I was reading
today's Daily Bulletin from the Nationals and stumbled across an article by Mike Flader that really ticked me off. Every ten years or so it seems like the ACBL tries to outlaw psychs. I remember a letter to the editor on the subject I sent in that got published back when Henry Francis was the editor of the Bulletin. They're at it again.
The article is entitled 'The Trouble with Psychs' on page 14. In it, Mike Flader describes people who psych as 'perpetrators' and 'offenders.' He describes those who receive bad boards because of their inability to deal with a psych as 'victims.' He describes psyching against weak players as 'unsportsmanlike.' He proposes a psychic offender registration system whereby those who psych must notify the directors in their area when they do so and agree not to live within 1,000 feet of a school bus stop (okay, I made the very last part up.)
Now some of you might be thinking 'I didn't know Jonathan liked to psych.' I don't. That's not the point. If I psych an opening bid or initial action twice a year it's been a busy year. But psyching is a time-honored part of our game. When I played with Jeff regularly he used to psych frequently. It drove me nuts. (If Flader had described the
partner of the psycher as a 'victim' he would have been much closer to the mark.) But if he hadn't managed to expose his own psych, I'd hang him, take the bad result, and make it up on another hand with my stellar declarer play.
As to the argument that psyching is unsportsmanlike I'd call that utter hogwash. Okay, if you bring me a hand where you psyched against a novice and it worked and you were bragging about it, I might bring you back down to earth. But if you followed the rules and won, nobody has any business implying that your win was somehow tainted.
If you consider psyching against novices unsportsmanlike, are these unsportsmanlike too?
Deciding that a novice/intermediate is unlikely to have made a 'mandatory falsecard' and playing a suit accordingly.
Preempting aggressively against novices, knowing that you're less likely to go for a digit.
Playing out a hand against a novice that relies on a 'pseudo-squeeze' or even a complete mental meltdown on defense instead of making a claim assuming perfect defense.
Executing a squeeze against a novice.
Taking a finesse against a novice.
Leading an honor to try to elicit a cover against a novice in a situation where no experienced player would ever cover.
Bidding your hand correctly and arriving at a normal slam contract against a novice that you suspect they would have been unlikely to bid.
