DaveB

The EBU has decided to issue the White Book and Blue Book in Computer only format, thus rendering them useless to Clubs with no computers on their premises. I hope this decision is reconsidered promptly.

The EBU medium for publishing Regulations is the Orange Book Here is the extract (sorry for the length) 6 B Fielding 6 B 1 The actions of the psycher’s partner following a psyche – and, possibly, further actions by the psycher himself – may provide evidence of an unauthorised, and therefore illegal, understanding. If so, then the partnership is said to have ‘fielded’ the psyche. The TD will judge actions objectively by the standards of a player’s peers; that is to say intent will not be taken into account. 6 B 2 As the judgement by the TD will be objective, some players may be understandably upset that their actions are ruled to be fielding. If a player psyches and his partner takes action that appears to allow for it then the TD will treat it as fielding. 6 B 3 A partnership’s actions on one board may be sufficient for the TD to find that it has an unauthorised understanding and the score will be adjusted in principle (see 6 D). This is classified as a Red psyche. 6 B 4 A TD may find that whilst there is some evidence of an unauthorised understanding it is not sufficient, of itself, to justify an adjusted score. This is classified as an Amber psyche. In particular, if both partners psyche on the same hand, then a classification of at least Amber is likely to be justified. 6 B 5 In the majority of cases the TD will find nothing untoward and classify it as a Green psyche. 6 B 6 A TD may use evidence from a partnership’s actions on two or more boards to assess a partnership’s actions. Whilst a single instance may not provide sufficient evidence of an unauthorised understanding to warrant a score adjustment, a repetition reinforces the conclusion that an unauthorised understanding exists. In other words, if two psyches are classified as Amber, the classification of both automatically becomes Red, and the score on all such boards is adjusted accordingly. 6 B 7 A partnership’s actions following a deviation may provide evidence of an unauthorised understanding, but they are less likely to do so than after a psyche. As with psyches, deviations may be classified as Red, Amber or Green. 6 PSYCHIC BIDDING 31 6 B 8 A partnership’s actions following a misbid may provide evidence of an unauthorised understanding, but they are less likely to do so because of the lack of intent to mislead. As with psyches, misbids may be classified as Red, Amber or Green. 6 B 9 Because of the difference between the player’s understanding of his call and any alerts and answers to questions by his partner it is quite common for unauthorised information problems to be present. 6 C Reporting and Recording 6 C 1 Psychic bids do not have to be reported but a player may request the TD to record them if he wishes. To do so is not to accuse the opponents of malpractice. The TD may record any hand if he thinks fit. 6 C 2 Players whose partners have taken an unusual action such as a psyche, misbid or deviation which has been reported are given the chance to explain their actions in writing. This is because it is that player whose subsequent bidding and play is being looked at. Such players who do not explain their actions must realise that failure to do so might lead to unfortunate conclusions. Notably, players who fail to raise partner in such circumstances and do not explain their actions must expect their actions to be adjudged as fielding. 6 D Scoring a Fielded Psyche, Misbid or Deviation 6 D 1 If the TD judges a psyche, misbid or deviation Is Amber or Green, then there is no adjustment, unless there are two Amber cases, see 6 B 6. 6 D 2 If the TD judges a psyche, misbid or deviation Is Red, then the board is completed. If their opponents have a 60% score or better, or have gained 3 imps or more, the result stands unchanged. Otherwise, the result is cancelled, and the board re-scored as Average Plus to the opponents, Average Minus to the pair. Normally this translates as 3 imps, or 60%/40%. 6 D 3 If it is a Red psyche then an additional Procedural Penalty will be applied. Normally it will be the minimum standard though a TD may increase this. In a Victory Point event, the normal penalty is 0.5 VP. Otherwise it is 10% or 2 imps, so the board is generally scored as 60%/30% or 5 imps.

This did indeed happen in England - my apologies for not being explicit about that. My reading of the regulations is that there are only 2 possible outcomes - result stands or Ave+/Ave-. Adjusting to 4H (undoubled)is not possible. Happy to take advice on this though. On the assumption that the explanation WAS correct (if only because that is the interesting case) then (a) West has misbid (b) East has taken an action that protects his side from the consequences of the misbid. © East has some (but perhaps not overwhelming) evidence that his partner has "deviated" (too many spades in the pack - opposition vulnerable against not) So how do you think the ruling should have gone (in England)

From the EBU white book 2010 "There are special regulations where an artificial adjusted score is given even though the board is completed. These are as a result of playing an illegal agreement, or when a psyche, misbid or deviation is fielded. The board is completed, and then an artificial adjusted score is given unless the non-offending side has done better than Ave+. The score is given is Ave+/Ave- ....." The initial director ruling, and subsequent appeal, both appear to have been based upon a determination that the actual agreement was as described.

[hv=pc=n&s=st976hk9daj6cj932&w=sk2haqj73dt9874c6&n=sq85h6dk532cakt87&e=saj43ht8542dqcq54&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=1cp1s2sp4hdppp]399|300[/hv] North asked about the 2♠ bid and was told it showed a good quality 6 card spade suit in a respectable hand. Director decision result stands Appeal decision fielded misbid 60% N/S 40% E/W Comments?

Extract from the email sent to the EBU At the point the Director arrived at the table the QS was completely concealed behind the 7S. When the Director asked why he had been called the lady said it was because she had played 2 cards and only at that point did she split the cards revealing the identity of the QS. No room for confusion that I can see.

The question looked as if it was turning out to be a dud (no debate). However unknown to me someone else involved decided to consult our National Authority (EBU). The advice we received was that if it the offender causes the card to become visible, the applicable law is L58B2. So perhaps not so trivial after all. Subsidiary question:- Is this a matter of Law in which an appeals committee may not over-rule the TD or is it a matter of judgement?

One from the Club last night. You respond to a summons and observe the following trick has been played S (dummy) 9♠ W 8♠ N 6♠ E 7♠ You ask how you may help and E "helpfully" says "when I played the 7♠ it felt odd and I found I have a card stuck behind it" At this point she exposes the Q♠ You determine that prior to this point noone knew what this card was. As this card has (now) been exposed you can no longer simply apply L 58B1. So do you still determine L58B1 as applicable, and the exposure of the Q♠ as a seperate offense, or that L58B2 is now appropriate and allow E to nominate which of the 7♠ or Q♠ she proposes to play?

Agree BUT If the members of the partnership are (apparently) playing different systems then there is misinformation irrespective of what is on the system card.

Well I believe it all depends on why South bid 2C. If South forgot they were playing 2C is Hearts and another then result stands. If South believes they are playing 2C is natural then there is a misexplanation and a (probable) rectification.

The facts as I was able to obtain them (1) North stated that 2C shows Hearts plus another (2) The System Card showed 2C shows Hearts plus another (3) South stated that to show her Clubs (she believed) she should bid 2C So after the event South did not believe she had deviated from the System either deliberately or accidentally. So at least in my opinion that removes option (2) leaving option (1) ie a misexplanation. You cannot have a partnership agreement upon which the members of the partnership disagree.

South clearly thought 2C was the correct way to bid the hand (at least at the point she made the 2C bid) so not a psyche IMO. North would have bid 3C initially and was most insistent that partner had misbid. But then he would say that because he knew that a misexplanation could be subject to rectification whereas a misbid would not. As David says this comes down to Does N-S have an agreement and if so what is it?

From my local club last night Game All Dealer East ..................xxx ..................Ax ..................Qxxxx ..................xxx Qxx..............................AJxx Qxxxx............................KJxx xxxx.............................KJ A................................xxx ..................Kxx ..................xx ..................Ax ..................KQJxxx - - 1N(1) 2C(2) P 2D(3) P 3C All Pass (1)Announced as 12-14 (2)Alerted and explained as Hearts and another (3)Alerted and explained as fewer than 3 Hearts Table Result 3C making 9 tricks I was called at the end of the hand when E-W observed that the South hand did not match the explanation and that they could make a Heart contract. South stated that she did not know what 3C would have meant but thought she could show this hand by starting with 2C even though she knew they were playing 2C as Hearts plus a minor. N-S had a system card clearly showing 2C as Hearts plus minor. So South misbid and E-W got correct explanation so result stands or N-S are playing 2C as H+minor or just Clubs (at least S is) and the explanation was wrong (or not complete) despite what appeared on the system card and E-W are due an adjustment?