Illegal psyche

[Cascade]

It cannot be a disallowed deviation at Level 4 because there is no rule against deviating at Level 4.

 

It is a specific regulation for the Multi at Level 3, so of course it does not apply to natural weak twos, general Multis at Level 4, or 5♠ openers at Level 5. :D

 

Or, to put it another way, there are no other Multi 2Y openers at Level 3, so I do not see how you can say it does not apply to them!

 

:ph34r:

 

Further the laws of bridge permit deviations "A player may deviate from his side’s announced understandings..." (Yes I know there are conditions.)  Therefore a regulation that did not permit deviations would be contrary to the laws of bridge.

Not as simple as that, I think.

 

The Regulating Authority is empowered without restriction to allow, disallow, or allow conditionally, any special partnership understanding.

In my opinion, "without restriction" means that it is legal to allow conditionally depending on a regulation that bars deviating.

It is not as simple as that, I think.

 

"special partnership understanding" is a term that carries with it its own definition.

 

To me it is at best moot whether a multi meets the definition of "special partnership understanding".

[PeterE]

To me it is at best moot whether a multi meets the definition of "special partnership understanding".

Maybe this resolves your doubts ...

[...] A convention is included, unless the Regulating Authority decides otherwise, among the agreements and treatments that constitute special partnership understandings as is the case with any call that has an artificial meaning.

[campboy]

"special partnership understanding" is a term that carries with it its own definition.

True, but Law 40B1a makes it clear that it is entirely up to the RA to decide whether an understanding meets that definition. So it is a special partnership understanding in the EBU simply because the EBU says so.

 

@mycroft: I was one of the people suggesting --, xx, Jxxxx, JTxxxx was a deviation rather than a psyche, but in that case there was no question of it being an illegal agreement. Were it not permitted to open this hand 2NT by agreement, I would need some convincing that the pair were not playing something illegal.

[WellSpyder]

If you want to play "ordinary" bridge, you have lots of opportunites to "use judgement", "deviate", or what have you.  There's cliffs on the side of the road, but don't worry, you have lots of shoulder to play with. If you want to play close to the regulatory edge, you're using the shoulder already; it behooves to notice the cliffs. 

Just wanted to say I thought this (and indeed the whole of the post I have extracted it from) was a really helpful guide to how to think about these issues.

 

If I could just be excused for getting onto my hobby horse for a moment about English regulations concerning a strong 1♣, I think the analogy also serves to highlight the oddity that if you want to play "ordinary" Precision with 1♣ showing 16+ you will suddenly find yourself on a road without any shoulder at all and one false move will put you over the cliff - however strong the hand is in terms of intermediates and everything else, you cannot by agreement open a 15-count with 1♣ unless it has at least 10 cards in the two longest suits. The Laws & Ethics Committee have rejected the latest call for a shoulder to be built on this road, and I predict many more drivers will unwittingly be putting their lives at risk before this is put right.

[mycroft]

"special partnership understanding" is a term that carries with it its own definition.

True, but Law 40B1a makes it clear that it is entirely up to the RA to decide whether an understanding meets that definition. So it is a special partnership understanding in the EBU simply because the EBU says so.

As PeterE quotes above, it's actually a special partnership understanding in the EBU because the EBU doesn't say otherwise. And Cascade, anybody who doesn't think the Multi isn't the poster child for "special partnership understanding" has no knowledge of the legistlative history of L40 (*), or an unspoken agenda, or both. Not that that's a problem - the only reason I have few unspoken agendas is that I run off at the typewriter too much...

@mycroft: I was one of the people suggesting --, xx, Jxxxx, JTxxxx was a deviation rather than a psyche, but in that case there was no question of it being an illegal agreement. Were it not permitted to open this hand 2NT by agreement, I would need some convincing that the pair were not playing something illegal.

Yes, I know (about deviation vs psychic), and I think you're insane :-) I would suggest an inverted poll criterion for this one - ask people who play two-suited bids of one sort or another the question "you play a 2NT opener as "5-9, 5-5 or better in the minors, 'not kamikaze'. Give me an absolute vulnerable minimum, allowing for distribution" and see if you get anything *near* that hand. If I was given that question, and forced to provide a hand with 2 0.75HCP Jacks only, it would be closer to -- -- JTxxxx JTxxxxx. I wouldn't even think of anything flatter than 6-6. And I bet that I'm not only not alone, I'd be in the majority, or really close to it. And that's of the people who play it. In the people who don't, I think the only reason it wouldn't be pretty much universal, is that there would be a fair few who wouldn't believe that even that 0067 2-count would match the description.

 

Which means that if that is your agreement, and that is a valid hand for that agreement, you're massively misdescribing it. I think that's a pretty good evaluation of the difference between a psychic and a deliberate deviation.

 

The subject of this thread, however, is a deviation. Absent the regulation, it's a perfectly reasonable deviation; I'd be likely to do it playing those methods (in a Mid-Chart game here, of course). It's by no means a psychic; but if "this is a suitable deviation" is part of the agreement, it's an illegal agreement at level 3.

 

(*) In the last version of the Laws, "SPU" was "convention". It was pointed out, legitimately, that restrictions on some calls that were made were illegal, as the calls were not conventions (weak weak 2s, micro-NTs are the ones that come to mind, as they're the ones attempted to be enforced in Leftpondia). So the regulators came up with a way around the Law, which has been labelled the "Endicott Fudge" after the WBFLC (G. Endicott, Secretary) ruled it was perfectly legal and "why would we want to interfere in what local RAs think is good for the game in their area?": you can bid it, but you can't play any conventions afterward, even against a conventional defence, even unto the seventh round of the auction; and you can't psych it. Everybody knew that was just banning the non-convention by the back door, and it was bad PR, and many people who objected said "if this is what you want, admit to it and change the Law, don't hold it in contempt by these kind of end-runs". So they did. Now, RAs can label anything they want SPUs and ban them, rather than having to do the dance - but what used to be known as "conventions" are SPUs by default, and the RAs have to explicitly say that they're not. As a side note, it makes "single-system games" explicitly legal for the first time in history (not that anybody runs them except online, because what people who want "simple systems" want is actually "I want to play *my* toys, but don't want to have to bid against *his*.")

[Cascade]

To me it is at best moot whether a multi meets the definition of "special partnership understanding".

Maybe this resolves your doubts ...

[...] A convention is included, unless the Regulating Authority decides otherwise, among the agreements and treatments that constitute special partnership understandings as is the case with any call that has an artificial meaning.

I knew I was making a mistake posting from an unfamilar machine without a lawbook handy. I shouldnt have been so lazy and downloaded one.

 

Nevertheless there are some problems with the law and the interpretation that any regulation is acceptable.

 

1. Convention is no longer defined by the laws

 

2. It is not completely clear that 40B1b is not subject to the conditions of 40B1a

 

3. There are obvious problems if the interpretation is that a regulation can override other laws. Hence I believe that regulations that do override laws are of dubious validity.

[campboy]

I guess it's simply a case of what measure of distance we are using. I think that a 3-point absolute difference is minor; you think that a 60% relative difference is gross. Either of these seems like a reasonable way of thinking, and the definition at the front of the lawbook doesn't really tell us which is more appropriate.

[zenko]

Now I get it why Eric Rodwell-Jeff Meckstroth have prominently displayed on the front side of their CC:

Judgement allowed in any situation.

 

And on the back side:

All points can be adjusted in any situation.

 

I used to find it kind of funny, I mean of course that judgement and adjustments are possible, why do you even need to spell it out?

 

Still I wonder is this kind of blanket disclaimer good enough to let you off the hook, especially if used by some mere plebeians?

[WellSpyder]

I used to find it kind of funny, I mean of course that judgement and adjustments are possible,

Always possible, but not always legal!

 

Perhaps for EBU purposes we ought to say "Judgment/point-count adjustments allowed in any situation except where this is inconsistent with EBU regulations".

[peachy]

Now I get it why Eric Rodwell-Jeff Meckstroth have prominently displayed on the front side of their CC:

Judgement allowed in any situation.

 

And on the back side:

All points can be adjusted in any situation.

 

I used to find it kind of funny, I mean of course that judgement and adjustments are possible, why do you even need to spell it out?

 

Still I wonder is this kind of blanket disclaimer good enough to let you off the hook, especially if used by some mere plebeians?

IMO, this name dropping of a pair from a different zone was completely unnecessary. It could be seen as praise for diligent and complete system disclosure but your followup

of is this kind of blanket disclaimer good enough to let you off the hook reveals you meant it as catching them doing something borderline.

Let us hope it is *I* who has not understood what the point of the name dropping was.

[mycroft]

I guess it's simply a case of what measure of distance we are using. I think that a 3-point absolute difference is minor; you think that a 60% relative difference is gross. Either of these seems like a reasonable way of thinking, and the definition at the front of the lawbook doesn't really tell us which is more appropriate.

Sorry, this should be in the other thread...

 

I think that if you think that opening AKJ-seventh and out, even 7231, 1S because "it's a 3 point deviation from our 11-point openers", or you open a good 3352 12 with a 15-17 1NT because "it's a minor, 3-point difference", or you open AKJxxx AQxxx -- xx 1 Precision Club because "it's only 3 points off, and look at the distribution!" that you're going to have issues. In fact, if you think 3 points, even out of 20, is "minor", I think you're going to have *at least* a massive full disclosure issue, and partner issues.

 

I think 1 point is a minor deviation, 2 needs some major compensating factor; 3 is pretty much gross deviation barring insane distribution (or, conversely, massive knowledge that points are blanks. Note that that rarely applies to openings :-). In general, of course. I also believe that deviations that are "minor" with one call are "massive" with another, because of the way bridge is played and seen - which is why relativity is, to me, the way to go.

 

I also know that there are vocal pros that worry about unusual, "random" weak bids, especially because "they're never described fully enough that our side is in the same field as they are". I disagree with most of their suggested solutions, because most of them have some unsaid assumptions (which are probably accurate, but go after them then!) that if they are not true, the solution becomes totally unacceptable. But that doesn't mean we should give them a poster child for the discussions...

[mycroft]

Now I get it why Eric Rodwell-Jeff Meckstroth have prominently displayed on the front side of their CC:

Judgement allowed in any situation.

 

And on the back side:

All points can be adjusted in any situation.

 

I used to find it kind of funny, I mean of course that judgement and adjustments are possible, why do you even need to spell it out?

Um, because this pair does it so much more often than "possible" that it's imperative that the opponents know it while listening to their auction, perhaps?

 

In other words, it's a special partnership understanding that they can only play if they disclose it according to the regulations of the RA under which they're playing, and they're following the Law.

[zenko]

Now I get it why Eric Rodwell-Jeff Meckstroth have prominently displayed on the front side of their CC:

Judgement allowed in any situation.

 

And on the back side:

All points can be adjusted in any situation.

 

I used to find it kind of funny, I mean of course that judgement and adjustments are possible, why do you even need to spell it out?

Um, because this pair does it so much more often than "possible" that it's imperative that the opponents know it while listening to their auction, perhaps?

 

In other words, it's a special partnership understanding that they can only play if they disclose it according to the regulations of the RA under which they're playing, and they're following the Law.

Well that might be so, but in their "disclaimer" there is no mention at all about how frequently those deviations occur, and it can not be the base for any assumption how often that happens, and is that frequency below, or above of some imaginary average.

 

Or in another words, if you want to speculate about what prompted them to put it on their CC (for WBF events) why would not that be for example the severity or maybe atypical nature of those deviations, instead of its frequency?

 

In any case I think it is praise-worthy that they went that far in attempt to fully disclose their methods.

 

My question was would such disclosure helped in the case given above, i.e. would the director be more sympathetic if they opened weak two one point short or in some other similar, borderline case between following rigid rules and deviation from it based on bridge logic, if they had something like stated on their convention cards.

[Pict]

In any case I think it is praise-worthy that they went that far in attempt to fully disclose their methods.

 

My question was would such disclosure helped in the case given above, i.e. would the director be more sympathetic if they opened weak two one point short or in some other similar, borderline case between following rigid rules and deviation from it based on bridge logic, if they had something like stated on their convention cards.

On your first point, it's good they have a convention card, and I don't know how much better/worse it is than other USA experts.

 

On your second point, I hope that generalisations that help their opponents would not be given any special weight by Directors.

[campboy]

I think that if you think that opening AKJ-seventh and out, even 7231, 1S because "it's a 3 point deviation from our 11-point openers", or you open a good 3352 12 with a 15-17 1NT because "it's a minor, 3-point difference", or you open AKJxxx AQxxx -- xx 1 Precision Club because "it's only 3 points off, and look at the distribution!" that you're going to have issues. In fact, if you think 3 points, even out of 20, is "minor", I think you're going to have *at least* a massive full disclosure issue, and partner issues.

Well, *I* don't have any such issues because I hardly ever psyche, and while I deviate occasionally it is pretty much never by more than a point. This is about how I classify other people's actions, not my own. Now perhaps I shouldn't have used the word "minor" -- which is the word the Orange Book uses as an antonym for "gross" -- and certainly three points is pretty major in the context of being considered a deviation, but if you want to call it a psyche it is a really baby one.

 

Now one of the reasons I wouldn't make any of the calls you discuss is that they are neither one thing nor the other -- too far away from what they are supposed to be to have an accurate auction afterwards, but not out-and-out psyches. I don't understand why anyone would want to make them, while I can at least understand the mentality that sometimes tries out a strong 1NT on a 6-count with a club suit -- though it is not my mentality.

 

And that is exactly why I think setting the bar between psyche and deviation at about 3 points difference is sensible -- you won't (I hope) see many actions which are borderline. All the deviations will be obviously deviations and all the psyches will be obviously psyches, and if some weirdo comes up with one of these in-between calls, well, it doesn't matter so much if we disagree on which type it is. After all, the real question is whether it is a genuine mis-description or whether in fact the pair has an implicit agreement that it is ok to open this hand; everything else is just semantics.

[mycroft]

Now one of the reasons I wouldn't make any of the calls you discuss is that they are neither one thing nor the other -- too far away from what they are supposed to be to have an accurate auction afterwards, but not out-and-out psyches.

Exactly. And the benefit of doing it with a preempt, rather than a constructive call, is that the side that is likely to want to have an accurate auction afterwards is the opponents. Your side, when you preempt, want to unaccurate the auction as much as possible; if it catches you this time, oh well. It's also why this kind of "minor" deviation is so tempting with a weak shapely hand, and so unappealing with a weak constructive call.

 

And that is exactly why I think setting the bar between psyche and deviation at about 3 points difference is sensible -- you won't (I hope) see many actions which are borderline.

Remember a psychic call *is* a deviation. A gross deviation (as opposed to a minor one) is not a psychic unless it's deliberate; and a deliberate deviation is not a psychic unless it's gross. In other words, these are not the comparisons you're looking for.

 

To bring back the original topic (sorry bluejak, for threadjacking), the difference between that case and this is that it's neither psychic nor misinformation; if the regulations say "you can have this agreement, provided you don't deviate in HCP", it's a legal regulation (not going near the "is it a good or sensible regulation"), and it doesn't have to be a psychic, and people who are misinforming are not only misinforming their opponents, they're trying to misinform the RA to get to play an illegal agreement. And the reason the RA makes the regulations the way they do is that otherwise they get into these arguments about whether it's a "deviation" or a "psychic" or whether "it's okay to do it with <this call>, so why not here?" or ...

[campboy]

I don't even know which thread the original hand was anymore, but in the EBU a "deviation" is a deliberate violation of partnership agreement which is not gross enough to be a psyche.

 

The only reason as far as I can see why anyone needs to make this distinction is that a fielded deviation gets an adjusted score whereas a fielded psyche gets an adjusted score plus an automatic PP. It certainly does not make the difference between giving an adjusted score and not.

[blackshoe]

Might it make a difference as to whether the action, whichever it was, was in fact "fielded"?

[campboy]

Not really. Of course, it is easier to tell if a player is allowing for his partner to be 9 points short than it is to tell if he is allowing for his partner to be 3 points short, but that is true whatever you want to call them.

[mycroft]

I don't even know which thread the original hand was anymore, but in the EBU a "deviation" is a deliberate violation of partnership agreement which is not gross enough to be a psyche.

Not a term I was used to (at least in that definition), but bluejak said a similar thing, so I'll go with that (for EBU).

Might it make a difference as to whether the action, whichever it was, was in fact "fielded"?

In both of these cases, I don't think it matters much. Almost never will the difference matter to the bidding side, just to the opponents. In general, though?