What is fielding?

[Hanoi5]

I do not exactly know what fielding means, care to explain, please? Is it the same as fielding a psych?

[kenrexford]

When I use that term, I mean that the partner of the person who made the psychic call reads the call as a psychic and takes action justified only by that accurate read.

 

Technically, I suppose one could inaccurately field a psychic by concluding that a real bid was actually a psychic bid.

 

Fielding, IMO, is a neutral term. If one fields a psychic because of bids by the opponents or some obvious bridge logic, then this is good bridge. If one fields a psychic because of an undisclosed partnership understanding and NOT from the logic of the auction, then it is not really fielding -- it is simply understanding the (implicit?) partnership agreements, coupled with perhaps a failure to alert or perhaps an agreement not permitted by the rules, or perhaps even a misexplanation.

[TylerE]

To give a simple exampel, 1m - (X) - 1♠ - (p)

 

If opener has, say,

 

QJxx Kx Axx Qxx

 

and doesn't raise to 2♠.

[nige1]

Fielding

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.

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.

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.

Reporting and Recording

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.

Reporting and Recording

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.

[blackshoe]

The EBU has regulations about psychics and fielding (and also fielding of misbids or deviations). They classify such situations as "green" (no action to be taken except recording the psych), "amber" (record it, warn the opponents they're close to a "red" situation), or "red" (rule the psych illegally fielded, record it). It's not really clear to me, but I think by "fielding" they mean "taking an action that provides evidence of a CPU", whether or not that evidence is sufficient to result in an adjusted score.

 

One thing that bothers me about the EBU regulation is that it says that the partnership may not use any bid to control a psych. They then give an example where the psycher's subsequent call controls the psych. That's fair enough, but if a player psychs, and his partner makes a call that could be construed as catering for the psych, he's committed an infraction even if he has no idea that his partner psyched. That seems a bit much to me. :rolleyes:

[kenrexford]

Ineresting.

 

So, at least in the EBU, the term "fielding" means what I would have to now call "reading the psychic because of information not gleaned from the auction?"

 

I'm not sure about that distinction, though. Whereas the ACBL rules speak of specific reads from the auction as OK but from partner's predisposition not OK, the EBU does not seem to provide (in these snippets) any explanation as to whether "reading" (or "smelling" perhaps) the psychic can be accomplished without "fielding" the psychic.

 

What would happen in the EBU if your LHO opens 2♦ (11-15), partner bids 2NT (15-18), RHO doubles ("penalty"), and you hold 18 HCP? You would surely smell the psychic. Under the ACBL rules, 11+15+values+18 = 44+values = psychic, such that you are completely safe expecting that partner has made a psychic call. In the EBU language, I have no idea whether Advancer can now act in any way other than to redouble and continue acting insanely thereafter.

[kfay]

We actually ran into a problem with this in our quartfinal match against Poland in China.

 

Basically one of our players overcalled 1♠ with a stiff spade and some number of hearts, I think 5, and a destructive hand.

 

It turns out that partner had a spade stack and along the way to game he thought he'd bid 3♥ as a slam try, which psycher immediateliy passed.

 

Poland accused us of playing psychic controls, which is a basically a built-in safety in your system that bars partner from bidding game in these sort of situations because there may have been a psyche. We ended up winning the appeal because the heart bidder had a reasonable slamtry, but the Polish team was on pins and needles the rest of the time and I had the director called on my twice, I think, for nothing (I wasn't part of the psyching partnership).

 

But basically you're not allowed to have played your partner to have psyched unless information comes to light where you KNOW partner psyched (like in some of these psychic Michaels threads I've seen on here). If you know that partner is a joker and you incorporate this into your plans, assuming that he's being fishy, then this is having a secret agreement, which is illegal.

[MFA]

What would happen in the EBU if your LHO opens 2♦ (11-15), partner bids 2NT (15-18), RHO doubles ("penalty"), and you hold 18 HCP?  You would surely smell the psychic.  Under the ACBL rules, 11+15+values+18 = 44+values = psychic, such that you are completely safe expecting that partner has made a psychic call.  In the EBU language, I have no idea whether Advancer can now act in any way other than to redouble and continue acting insanely thereafter.

It would be "green" and ok to cater to partner's psych here. One doesn't need a partnership understanding to figure this out.

 

Suppose you have 1444 10-count and hear

(p)-pass from you-(1mi)-2♥

 

and you bid 2♠ hitting partner with spades and not hearts. This would probably be "red" and lead to adjusted score. Even if you honestly had no special reason to assume partner's little joke.

 

Fair enough imo. The threat of cheating or concealed partnership agreements is so great here that it justifies the rules.

[Echognome]

What would happen in the EBU if your LHO opens 2♦ (11-15), partner bids 2NT (15-18), RHO doubles ("penalty"), and you hold 18 HCP? You would surely smell the psychic. Under the ACBL rules, 11+15+values+18 = 44+values = psychic, such that you are completely safe expecting that partner has made a psychic call. In the EBU language, I have no idea whether Advancer can now act in any way other than to redouble and continue acting insanely thereafter.

Let's assume you can tell someone doesn't have their bid.

 

Why do you assume it's partner? The very fact that you think partner is more likely to have psyched than either of your opponents (2 to 1 odds) means that you know your partner's tendencies ---> "implicit partnership agreement" or understanding.

 

Or how else do you explain it?

[MFA]

What would happen in the EBU if your LHO opens 2♦ (11-15), partner bids 2NT (15-18), RHO doubles ("penalty"), and you hold 18 HCP?  You would surely smell the psychic.  Under the ACBL rules, 11+15+values+18 = 44+values = psychic, such that you are completely safe expecting that partner has made a psychic call.  In the EBU language, I have no idea whether Advancer can now act in any way other than to redouble and continue acting insanely thereafter.

Let's assume you can tell someone doesn't have their bid.

 

Why do you assume it's partner? The very fact that you think partner is more likely to have psyched than either of your opponents (2 to 1 odds) means that you know your partner's tendencies ---> "implicit partnership agreement" or understanding.

 

Or how else do you explain it?

I think you gotta ask yourself one question:

 

"Do I feel lucky?"

 

Ups, wrong one.

 

"Would an unknown player (of same playing strength) also suspect a psych and maybe try to cater to it?"

 

If the answer is yes, then you are entitled to do so too.

"So, do you - punk?"

[kenrexford]

What would happen in the EBU if your LHO opens 2♦ (11-15), partner bids 2NT (15-18), RHO doubles ("penalty"), and you hold 18 HCP?  You would surely smell the psychic.  Under the ACBL rules, 11+15+values+18 = 44+values = psychic, such that you are completely safe expecting that partner has made a psychic call.  In the EBU language, I have no idea whether Advancer can now act in any way other than to redouble and continue acting insanely thereafter.

Let's assume you can tell someone doesn't have their bid.

 

Why do you assume it's partner? The very fact that you think partner is more likely to have psyched than either of your opponents (2 to 1 odds) means that you know your partner's tendencies ---> "implicit partnership agreement" or understanding.

 

Or how else do you explain it?

Actually, at least in the ACBL, it is perfectly acceptable to assume that partner is the one who made the psychic call. The description of when one can "read" the psychic describes reliance upon the bids made by the opponents. Therefore, there is no requirement to remain in the dark as to who made the psychic. If a psychic must have happened, because of the bids made by the opponents, then you can cater to partner being the one who made the psychic call. If you are wrong, then the psychic by the opponents worked.

 

The next question, then, is why would you assume that partner made the psychic? Well, if the situation is such that partner most likely made the psychic, because, for instance, we are NV versus V, then this is "sound bridge." The "odds" factor is irrelevant (because two out of three people at the table are vulnerable against not).

 

The last implicit question is whether there is some fault in assume partner made the psychic call because partner sometimes makes psychic calls. Well, of course not. Why would it be wrong to assume that partner made a legal, sound decision?

 

There is nothing wrong with an "agreement" that psychics are allowed in the partnership, any more than an agreement that we are allowed to bid game on some hands.

[kfay]

What would happen in the EBU if your LHO opens 2♦ (11-15), partner bids 2NT (15-18), RHO doubles ("penalty"), and you hold 18 HCP?  You would surely smell the psychic.  Under the ACBL rules, 11+15+values+18 = 44+values = psychic, such that you are completely safe expecting that partner has made a psychic call.  In the EBU language, I have no idea whether Advancer can now act in any way other than to redouble and continue acting insanely thereafter.

Let's assume you can tell someone doesn't have their bid.

 

Why do you assume it's partner? The very fact that you think partner is more likely to have psyched than either of your opponents (2 to 1 odds) means that you know your partner's tendencies ---> "implicit partnership agreement" or understanding.

 

Or how else do you explain it?

In this case I think it's safe to assume that partner is a joker since 2NX with umpteen uptricks is definitely possible which makes this double insane.

 

But in general you raise a really interesting point.

[Echognome]

Actually, at least in the ACBL, it is perfectly acceptable to assume that partner is the one who made the psychic call.  The description of when one can "read" the psychic describes reliance upon the bids made by the opponents.  Therefore, there is no requirement to remain in the dark as to who made the psychic.  If a psychic must have happened, because of the bids made by the opponents, then you can cater to partner being the one who made the psychic call.  If you are wrong, then the psychic by the opponents worked.

I do not have enough experience playing in the ACBL to refute what you are saying with respect to it being "perfectly acceptable to assume partner is the one who made the psychic call." However, I do find that hard to believe. I know that there are sometimes discussions on the International Bridge Laws Forum ("IBLF") about when a psych is actually "revealed." You may think it's obvious that partner's bid may be a psych, maybe even in a baby psych position. But you should not be allowed to cater for it.

 

The next question, then, is why would you assume that partner made the psychic?  Well, if the situation is such that partner most likely made the psychic, because, for instance, we are NV versus V, then this is "sound bridge."  The "odds" factor is irrelevant (because two out of three people at the table are vulnerable against not).

So now you are saying that because of the vulnerability it is more likely to be a psych. I think it's a fine line you are trying to walk between having an understanding about when you psych and just using bridge logic. Don't get me wrong, as I understand what you are saying. In certain situations, the bridge odds change based on the vulnerability. But you also have to be careful that you are using bridge odds rather than an implicit agreement. What would happen in your exact same set-up if the vulnerability were reversed? Would you no longer be allowed to cater to the fact that partner may have psyched? What if partner hadn't psyched? What if partner had misbid and thought that there was a 1♦ opening on his right?

 

The last implicit question is whether there is some fault in assume partner made the psychic call because partner sometimes makes psychic calls.  Well, of course not.  Why would it be wrong to assume that partner made a legal, sound decision?

I'm not quite sure I follow. I don't really see how you should ever be allowed to cater to partner's possible psych, unless the psych has unequivocably been revealed. I just think people automatically assume it's partner who has psyched, because they know partner's tendencies, rather than thinking through any other possibility. I've given you two possible other reasons an auction might not make sense: one of the opponents has psyched or partner has misbid. Maybe the opponents misbid? Maybe the opponents has had a misunderstanding? Who knows? Why would you assume it's partner who doesn't have his call, unless you have seen partner do it before?

 

There is nothing wrong with an "agreement" that psychics are allowed in the partnership, any more than an agreement that we are allowed to bid game on some hands.

I agree. In fact, I've often wondered whether it would be legal to have an agreement "we never psych." I'm not against psychs at all. I think they are an integral part of the game and come in all different varieties. What's cooler than seeing a psychic cuebid or a psychic exclusion RKCB? What is a falsecard, but a psych in carding. I only have a problem with fielding and I'm not saying you are doing it. I'm just saying that people have a tendency to think it's obvious psychs have been revealed, when often there are perfectly logical alternatives that say they have not.

[kenrexford]

If I might take another stab at this...

 

The actual rules about psychics make a lot more sense to me recently after I have analyzed commentaries and the rules carefully. I think that understanding the rules makes more sense if you start with a few assumptions.

 

1. Psychics are an integral part of the game. There is in essence, therefore, nothing unique to a psychic as opposed to a pass or a bid made to actually seek declaring a good contract. There is nothing sinister about a psychic.

 

2. Bridge requires (in our set of rules) that agreements be disclosed. A "psychic" offers the opportunity to subvert that goal by expansion of the real meaning beyond the disclosed meaning.

 

3. Bridge has rules as to allowed conventions. Psychics can also be used to subvert these rules.

 

4. Bridge is a competitive sport, and we disapprove and bar tactics that ruin the game by causing insanity at one particular table (except that insanity caused by insane people who cannot play well is allowed).

 

Assuming all of this, the "problem" psychic situation is one where one of these general principles is violated.

 

That start does a lot but does not answer the question currently being addressed. The "solution" in my mind is to consider the circumstance of a hesitation. Whereas one cannot rely upon a hesitation from partner, as that would be UA, one may rely upon hesitations from the opponents freely, at one's own risk.

 

What happens, then, when "someone psyched?" If this is assured, then one may reasonably rely upon opposition bidding to draw any conclusions, just as one may rely upon opposition bidding to infer that partner opened light, that partner probably has spades stopped, or that partner probably has a stiff club.

 

What, then, if a psychic is possible but not assured? What if the bidding suggests, say, a 55% chance of a psychic? Is that enough to meet the standard of freeing partner to act accordingly? Or, is a problem present?

 

Adjudicating this is VERY difficult. Because of this squishy area, we have TD's to, in theory, do their best. We have presumptions that shift burdens (if 3+ in one session, burden shifts to the psychic pair). We have warnings before actions if questionable middle-ground circumstances arise.

 

In the end, then, the process used in my recent experience was right, up to a point. The opponents should report the psychic, because, unlike other calls, this weird area of bridge seems to necessitate monitoring. Fine. Then, the TD's, having reason to be concerned, ask to speak with the psychic bidder and his partner just to clarify the situation and to remind them of the rules. Fine. Then, if there is something suspicious, perhaps "higher ups" step in to ask even more questions.

 

This process seems about right. When the opponents of the psychic act ridiculously, this should be ZT time, but ZT seems too much to stomach in this strange area of bridge. I can live with that (although I think it is perhaps unfair that I, who can stomach this sort of behavior, can therefore use psychics that less tolerant people could not stomach using because of the backlash). Where things go haywire is when the authorities do not understand their own rules and process, or bridge for that matter, but that is a COMMON problem with TD's anyway, in any number of areas. When you add to TD/authoritarian incompetence a tone of accusation, the accusational tone is offensive and angering.

 

But, maybe the mere pain of dealing with BS like that is the best practical hedge on excessive use of psychics. If the person so electing to use a psychic has (1) fear of partner going ballistic, (2) fear of the psychic failing miserably, (3) fear of letting the opponents in on it by sweating, (4) fear of opponents going ape, (5) fear of TD's costing you a beer or two during the dinner break, and (6) fear of authorities making you sit down and explain bridge to them (a daunting task), then you will use psychics just the right amount.

 

Again, however, the upsetting thing is not so much that I and others like me would have to deal with that nonsense, as we are up to it. The problem is that Jane and Dick Gerber are completely paralyzed into never trying a psychic themselves.

[TimG]

This was discussed on rgb a few months ago. I was told:

 

"As has been discussed before, the most common meaning of fielding is

'illegally allowing for partner's action' and the EBU defines it as such."

 

Further inquiry revealed that "legal fielding" would be referred to as "allowing for".

[han]

What would happen in the EBU if your LHO opens 2♦ (11-15), partner bids 2NT (15-18), RHO doubles ("penalty"), and you hold 18 HCP?  You would surely smell the psychic.  Under the ACBL rules, 11+15+values+18 = 44+values = psychic, such that you are completely safe expecting that partner has made a psychic call.  In the EBU language, I have no idea whether Advancer can now act in any way other than to redouble and continue acting insanely thereafter.

Let's assume you can tell someone doesn't have their bid.

 

Why do you assume it's partner? The very fact that you think partner is more likely to have psyched than either of your opponents (2 to 1 odds) means that you know your partner's tendencies ---> "implicit partnership agreement" or understanding.

 

Or how else do you explain it?

 

You don't have to throw dice to determine who is joking. Let us say that we can see from our hand with absolute certainty that one of the other three has psyched. The only question is who.

 

If we are white and they are red then that makes it more likely that partner has psyched. Bridge logic.

 

If we are far behind in a team match then that makes it more likely that partner has psyched. Bridge logic.

 

If one of the players has opened the bidding in first or second seat then that makes it more likely that that person did not psyche. It is fairly uncommon to psyche when partner has not passed and neither opponent has shown strength.

 

If one of the opponents has made a penalty double that is usually fairly likely to end the auction then that makes it very unlikely that that person has psyched!

 

If one of the opponents looks very confused and thinks for a long time, repeatedly shaking his head, then that opponent probably did not psyche.

 

If partner makes a later call that makes no sense given his earlier bidding, then that is a strong indication that partner has psyched.

 

All of these are perfectly legal observations that have nothing to do with partnership understandings. I actually think that 2D - 2NT is a pretty strange psyche so I refrained from commenting on that particular auction.

[Echognome]

Look. I have no problem with psychic calls. I am only saying that I have seen several cases where people claim "it's obvious that the psych was revealed", when that has not been the case. I think that if in your partnership, partner tends to psych often, then it's more likely you will find a bridge reason why partner's bid must be a psych.

 

Ultimately, it's down to a person's own ethics and a TD's determination and has to be done a case by case basis (except where recorder's are used and pattern's emerge).

 

Again, I don't have a problem with psychs, I have a problem with fielding. I just think people often overlook perfectly good alternative reasons why the bidding may not make sense. Yes, if partner passes a 100% forcing bid after taking some prior action, then the prior call is probably a psych (or a misbid). And I'm sure there are definitely other situations.

 

But Han brings up likelihoods. In that case, how likely must the psych be before we are allowed to cater for it? I do not know the answer myself. My guess is that is something that has to be argued to the TD.

[han]

I agree with your general point Matt, but there are plenty examples where it is very clear that partner psyched and it was clear that it was Ken's intention to give such an example.

 

I don't play with partners that often psyche so the partnership understanding factor is not an issue for me, but I do know that if LHO opens, my partner overcalls in NT, RHO makes a penalty double and I hold an absolute monster, it is quite likely that my partner has psyched no matter who I play with. Of course that doesn't mean that I will run. I will pass and if partner runs then I know for sure that he has psyched and I can act accordingly.

 

But perhaps I will be surprised and LHO runs, it is possible.

[matmat]

dealer. W/R. imps.

 

♠J62 ♥ Q543 ♦ 7 ♣ KJ642

 

P - (1♠) - 1N - (X)

P - ( P ) - 2♣ - (2♦)

3♣ - (X) - 3♦ - (P)

?

 

are you fielding? if so, what and how?

[Echognome]

I agree with your general point Matt, but there are plenty examples where it is very clear that partner psyched and it was clear that it was Ken's intention to give such an example.

I'd actually be surprised if our views differed greatly on the matter. I definitely take your points as well. I also know you well enough to know it wouldn't be an issue with you as you are a completely ethical player. (I suspect Ken is as well, I just don't know him.)

 

I didn't mean to pick on Ken's example per se. Just grinding an axe in general on people claiming that it was obviously a psych when it wasn't.

[nige1]

This was discussed on rgb a few months ago.  I was told:

"As has been discussed before, the most common meaning of fielding is

'illegally allowing for partner's action' and the EBU defines it as such."

Further inquiry revealed that "legal fielding" would be referred to as "allowing for".

IMO, it depends on what information, the psycher's partner used to diagnose the psych (as judged by the director on consultation with the alleged fielder's peers).

• A player who diagnoses the psych only from his hand and the auction, may legally allow for the psych. IMO, Echognome is right that, a priori, it is more than twice as likely that one of your random flaky opponents has psyched or made a mistake than your reliable expert partner.
  
• A player who additionally uses knowledge of his partner's habits or other unauthorised information to diagnose and cater for a psych, (illegally) fields that psych. One problem is that habitual psychers tend to fall into patterns of behaviour. Frequent psychers tend to have distinct preferences for certain situations and certain holdings over others. It is hard for a regular partner to avoid becoming familiar with this pattern. These preferences may be as individual as a fingerprint. For example what player do you associate with psychic exclusion KCB? With opening 1♥ whenever he holds 0-3 HCP? Other examples:
  • When losing a match by some critical margin.
    
  • When you're non-vulnerable.
    
  • After opponent's strong artificial opener.
    
  • Opening a three-card major, third-in-hand.
    
  • 1N Overcall that has values for a weak-two.
    
  • When partner opens and RHO your doubles, attempt to pick off opponents' suit.
    
  • False trial-bids and cue-bids.
    

[gnasher]

The EBU has regulations about psychics and fielding (and also fielding of misbids or deviations).

Yes. And I'd recommend that anyone seeking a sensible definition or explanation of "fielding" a psyche should look somewhere else. This section of the EBU's regulations is awful.

[kenrexford]

dealer. W/R. imps.

 

♠J62 ♥ Q543 ♦ 7 ♣ KJ642

 

P - (1♠) - 1N - (X)

P - ( P ) - 2♣ - (2♦)

3♣ - (X) - 3♦ - (P)

?

 

are you fielding? if so, what and how?

If someone has made a psychic call, which may be the case, I could not field this if I tried. I have no earthly idea what the heck is going on in this mess of an auction.

[jdonn]

dealer. W/R. imps.

 

♠J62 ♥ Q543 ♦ 7 ♣ KJ642

 

P - (1♠) - 1N - (X)

P - ( P ) - 2♣ - (2♦)

3♣ - (X) - 3♦ -  (P)

?

 

are you fielding? if so, what and how?

If someone has made a psychic call, which may be the case, I could not field this if I tried. I have no earthly idea what the heck is going on in this mess of an auction.

I have never agreed with you more!

[MFA]

dealer. W/R. imps.

 

♠J62 ♥ Q543 ♦ 7 ♣ KJ642

 

P - (1♠) - 1N - (X)

P - ( P ) - 2♣ - (2♦)

3♣ - (X) - 3♦ -  (P)

?

 

are you fielding? if so, what and how?

Pass, wtp?

 

When partner runs from a penalty double, it means that he doesn't want to play in the strain where he was doubled. Nothing tricky about that.

I don't know what he has now but that is obviously his problem.