How would you rule?

[rwylee]

[hv=d=n&v=e&n=sak54hj10dq874cak10&w=sqj1098762hq3dc432&e=shk954dakj106c8765&s=s3ha8762d9532cqj9]399|300|Scoring: MP

1♣ 1♠ 2♥ 3♦

3nt AP[/hv]

 

N-S play precision, E-W play 2/1. E led ♦Ace and continued with ♦King and ♦Jack, N was trying to set up ♥s, but E took ♥9 in 3rd round ♥, and played his last two ♦s to set the contract. The result was 3NN-2

 

 

In a private club tourney, N-S called director after the board was played. E-W both psyched/bid partners' longest suit. East admitted to psyche occasionally, but West had never psyched. This pair is regular partnership. How would you penalised this pair?

[hrothgar]

VERY amusing hand...

 

Here's how I'd handle things:

 

1. In order for N/S to get an adjustment, they need to demonstrate damage. In this case, I'm not sure if they can do so. I'm going to pose a crazy hypothetical. Suppose that East held the West and West held the East hand. In this case, the hands would match quite well with the supposed meaning of the different bids. N/S would still be playing 3N and they'd still be down a bunch. From my perspective, the poor N/S result came about because N/S overbid. (Playing Vanilla precision methods, South is no where near strong enough for a positive response)

 

Note: As I understand matters, some regulatory regimes provide an automatic adjustment in the case of the fielded psyche. (I believe thats the case with "red" psyches in Britain). However, I still this that the damage needs to be consequent from the infraction. In many case, its too difficult to figure out what would have happened at the table absent the irregularity, so its necessary to assign a score. However, here, we have the highly amusing case of two psyches cancelling each other out.

 

There is a decent discussion of this all at

http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/psych3.htm

 

2. East/ West get the mother of all proceedural penalties. I'd go so far as to call them cheats.

[jillybean]

Its looks like a fielded psyche to me

[paulg]

The English Bridge Union produces two documents, the Orange Book for players and the White Book for Tournament Directors, that document its interpretations of the Laws and regulations. I find that these are very helpful in such cases.

 

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 (eg 60% to the non-offending side and 30% to the offending side is normal in pairs). 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

I would rule that the 3♦ bid has been fielded and would rule (an EBU) Red psyche and adjust as above.

 

Paul

[inquiry]

I happen to think the psyche here is 100% fieldable without partnership agreement. That does not mean that I think EW are not playing fast and loose with the rules.

 

Let's start from WEST perspective. If his partner has spades, he is not going to let the opponents play the hand. If his partner does not, well, why not throw a monkey wrench into the process. So 3♦ if forcing (and given the auction, I doubt that it is) would be nice to mix it up... maybe even get a ♦ lead but his partner will not be on lead if hearts are to be trumps.

 

When declarer bids 3Nt, West now knows his partner psyched. And looking at AKJ-fifth long in clubs, can East have any doubt his partner psyched? This 1♠ psyche against a strong club is a favorite of many people and I suspect both partners were prepared for 1♠ to be a psyche.

 

So I would not get all bent out of shape that they caught the psyche, but I would wonder if this is one they use too often.. and thus, not legal, at least certainly not without an alert when 1♠ was bid.

 

I would let the result for NS stand, they made their bed and all, but I would probably be inclined to issue sanctions or at least a prohibition to EW not to psyche an overcall over a strong 1♣ for some period of time in my events and when that time is up, to have them announce or preannounce "frequent psyches over strong 1♣".

[hrothgar]

I happen to think the psyche here is 100% fieldable without partnership agreement. That does not mean that I think EW are not playing fast and loose with the rules.

 

Let's start from WEST perspective. If his partner has spades, he is not going to let the opponents play the hand. If his partner does not, well, why not throw a monkey wrench into the process. So 3♦ if forcing (and given the auction, I doubt that it is) would be nice to mix it up... maybe even get a ♦ lead but his partner will not be on lead if hearts are to be trumps.

I can accept a lead directing bid in Diamonds, however, you have an 8 card Spade fit for partner. Even if partner frequently overcalls with a 4 card Spade suit, one of the opponent's is void.

 

If you're going to bid Diamonds, it should be at the 5 level.

The only reason to bid something as aenemic as 3♦ is that you are catering to the possibility that partner psyched.

[inquiry]

I happen to think the psyche here is 100% fieldable without partnership agreement. That does not mean that I think EW are not playing fast and loose with the rules.

 

Let's start from WEST perspective. If his partner has spades, he is not going to let the opponents play the hand. If his partner does not, well, why not throw a monkey wrench into the process. So 3♦ if forcing (and given the auction, I doubt that it is) would be nice to mix it up... maybe even get a ♦ lead but his partner will not be on lead if hearts are to be trumps.

I can accept a lead directing bid in Diamonds, however, you have an 8 card Spade fit for partner. Even if partner frequently overcalls with a 4 card Spade suit, one of the opponent's is void.

 

If you're going to bid Diamonds, it should be at the 5 level.

The only reason to bid something as aenemic as 3♦ is that you are catering to the possibility that partner psyched.

When you have eight spades... and yoru partner ovrecalls spades, what is the chances you think he psyched even if to date, he has never psyched... Spades will not be 8-5 or even 8-4 very often. I would say the odds are tremendous he psyched. The real problem with 3D vul is partner now coming out of the woodwork with a fit for YOUR diamonds, as he will have a harder time reading your bid as a psyche.... .

[Guest Jlall]

In my mind, east decided to psyche 1S for whatever reason. West with a big fit decided to psyche 3D after his partner bid 1S. It's a pretty sweet bid since it might screw the opps up. After the 3N bid, north knows east has psyched. How can north have a diamond stopper and partner has a 3N bid? And the opps arent trying to get to spades and partner hasn't raised! It's pretty clear partner has psyched diamonds with a spade fit once the 3N bid is made so east elects to pass. This is passed to west who also knows 1S was a psyche now. How can the 3N bidder have a spade stopper and partner have a 1S bid?

 

Both psyches were fielded by the logic of the auction after the 3N bid.

[Guest Jlall]

If you're going to bid Diamonds, it should be at the 5 level.

The only reason to bid something as aenemic as 3♦ is that you are catering to the possibility that partner psyched.

Or to screw the opps out of a huge diamond fit and have the possible upshot of a diamond lead if the opps land in clubs. Muddying the waters when partner has a real 1S bid and you're red/white and thus can't jump to the moon must be a good idea. The opps rate to have a slam, maybe a grand. You can try to deflect them from that, and jumping to 4 or 5 spades might not be the best way.

[hrothgar]

When you have eight spades... and yoru partner ovrecalls spades, what is the chances you think he psyched even if to date, he has never psyched... Spades will not be 8-5 or even 8-4 very often. I would say the odds are tremendous he psyched.

Let me use an analogy here: If a player has UI about the hand, he can't take an action that is suggested by the UI. The fact that he has this information limits his choice. In many case, a player might have to chose an action that he believes to be inferior to some other choice suggested by the UI.

 

In a similar, if you're playing with a partner who is known to psyche, you might not be permitted to chose actions that conciously protect against the possibility that partner has psyched.

[inquiry]

When you have eight spades... and yoru partner ovrecalls spades, what is the chances you think he psyched even if to date, he has never psyched... Spades will not be 8-5 or even 8-4 very often. I would say the odds are tremendous he psyched.

Let me use an analogy here: If a player has UI about the hand, he can't take an action that is suggested by the UI. The fact that he has this information limits his choice. In many case, a player might have to chose an action that he believes to be inferior to some other choice suggested by the UI.

 

In a similar, if you're playing with a partner who is known to psyche, you might not be permitted to chose actions that conciously protect against the possibility that partner has psyched.

Read my first reply, which dealt with the frequent use of this psyche....

[blackshoe]

The original post bothers me, in that it starts with the assumption that there must be a penalty. That's a bad assumption, and should IMO never be made.

 

That said, it's entirely possible that in this case there should be a penalty, or a score adjustment, or both.

 

If my partner made a supposedly natural overcall in spades, when I'm looking at eight of 'em in my own hand, I'd certainly consider the possibility of a psych, even with my usual run of partners, for most of whom a psych is something they've heard of, but about which they are otherwise clueless. ;) That diamond holding makes the 3♦ bid also suspicious, albeit less so imo.

 

In EBU terms, this is not, IMO, a Green psych, although I'm not 100% certain of that. I think it's either Red or Amber, and using the EBU's guidelines, I'm inclined to think Amber. In which case, no penalty and no score adjustment, but a recording of the psych and a warning about recurrence. But I could be convinced to call it Red, perhaps.

 

I would never, never, never call a player a cheat unless I caught him with his hand in the till. And this case dosn't qualify.

[matmat]

this reminds me of a hand i played with echognome once ;)

 

anyhow. i think 3d is a monkey wrench in the mechanism (as someone pointed out above). I also think the NS damage was self inflicted.

[awm]

I'd rule no adjustment, but warn E/W about psyching too often in future.

 

I don't think any psych was "fielded" until it became obvious that the psych had occurred. The 3♦ psych is actually a fairly "normal" action facing a big spade fit, and when north bids 3NT it becomes evident to each partner that the bid on the other side of the table was not a serious call.

 

The N/S bad result was also due to their own bidding, not anything E/W did to them.

[jocdelevat]

just curios if the e/w pair is the same with the one from another post about rulling where 1h openning explain as 8 loosers and pard response 1s explain as 8 losers too.

[mink]

By the headline of this thread the OP suggested that there might have been an UI, but he did not mention in the text what kind of UI this might have been. I understand this was an online tourney, so the only possible kinds of UI are chat or break in tempo, and I guess the OP would have told us about that if it occurred.

 

As he did not specify the kind of UI, it looks to me as if he wants to suggest that because strange things happened, there must have been an UI. I strongly object that. There is only an UI if it has been observed. If you assume an UI that could not be observed (e.g. by telephone), you just assume they are cheaters. But this should not be assumed without any evidence.

 

Another topic are undisclosed partnership understandings. But as long as it is possible to find some logic in the bids that can can be explained without assuming that E/W have a secret defense system against precision 1♣, any accusation of this kind should be carefully avoided by the TD. If the TD is really suspicious he should ask Stephen Pickett's database if such a call like the 1♠ has occurred before when these 2 players played together.

 

Others already pointed out why all bids by EW were reasonable without knowing details of the hand in advance. I may add that the possibility that East may have ♦ makes it even more risky for West to bid them, because this might have led to a ♦ contract if North did not bid 3nt but simply pass and instead. If I were West and knew my partner's hand I would not bid 3♦ here, as I cannot foresee that North will bid 3nt. The 3♦ bid is only good if partner has not so many ♦ cards and the 3♦ bid makes it impossible for opps to find their nice ♦ fit.

 

Karl

[hrothgar]

Interesting parallel discussion on the BridgeTalk forum

 

http://forums.bridgetalk.com/index.php?showtopic=2006

[mr1303]

I heard a rumour that if both players were found to have psyched on the same board, it was automatically classed as a red psyche.

 

If so, then 60/30 looks like my decision.

[Guest Jlall]

Interesting parallel discussion on the BridgeTalk forum

 

http://forums.bridgetalk.com/index.php?showtopic=2006

My partner got buried for fielding once on a similar hand. I didn't appeal since we won the match anyways, but it was completely ridiculous. When you have HHxx of spades and it goes 1S-1N-2S to you, your partner has psyched, period. I think they came down on my partner because of my reputation.

[david_c]

My partner got buried for fielding once on a similar hand. I didn't appeal since we won the match anyways, but it was completely ridiculous. When you have HHxx of spades and it goes 1S-1N-2S to you, your partner has psyched, period.

How can you be sure it's not LHO?

 

I heard a rumour that if both players were found to have psyched on the same board, it was automatically classed as a red psyche.

I believe this is something of a myth - IIRC it used to be the policy somewhere (ACBL?) but not any more. The EBU regs actually say "If both partners psyche on the same hand, then a classification of at least Amber is likely to be justified".

[mycroft]

A common (and effective, but not as effective as the people who want to play it think) agreement is to bid 1S over a strong 1C with "13 cards" or "wants to play somewhere at the 2 level" or "automatic". It isn't, of course; with the right hand they'll bid something else, and it's frequently hard to get them to explain what those circumstances are, but that's another story...

 

The ACBL disallows this under "agreements primarily designed to destroy opponent's methods" - other SOs regulate it with different rules (or don't, depending on their opinion of what is best). However, what can (and does in a small percentage of cases) happen in the ACBL is that they get called on it, have the regulations explained to them, and then still play it, but now they don't alert it (because it's illegal, and strong club players know this) and claim it's a psych if they get called on it. With the small number of Strong club players and the disinterest in Recording, they often get away with this for a long time.

 

I would not look for "fielded psychic", I would be looking for "concealed (illegal) partnership understanding". But I'm both cynical and a Precision player. If 1C strong - 1S psychic comes up at my table, it gets recorded, no matter how much I believe them.

 

Michael.

[keylime]

If this hand happened in ACBL land, this might be the hand to do the weighted score.