Psyche?

[Borusa]

[hv=pc=n&s=s75hqt654dj64c964&w=saq94hak3dq3ca873&n=st8632h92dkt875cj&e=skjhj87da92ckqt52&d=n&v=b&b=13&a=p1np4c4s5hp6hppdppp]399|300[/hv]

EBU land, MP. Players are of moderate club standard. 4C was Gerber. North is an occasional Psycher (one entry in club Psyche book). 6H* went 4 down.

 

Psyche? Fielded?

 

As a followup, at the end of the hand, East asked North how many points he held, and on being told 4 said "That's cheating." How should this be handled?

[Cascade]

Its hard to know what a normal 4♠ overcall by a passed hand in the opponents' slam auction looks like.

 

4♠ is certainly a gambling action that may not have worked well for north but I am not convinced that it is a psyche - he bid a long suit in a distributional hand where he had multi ways to win and didn't need to take too many tricks if the opponents actually had a slam.

 

It does not look like it was fielded to me. What do you want south to do?

 

It appears that East/West had a serious misunderstanding. That in itself may justify the gambling nature of the overcall. Because of the misunderstanding the bad score is primarily their own fault.

 

East should be severely reprimanded for his comments and/or be penalized and/or face some disciplinary committee.

[WellSpyder]

So 4♠ is cheating, is it? Why - because it is unfair to other players to offer EW +2300? [Edit: Sorry, miscounted. +2600!]

 

My views echo those of Cascade:

1) not obviously a psyche since it is not clear what a normal 4♠ would look like here. In any case, there is nothing wrong with a psyche as such.

2) more importantly, there is no evidence of fielding. Indeed, you could argue that south's double of 6♥ showed faith that 4♠ was not a psyche, since he doesn't seem to be worried about the opponents running to 6♠ or 6N.

3) it is, of course, not acceptable to tell an opponent he is cheating. East should call the TD if he wants north's actions investigated. Whether he does or not, if he becomes aware of the incident the TD should make very clear to East that this is not the right thing to do, and either a warning or even potentially a penalty should be issued.

[RMB1]

Psyche?

No, I am sure there is no partnership understanding of 4♠ here, concealed or otherwise.

 

Fielded?

No. South's actions show no evidence of any partnership understanding.

 

As a followup, at the end of the hand, East asked North how many points he held, and on being told 4 said "That's cheating." How should this be handled?

A fine of 20% of a top. Such a statement is completely unacceptable: under EBU's "Best Behaviour at Bridge" a fine is automatic, the standard disciplinary fine is twice the standard (procedural) penalty.

 

Forget the psyche book and start a discipline book for recording such penalties.

[Free]

This is not a psych, it's a wild gamble. He already passed and had a very weak hand, opps could've easily doubled.

 

South didn't field the psych (if it were one), he just doubled because he didn't think 6♥ would make. You can hardly expect him to raise ♠s at some point, and passing would've been more suspicious imo...

 

East's behaviour is unacceptable. Perhaps he should first explain his actions before judging someone elses. Why did East bid 5♥ with 1 Ace? And why did he pass 6♥? And why did he pass 6♥ doubled? It looks to me East thought 4♣ showed ♥!

[mgoetze]

Psyche?

 

Psyche? Well, what was the agreement? I'm sure if you asked Michael Rosenberg what Zia might have for this bid, you would receive an explanation consistent with the hand North held. In which case there is of course no psyche.

 

If they had no agreement, there can't be a psyche.

 

Fielded?

 

Huh?

 

As a followup, at the end of the hand, East asked North how many points he held, and on being told 4 said "That's cheating." How should this be handled?

 

Exactly like the beginning of a Simpsons episode... East must write "Legal bids which are correctly explained do not constitute cheating." on the blackboard 100 times.

[mycroft]

Ah, it's so nice to see variations on an old chestnut. "Let's see if they know their system over interference to Blackwood". s/Blackwood/Gerber here, of course.

 

The only question I have for East is "how many points did you expect for his 4S bid by a passed hand in a slam-try auction?" Now, if he was complaining that North had only 5 spades, that I can see - not sympathise with, but see.

 

"that's cheating". "No, it's not, it's a gamble so old it collects a pension, and this time it worked. I bet it won't work again on you, eh? And please don't use that word again, especially when it's not applicable; people have been fined for that." Any further comment on that vein - ANY - will be penalised. I wish I felt more able to hand out that auto 1/4 board penalty, but provided it does stop that kind of talking - and in my experience, it has - I'm happy with the Stern Warning.

[jeremy69]

I think that there are some things which if said at the table, even in the heat of the moment, are unacceptable and this is one. If you settle for warnings, stern or otherwise, then you give comfort to this sort of behaviour. Not only should it incur a penalty of 20% i.e. twice the norm but unless the player apologises for the comment I would take it further, not by way of a fine, but by inviting them not to attend unless and until this is resolved.

[blackshoe]

The norm in North America is 25% of a top, so twice that would be 50%.

[Oof Arted]

The norm in North America is 25% of a top, so twice that would be 50%.

 

 

I like this penalty edd but Hanging may be better

 

:rolleyes:

[blackshoe]

It would certainly ensure he won't do it again. :ph34r:

[hrothgar]

I like this penalty edd but Hanging may be better

 

:rolleyes:

 

Sternn is nothin' but a low-down, double-dealin', back-stabbin', larcenous perverted WORM!!

Hanging's too good for him!

Burning's too good for him!

He should be torn into little-bitty pieces and buried alive!

[vigfus]

Perhaps the bridge laws should give the TD's yellow or red cards.

I would not give East red card, but defenetly yellow card.

[nige1]

No, I am sure there is no partnership understanding of 4♠ here, concealed or otherwise.

 

No. South's actions show no evidence of any partnership understanding.

 

 

A fine of 20% of a top. Such a statement is completely unacceptable: under EBU's "Best Behaviour at Bridge" a fine is automatic, the standard disciplinary fine is twice the standard (procedural) penalty.

 

Forget the psyche book and start a discipline book for recording such penalties.

Agree with RMB1, 4♠ is not a psych and there is no evidence that South fielded a psych. The director should impose a disciplinary penalty on East.

Also the club should ask East to apologise in writing to North. If East refuses, the club should expel him. There would be more point in recording psychs if the information were collated nationally.

[bluejak]

I agree with Robin's post.

 

There is a suggestion from a North American that a stern warning might be suitable. I believe the answer to be that it is not acceptable in the ACBL: Zero Tolerance means you get fined the first time for unacceptable behaviour.

 

Vigfus: we do give Yellow and Red cards for disciplinary offences. Yellow cards are DPs, 20% of a top or more in England, quarter-board or more in the ACBL. Red cards involve suspension from the tournament. As you say, because it was said in the heat of the moment it is a Yellow card offence, so give him a DP. Since this was England, 20% of a top.