Ethics Question

[Cascade]

So if your drury methods require you to bid drury with the six-card support hand above and then pass partner's 2♠ rebid, you are really catering to partner having a much worse hand than what you've disclosed as an opening bid (a zero-count for example, or having only two spades). This seems to imply that your "third seat opening range" wasn't really what you disclosed (i.e. controlled psych).

Incidentally if your real agreement about 1♠ opening includes hands that can have fewer than 8 hcp or can be a short suit then you are by definition playing a WBF HUM.

 

"2.2 HUM Systems

 

For the purpose of this Policy, a Highly Unusual Method (HUM) means any System that exhibits one or more of the following features, as a matter of partnership agreement:

 

1. A Pass in the opening position shows at least the values generally accepted for an opening bid of one, even if there are alternative weak possibilities

2. By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level may be weaker than pass.

3. By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level may be made with values a king or more below average strength.

4. By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level shows either length or shortage in a specified suit 5. By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level shows either length in one specified suit or length in another. "

[Cascade]

Yes, "partnership understanding to psyche" is something of an impossibility, just like a psychic control is misnamed because once there is a control it is no longer a psyche..

No.

 

A psychic control is a conventional method of finding out if partner psyched.

 

If I remember correctly, in the original Roth-Stone or KS (I don't recall which) there were very disciplined psyches and there were psychic controls.

These openings were not psyches -- they were by agreement either natural with 12+ HCP or 4-6 HCP with a four-card suit and at least 3 HCP in the suit (if I recall the KS agreement accurately). There was, indeed, a control to find out which of the two possibilities opener actually had. But, because it was all by agreement, these were not psyches.

At the time the system was invented they may well have been psyches.

 

I am not sure when the definition of psychic call was introduced into the law book but it may well post-date the invention of systems that included psychic controls and mandatory psyches.

[jdonn]

Yes, "partnership understanding to psyche" is something of an impossibility, just like a psychic control is misnamed because once there is a control it is no longer a psyche..

No.

 

A psychic control is a conventional method of finding out if partner psyched.

 

If I remember correctly, in the original Roth-Stone or KS (I don't recall which) there were very disciplined psyches and there were psychic controls.

These openings were not psyches -- they were by agreement either natural with 12+ HCP or 4-6 HCP with a four-card suit and at least 3 HCP in the suit (if I recall the KS agreement accurately). There was, indeed, a control to find out which of the two possibilities opener actually had. But, because it was all by agreement, these were not psyches.

They were not technically psychs, but the pair called them psychs. They had a dog and named it cat, pretty much.

[TimG]

Yes, "partnership understanding to psyche" is something of an impossibility, just like a psychic control is misnamed because once there is a control it is no longer a psyche..

No.

 

A psychic control is a conventional method of finding out if partner psyched.

 

If I remember correctly, in the original Roth-Stone or KS (I don't recall which) there were very disciplined psyches and there were psychic controls.

These openings were not psyches -- they were by agreement either natural with 12+ HCP or 4-6 HCP with a four-card suit and at least 3 HCP in the suit (if I recall the KS agreement accurately). There was, indeed, a control to find out which of the two possibilities opener actually had. But, because it was all by agreement, these were not psyches.

They were not technically psychs, but the pair called them psychs. They had a dog and named it cat, pretty much.

Right. Although as Cascade points out, the meaning of psyche has probably changed over time.

[xcurt]

I wonder if the right action in these cases is to ask for a disciplinary committee.

 

I take issue with this business of threatening a committee, kind of like threatening to call the director. If you just say "if you have a problem then please arrange a hearing, otherwise please stop lecturing me" the vast majority of the time the "suits" will just back off. If they do arrange a committee, it is not unheard of for the accusers to be reprimanded for a frivolous committee...

Or just ask "is this a C&E hearing you just convened in section F?" and if the answer is no then just walk away. Midsentence if need be. Nobody, not even the DIC, has any reason to ask you to explain your bridge actions. If he says otherwise he is de facto accusing you of cheating and you NEED to be in front of C&E at that point so that everything you say is on the record.

[TimG]

I am not sure when the definition of psychic call was introduced into the law book but it may well post-date the invention of systems that included psychic controls and mandatory psyches.

I have no idea about the history of how psychic bids have been defined by the laws, but the use of the term is very old. Here is a reference I found from a book published in 1936 (I am by no means suggesting this is an early reference -- there is nothing to suggest that there is anything new about psychic bidding or the term used to describe it).

 

Holding ♠Jxx ♥xxx ♦xxxx ♣xxx in first seat, the author suggests an opening bid of 1♠: "There are few hands that are so desperate that an intimidating bid is almost compulsory. The 4333 with only a jack or two is the type. With an intelligent partner, the opening psyche should do no harm and may do some good. The opponents may be intimidated into bidding too little, annoyed into bidding too much, or they may get into the wrong suit, or may misguess the hand in the play. What is far more important, the bid operates as a "tip-off" to partner. He may hold such a big hand that it will be impossible for him to stay out of game, at least if you never have the opportunity to make a free pass of his opening bid. If he knows that your hand is so terrible as to justify an opening psyche, he'll have the warning he needs."

 

After a 1♠ opening and a 2♣ overcall, it is suggested that responder, holding ♠AQT9x ♥AJx ♦AKT8 ♣8, should bid 2♦. "The chances are about ninety-nine out of a hundred that [opener] has made a dealer psyche, if [second hand] can insert a vulnerable overcall. [Responder] should make a bid that will enable him to confirm his opinion, and thank his partner for letting him know that the hand is dead. Three spades is not bad, tho two diamonds is better. Neither will be passed if [opener] should happen to have a normal opening."

 

So, there was definitely a flavor of controlling the auction so that the psyche might be revealed even though "psychic control" was not specifically used. But, it seems to me that very early on in the history of contract bridge there was definition to when a player might be more likely to psyche and what a psyche may look like. So, psyches probably always had a hint of partnership understanding. But, 70 years ago, this understanding was thought of more as "general bridge knowledge".

 

Tim

 

PS The author was S Garton Churchill.

[Cascade]

The 1963 and 1975 "International Code Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge" both have similar (maybe identical - i didn't check that closely) Law 40 "Conventional and Psychic Bids" (1963), "Conventions and Psychic Bids" (1975). Neither lawbook however defines "psychic bid".

 

The 1987 laws has a similar Law 40 "Conventions and Agreements" and has "Psychic Call" added to the definitions.

 

I guess from this that we can assume that sometime between 1975 and 1987 the regulators decided it was necessary to define precisely what was meant by the term "psychic call".

 

The result of this is that for some "psychic call" or "psyche" might mean something different than what its legal definition is.

 

The common language meaning obviously continues today in spite of the laws having defined the term to exclude what some consider to be a psyche.

[kenrexford]

4. In no way do the rules describe anything about a "pattern" of psychic calls, as this is irrelevant.  A "pattern" is actually required.  You must have a "pattern" establishing that psychic calls, up to two per round and perhaps more if duly explained, are always made in sound psychic conditions.

 

Thus, this concept of "randomness" is something that is made up and actually wrong.  If I make "random" psychics, then I will be including some that are atypical or unnatural, which violates the rules.  Any evidence I can offer of a pattern of typical or natural psychics proves that I am actually following the rules.

What a pattern does is begins to create a situation where you have a "partnership understanding" to psyche. When this happens your psyche is no longer a psyche but a "partnership understanding" which needs to be disclosed appropriately.

I'm not sure what you mean by a "partnership understanding to psyche."

 

If we assume that a psychic call is an allowed action,

And if we assume, by virtue of the limitation against "frivolous psychics" and "unsportsmanlike" psychics that some psychics are "typical," non-frivolous, and sportsmanlike,

And if we assume that we play bridge as a competitive event with all tools available,

 

Then we all should have a "partnership understanding to psyche."

 

To agree not to psyche is essentially identical with an agreement to not play Stayman.

 

If your point has any validity, then it must be bolstered by some concept that some percentage of actions in some specif sequence is a prohibitively large percentage of actions. For instance, if a partnership bids 2♠ after almost every 2♥ opening, whether as a "psychic" heart raise or as a real spade correction, then perhaps some problem somehow will at some point develop. For, although we can easily establish that bidding 2♠ every time you have a heart raise may be easily explained as "typical," the recurrent "pattern" will cause Opener to expect that 2♠ probably is a psychic call, because corrective bids, especially after a double, are extremely rare (I cannot remember ever having done this).

 

Of course, this type of recurring psychic situation is always so friggin' obvious to anyone with any experience that it rapidly loses utility, but that reality is irrelevant. If such a situational development is problematic per the rules, it is problematic per the rules.

 

The problem, however, is that the psychic call issue seems to be analyzed in two basic ways. First, is the psychic call essentiallly intelligent tactically? Clearly, in this situation, it is. Second, is the "fielder" fielding on the basis of bridge or on the basis of partnership understandings (psychic controls being FORMAL fielding)?

 

If a situation is such that the "fielder" rarely will go wrong if he simply bids normally and applies normal bridge reasoning inferred from opposition bidding, then there is no problem. A condition of a psychic is NOT that either we or they may land in mud. If the psychic almost always works in our favor, because of the force of bridge logic, then it is simply a very good (and very sportsmanlike by the definition of that term) psychic. That fact that 2♥-X-2♠ is a sequence where the opening side is almost guaranteed to not be hurt, by operation of bridge logic, does not create any rules problem, as I read them. It only creates a "problem" for those who think that somehow psychic calls should be "fair" in the sense that either side might end up on the wrong side of the auction at the end. Why is that "fair?" If anything, this seems backwards. For, in the context of a competition, how is it sportsmanlike to convert a game of intellect into a game of chance? Is it not more sportsmanlike to consistently wield weapons that will more often crush the opposition?

[JanM]

(I call them "suits" because I am convinced that they actually dressed up for the "matter")

You mentioned that one of the "suits" was Gary Blaiss. I have never seen him at an NABC in anything other than a suit and tie, so I think it is virtually impossible that he "dressed up" for you.

[blackshoe]

No, he dressed up for the Nationals, to show he is part of "the establishment".

 

Ken/Wayne: A partnership understanding that we may, in general, psych, does not make a particular psych a partnership understanding. A partnership understanding that one or the other or both partners frequently 'psychs' in a particular way in a particular situation does make that psych a partnership understanding. IMO, of course.

[kenrexford]

No, he dressed up for the Nationals, to show he is part of "the establishment".

 

Ken/Wayne: A partnership understanding that we may, in general, psych, does not make a particular psych a partnership understanding. A partnership understanding that one or the other or both partners frequently 'psychs' in a particular way in a particular situation does make that psych a partnership understanding. IMO, of course.

Let's take this out further.

 

I assume that you would agree that the rules do not allow "frivlous" or "unsportsmanlike" psychic calls, which are apparently defined as "atypical" or "unnatural" psychics. Following from this is the obvious conclusion that there are "typical" psychics, right?

 

So, just how many "typical" psychics are there?

 

I would imagine that the most "typical" of psychics include:

 

1. Bust openings

2. Bust takeout doubles

3. Bust 1NT overcalls

4. Fake suits after opposition takeout doubles

5. Fake bids after preempts

 

The fact that partner uses one of THESE psychic types in this manner and in this situation cannot logically convert this into any "partnership understanding," IMO, other than that partner, if he makes a psychic call, is doing so in a situation and with a hand type that merits such psychic call, thereby proving that he is ethical in his use of psychic calls. It is if the partner reacts without external cause to that psychic possibility that creates the problem, not the psychic possibility.

 

In other words, if Opener always raises when he has a raise, and every time it was psychic, there is no foul.

[mycroft]

One of the best psychics I've heard of was a 9-12 (EBU) NT on an 18 count. This pair had been pushing their opponents around a fair bit, and they were getting frustrated.

 

Of course, it went 2C-p-p; X...

 

Psychics are not always "fewer than I claim" :-)

[han]

Talking about psychic underbids...

 

I remember once being desperate for a swing and passing a clear opening hand in first seat (I was also seriously tilted, the only time I've really been tilted in a live game as far as I remember). It became a bit messy when my partner (equally desperate and far more tilted by nature) opened 1NT on a 0-count in third seat. While the opponents were having a slow auction to game it became apparent that my partner had psyched but I stubbornly doubled them anyway. The story did not end well. :)

 

This was a while ago.

[matmat]

Talking about psychic underbids...

 

I remember once being desperate for a swing and passing a clear opening hand in first seat (I was also seriously tilted, the only time I've really been tilted in a live game as far as I remember). It became a bit messy when my partner (equally desperate and far more tilted by nature) opened 1NT on a 0-count in third seat. While the opponents were having a slow auction to game it became apparent that my partner had psyched but I stubbornly doubled them anyway. The story did not end well. :)

 

This was a while ago.

I consider passing openers to be a standard annoyance psych.

[Echognome]

I consider passing openers to be a standard annoyance psych.

I'm still waiting for one of yours to work... :rolleyes:

[Finch]

Take the 14-count held by advancer after 1C-1NT-2C. As the opponents might expect the 1NT bidder to have these 14 HCP, they are fooled. Advancer is not, because the opposition bidding has revealed the psychic.

Nope, the opposition bidding has not revealed the psychic.

 

One of the funniest hands I have seen involving a psyche had an auction starting something like

 

1D 1NT 2D ?

 

at game all. Advancer had about an 11 count, and assumed that partner had psyched the NT overcall, and passed. 2D went 3 off against a cold 3NT, because opener had a 6-count and the overcaller a 16-count.

[brianshark]

Plus 2♦ might be bid on lots of ♦s and no points opposte a normal opening hand.

[RMB1]

One of the funniest hands I have seen involving a psyche had an auction starting something like

 

1D 1NT 2D ?

 

at game all.  Advancer had about an 11 count, and assumed that partner had psyched the NT overcall, and passed. 2D went 3 off against a cold 3NT, because opener had a 6-count and the overcaller a 16-count.

I think I was the TD who was asked, by the overcalling side, to record this hand. The opening bidder (the psycher) was flabberghast - not for having his psyche recorded (responder's actions were clearly kosher) but that the overcalling side would want their actions recorded.

 

When the hand record was reviewed, it was indeed the overcalling side whose actions attracted interest (seen as evidence of a concealed understanding).

 

Robin

[ASkolnick]

The 1D bidder did nothing wrong.

1N was natural

2D was fine.

The pass was not.

 

That is exactly the point. Once the 11 HCP person decides to act, he has "unauthorized" information that his partner may overcall with a ratty hand in this situation. He did not make the normal bid and therefore fielded the psyche.

 

If this is a constant occurence by the partnership, then 1N no longer shows (15+-18) HCP, but 15-18 HCP or a psyche.

 

Sure, this hand he lost, but he may be able to narrow the scope even more to have a better known partnership understanding.

[kenrexford]

The 1D bidder did nothing wrong.

1N was natural

2D was fine.

The pass was not.

 

That is exactly the point. Once the 11 HCP person decides to act, he has "unauthorized" information that his partner may overcall with a ratty hand in this situation. He did not make the normal bid and therefore fielded the psyche.

 

If this is a constant occurence by the partnership, then 1N no longer shows (15+-18) HCP, but 15-18 HCP or a psyche.

 

Sure, this hand he lost, but he may be able to narrow the scope even more to have a better known partnership understanding.

I cannot agree less.

 

At least in the ACBL, you are allowed to take action justified by an assumption that partner made a psychic call if reliance upon the opponent's bidding leads to that clear conclusion. Period.

 

If the opponents have made a psychic call, such that the assumption was wrong, then you relied upon a reasonable inference to your detriment. That, however, is not the same as improperly fielding a psychic. Is is properly, but errantly, reading a psychic.

 

Your analysis is actually quite ludicrous. For, all that I would have to do to prevent any psychic from ever occurring at my table would be to announce that we never make any psychic calls. Then, if your partner has ever made a psychic, you have what you would call unauthorized information, because you know that any call, any call at all, apparently means "The defined meaning, or a psychic."

 

The point of the rule is that, in fact, everyone has that meaning to every bid they make. Every bids means whatever what it purportedly means or a psychic (except strong, artificial openings and other no-psych bids). Takign a specific situation out and analyzing it is wildly misleading.

[blackshoe]

Once the 11 HCP person decides to act, he has "unauthorized" information that his partner may overcall with a ratty hand in this situation. He did not make the normal bid and therefore fielded the psyche.

How the hell can you "field" a non-existent psych?

 

The first of your two sentences that I quoted sounds an awful lot like you're saying that because advancer decided to act, he has UI. That is utterly ridiculous. So what did you mean?

 

Sure, this hand he lost, but he may be able to narrow the scope even more to have a better known partnership understanding.

 

This statement I don't understand at all.

[MFA]

The 1D bidder did nothing wrong.

1N was natural

2D was fine.

The pass was not.

 

That is exactly the point.  Once the 11 HCP person decides to act, he has "unauthorized" information that his partner may overcall with a ratty hand in this situation.  He did not make the normal bid and therefore fielded the psyche.

 

If this is a constant occurence by the partnership, then 1N no longer shows (15+-18) HCP, but 15-18 HCP or a psyche.

 

Sure, this hand he lost, but he may be able to narrow the scope even more to have a better known partnership understanding.

I cannot agree less.

 

At least in the ACBL, you are allowed to take action justified by an assumption that partner made a psychic call if reliance upon the opponent's bidding leads to that clear conclusion. Period.

 

If the opponents have made a psychic call, such that the assumption was wrong, then you relied upon a reasonable inference to your detriment. That, however, is not the same as improperly fielding a psychic. Is is properly, but errantly, reading a psychic.

Is it so simple?

 

All we can deduce with the 11hcp is that someone is psyching or that everybody is bidding on marginal values.

If we have seen this psych before from partner, we might be very quick to assume that he has done it again, when we can´t objectively be sure. We are willing to run the risk of looking silly since we -based on our experience with partner- now feel quite convinced, he has psyched.

 

So far so good.

 

But it might as well be an opponent who had a problem in a situation that smells fishy. Maybe an early guess in the play, or in the bidding with a very strong hand (obviously fearing that everything is off for them).

He won't have any special reason to suspect a possible bluff if not told and might not solve his problem as easily as we just solved ours.

 

That is the fundamental problem, and that's why these things are so delicate if we don't take care.

[mycroft]

Basically, much as the Rule of Coincidence Doesn't Exist, if you pass a GF hand, you've set yourself up for two (at least) losing options:

 

- if partner was on the level (however that happens, but especially if an opponent psyched), 1NT+3 or 2D-3 is a pretty round zero, and partner isn't going to be happy. That's partnership-ending behaviour.

- if partner psyched, you are going to have to come up with some pretty serious explanations as to why your belief that it was CHO and not L or R who's playing games (after all, they outnumber him two to one) was strong enough to make a potential PLM* AND that the information behind that judgement call was equally available to the opponents (and didn't involve undisclosed history).

- if nobody psyched, but everybody was pushy - opener felt like opening his 10 with a Precision 1D, partner upgraded his 14, maybe with the stiff DA, responder has a 4 or 5-count and 1264, and you can't make 3NT because of the bad splits, now you get to explain to partner *and* to the director. Enjoy.

 

I'd rather eat the fix, myself. It's partner's fault if it's wrong, that way.

 

*PLM = Partnership-Limiting Move, in the same vein as CLM.

[TimG]

- if partner was on the level (however that happens, but especially if an opponent psyched), 1NT+3 or 2D-3 is a pretty round zero, and partner isn't going to be happy. That's partnership-ending behaviour.

 

...

 

I'd rather eat the fix, myself. It's partner's fault if it's wrong, that way.

Maybe you have some experiences you could offer up to Frances in this thread. I don't imagine your partnerships last that long if a result like this might end them, or if you are regularly looking to assign blame to partner.

[kenrexford]

I don't know how many times I can type this, and the direct cite to the ACBL Rules themselves (very clear rules on this issue) did not seem to help. I'll try again.

 

A psychic is not a bad thing. It is like any other decision in bridge. It is like falsecarding. If you do it at the right time, you made a good decision. There is no sinister, gambling aspect to it.

 

The rule against fielding requires partner to not take any action in reliance upon a psychic occurring unless the opposition bidding clears up the psychic. The opposition bidding need not be considered as possibly also psychic, or possibly insane. Rather, the basis for realizing the psychic occurred is bridge logic, based solely on opposition bidding. Period.

 

You do not have any duty whatsoever to explain how it was clear that your opponents were not the ones making a psychic call. You can trust their bidding for purposes of revealing the existence of a psychic, and then you may completely assume that partner made that psychic call. Why? Because the opponents are allowed to be your psychic control. You cannot use a psychic control convention, but you may use the opponents as your psychic control. This is why, for example, a 0-count 1NT overcall is a "better" psychic than a 4-count takeout double. Why? Because the more wild the psychic from expectation, the more likely that the opposition bidding will reveal for partner the fib. That is a legitimate and allowed "psychic control." one that plays off the opposition inability to pass.

 

As to the "everyone is marginal" idea. This is absolutely true. If the bidding can exist when everyone is marginal, then the psychic (if there was a psychic) has not yet been revealed. However, "marginal" does not mean "absurdly freak." A thing can be clear without being accurate.