Ethics Question

[kenrexford]

So, I got a warning. But, this was a particularly LOUD warning, with two guys in suits and titles and paperwork and multiple meetings. As it appeared to be taken quite seriously, it apparently was quite serious. I'm curious how bad this actually was.

 

Here's the set-up. I was playing in a swiss teams event with my wife and her partner at the one table, a friend of mine and I at N-S. My partner is a LM (not BLM) with one BRQ and two RRQ's. Old school (still plays 2♦ as the weak Drury response and Gerber after "first and last notrump").

 

In the entire tournament, there were no true psychic calls. Some bids were a tad rich (like perhaps an occasional Q10xxx weak two), but all bids were roughly intended to show what was purportedly shown. One round, however, was different.

 

On board one, I held a 2344 or 3244 7-count, but the HCP's were in the form of an Ace and a King. Partner opened 1NT. I decided to pass it out for +150.

 

On board two, we were vulnerable. After I opened 1♠, partner responded 2♠. I thought for a while and decided to pass this out. It turned out that partner had intended to bid 2NT Jacoby, after which we at least bid game. Slam makes on a red-suit lead, reither of which seemed likely.

 

On board three, after two passes, partner opened 2♥, doubled by RHO. I held 3-3 in the majors with about 8 HCP. I responded 2♠, catching partner with 1-6-3-3 shape. We ended up in 3♥ doubled, down two. As were were red-v-white, -300 against their laydown -650 spade game was a gainer.

 

On board four, we bid a game in an aggressive manner that should be bid in the alternative less-aggressive manner. I should always make this, but the play was somewhat difficult. I erred, but the opponents handed it back for a possible IMP pickup.

 

On board five, we were again vulnerable. After an insane auction, we ended up in 7♦. When the finesse failed, we scored up -100. 6♦ is laydown. 6NT probably makes but can be set with the right lead IF declarer tries the wrong line. A strange alternative contract of 6♠ also makes.

 

On the last board, I picked up 4-4-4-1 shape and one Jack. When RHO opened 1♣, I overcalled a white-on-red 1NT, which resulted in a bizarre 2♣ final contract for the opponents when 3NT was laydown.

 

Now, granted, I ended up with a psychic twice in one (insane) round. The opponents were livid. The tournament directors who talked to us during the dinner break stated that the two bids were "clearly legal calls" and that the circumstances certainly seemed to mitigate any concern of frivolous psychics. Their concern was to make sure that my partner, who might not know the "rules" for his duties in avoiding fielding, was properly advised, especially under the circumstances. I completely agreed and thought that was a fair way to address the angry other team (who also ended up losing that set by 25, amazingly).

 

Later, however, the suits showed up and acted as if I had slept with the presidents' daughter. I thought some of their reasoning was obscure. For example, they commented that the fact that both occurrences involved us being NV and the opponents being V suggested a pattern. I agreed, insofar as psychics generally are stupid when your likelihood of being pounded into oblivion are increased and the possible rewards decreased. However, I did not and still do not understand how this was relevant to some sort of sinister conclusions. The suits pointed out that there were two psychics on one round of six boards, ignoring the lack of any other reports of psychics during any of the other rounds or during any of the other 10 sessions of bridge play and ignoring the reality that any sane person would have expected (errantly it turns out) that our side was in serious jeopardy in this round without drastic measures.

 

Either psychics are allowed or they are not allowed. These nonsensical "touchy feely" rules to govern them have been simply annoying and absurd until I had the experience of suits showing up with accusatorial glares. It dawned on me that KO's and Swiss events have a tendency to induce more frequent situation-specific psychics, but that is not so much a partnership matter as a situational matter. It seems that the form of IMP scoring and the needs of the SWISS/KO event suggest a high probability of a psychic in late-round auctions, and not partnership understanding. It also suggests that leaps to game might be touch-and-go in situations where they might otherwise be very sound and trustworthy.

 

Anyway, I am interested in the thoughts of others. In the end, nothing happened except a "We are watching you" warning after multiple meetings.

[cherdano]

Ok, Ken, what were the suits REALLY questioning you about? We won't tell, promise!

[maggieb]

Reading your story I am not sure what exactly happened, who these guys in the suits were and what the end result was. I did enjoy the suggestion that both psyches were white against red and they therefore might be the start of a pattern. I hope they didn't notice that both times you psyched on a board number divisible by 3.

[matmat]

heh.

did they make you wear an ankle bracelet?

 

your opps probably just knew the right strings to pull, or something.

[kenrexford]

Ok, Ken, what were the suits REALLY questioning you about? We won't tell, promise!

Well, it was weird.

 

It started out simply enough. When the round was over, I was exhausted. It was hard work keeping us alive in the Swiss.

 

The opponents scowled, as expected, and pronounced the intention to report the psychics, which was usual and appropriate.

 

After dinner, one of the TD's called me over to ask me about the two calls, with hand diagrams and the like. I told the whole story of the round, and they agreed that it all made sense. They did have a slight problem with partner's pass on the second of two deals, until I explained that "bridge logic" and the established pattern by the opponents of being extremely sound bidders suggested cause for caustion from partner. But, they wanted to talk to partner, which made sense to me (I even suggested it).

 

After the "talk," I figured all was settled, until the suits showed up. Gary Blaiss was one of them; not sure who the other was. They had formal complaint forms, the hand diagrams, and the like. I (the partnership spokesman) again informed them of the entire situation. When I called the 2♠ call a "baby psychic," one of them took offense to this term. They repeated the words "very serious" about a dozen times, which I found odd. The discussion was described as concerning "the matter." I thought I might need an attorney, expect that both I and my partner are both attorneys.

[awm]

It's occasionally frustrating that lead/carding agreement "psychs" are treated extremely leniently whereas bidding psychs often lead to this interrogation.

 

Once I played a swiss where twice in one round, the opponents lead 3rd from a decent four-card suit against notrump, even though their card said "4th best leads." When asked about this, their only explanation was "I thought it'd be trickier" or "I thought it might fool you." The opening leader didn't have the vast majority of the outstanding values or anything, it seemed like a very ordinary hand on a very ordinary auction.

[Cascade]

The opponents scowled, as expected, and pronounced the intention to report the psychics, which was usual and appropriate.

I guess you didn't mean that scowling was appropriate but why on earth would this be expected.

 

This is "very serious".

[matmat]

bleah. this is akin to one of the things that turned me off ACBL play. There are too many people out there for whom litigation/being a stickler for the rules/intimidating opps using authorities is a key element of their game.

 

Tacit agreements and fielding psychs is certainly a concern, but this seems not to be the correct way to approach things, and, additionally, the opps should be reprimanded for any display of anger that they have shown.

[blackshoe]

The problem with suits is that those damned ties tend to restrict blood flow to the brain, making it difficult to think. B)

 

Just out of curiosity, who issued the complaint? The TD(s) who apparently decided you'd done nothing wrong, or the upset opponents?

 

Isn't it considered inadvisable for a lawyer to represent himself? B)

 

<channeling Don Oakie>Must... Stamp out... psychs...</channeling Don Oakie>

[TimG]

It started out simply enough. When the round was over, I was exhausted. It was hard work keeping us alive in the Swiss.

I'm sure you are just joking around, but when you say this it sounds like you had to operate in order to keep the team alive, that is it was expected of you. And, of course, once pysches become expected you will run into trouble. Joking about the psyches will seldom cause those in authority (or your opponents) to feel better about them.

 

Not that anyone should feel bad about psyches. Nor should you need to placate the opponents anymore than you do when you've endplayed them. But, it does seem to be the reality of ACBL bridge.

 

Anyway, when the suits came to see me, I would acknowledge the psyches, thank them for letting me know that someone reported me, and move on to the next round. I believe that when a formal complaint (recorder form) that is to be kept on file, you must be notified in writing and given a chance to respond (though this may have changed, or I may remember incorrectly). I'd wait for the notice and respond if it comes. If it doesn't, forget about it.

[benlessard]

IMO If you dont play with a regular partner they shouldnt care. Whats the point of reporting a psych made by a unsteady partnership ?

[han]

The point of the reports is to make the "victims" feel better.

[JoAnneM]

I still don't understand the term "suits". Were these Ethics Committee people? If so, don't let them harrass you, demand a hearing. My son was being harrassed in the Navy by his surperiors, and they kept threatening a court martial (over training issues), finally he demanded a court martial, they totally backed off and the instructor was fired. I also don't know why this would be a matter for the Recorder, who takes care of things that happen at the table that are in the area of proprieties. The opps must have been really mad, was there any other reason?

 

In every sport there are referees or line judges, umpires, etc. Why is everyone so down on ACBL because they have Directors and rules? Does everyone gripe about the rules of golf? When you play the game you play by the rules, personally I think two psyches in one round is pushing things.

 

Also, how do you know when you have to "operate"? How do you know that your partners aren't doing great at the other table and your "operating" might be giving it away. I just have trouble playing games where "masterminding" is going on.

[matmat]

In every sport there are referees or line judges, umpires, etc. Why is everyone so down on ACBL because they have Directors and rules? Does everyone gripe about the rules of golf? When you play the game you play by the rules, personally I think two psyches in one round is pushing things.

I have no issue with the sport/game having rules or directors.

 

I have issue with people trying to use the rules and directors to intimidate less experienced players, and i have issue with poor directors themselves being bullied around by the players. It really isn't fun when your opponents have the reputation and gall to successfully convince the director regarding a ruling.

 

I think two psychs in one round is okay, especially since the first one is a "standard" psych and any opps who are clever enough to b@#ch to the director about it should be good enough at the table to reveal the psych with their calls.

[Rossoneri]

Absurd. Shouldn't have even been called up in the first place, and that was definitely not the way to go about doing things if an infraction has taken place.

[kenrexford]

As a follow-up, this seemed to be a recorder situation. I was informed that any further action along these lines might result in proceedings. I respectfully disagreed with the ability of the two suits to understand the fundamentals of the game but thanked them for sharing their perspective.

 

Later, in a pairs game playing with my wife, I psyched a spade call. (1minor-1♥-X(neg)-1♠) That one did not score well for us when I caught partner with the right hand to jump raise spades. Live by the sword, die by the sword, but not by the committee.

[cherdano]

Since we don't seem to be able to push you about the real content of your secret FBI interrogations....

Was all this really just based on these two hands, or did they find earlier recorder forms filled out on you? If the former, this was completely ridiculous, if the latter, well, sounds like their approach still leaves a lot to be desired.

[TimG]

In every sport there are referees or line judges, umpires, etc.  Why is everyone so down on ACBL because they have Directors and rules?  Does everyone gripe about the rules of golf?  When you play the game you play by the rules, personally I think two psyches in one round is pushing things.

I think you highlight the problem very well. First you suggest playing by the rules (and that the directors are there to enforce those rules). Then you offer up an opinion that "two psyches in one round is pushing things". The less "personally I think" there is in the application of the rules the better, in my opinion.

I also don't know why this would be a matter for the Recorder, who takes care of things that happen at the table that are in the area of proprieties.

The recorder process is not limited to actions that take place at the table. Activity in all public areas of a bridge playing site are subject to ACBL regulations, in fact on of the regulations specifically states that not paying a hotel bill (at a tournament site) is subject to ACBL disciplinary action.

 

The recorder also keeps track of patterns of behavior. If someone is routinely psyching in a particular situation (with the same partner), the action moves from psyche to partnership agreement. Most likely a concealed partnership agreement. The recorder system is the way to track this -- the psyches could well be reported to a number of different directors who might not recognize a pattern and the psyches would not be documented were it not for the recorder system.

[ASkolnick]

Ken, I have no problem with the choice of making psyches if you choose to do so. However, there is a caveat to that. If you constantly do it in specific sequences, even NV vs V which is likely, you may be establishing an implicit agreement with a partnership.

 

Let's say I am your partner and notice that you psyche every 12th board when you are NV versus V. I am now privvy to information that the opponents might not be privy to.

 

I have used the same kind of tactics that you have used to deflect interference. With 0-5-6-2 on the auction 1D-P-1H-X- I bid 1 Spade to prevent a spade bid. But if I keep doing it, partner may be able to recognize the situation and play accordingly. And that is the reason why the psyches do need to be recorded.

 

At one time it was practice for psyches to be recorded for no other reason but to contain a track record of psyches.

[shintaro]

:P

 

The recording of phsyces is merely to ascertain whether a particular partnership has developed an 'implicit' agreement ; the poor TD's do not know that joe bloggs has physced regularly unless they know him but the governing body will see an undesirable pattern emerge

 

:rolleyes:

[kenrexford]

I have no problem with the recording of psychics. I agree with the reasons provided by some here.

 

I also do not mind the TD meeting between rounds. I feel comfortable explaining the psychic decisions to show that these were not frivolous. In fact, I believe them to have been rather good psychics.

 

I did mind the suits showing up acting like I had been unethical and suggesting that formal charges might be brought if there were any further types of behavior. The fact that these people do not understand bridge or their own rules frankly made me mad. And, no -- there were NO other psychics or reports of psychics. The sole issue was this one round. The suits even conceded lacking any knowledge of any other infractions when I offered to share my results (and to explain the auctions) for all of the hands I played in the LM pairs with the hand records to prove this.

[TimG]

Let's say I am your partner and notice that you psyche every 12th board when you are NV versus V. I am now privy to information that the opponents might not be privy to.

Suppose I psyche once every 24 boards. Is my partner privy to information to which the opponents might not be privy? Once every 48? 96?

 

Some opponents will NEVER consider a psyche; they will never guess that you have psyched. Does it become illegal to psyche against these opponents because your partner will always have more information?

 

I think that if psyching is to be part of the game (and I believe it should be) that a certain amount of pysching must be considered general bridge knowledge. I'm not going to attempt to quantify how much. Nor do I think it should be quantified. (The old rule-that-wasn't-really-a-rule allowing only one psyche per session was silly.)

 

Tim

 

PS Nice to meet you in Boston.

[mycroft]

Did you talk to the CTD of the event? If not, you should - ask her what happened after the discussion with the first TD. You have a right to know the process.

 

Second - they may be "suits" (heh, even I, when I work as an ACBL TD, am a "suit"), but if they were there in an official capacity (even if it's an off-the-record warning) you should know what official capacity they were. They probably assumed you did; if you didn't, you should have asked (of course, it's their responsibility, but still). If not, they're just players talking to you.

 

As Tim said, this is exactly a Recorder situation - you may not have psyched in the last year, or ever with that partner, but I don't know that, and unless you're a name player, the TDs outside your area don't know that. You could be lying to us all here, too, about that, and I wouldn't know. I have my guesses, but I wouldn't know. But if all the psyches are recorded, the Recorder(s) will know.

 

As always (here, anyway), speaking only for myself.

[Cascade]

As a follow-up, this seemed to be a recorder situation. I was informed that any further action along these lines might result in proceedings. I respectfully disagreed with the ability of the two suits to understand the fundamentals of the game but thanked them for sharing their perspective.

 

Later, in a pairs game playing with my wife, I psyched a spade call. (1minor-1♥-X(neg)-1♠) That one did not score well for us when I caught partner with the right hand to jump raise spades. Live by the sword, die by the sword, but not by the committee.

Its not the psyches that work that prove a concealed understanding it is the ones that don't that prove you have no special understanding.

[han]

Slightly related to Ken's story:

 

Last Saturday I kibitzed two young female bridge players from the Netherlands in a knockout match. They got into a bit of a fight with their opponents, these were some of the things they did wrong: They spoke with a Dutch accent, they thought for some considerable time when they had tough decisions., they played conventions with which the opponents were not familiar and most offensively, they refused to be bullied by older men.

 

One typical conversation:

 

Alert.

 

What does 3C mean?

 

It is a relay.

 

A relay to what?

 

No, it asks for further description.

 

It what?

 

It asks.

 

I DON'T UNDERSTAND YOUR ENGLISH!!!

 

The opponents became very very angry and threatened to bar the young ladies from future ACBL games. I must say the director dealt with it very well.