[FrancesHinden]

Scoring: IMP

---

At all four tables the auction started 1♠ x ?
In the companion poll, virtually everyone bid 4♠, with a couple of votes for 3♠. I don't know if you are all simple honest citizens, or you don't admit to what you would actually do at the table, but when this board came up in a teams-of-eight competition these were the four auctions:

Table 1
---------
1♠ x 4♠ x
all pass

NS -500 (they only found one diamond ruff)
EW had agreed to play double as take-out 'to 4S' but didn't know if the double of 4S was penalties or not.

Table 2
---------
1♠ x 3♠ 4♥
all pass

NS -510
West should have bid over 4♥, I think, but East is known to be a very aggressive bidder and at least the pre-empt made life a little difficult for them.

Table 3
---------
1♠ x 2♦* 2♥
P 4♥ all pass

2♦ was a transfer to hearts.
NS -510
You could argue the psyche worked, but East/West were not a strong pair and it's probably that anything would have worked.

Table 4
-------------
1♠ x 2♥ 4♥
P 4♠ P 5♦
P 5♠ P 6♥ all pass

2♥ was 'natural and forcing'
NS -1010
Compared to tables 1 & 2, East had the space to show a real value-based 4H bid (rather than a stretched guess) - better than a minimum double or 3♥ bid. EW had plenty of room to bid confidently to a small slam while deciding they didn't have quite enough for a grand.

So here's the rant: psyches are fun. A well-placed psyche can play havoc with the opponents' bidding. But if you look at top class bridge you will see this type of baby psyche (where you invent a suit holding a pre-empt or a pre-emptive raise) is almost never seen. If you look at less than top class bridge it is very popular, because against bad players they work well.

So I really wish people would stop trying to have fun when they have a fit and just pre-empt to the limit instead. Taking up space always causes the opponents problems. Bidding suits you haven't got in auctions (or redoubling with no values) where it's a well known tactic usually doesn't. This is one of the best known auctions for responder's psyche and 99% of decent players know how to deal with it.

[I'm not complaining too much about this hand, as our team were EW at tables 2 & 4 so we gained imps overall. But it's the principle of the thing.]

[hatchett]

Quote

If you look at less than top class bridge it is very popular, because against bad players they work well.

Aren't you arguing against yourself here? The vast majority of people play against bad players most of the time.

[P_Marlowe]

hatchett, on Nov 28 2006, 07:39 AM, said:

Quote

If you look at less than top class bridge it is very popular, because against bad players they work well.

Aren't you arguing against yourself here? The vast majority of people play against bad players most of the time.

But so would a high preempt.

The point is, you should try to prepare yourself
for the good players, not for the bad players.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[hotShot]

Good example!

I think this touches a very general subject:
Using an unusual system, convention or NT range against weak players will give you some advantage, sometimes even a big one.
But this does not mean that the method is good, it just means that weak player can't handle them.
At low level you can gain more, by changing your bidding system in a way your peers are unfamiliar with, than you can gain by improving your play.

[Cascade]

FrancesHinden, on Nov 29 2006, 12:30 AM, said:

So I really wish people would stop trying to have fun when they have a fit and just pre-empt to the limit instead.

I am firmly in the psyche seldom camp.

When I do psyche I always examine the hand to see whether a straight forward pre-empt would have worked better. Usually I find that the pre-empt would have worked at least as well. In which case I am always disappointed I did not pre-empt - even when partner or sometimes the opponents are saying "nice psyche".

For one thing a psyche cuts partner out of the action. Or worse any action that partner takes rates to be ill-judged based on your psyche.

[Robert]

Hi everyone

Zia is a favorite of mine. Doesn't his bidding come with Red warning labels attached?

I consider him part of the top level of bridge.

Regards,
Robert

[cherdano]

Robert, on Dec 5 2006, 01:58 AM, said:

Hi everyone

Zia is a favorite of mine. Doesn't his bidding come with Red warning labels attached?

I consider him part of the top level of bridge.

Regards,
Robert

There may be a few good psych situations, i.e. where you can actually gain expected IMPs by psyching occasionally. Then there are a lot of psychs that, while giving negative expected IMPs, at least increase your chance of winning IMPs (high variance, good thing to do when you are behind). But psyching a heart suit in this auction will not even do that against competent opponents. I think you are more likely to win IMPs if you copy the other tables jump to 4♠ due to a different judgement by opps, than to win IMPs by opponents getting buried by your psych. (Assuming opps know that a 2H bid over (1S)-X-(2D* = hearts) is natural etc.)

[CSGibson]

I didn't want to start a new topic, but I also wanted to rant, so I'm hijacking this one.

Ok, so last night I get invited to join a team game as a sub. It soon became apparent why a sub was needed - my partner was obnoxious, and not as good as he thought, but willing to share every single thought and criticism he had.

First hand he misplays a 4♥ contract badly and goes down. It would always go down with good defense, even after a favorable opening lead, but his line of play still was less than optimal. I say nothing, he says nothing.

3rd hand:

---

Do you think this game is so awful looking at the N-S hands? It doesn't make, but I certainly think its at least 50%. CHO, though, not only criticizes the bidding at trick 3, but also as dummy, with the KJ guess still outstanding in dummy, tells me to claim for down 1. Obnoxious twerp.

4th hand:

---

N actually discards his hearts intelligently to indicate a club card, then blows the whole thing by not inserting the J. His criticism: I didn't lead the Q. True, if I know he has the J then I can lead the Q, but if he has Ax in clubs and declarer has the J, the only chance of setting this contract is a misguess. Leading low at that point of the hand should guarentee the A or Q. My comment at the table: I could have made it easier for you. My secret thought: I can't wait for this to be over so I can play with competent people again.

[CSGibson]

6th hand:

---

Not only does N criticize the bidding on seeing dummy, but he also has the gall to criticize my not covering the Q of clubs. Dude, I know the shape of the hand, as well as the point count of all involved, I know she has the A & J of clubs. Covering is no win, as you've discarded two clubs, so there's nothing to promote. I figure I will play low and she'll take her 9th trick since its teams, and since she can go down if N had the same cards left with the K of clubs instead, but she apparently soul read me, so the tricks wind up the same as if I covered. Criticizing that non-cover is just wrong, and shows an ignorance of what's going on.

I wanted to say this all last night, but restrained myself, thanks for providing an opportunity to vent. I wouldn't have a problem if my partner misplayed, but being criticized for making good plays bothers me.

[JLOGIC]

Strangest necro ever

[mikeh]

Sorry, Frances.... I am not at all with you on this.

In essence, you think (and I entirely agree) that the type of psyche you describe is losing bridge against the very best players......you are, beyond doubt, a member of that category.

Is there any chance that you see, consciously or otherwise, that the attempt to pull off this psyche against you or your team is an insult, and that that feeling plays a role in the rant?

Your rant is, it seems to me, a plea that bad players stop playing badly in one specific situation. Why? Because you want them to play as well as you? Or because you are affronted that they think that you and your teammates could be fooled by such bad bridge?

I say, thank heaven* for bad players, else this game wouldn't exist.





*(my reference to heaven is not an indication of religious belief)

[JLOGIC]

Well in her defense she wrote this thread five and a half years ago mike.

I think the principle is that this type of psyche is stupid, yet people think it is not stupid.

[CSGibson]

JLOGIC, on 2012-February-15, 14:45, said:

Strangest necro ever

Yeah, sorry, I felt bad about starting a whole new thread with no real bridge questions just to rant, but I also felt like I was boiling just enough to do something stupid and pointless, like tracking down the twerp from last night and telling him off. My compromise was to necro a thread with rant in the title. I secretly hope that this thread will be used as a general rant thread when someone else feels the same way I did today - apologies to Frances for making it one of hers, but there weren't many options.

[mikeh]

JLOGIC, on 2012-February-15, 15:01, said:

Well in her defense she wrote this thread five and a half years ago mike.

I think the principle is that this type of psyche is stupid, yet people think it is not stupid.

wow! I didn't see this.....and thx for teaching me a new word: necro

[han]

I didn't understand the rant either, not surprised it was written many years ago.

[JLOGIC]

I don't understand what is so bad about the rant. If you see people making the same dumb mistakes over and over it doesn't annoy you in general? You don't want to post about it on the forums so others do not make the same error over and over of trying to be too cute/fancy in situations like this? Seems legit to me.

[Cthulhu D]

Poker forums have a 'bad beat' thread, maybe we need a 'the fix is in' style thread for terrible breaks and other bad hands.

[Statto]

It seems that spot cards degrade over time, whereas honours don't?

A new thread would have been better, and less confusing. While I'm here, can I request that multiple hands be posted on separate threads, unless there's a common theme? Most do this, but not everyone. It's hard to follow two separate discussions about two unrelated hands when they're intermingled.

But hey, the fact that you want to rant suggests you'll be an international player in 5 years (or maybe you are already, I don't know)

FrancesHinden, on 2006-November-28, 05:30, said:

I don't know if you are all simple honest citizens, or you don't admit to what you would actually do at the table

At the table I make more mistakes and misjudgements

mikeh, on 2012-February-15, 14:46, said:

... the attempt to pull off this psyche against you or your team is an insult ...

I'd take it as a compliment, that they can't win by their normal methods so have to resort to this (though I can't see what the psyche is, the spots have gone) - it's common for the side that knows they're down towards the end of a teams match to resort to some desperate tactics.