[EricK]

Does the fact that you are allowed to psyche increase or decrease your enjoyment of the game?
Does the fact that your opponents might be psyching increase or decrease your enjoyment of the game?
Does the fact that partner might be psyching increase or decrease your enjoyment of the game?
If psyching were banned, so none of the above would be a concern, by how much would it affect your enjoyment of the game?

Even though I quite enjoy being allowed to psyche, I must admit that I think of psyches I could do far more often than I actually (have the courage to?) do them. And I reckon if psyching were banned it wouldn't really make for a worse or less enjoyable game. At least, I wouldn't enjoy it any less - would you?

[trevahound]

A huge problem (imo) with banning psyches, even *if* that were legal, is defining the line between judgement and a psyche. What is a gross misstatement of strength or shape to you might be a very mild misstatement of those to me, or vice versa. Everyone can say, "I know a psyche when I see one", but to ban them you have to substitute someone else's judgement for yours. For me, that would do far more damage to my enjoyment of the game than the occasional annoying psyche by an opp or by partner.

A fair bit of the fun of bridge is trying to back my judgement where it differs from the fields' judgement, and that includes making an occasional tactical call with less than full values (or much more than full values).

Brian Zaugg

[ArtK78]

trevahound, on 2013-July-01, 12:16, said:

A huge problem (imo) with banning psyches, even *if* that were legal, is defining the line between judgement and a psyche. What is a gross misstatement of strength or shape to you might be a very mild misstatement of those to me, or vice versa. Everyone can say, "I know a psyche when I see one", but to ban them you have to substitute someone else's judgement for yours. For me, that would do far more damage to my enjoyment of the game than the occasional annoying psyche by an opp or by partner.

A fair bit of the fun of bridge is trying to back my judgement where it differs from the fields' judgement, and that includes making an occasional tactical call with less than full values (or much more than full values).

Brian Zaugg

Brian, I do not buy your argument. A gross misstatement of strength and/or shape is not open to a great deal of interpretation. That is enough of a guideline to know that a 1♠ opening bid on AKxx AQJxxx x xx is not a psyche but a 1♠ opening bid on xx QJTxxx AK Axx is a psyche. While there may be grey areas, the definition of a psyche is well enough defined so that the "I know it when I see it" camp is not out of line.

As for the questions in the OP, I don't think it really matters that much one way or the other. I psyche once every 10 to 15 years, and I can't remember the last time someone psyched against me.

I play a light opening system with my regular partner. So if the bidding starts out 2 passes to me and I have a weak hand, I know the opps have a game. I could psyche frequently in this position, but I don't believe it is ethical to do so, as partner may be more aware of the situation than the opps.

[CSGibson]

It would hurt my enjoyment of the game if I were not allowed to psych, or if opponents were not allowed to psych. One of the things I enjoy is creative problem solving, and balancing risk/reward. I rarely psych, but I always want the option to try something if the situation warrants it.

I also consider it a nice compliment if an opponent psychs against me. One memory I will treasure is in the last board of a knockout where Geoff Hampson opened 1S on Qxx, desperate for a swing. If it had worked, I would be shaking my head in admiration, not anger, because its a beautiful game.

[y66]

What csgibson said.

[jogs]

In poker one is allowed to bluff. Poker is not a full disclosure game.
You are allowed to keep your strategy a secret from opponents.
Bridge is a full disclosure game. Opponents are allowed to ask the
meaning of your bid. The real problem is it is easy to field partner's
psych. Opponents' BIT often give away psych. But one can't be 100%
certain. Should one be required to tell opponents when we think partner
has psyched?

[Cascade]

Psyching adds to the richness of the game. It does not matter whether it is me psyching, my partner psyching, or the opponents psyching.

The game would be significantly worse if psyching were banned.

Not only is there a problem with the boundary between a psyche and judgement to open light or otherwise distort your hand there is a problem with the distinction between a "deliberate" psyche and an "accidental" misbid. Both are part of the game and should remain so.

Many games or sports I have played that involve interactive encounters with the opponents involve an opportunity to bluff or otherwise con the opponents. As in bridge these elements enhance and do not detract from the games in my opinion.

[the hog]

CSGibson, on 2013-July-01, 12:34, said:

It would hurt my enjoyment of the game if I were not allowed to psych, or if opponents were not allowed to psych. One of the things I enjoy is creative problem solving, and balancing risk/reward. I rarely psych, but I always want the option to try something if the situation warrants it.

I also consider it a nice compliment if an opponent psychs against me. One memory I will treasure is in the last board of a knockout where Geoff Hampson opened 1S on Qxx, desperate for a swing. If it had worked, I would be shaking my head in admiration, not anger, because its a beautiful game.

I totally agree with Chris' post.

[Vampyr]

Cascade, on 2013-July-01, 15:59, said:

Not only is there a problem with the boundary between a psyche and judgement to open light or otherwise distort your hand there is a problem with the distinction between a "deliberate" psyche and an "accidental" misbid.

Yes, to me the greater problem would be that if psyching were banned misbidding would also have to be banned.

[ggwhiz]

Cascade, on 2013-July-01, 15:59, said:

The game would be significantly worse if psyching were banned.

So far the posts have been about opening bids which I pretty much abstain from psyching on, well pretty much.

More common is a weak 2 by pard, pass to me and Dolly is moving her lips while she counts her points on my left. I can't roll over in an emergency or it would be way too boring and the times it has happened against me have been entertaining good fun trying to cope with it.

[the_clown]

ggwhiz, on 2013-July-01, 21:27, said:

So far the posts have been about opening bids which I pretty much abstain from psyching on, well pretty much.

More common is a weak 2 by pard, pass to me and Dolly is moving her lips while she counts her points on my left. I can't roll over in an emergency or it would be way too boring and the times it has happened against me have been entertaining good fun trying to cope with it.

I think psyching against club players really spoils their enjoyment of the game. Its the same when you go in a club full with old ladies and play some weird system like fantunes or strong club. They just feel cheated.

Playing against decent players I think rare psyching is making the game richer, as others pointed out

[1eyedjack]

I bet they don't feel cheated when they get a good result. Perhaps preempts should also be banned against club players

[johnu]

I've done my share of psyching and seen my share of psyching opening bids by the opponents. I have no problem with psyching when playing with screens or online (but you may get on your partner's enemy list in a pickup game online if your psych backfires). Live games without screens may make it easier to field psychs and playing with a regular partner means they may be more likely to sniff out a psych so they begin to approach being concealed partnership agreements. Of course, I'm not talking about the esteemed members of this forum who maintain perfect poker faces until the end of the hand no matter the outcome, but those other players you all know.

To tell you the truth, it wouldn't make any difference to me if the bridge authorities rewrote the rules to ban opening psychs. Rules in bridge as well as other games/sports change all the time.

[Free]

ArtK78, on 2013-July-01, 12:32, said:

A gross misstatement of strength and/or shape is not open to a great deal of interpretation. That is enough of a guideline to know that a 1♠ opening bid on AKxx AQJxxx x xx is not a psyche but a 1♠ opening bid on xx QJTxxx AK Axx is a psyche. While there may be grey areas, the definition of a psyche is well enough defined so that the "I know it when I see it" camp is not out of line.

Opening 1♠ on AKxx AQJxxx x xx is a clear psych because it's a gross misstatement of shape. You can hardly call '5+♠ without longer ♥' an accurate description of the hand. So as your example already proves, it's not clear at all on some cases.

What about opening 1M with a 5332 with 11HCP in 3rd seat? What about 10HCP? What about 9HCP? Etc. When does it become 'gross'? With AKQT9-T9-T98-T98 it may be acceptable (9HCP) while Q5432-QJ-QJ2-QJ2 is ridiculous (11HCP!). It's impossible to define clear guidelines when hand evaluation comes into play.

I would hate it if I couldn't psych. Sometimes opps look at me like I psyched while I made an honest bid. Wouldn't want to miss that. And psyching with or against multi is way too much fun. I don't care if opps psych against me, it means they either want revenge from a psych I successfully pulled against them, or they fear that they can't beat me by playing normal.

Also, there are still backdoors if you'd ban psychs: someone can say he was distracted by the previous deal and made an error, slip of the mind, pulled the wrong card, miscounted,... How can you prove that he's lying? When I have a weak two and open it 1M it can be explained as pulling the wrong bid from the bidding box and realising it too late. Same goes for hands where you open the suit above or below your real suit. When I open 1NT with 13HCP I miscounted.

Are you going to ban mistakes as well? Because if you do, no beginner will ever become advanced, They won't enjoy the game because they get penalized for each mistake they make. Cool game ... not!

[Zelandakh]

EricK, on 2013-July-01, 11:54, said:

Does the fact that you are allowed to psyche increase or decrease your enjoyment of the game?

Strongly increases. I psyche relatively often and the experience from this has also had beneficial effects elsewhere in my bidding.

EricK, on 2013-July-01, 11:54, said:

Does the fact that your opponents might be psyching increase or decrease your enjoyment of the game?

Makes no difference to me. Most of the times when the opponents got a good result by "psyching", they actually just misbid.

EricK, on 2013-July-01, 11:54, said:

Does the fact that partner might be psyching increase or decrease your enjoyment of the game?

Makes no difference to me providing they respect the Golden Rule of psyches - if you psyche and it goes wrong, you automatically lose the postmortem.

EricK, on 2013-July-01, 11:54, said:

If psyching were banned, so none of the above would be a concern, by how much would it affect your enjoyment of the game?

Greatly. But luckily I can simply pretend to be stupid and "forget" agreements or pull the wrong card out of the box. Or whatever.

ArtK78, on 2013-July-01, 12:32, said:

That is enough of a guideline to know that a 1♠ opening bid on AKxx AQJxxx x xx is not a psyche but a 1♠ opening bid on xx QJTxxx AK Axx is a psyche.

If I remember the guidelines, a difference of 1 card is not regarded as "gross" while a difference of 2 cards is. So you can argue that opening 1♠ is not a gross deviation since it is only 1 card difference; but when you follow with 2♥ the difference is now 2 cards (4-6 rather than 5-5) and you could predict this on the opening so it is open to interpretation. I would certainly regard this as a baby-psyche regardless of what the regulations say.

[1eyedjack]

johnu, on 2013-July-02, 01:06, said:

To tell you the truth, it wouldn't make any difference to me if the bridge authorities rewrote the rules to ban opening psychs.

I am sure that you meant to word that differently, but the fact is that it would make a difference to you, because opponents who were formerly allowed lawfully to psych against you would thereafter no longer be able to do so, and that impacts on you (probably to your detriment, in the long term)

What I find surprising is that the unlawful banning of psychs is so popular among BBO TDs.

Zia Mahmood would turn in his grave. If he were not still alive.

Anyway, I hope that psychs will continue to be considered perfectly acceptable in Robot tourneys, not least because there can be absolutely no suggestion of implicit partnership agreement or partner being under any lesser element of surprise.

[fromageGB]

I have a partner who gets so upset when I have psyched that she has banned me from psyching. It does detract from the enjoyment of making a misleading call and seeing a beneficial impact.

Clubs are encouraged by the ebu to write your name in a special book when you do, and this gives a perceived stigma to both parts of a partnership. I think the game would be better if psyches were accepted as part of the game, with no classification into yellow, green, blue, pink, or whatever. There should be space on the convention card for frequency of psyches, eg never, rare, maybe once/session, common.

[Trinidad]

1eyedjack, on 2013-July-02, 05:04, said:

Zia Mahmood would turn in his grave. If he were not still alive.

He just won silver in the European Open Pairs. He's alive and kicking!

Rik

[ArtK78]

ArtK78, on 2013-July-01, 12:32, said:

A gross misstatement of strength and/or shape is not open to a great deal of interpretation. That is enough of a guideline to know that a 1♠ opening bid on AKxx AQJxxx x xx is not a psyche but a 1♠ opening bid on xx QJTxxx AK Axx is a psyche. While there may be grey areas, the definition of a psyche is well enough defined so that the "I know it when I see it" camp is not out of line.

Free, on 2013-July-02, 01:34, said:

Opening 1♠ on AKxx AQJxxx x xx is a clear psych because it's a gross misstatement of shape. You can hardly call '5+♠ without longer ♥' an accurate description of the hand. So as your example already proves, it's not clear at all on some cases.

No. It is not a gross misstatement of shape. Opener has 4 spades. He promised 5. Hardly a gross misstatement of shape. Opener has 6 hearts that he did not show. But he didn't say anything about hearts.

If opener were 5-5 in the majors, what would he open? 1♠. So, he is one card off from the normal opening bid (move one heart into spades). Hardly a gross misstatement of shape.

Zelandakh, on 2013-July-02, 02:02, said:

If I remember the guidelines, a difference of 1 card is not regarded as "gross" while a difference of 2 cards is. So you can argue that opening 1♠ is not a gross deviation since it is only 1 card difference; but when you follow with 2♥ the difference is now 2 cards (4-6 rather than 5-5) and you could predict this on the opening so it is open to interpretation. I would certainly regard this as a baby-psyche regardless of what the regulations say.

No, the difference is still only one card. Change a heart into a spade and it is 5-5, and everyone would open 1♠.

I find it interesting that anyone would argue that opening 1♠ on AKxx AQJxxx x xx is a psyche. In my opinion, it is not even close to what I would consider to be a gross misstatement of shape.

[billw55]

fromageGB, on 2013-July-02, 05:32, said:

I have a partner who gets so upset when I have psyched that she has banned me from psyching. It does detract from the enjoyment of making a misleading call and seeing a beneficial impact.

Clubs are encouraged by the ebu to write your name in a special book when you do, and this gives a perceived stigma to both parts of a partnership. I think the game would be better if psyches were accepted as part of the game, with no classification into yellow, green, blue, pink, or whatever. There should be space on the convention card for frequency of psyches, eg never, rare, maybe once/session, common.

Once per session is common, and certainly should be disclosed, probably pre-alerted.

I do agree that any sufficient bid should always be legal, subject to proper disclosure.