Ethics Question

[MFA]

Ken, I agree with your post. The first half of my latest post runs along same lines.

 

But I (and others, it seems to me) think that there is a "2nd part" here. Therefore I don't like your use of the word "period" in your posts.

 

When psyching frequently the line between psychic calls and partnership agreements becomes paper-thin.

It's all about if partner has a special reason to expect just the particular psych in question.

 

One is allowed to psych quite a lot in general and partner to figure it out from bridge logic. But using the same psych repeatedly will very quickly transform it into a partnership agreement, where the bid is EITHER genuine OR one's favourite joking hand. One has to be careful.

 

The rules of "fielding a psych" are practical ones. It's extremely difficult to supervise accurately each partnership's use of psyches and when these have turned into partnership agreements. Therefore we go after the abnormal responses to them, making the backward deduction that there then probably is a hidden partnership agreement. This may catch some innocent people, but I don't see a better way.

 

This doesn't mean, however, that the truly abnormal responses are the only legal issue about psyching. It may also be problematic if just the slightest scent of fish makes partner smell it all out while the opponents suspect nothing, because they have no special reason to.

[awm]

One hand doesn't prove anything, but any time partner seems to take an unusual action whose only purpose seems to be to cater to a possible psyche (regardless of whether there was, in fact, a psyche) it seems reasonable to report it.

 

On the hand Frances gave, there are many possibilities of what could be going on in this auction. Opener could be psyching (as he did on the actual hand). Responder could be bidding on air. There could be a combination where all three others upgraded shapely hands (i.e. 10-14-5-11 hcp). In any of these cases game would be good. Yet the chosen action was based completely on "my partner psyched." Again, perhaps one hand is no big deal, but if this individual always assumes partner psyched any time an auction is even slightly unusual, that would seem to be a concealed partnership agreement. It is worth recording to see if this is a common state of affairs.

[ASkolnick]

I won't add more since both MFA and AWM have made essentially the same statements I was trying to make, but perhaps more eloquently.

[kenrexford]

Well, of course you report it! You report it, as the folks did, when you do it yourself.

 

I think these situations boil down to similar to what happens after a hesitation. Would you agree? Kind of like you decide whether the average peer would have smelled that a psychic occurred. If the average peer would have a WTF moment, and would suspect that someone did not have their bid, then the auction exposed the psychic. All is well.

 

If the average peer could construct a possible layout in some psychotic universe but would deem that layout less likely than the obvious psychic alternative, then probably all OK also.

 

If the average peer would not really suspect anything, except possibly a faint sniff, then you are kind of boxed in to that risky move, even if you smell impending doom.

 

If you assess the average peer incorrectly, you are subject to adjustment and warning. hence, you should, out of self-interest, err on the side of caution.

[mycroft]

- 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.

It isn't the result, Tim, it's the lack of trust that it implies.

 

You passed a game-forcing hand, because you thought your partner psyched, with no other evidence than your knowledge that there's 50 points at the table. Given that you have no undisclosed partnership experience - and none was given at the table in the example - it's frankly two-to-one that the psycher is an opponent, and you've just been baby-psyched to half-a-board/6 IMPs. Truly, that level of trust is (eventually) partnership-breaking.

 

Next time, how does partner get across that "you really don't want to pass a 10 count, pard"? Does he make a very light jump that you will put him in 6 on? Does he double-and-bid on 14 instead of 18, Just In Case? Once partner can't trust you, or you can't trust partner, the partnership is over 90+% of the time; there are cases where that trust has come back, but it's very very rare. Usually it's just a matter of time. Will this decision be the one that means that partner can't trust you? No? No chance? Really?

 

One of the *few* things that I take serious offence at from partner is not trusting me. If you trust me and I've lied/misbid/totally lost my mind, my fault. If you don't trust me and I was right, that's another story altogether. If you trust the opponents over me, without cause (remember I did play, back when there was a place to disclose this tendency, Frequent with two circles Psychics; if you discerned a psychic at the table it was 10-1 me or partner. Fine, but remember, the opponents had access to that information as well), then why are you playing with me?

 

Alternatively, if your partnership can't handle partner psyching occasionally, don't do it. If you can handle it, it's likely because of one of Goldsmith's Imperious Rules (paraphrased): "If you psych and get a bad result, it's 100% your fault, no matter how idiotic partner is afterward."

 

And no, I don't try to assign blame. But I try to make as few as possible "clearly, obviously, screamingly lose-the-postmortem" calls. I tell my students/querents "Don't try to win the postmortem; the hand's over, the question of who was in the wrong is 'the partnership'. But when you have a decision to make, and really, truly don't know which way to go, take the one that would win the postmortem." And passing 1NT with an 11-count will win no postmortems, ever. Frankly, even if you're right, you're still wrong - and even if you're right and you're not wrong, then you get into the other "losing case" I mentioned; which is never fun.

[jdonn]

You passed a game-forcing hand, because you thought your partner psyched, with no other evidence than your knowledge that there's 50 points at the table. Given that you have no undisclosed partnership experience - and none was given at the table in the example - it's frankly two-to-one that the psycher is an opponent, and you've just been baby-psyched to half-a-board/6 IMPs. Truly, that level of trust is (eventually) partnership-breaking.

Did you consider that it's not because partner made the bid, but because of what the bid is? It's very common to psych 1NT overcalls, very uncommon to psych 1st and 2nd seat opening bids.

[mycroft]

Ken, the quote you gave from the bylaws states: "When a player takes an action that appears to be based on an accurate "hunch" that his partner's earlier call was psychic, although that psychic was not clearly exposed by the opponents' calls or by legal psychic control, then the Tournament Director and Committee should consider such action to be presumptive evidence of an improper partnership understanding (even if implicit)."

 

You then go on to argue that since P -> Q, !P -> !Q, which is not necessarily true. Even if it were true, all it does is say that it is not "presumptive evidence" in the presence of otherwise angelic behaviour - it is not absolution by any means. It means that maybe we should look at other things that happened to see if there is something here. Oh, there was another psychic in the same 6-board set? Let's continue to look into this...

 

You also degrade "clearly exposed by opponents' calls" to "you can rely on opponents' calls when deciding who psyched". Effectively: as long as you can prove that someone psyched or misbid, there is nothing wrong with catering for it being partner. I do not think you will get universal agreement on this reading, even from fans of psychic calls (of which I am one)!

 

In the 11-count opposite 1NT auction (which I realize is not one of your original examples), you don't even have that. Opener psyched in Frances' case, but he could have bid a flat 11, and had partner raise on 6 diamonds and out, or on an ace and partner has 14-and-a-good-5-card club suit. Guaranteed 29 (14 opposite 1NT opener) is a fair bit clearer, of course, but there's still nothing that points to partner psyching over opener.

 

And if you are stating regulations, here's one that could be used, with just as much logical connection as you have done, in the counterargument:

 

DISALLOWED:

 

Psychic Controls (includes ANY partnership agreement which, if used in conjunction with a psychic call, makes allowance for that psych).

 

That's the GCC (emphasis in the original). Evidence that you have played together often enough to generate an implied action of "if there's a psychic at the table, assume it's partner", um, is a partnership agreement...Note that I find this uncomfortable, as did I find the removal of the psychic tendencies box and the statement that even writing down your psychic tendencies is verboten as it is evidence of illegal agreements. But that's the regulation.

 

In brief, I disagree with your devolution from "a 'hunch' not clearly backed by opponents' calls should be construed as presumptive evidence of a partnership understanding" to "if the opponents' calls make clear that there is gross deviation at the table, there's nothing wrong with assuming it's partner." I do not find equivalence in the two, and I doubt that I am unique.

[mycroft]

Josh, okay, true. But is that enough to make "partner psyched, not opener" odds-on? And because we're talking about a psychic, seriously odds-on?

 

Remember, we're not allowed to use any evidence your opponents do not have about your partner's tendencies, of course (see my gripe about how I'm limited in making those tendencies known, of course). We can't really use the evidence that partner psyched in this match, which the opponents can, either.

[cherdano]

Josh, okay, true.  But is that enough to make "partner psyched, not opener" odds-on?  And because we're talking about a psychic, seriously odds-on?

 

Remember, we're not allowed to use any evidence your opponents do not have about your partner's tendencies, of course (see my gripe about how I'm limited in making those tendencies known, of course). We can't really use the evidence that partner psyched in this match, which the opponents can, either.

If this auction occurred on BBO among good players, and you told me someone psyched, I would happily bet 30$ to 10$ that it was 1N overcaller.

[jdonn]

Josh, okay, true. But is that enough to make "partner psyched, not opener" odds-on? And because we're talking about a psychic, seriously odds-on?

Yes. See cherdano's post. Of course only the player knows what is going on in his mind, but that can certainly be enough.

[blackshoe]

One of the *few* things that I take serious offence at from partner is not trusting me.

A couple of years ago, I played for a while with a local expert. One of the things that frosted me was his assumption that whatever screw-up I perpetrated was due to my not trusting him, rather than to my not knowing what the hell I was doing. :)

[mycroft]

There's mistakes, there's not knowing better, and there's defending their fit at the 2 level undoubled with 26 high...

 

Okay, I'll trust the judgement of the much better bridge, and screamingly better poker, player. But I still think that backing your judgement there will take some fancy talking, and put you on the watch list with that partner for a while.