[gnasher]

Zelandakh, on 2015-October-29, 04:14, said:

Is this actually allowed?

It's neither allowed nor true.

[Manastorm]

gordontd, on 2015-October-28, 03:55, said:

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.

I think I wouldnt either as long as you explain the tendency.

[jfnrl]

Psyching policy is not only a matter of law but also of regulation (see L40B2d).
In France, it is prohibited to do a "protected psyche".
for example :
It is not allowed to psyche 2NT in the auction (where the standard bid is 3S)
2S (pass) 2NT
where 2NT ask rank and spade quality
As far as I know, this psyche is also prohibited by WBF.

In Spain AEP' regulation should avoid repeated psyches :
" a) La pareja ha efectuado voces falsas similares en el pasado, pero no ha transcurrido el tiempo suficiente para que el recuerdo haya desaparecido de la mente del jugador."
In other words (as far as I undersand spanish): You are not allowed to make a psyche if your partner has not forgotten the previous similar one.

[mycroft]

I certainly do train players in my games that psychics are legal. I try to do it in a complimentary way, especially when their opponent was one of the recognized "best players": "So, this is a legal [show the Laws], and very dangerous tactic. It probably wins 20% of the time, loses 30% of the time, and breaks even the rest. It is a sign of respect of your bridge play that this person no longer just assumes they can do better than that by playing you straight up - he wouldn't do it to a weaker player because he expects to get 65% off them anyway."

Having said that, the ACBL has three categories of psychics that are subject to regulation: excessively frequent, frivolous, and unsportsmanlike (it also explicitly bans psychic controls and explains about "developing partnership understandings"). For excessively frequent, they say that it is definitely fine to psych as much as you like, but the onus is on the psycher to show that, as Zelendakh suggested, "I psyche 5 times a year and it so happens that I g[o]t all of those in a single session". One of the categories of unsportsmanlike psychics is "psychs against inexperienced players." If anyone can show a tendency to do that (as opposed to a extraordinarily-for-the-area high psychic rate in general, hitting strong and weak players alike), there are grounds for action (which is why I suggested the recorder or equivalent above.) See this page on the ACBL site for more details.

(as a side note, the dreaded "three times a session" wording is in there. But please note it's very careful to point out that that is a tripwire for investigation (with reverse onus, but I see nothing wrong with that), not a hard limit. Frankly, I think in the current climate, "three times a session" is *well beyond* where the tripwire should be - I can't remember a session where there were three psychic calls in the *field* in a session without someone having replaced their system with "EtOH Standard". Of course, there are many places where they think "one time a session" is excessive.)

As a mentor or teacher, I try to explain that psychics are a valid part of the game (and to take as a compliment the first time a strong player does it against them). Mostly because nobody else does, so it *looks* like the opponents have done something illegal when it happens. I will, if people show interest, explain some of the "baby psych" or "tactical bid" situations (or even the "we don't promise anything, we're just asking, but we won't tell you specifically it could be zero+" situations) because otherwise the first time it happens they'll absolutely get bit.

[mycroft]

Sort of off-topic:
There are conventional agreements that I find play very well in a psychic-free environment, and quite badly when psychs were less disfavoured: 1m-X-1M-X "takeout" being one of the prime examples. I am frankly -->this<-- close to adding to my official agreements that (continuing the example) 1m-X-1M is "natural, 6+, 4+ cards, or a weak raise with 2- M". I can (in the ACBL): a takeout double is a convention, and I can play "any defence [that is not purely destructive]" against it. Let's see how good "Extended Responsive Doubles" are when *by agreement* I could be bidding your fit.

[aguahombre]

mycroft, on 2015-October-29, 11:55, said:

Let's see how good "Extended Responsive Doubles" are when *by agreement* I could be bidding your fit.

Exactly. Aledged "Responsive" Doubles when the opponents have not bid and raised are a misnomer anyway. I think they were created for partnerships whose takeout doubles show 13 random cards and 13 points.

[barmar]

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?

Because it's not necessarily legal, and we need to determine whether it is or isn't in a particular case.

Psyching in general is allowed. But if you psych frequently, implicit understandings may be formed, and failing to disclose this is a violation.

This can't be quantified with a simple number, it's a judgement call, like SCOTUS's distinction between pornography and erotica.