How to classify this psyche?

[jallerton]

[hv=d=e&v=n&n=sqj73hq8dj108cj1072&w=sa2hk1043dq9765cq9&e=sk109654h7dk432c83&s=s8haj9652dacak654]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

With East dealer the auction proceeded:

 

1♠-2♠(1)-X(2)-2NT(3)

3♠-X(4)- P - 3NT(5)

P - P - P

 

After two rounds of spades and a diamond switch, declarer cashes his top clubs, enters hand to cash his spade winner and takes the heart finesse for his contract. When it loses, the defence cash the rest and the final result is 3NT-4, N/S -200.

 

(1) ♥ and a minor, at least 5-5

(2) Interest in taking a penalty

(3) Asks for the minor

(4) Considerable extra strength, minor still unspecified

(5) Undiscussed

 

When asks why he did not double 3NT, West explains that:

 

(a) The 3♠ bid showed a minimum opening bid perhaps without a great deal of defence.

 

He thought that the penalty from 3NT undoubled would be more than the penalty from 4♣x.

 

South contends that this particular East has as reputation for psyching and that he has made very light opening 1-level opening bids on a previous occasion against him a couple of years ago, playing with the same partner.

 

What is your ruling?

[blackshoe]

I don't know, I'm not done investigating yet.

 

What was EW's response to South's contention?

[jallerton]

It's difficult to get a straight answer out of East/West on this question. West says that he rarely notices exactly what his partner's full hand is.

[bluejak]

Looks Red to me.

[gordontd]

When asks why he did not double 3NT, West explains that:

 

(a) The 3♠ bid showed a minimum opening bid perhaps without a great deal of defence.

I'm sure it does, but one would nevertheless expect West to be proceeding on the basis that their side have the majority of high-card points.

He thought that the penalty from 3NT undoubled would be more than the penalty from 4♣x.

That turns out to be true on the hand, but only because East is a long way short of his bid. With a normal minimum opening bid opposite, West should be expecting a useful doubled penalty from either contract.

 

With regard to West saying that he rarely notices exactly what his partner's full hand is, it's worth noting that the Orange Book says:

6 B 1 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.

 

6 B 2 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.

 

I'd like to have been there, but at this distance it does look like fielding.

[jeremy69]

It would help to have some of these recorded from before to help establish the pattern but on the surface it looks to me as if West has fielded. Even if East has a minimum with 6 spades you would expect to beat both 3NT and 4C. I would rule it red and adjust accordingly unless EW said something to me more persuasvie than anything so far heard.

[vigfus]

What is our ruling ? Do we adjust score based on law 73E ? - and then using law 73F to adjust score ? Well - I rule that table score stands.

But what about the psyche ? I agree about it being Red. But what will the TD do about it ? What are his opintons ? 90A ? or give PP (e.g. 50% of top score ?)

[blackshoe]

The EBU have a regulation, so there you follow the regulation. Absent such a regulation, I would say that ruling that the psyche was fielded is equivalent to ruling that there was a CPU, a violation of Law 40C1 which requires the TD to adjust the score and suggests that he "may award a procedural penalty".

 

A player may deviate from his side’s announced understandings always, provided that his partner has no more reason to be aware of the deviation than have the opponents. repeated deviations lead to implicit understandings, which then form part of the partnership’s methods and must be disclosed in accordance with the regulations governing disclosure of system. if the director judges there is undisclosed knowledge that has damaged the opponents, he shall adjust the score and may award a procedural penalty.

[bluejak]

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.

 

6 B 5 In the majority of cases the TD will find nothing untoward and classify it as a Green psyche.

[nige1]

Looks Red to me.

I agree. Better dead than red.

[jallerton]

It would help to have some of these recorded from before to help establish the pattern but on the surface it looks to me as if West has fielded. Even if East has a minimum with 6 spades you would expect to beat both 3NT and 4C. I would rule it red and adjust accordingly unless EW said something to me more persuasvie than anything so far heard.

This hand occurred in a county league match played privately. I was South. We did not request a ruling, although it seems from the replies to this thread as though perhaps we should have done. In practice, there is less temptation to ask for a formal ruling in a match played privately when a TD has to be telephoned, rather than simply being asked to walk across the room.

 

Obviously it is far too late to request a ruling on the board now, but do you think it is worthwhile asking for the hand to be recorded? Does the EBU share its information on recorded psyches with County Associations and vice versa?

[jeremy69]

Does the EBU share its information on recorded psyches with County Associations and vice versa?

 

Counties are invited to do so but it is a bit patchy tp put it mildly. Noy all keep psyche records. AFAIK there is no communication the other way round although if it were requested there could be.