Agreements - A player may make any call or play without prior announcement provided that such call or play is not based on an undisclosed partnership understanding (see Law 40C1).
- ACBL LAW 40(A)3

Deviation from System and Psychic Action - A player may deviate from his side’s announced understandings always, provided that his partner has no more reason to be aware of the deviation than have the opponents.
- ACBL LAW 40©1
_____________________________________________________________________________

Once upon a time, in a town not too far away, there were 2 bridge players, Bid and Make. They were decent enough intermediate players, and always trying to improve. At the bar after a recent game, they decided to use Revised Cappelletti as their defense over their opponents’ No Trump bids. Unfortunately, they neglected to add this to their card.

In a subsequent game not too long after, Make bid 2 clubs following an opponent’s 1NT opener. Of course, as Bid well knew, this 2 club bid meant that Make had one of two hand types, either long diamonds, or an undisclosed major plus an undisclosed minor. But Bid said nothing. And the opponents, who thought they knew what was going on, didn’t ask. They thought that the 2 club bid meant a single suited hand, the regular Cappelletti meaning. But as it turned out, they were wrong.

After the board was finished, Bid and Make's opponents felt that they had been damaged, resulting in a poor score. The director, when called, ruled that the opponents were indeed damaged by Bid's failure to disclose the partnership agreement, and consequently adjusted the score in the opponents favor.

Around about the same time, in a different town not that much further away, there were another two bridge players, Joke and Trick. They were very experienced players with many thousands of master points. At the bar after a recent game, they compared notes and had a good laugh about a pair they had fooled with the old "Raise Partner's Pre-Empt By Bidding a Non-Existent Suit" swindle.

Sometime later on, Bid and Make met Trick and Joke in a regional stratified pairs event. On the first hand at that table, Trick bid 3 spades after Joke had preempted in diamonds over Bid’s strong 2 club opener. Of course, as Joke well knew, this bid meant that Trick had one of two hand types, either a genuine spade suit, or (more likely) support for his diamond preempt and nothing at all in spades. But Joke said nothing. And Bid and Make, who thought they knew what was going on, didn’t ask. They thought the bid was natural with a lengthy spade suit. But as it turned out, they were wrong.

After the board was finished, Bid and Make felt that they had been damaged, resulting in a poor score. The director, when called, ruled that they were out of luck since Trick's 3 spade bid was a 'psych' and unless there was evidence of the ‘psych’ bid being ‘fielded’ by Joke (whatever that might consist of) then there was no damage.

Now Bid and Make were discouraged and upset at this turn of events. Up to that point they had been doing well, but the results of this particular board significantly impacted their standing in the overall event. And they could not understand why they had been penalized on that earlier occasion for not disclosing their Revised Cappelletti agreement, while Joke and Trick got away with not disclosing their clear (if implicit) agreement regarding the bogus 3 spade bid.

They studied and studied the relevant Bridge Laws, and still could not understand why, once a bid was called a ‘psych’, then the usual rules regarding undisclosed agreements no longer applied.

In the meanwhile, Joke and Trick were back in the bar enjoying some beers and another good laugh.

So Bid and Make decided to seek input from more experienced players to clear up their confusion. And they did get quite a lot of response regarding the specific type of ‘psych’ they had fallen victim to, apparently known by many as a ‘baby psych’. This feedback mainly consisted of two oddly contradictory viewpoints, sometimes both of them expressed by the same individual, to wit: (A) this particular type of ‘psych’ bid is very common in more experienced bridge circles, and so it seems hard to believe that Bid and Make didn’t recognize it for what it was and didn’t have a prepared defense to deal with it; but (B) even though this particular type of ‘psych’ is apparently so common (see point A) it still qualifies as a ‘psych’ and not an implicit agreement, hence Bid and Make just need to ‘learn from the experience’.

Unfortunately, this feedback from more experienced players didn’t really help Bid and Make. They had been knocked out of first place in their event due to this one hand, and still felt like they had been treated unfairly.

So next they decided to take their quest for knowledge to Mount Memphis and the Oracle of Bridge, the inestimable AyeSee B. Ell. And, surprisingly enough considering their lowly status, the Oracle deigned to share its wisdom on this subject with them.

For starters, the Oracle told them that ‘psych’ bidding was an integral part of the game of duplicate bridge. And that, right there, just added to Bid and Make’s puzzlement. They always thought that the whole idea of duplicate bridge, compared to the rubber game, was to try to remove the element of chance from the game as much as possible. This should result in as fair a comparison of skill as can be managed. Of course, it is impossible to eliminate all the aspects of chance, but to specifically allow a source of deliberately created randomness in the outcome seems contrary to the desired goal. At least that is what Bid and Make thought.

The Oracle went on to describe that there was a mechanism for dealing with situations where specific pairs consistently used ‘psych’ bidding in a frivolous or unsportsmanlike way. This process involves an ancient rite called ‘recording’ where directors, when informed of a ‘psych’ bid, are supposed to enter this into a central register of such information, kept in a secret cave high on Mount Memphis. If it appears at some point (not clear when) by looking at this register that a given specific pair were abusing their use of ‘psych’ bidding then some steps would be taken (not clear what).

By this point, poor Bid and Make both had headaches. During their introduction to ‘psych’ bidding courtesy of Joke and Trick, no ‘recording’ had been done by the director. But it was obvious that it wouldn’t have mattered one bit in their case. Clearly the procedure for ‘recording’ and then analyzing the records to identify an inappropriate pattern of ‘psych’ bidding would not generate results in any timeframe to provide redress for their specific incident. Perhaps ‘recording’ would eventually catch up to ‘psych’ bid abusers, but only after they had left a long trail of unhappiness in their wake.

Now most fairy tales have a happy ending, but unfortunately this isn’t one of them. Even the mighty Oracle’s knowledge was still insufficient to explain to Bid and Make why things are the way they are. Apparently, the net result is that Bid and Make just have to ‘suck it up’. But they don’t have to be happy about it (and they aren’t).

[hrothgar]

Eventually, "Bid and Make" decided that they weren't actually interested in playing bridge and started playing Spades instead.

Everyone was much happier.

[Kaitlyn S]

I had a similar fairy tale but mine had a happier ending. Mine had to do with bridge lawyers. It was described in the Laws & Rulings forum but apparently has scrolled into oblivion. My happy ending is that rather than donate to the ACBL coffers for the last ten years, I've built up a decent start at a retirement fund with the money that would have been instead spent on tournaments, and haven't missed the chase for masterpoints one bit.

Maybe Bid & Make will do the same and be happily sipping cocktails in The Bahamas in a few years while Joke and Trick are laughing in a hotel bar thinking that they've got it made and the Oracle will be sitting around wondering why they can't attract newer players.

[hrothgar]

 woodjohnd, on 2016-November-30, 12:20, said:

For starters, the Oracle told them that ‘psych’ bidding was an integral part of the game of duplicate bridge. And that, right there, just added to Bid and Make’s puzzlement. They always thought that the whole idea of duplicate bridge, compared to the rubber game, was to try to remove the element of chance from the game as much as possible. This should result in as fair a comparison of skill as can be managed. Of course, it is impossible to eliminate all the aspects of chance, but to specifically allow a source of deliberately created randomness in the outcome seems contrary to the desired goal. At least that is what Bid and Make thought.

It is true that a psyche creates randomness.

It is also true that playing a weak NT when the field is playing a strong NT (or vice versa) creates randomness.

Perhaps Bid and Make need to fundamentally rethink some of their assumptions, or, alternatively, recognize that their personal aesthetics are separate and distinct from the game of bridge.

[hrothgar]

Out of curiosity, you posted the same little story on Bridgewinners. A number of people spent a bunch of time and effort explaining why the way that you are framing this story is fundamentally incorrect.

Now, a few weeks later, you post the precise same piece on the BBO Forums...
Do you somehow think that the problems that were pointed out before have miraculously disappeared?
Alternatively, do you actively search for people to tell you that you have no idea how the game is played?

FFS, you describe yourself as a life master who has been playing bridge for 20 years and you claim that you need to be protected against baby psyches.

[johnu]

 woodjohnd, on 2016-November-30, 12:20, said:

In a subsequent game not too long after, Make bid 2 clubs following an opponent’s 1NT opener. Of course, as Bid well knew, this 2 club bid meant that Make had one of two hand types, either long diamonds, or an undisclosed major plus an undisclosed minor. But Bid said nothing. And the opponents, who thought they knew what was going on, didn’t ask. They thought that the 2 club bid meant a single suited hand, the regular Cappelletti meaning. But as it turned out, they were wrong.

After the board was finished, Bid and Make's opponents felt that they had been damaged, resulting in a poor score. The director, when called, ruled that the opponents were indeed damaged by Bid's failure to disclose the partnership agreement, and consequently adjusted the score in the opponents favor.

Did Bid alert the 2♣ bid? Why did the opponents think this was Capelletti? Did they look at the convention card? If Bid alerted and the opponents did not ask and did not look at the convention card, there would not be any reason to adjust the score. If the opponents were relying on an incorrect convention card, why are you complaining since the players with the incorrect convention card are at fault.

[johnu]

 hrothgar, on 2016-November-30, 13:06, said:

FFS, you describe yourself as a life master who has been playing bridge for 20 years and you claim that you need to be protected against baby psyches.

There's a fine line between psyches and concealed partnership agreements. How often does the player make that type of psyche, does partner take the bid at face value, can partner raise with a suitable hand, etc.

[sfi]

 woodjohnd, on 2016-November-30, 12:20, said:

For starters, the Oracle told them that ‘psych’ bidding was an integral part of the game of duplicate bridge.

Just because you believe the game should be played a certain way doesn't mean everyone else agrees with you. The Oracle has it right - this game is richer and more varied than it first seems, and trying to limit that via restricting conventions, psychs, or forcing specific evaluation methods on people acts to the detriment of the game.

The psych you describe really is a baby psych, and one that many people would do without prior partnership experience. There are others that you will encounter - I learned a new one the other week by a player who is now on the Australian team. He didn't beat our team because of it, but it worked nicely and my understanding of the game has now increased slightly.

The Oracle could have told you to 'be suspicious of your opponents for they are not on your side.'

[ahydra]

So this is just a long, long way of saying "repeated psyches form a partnership agreement and so should be alerted" (and that perhaps the ACBL need to do more to make sure people are alerting them). That's true, but doesn't need 2000 words to be said. Also if a player wants a hand recorded, all they have to do is ask the TD (and give a good reason).

ahydra

[nekthen]

We do not get the most important piece of information. Did Joke and Trick field the psyche?
If they returned to diamonds for no good reason, then they have fielded the psyche and should be punished. They must bid as if the 3 spade bid is kosher, if they don't they are cheating.

To be clear , the 3 diamond bidder should not return to diamonds unless he has longer than expected diamonds and a spade void. The 3 spade bidder may run to diamonds after a double in which case the psyche has been exposed and everyone should understand what is going on.

[aawk]

[quote name='woodjohnd' timestamp='1480530049' post='905981']
PSYCHED OUT - A BRIDGE FAIRY TALE
____________________________________________________________________________

Around about the same time, in a different town not that much further away, there were another two bridge players, Joke and Trick. They were very experienced players with many thousands of master points. At the bar after a recent game, they compared notes and had a good laugh about a pair they had fooled with the old "Raise Partner's Pre-Empt By Bidding a Non-Existent Suit" swindle.



If Joke and Trick use the Non-Existent suit swindle more than once the should alert that this could be the case and even put a note about this on their system card (on a official system card there is specific box for that).

If they don't do that the don't give full discloser and violate the rules and should be punished.

And if they are really experienced players they (should) know that and not telling opponents this could be the case is plain cheating.

So if this was the first time Joke and Trick did this bad luck for Bid and Make.

If not the director should corrected the score and educate Joke and Trick about the rules.

[GrahamJson]

Changing the subject slightly, many (maybe most) players open themselves up to being swindled by psyches because they have got carried away with the idea that all low level doubles are for take out. In the example mentioned a double of the 3S bid should be for penalties and would usually expose the psyche. This is because all passes following a 2C opener are forcing, hence all doubles must be for penalties. Another common scenario is when the bidding goes something like (1D) - DBL - (1S) - ? Many play (or assume) that a double in this position is negative, giving the 1S bidder a free hand to play around and keep oppo out of a spade fit. Of course a double should show a four card suit in this position, often exposing a psyche, but how often do you see it used this way? The doubler can of course go on to bid spades, showing a five carder. (Some experts play that an immediate 2S bid over 1S shows five with a double showing precisely four. This is certainly a playable method although I'm not sure it has much advantage.).

[blackshoe]

This story has already been beat to death on bridgewinners.

[woodjohnd]

 Kaitlyn S, on 2016-November-30, 12:51, said:

I had a similar fairy tale but mine had a happier ending. Mine had to do with bridge lawyers. It was described in the Laws & Rulings forum but apparently has scrolled into oblivion. My happy ending is that rather than donate to the ACBL coffers for the last ten years, I've built up a decent start at a retirement fund with the money that would have been instead spent on tournaments, and haven't missed the chase for masterpoints one bit.

Maybe Bid & Make will do the same and be happily sipping cocktails in The Bahamas in a few years while Joke and Trick are laughing in a hotel bar thinking that they've got it made and the Oracle will be sitting around wondering why they can't attract newer players.

Thanks for the constructive reply Kaitlyn. I feel like the voice in the wilderness in wanting to play the game minus the psych bidding. So good to know that I have at least some compatriots. I too think that I won't bother with the tournament scene very much any more, if at all.

And we are not totally alone, please check out the following link from Larry Cohen's website:

https://www.larryco....enter/detail/87

[Kaitlyn S]

 woodjohnd, on 2016-December-02, 17:12, said:

Thanks for the constructive reply Kaitlyn. I feel like the voice in the wilderness in wanting to play the game minus the psych bidding. So good to know that I have at least some compatriots. I too think that I won't bother with the tournament scene very much any more, if at all.

And we are not totally alone, please check out the following link from Larry Cohen's website:

https://www.larryco....enter/detail/87

Actually I'm not against psyches per se. But I'm against these psyches "which everyone knows" because in theory two people with equal talent but one is new to the game should be on equal footing, and in practice they aren't because they haven't learned the "baby psyches" which to the new player seem like
secret agreements.

Let's just say that if my partner knows I might bid 3S over partner's 3D with xx, xxxx, KQx, xxxx where my newbie opponents don't, then I believe it's not fair, no matter how many times the experts say "But everybody should know this!"

A psyche should fool everybody at the table including partner. If partner knows that you might have this hand and the opponents don't, then it's an illegal secret agreement IMO. To say that the opponents should know this and it's fine that they paid a board to learn it is just elitist, and elitism is driving the newer player away. Just as it does when the newer player gets ruled against after following the Law of Total Tricks after his partner hesitates because he is supposedly too new to know it when it would have been allowed for any of the tournament regulars.

[hrothgar]

 Kaitlyn S, on 2016-December-02, 18:02, said:

Actually I'm not against psyches per se. But I'm against these psyches "which everyone knows" because in theory two people with equal talent but one is new to the game should be on equal footing, and in practice they aren't because they haven't learned the "baby psyches" which to the new player seem like secret agreements.

How are you defining "talent" because I am having a hard time comprehending two people with "equal talent" when one knows pretty basic elements of the game and the other doesn't.
You wouldn't talking about two people with "equal talent" but one of them knows forcing NT and the other doesn't...

FWIW, the person who wrote this little fable describes himself as a life master with 20 years experience and was start looking for sympathy when he was blindsided by a well known psyche

[sfi]

 Kaitlyn S, on 2016-December-02, 18:02, said:

Actually I'm not against psyches per se. But I'm against these psyches "which everyone knows" because in theory two people with equal talent but one is new to the game should be on equal footing, and in practice they aren't because they haven't learned the "baby psyches" which to the new player seem like
secret agreements.

Experience counts for something and this is simply an application of that idea. The game is not purely logical, no matter how much people would like it to be. Are you also suggesting we adjust when someone upgrades, gives false count, or simply has a different idea of hand evaluation than you do?

Quote

Let's just say that if my partner knows I might bid 3S over partner's 3D with xx, xxxx, KQx, xxxx where my newbie opponents don't, then I believe it's not fair, no matter how many times the experts say "But everybody should know this!"

A psyche should fool everybody at the table including partner.

The one in question would fool partner, but it is unlikely to matter very much. Partner might innocently raise 3S to 4 and the opponents might leave us in our 2-2 fit. Partner is none the wiser until he writes down -450 and picks up 14 IMPs. Next time the opponents might remember to double and now partner has just made it easier to find their slam. Just because I as the preempter know this might happen doesn't mean I will react differently - if I did that's where it becomes problematic.

Quote

To say that the opponents should know this and it's fine that they paid a board to learn it is just elitist, and elitism is driving the newer player away.

It's merely acknowledging that bridge is a complex and multi-layered game, and that a novice doesn't know as much about it as an expert. These are very different things. Adjusting here would be like adjusting a contract to -1 because the declarer found a squeeze that the opponent could have broken up earlier had they known about squeezes.

I would suggest the real problem is the initial teacher that didn't introduce the idea that opponents aren't there to help them. If people understand these things are a normal part of the game earlier, they are much less likely to be unpleasantly surprised when they do come across someone who bids differently, psychs, false cards, or otherwise misleads them. Shielding beginners from this does them a disservice, both because it oversimplifies the game and means they feel cheated when they aren't being.

Making the game simpler is at least as likely to cause it damage as what you are suggesting. As a simple example, I posted earlier that numbers in Australia are growing. We don't have anywhere near the same concerns about psyching (at any level) as in the ACBL, so it is not obvious that your theory is supported by data. When asking people who have come to lessons and not continued (and our club follows this up as a matter of course so we have the data), answers include 'cannot find a partner', 'inconvenient times', 'too much time commitment', and 'not for me'. Psyching just doesn't come up. When we asked people who were more experienced and dropped out the common reasons were 'rudeness' and 'cannot find a partner' (except young people - their answers were totally different).

Quote

Just as it does when the newer player gets ruled against after following the Law of Total Tricks after his partner hesitates because he is supposedly too new to know it when it would have been allowed for any of the tournament regulars.

I'm not sure that comparison is valid. If I recall correctly, nobody here had anything good to say about that particular ruling, and that sort of thing could easily lose people.

[Kaitlyn S]

 hrothgar, on 2016-December-02, 18:25, said:

How are you defining "talent" because I am having a hard time comprehending two people with "equal talent" when one knows pretty basic elements of the game and the other doesn't.
You wouldn't talking about two people with "equal talent" but one of them knows forcing NT and the other doesn't...

FWIW, the person who wrote this little fable describes himself as a life master with 20 years experience and was start looking for sympathy when he was blindsided by a well known psyche

Can you define "well known"? My guess is that 90% of the players the OP played against don't know it. It is quite possible to become life master and never play against a person with more than 1000 MP (many of which also never played against a person with more than 1000 MP.) People play low flight games, the Gold Rush pairs, bracketed KO's, and STACs in clubs where maybe two or three members don't routinely lead the queen with Qxx opposite Axx.

When I played a lot, we had to play against everybody so we would get exposed earlier. I was no stranger to psychs; once a club had a committee deciding whether to ban me for psyching a controlled psyche! I lost 30 masterpoints to the same baby psyche - partner and I knew it but we didn't discuss the sequence 2H double 2S double. I doubled 2S with spades and partner took it as responsive so we won 20 masterpoints in the event for fifth place instead of 50 for third. Both of us were aware that 2S could be a psyche. So yeah, those baby psyches can work even on the final day of a national event. Probably everybody still in the event would have been aware that it was likely to be a psyche and most of the pairs would have handled it just fine. But we weren't upset at the psyching pair - it was a national event after all so assuming that your opponents had heard of that psyche is fine.

However, I might feel differently today when everybody plays sheltered events all the time - if somebody pulls that off in the last round of Flight C, I would suspect that most of the people in the event would have never heard of that psyche, so in a sense it is a secret agreement and I wouldn't be surprised if the director would rule as such.

What would make it well known? I don't remember ever seeing it in the ACBL Bulletin, especially not the newcomers' section that is all much of Flight C reads. I don't think I've seen it in The Bridge World magazine. I don't believe I've seen it in any of Audrey Grant's Better Bridge magazines or in any of her daily columns that I peruse from time to time. If nobody publishes it, where are people going to hear about this well known psyche? They're not going to see someone else do it in their sheltered games.

I suspect he got little sympathy on BridgeWinners, for I suspect that most of the people that would join that site are either good or quite studious and have probably picked up the tricks of the trade early. I have a little more sympathy for his position only because I can imagine a pair of students going out there and thinking the opponents beat them with a secret agreement. And if he really wasn't aware of this psyching situation, baby or not, isn't it like a secret agreement to him?

However, the OP is going to be disappointed that I have no desire to ban psyches from the game. However, when so many games are sheltered, something like 2H P 2S by a pair that knows that partner might not have spades should be alerted if there is a reasonable expectation that the opponents might not know it. Note that the newbie pair is still at a disadvantage even after the alert; they still haven't discussed their defense and may suffer the same catastrophe that my partner and I did in the final day of a national event.

[hrothgar]

 Kaitlyn S, on 2016-December-02, 19:24, said:

Can you define "well known"? My guess is that 90% of the players the OP played against don't know it. It is quite possible to become life master and never play against a person with more than 1000 MP (many of which also never played against a person with more than 1000 MP.) People play low flight games, the Gold Rush pairs, bracketed KO's, and STACs in clubs where maybe two or three members don't routinely lead the queen with Qxx opposite Axx.

The fact that the original poster played for 20 years and attained the status of life master without every seeing a psych is his problem, not ours...

[Kaitlyn S]

Welcome Back, "The Hog"! I haven't seen you since I came back in July but I used to like your posts.