[SW MART]

West East
Qxx Axxx
Axxxxx J
xxx AKxxx
x AKQ

While playing social bridge recently, a pup opened 1 NT in seat 4 (east). Profile disclosure infomed 1NT = 15 - 17 pts. East West ended up in game which was irrelevant to my point. What would happen if this happened at a tournament, and the DIRECTOR was called? Penalties?

TIA

SWMart

[Cyberyeti]

SW MART, on 2021-October-31, 06:07, said:

West East
Qxx Axxx
Axxxxx J
xxx AKxxx
x AKQ

While playing social bridge recently, a pup opened 1 NT in seat 4 (east). Profile disclosure infomed 1NT = 15 - 17 pts. East West ended up in game which was irrelevant to my point. What would happen if this happened at a tournament, and the DIRECTOR was called? Penalties?

TIA

SWMart

Use the hand editor

---

Depends where you are, it's a psyche and not a good one (unless he meant to bid 2N in which case it's not).

Psyching is not illegal in most jurisdictions although I believe opening 1N with a singleton may be illegal in places. Important to state where you are in directorial matters.

[nige1]

CyberYeti 'Depends where you are, it's a psyche and not a good one (unless he meant to bid 2N in which case it's not).Psyching is not illegal in most jurisdictions although I believe opening 1N with a singleton may be illegal in places. Important to state where you are in directorial matters.'
+++++++++++++++++++++++
Agree ,with CyberYeti. A weird psyche but, unless there's an agreement, no penalty.
Opening 1N with a singleton by agreement is illegal in some jurisdictions.
IMO it should be allowed but it should require announcement.
Opening 1N with a singleton minor seems quite sensible but
the danger of opening with a singleton major is that partner transfers.

---

[smerriman]

Issues here are more likely to apply later in the bidding, if the opening bidder starts trying to make up for what appears to be a mistake and partner catches on that something went wrong.

[morecharac]

Cyberyeti, on 2021-October-31, 06:50, said:

Psyching is not illegal in most jurisdictions [...]

I can't remember where I read that psyching against weaker opponents is unethical but it's something I agree with.

I've actually had to issue an excessive psyching warning against one club member. As you might guess, a strong player using it against weaker players several times in a few months. He's one of those players who stopped showing up when I was directing.

[Cyberyeti]

morecharac, on 2021-November-01, 10:18, said:

I can't remember where I read that psyching against weaker opponents is unethical but it's something I agree with.

I've actually had to issue an excessive psyching warning against one club member. As you might guess, a strong player using it against weaker players several times in a few months. He's one of those players who stopped showing up when I was directing.

I should have said psyching ONCE is not illegal. If there's a pattern then that can be a different matter.

[AL78]

morecharac, on 2021-November-01, 10:18, said:

I can't remember where I read that psyching against weaker opponents is unethical but it's something I agree with.

I've actually had to issue an excessive psyching warning against one club member. As you might guess, a strong player using it against weaker players several times in a few months. He's one of those players who stopped showing up when I was directing.

Why would a strong player feel the need to psyche regularly against weaker players? Their superior skill and judgement should be sufficient to get them a decent score the majority of the time.

[mycroft]

Some people just like freaking out the opponents, especially when they know they can rattle them for the rest of the round. Some people of about the same caliber like playing everyone down to the last little rule, or pull the "We could call the director and get that rolled back, but we'll be nice" (and just shame them instead), or "we think people playing strange systems are just trying to win by confusing people, and we're happy to make sure they know it. Not *us*, of course, we're good enough to not have a problem, but 'people'." Or...

That doesn't make psyching illegal. It does make *a pattern of* unsportsmanlike behaviour illegal.

In the ACBL (for morecharac), "psychs against inexperienced players" is an example of unsportsmanlike bidding - note, not "weaker", "inexperienced". But there has to be a limit of what "inexperienced" means - and it doesn't mean "the victim's first psychic", or "silver life master" or even "5 years experience". We mean, truly inexperienced. And it also doesn't mean "you can't psych against anybody you don't know, because they could be inexperienced". It's making those calls against players who they know aren't good enough to handle them (and not against players who are good enough), especially if they gloat about the result or aggressively defend themselves, or otherwise lean on the legal action in an improper way.

But I do like using the social aspect of the game to make clear AL78's point, especially if it comes in public from the people these game players wish a good opinion from. A surgical "you don't think you're good enough to beat them straight up?" from one of the true As works wonders.

[mikeh]

mycroft, on 2021-November-01, 13:52, said:

Some people just like freaking out the opponents, especially when they know they can rattle them for the rest of the round. Some people of about the same caliber like playing everyone down to the last little rule, or pull the "We could call the director and get that rolled back, but we'll be nice" (and just shame them instead), or "we think people playing strange systems are just trying to win by confusing people, and we're happy to make sure they know it. Not *us*, of course, we're good enough to not have a problem, but 'people'." Or...

That doesn't make psyching illegal. It does make *a pattern of* unsportsmanlike behaviour illegal.

In the ACBL (for morecharac), "psychs against inexperienced players" is an example of unsportsmanlike bidding - note, not "weaker", "inexperienced". But there has to be a limit of what "inexperienced" means - and it doesn't mean "the victim's first psychic", or "silver life master" or even "5 years experience". We mean, truly inexperienced. And it also doesn't mean "you can't psych against anybody you don't know, because they could be inexperienced". It's making those calls against players who they know aren't good enough to handle them (and not against players who are good enough), especially if they gloat about the result or aggressively defend themselves, or otherwise lean on the legal action in an improper way.

But I do like using the social aspect of the game to make clear AL78's point, especially if it comes in public from the people these game players wish a good opinion from. A surgical "you don't think you're good enough to beat them straight up?" from one of the true As works wonders.

In my experience very few good players psyche much anymore. Psyching used to be relatively common. 25+ years ago my then regular partner pre-alerted (with a written card as well as verbally) that we always opened in 1st or 3rd, at favourable, with 0-4 hcp.

With one of my two current partners, one hates psyches so I don’t do it.with the other, we are trying (through legal means) to be ‘difficult to play against’ so we play funny two-bids, some 11-13 1N, and fairly frequent psyches (our CC says frequent).

Our hope is that the relative lack of psyching these days will mean that even strong players may have problems

But we’d never do it against players we perceived as weak. I do see the attraction. Many of us get a kick out of fooling someone at the table. But for me, there’s no emotional reward from taking advantage of inexperienced players that way..indeed, it’s the opposite.

Plus, more selfishly, if I’m a heavy favourite to win, why do I want to randomize the results by psyching?

In terms of the OP, one hand doesn’t give us enough information on which to form an opinion. Online bridge allows people with virtually no clue about the game to ‘play’. So east could be a novice. He might just be fooling around. He may have misclicked. And so on.

[nige1]

mikeh, on 2021-November-01, 15:00, said:

With one of my two current partners, one hates psyches so I don't do it.with the other, we are trying (through legal means) to be 'difficult to play against' so we play funny two-bids, some 11-13 1N, and fairly frequent psyches (our CC says frequent).

Our hope is that the relative lack of psyching these days will mean that even strong players may have problems

But we'd never do it against players we perceived as weak. I do see the attraction. Many of us get a kick out of fooling someone at the table. But for me, there's no emotional reward from taking advantage of inexperienced players that way..indeed, it's the opposite.

Plus, more selfishly, if I'm a heavy favourite to win, why do I want to randomize the results by psyching?
t just be fooling around. He may have misclicked. And so on.

if you psych frequently against good opponents but never against weak opponents then you might encounter an ethical dilemma. Arguably:

• You are guilty of concealed partnership understandings If you fail to inform opponents about your partnership propensities
• But weaker opponents might well take umbrage when they learn that you never 'psych' against them and why

[mikeh]

nige1, on 2021-November-03, 06:40, said:

if you psych frequently against good opponents but never against weak opponents then you might encounter an ethical dilemma. Arguably:

• You are guilty of concealed partnership understandings If you fail to inform opponents about your partnership propensities
• But weaker opponents might well take umbrage when they learn that you never 'psych' against them and why

Well, we are talking about entirely different circumstances

When I play in our Canadian championships, for the right to play internationally for Canada, I assume all my opponents are reasonably good players…in fact, I almost always know my opponents in these events since I’ve been playing in them for over 25 years. There, I can psyche.

If I’m playing in the LM Pairs or the Blue Ribbon Pairs, or the Spingold, on a rare venture to a NABC, I assume even opps unknown to me are strong enough to handle a psych.

If I play at the local club, I won’t psyche.

I can play different methods in different events. There’s nothing unethical about an approach wherein I psyche in strong events and not in weak events. For example, in strong events I play Multi. In weak events, I don’t even when I’d be allowed to do so.

[nige1]

mikeh, on 2021-November-03, 08:54, said:

If I play at the local club, I won't psyche.

That seems a reasonable policy.

[morecharac]

AL78, on 2021-November-01, 11:05, said:

Why would a strong player feel the need to psyche regularly against weaker players? Their superior skill and judgement should be sufficient to get them a decent score the majority of the time.

I think you have to be such a person to understand their motivation.