Tollemache Qual 3

[VixTD]

[hv=pc=n&s=st63hkqt982dk75c6&w=sak9hjdajt9842ck2&n=sj752ha763dqc9743&e=sq84h54d63caqjt85&d=e&v=e&b=6&a=p2dd3dp3hpp]399|300[/hv]

Inter-county teams-of-eight, X-IMPs -> VPs, good standard.

2♦ = multi, weak two in a major or any of various strong options (alerted)

X = 13-16 pts or very strong (alerted)

3♦ = natural, forcing (not alerted)

 

Result: 3♥(S)-1, NS -50

 

EW called the TD at the end of the hand, querying North's "natural" 3♦ call on a singleton. North explained that it was a psyche. When I filled in the report of hand form, I asked South why he had bid 3♥, and whether the partnership had any previous experience of psyching in this situation. He said that he wanted to show the nature of his 2♦ bid, he's got a good weak two in hearts, and no, no previous experience.

 

Should I record the psyche as red (evidence of a concealed partnership understanding) and adjust the score, amber (suspicious, but insufficient evidence), or green (innocent)?

[blackshoe]

Well, I'm not an EBU TD, so have little experience with this regulation, but it looks green to me, on the evidence presented.

[gordontd]

I'd like to ask NS a bit more about their methods, but it does occur to me that if North has chosen to make a natural forcing 3♦ bid, rather than a 2NT enquiry, he isn't interested in South's suit and only wants to know whether or not South has diamond support.

[nige1]

I'd like to ask NS a bit more about their methods, but it does occur to me that if North has chosen to make a natural forcing 3♦ bid, rather than a 2NT enquiry, he isn't interested in South's suit and only wants to know whether or not South has diamond support.

Agree with GordonTD. Multi is usually weak with a 5-6 card major. If the partnership agreement is that the 2♦ opener reveals his major, rather than shows K75 support for his partner's natural forcing bid, then it seems that responder can pseudo-psych freely.

[blackshoe]

What is this "pseudo-psych" thing? Is there a law or regulation against it? No? I thought not.

[Cyberyeti]

What is this "pseudo-psych" thing? Is there a law or regulation against it? No? I thought not.

What I think he's saying is that this is essentially a psyche control mechanism, ans means that the partner of the multier can invent any suit he likes without fear of partner raising.

[jeremy69]

I would record this as amber (so no score adjustment) because you have failed to support partner with one of the better hands possible (3 trumps and a shortage). When would South support? I agree that there is a control mechanism here judging by the facts as presented.

[jallerton]

I'd like to ask NS a bit more about their methods, but it does occur to me that if North has chosen to make a natural forcing 3♦ bid, rather than a 2NT enquiry, he isn't interested in South's suit and only wants to know whether or not South has diamond support.

 

I agree, especially with the suggestion that N/S need to be interrogated about their methods. A surprising number of Multi pairs have not discussed the meaning of 2♦-(Pass)-3♦ and I suspect that even more have not discussed the meaning of 2♦-(Dbl)-3♦. Quite a few pairs play Pass (some play Redouble) to show diamonds and I'd want to know exactly what N/S had agreed (or not) about all of these sequences. I'd also want to know what strong options were contained in the Multi.

 

Depending on the answers to these questions, I might well reason as follows:

 

1. It is difficult to imagine that anyone would want to psyche a 3♦ bid in this position.

2. At the point where he bid 3♦, North may have had it his head that 3♦ was some sort of cue bid asking partner to bid his suit.

3. North/South probably did not have a firm agreement about 3♦. South's failure to show his support* for diamonds is significant evidence of this.

4. Hence we should probably be treating this as a misinformation case.

 

On the other hand, if the TD is satisfied that N/S really do have this agreement, then the psyche looks close to Red; unless South is confident that his 3♥ bid is forcing, it makes little sense.

 

* I think that the best call over a natural and forcing 3♦ bid is 4♥, as logically a jump to 4♥/4♠ should show the suit bid and ♦ support.

[gnasher]

I would record this as amber (so no score adjustment) because you have failed to support partner with one of the better hands possible (3 trumps and a shortage). When would South support? I agree that there is a control mechanism here judging by the facts as presented.

Doesn't that make it red? That is, your view of the partnership's actions seems to be that it's "sufficient ... to find that it has an unauthorised understanding" rather than merely providing "some evidence of an unauthorised understanding".

 

By the way, wouldn't it be a good idea to replace the phrase "unauthorised understanding" in this regulation with "undisclosed understanding"?

[nige1]

What is this "pseudo-psych" thing? Is there a law or regulation against it? No? I thought not.

When you do give it some thought, you realise that the laws of Bridge allow psychs; but what EBU regulations call a red-psych may not be a true psych...

• The hand may not come as an equal surprise to partner and opponents (because of UI or a CPU).
• It need not be a gross deviation.

It is a suspected pseudo-psych :)

[jeremy69]

Doesn't that make it red?

 

I could live with red but thought it was suspicious enough to want to record.I would listen to their explanations before deciding.

[VixTD]

It was recorded as an amber psyche. I'll look forward to seeing the Laws and Ethics Committee opinion in due course.

[blackshoe]

When you do give it some thought, you realise that the laws of Bridge allow psychs; but what EBU regulations call a red-psych may not be a true psych...

• The hand may not come as an equal surprise to partner and opponents (because of UI or a CPU).
• It need not be a gross deviation.

It is a suspected pseudo-psych :)

 

Careful reading of the pertinent regulations leads me to conclude that you are including in the term "red psych" things the regulation does not so include (because they are not psychs).

[RMB1]

It is true that if a psyche is ruled "red" then [there is evidence that] it is not a psyche. A red psyche is one where there is sufficient evidence to conclude that the call is based on a concealed partnership understanding; a call based on partnership understanding is not a psyche, because a psyche is a deviation from partnership agreements/understandings.

 

So it is not really a "red psyche" but a "red deviation from disclosed partnership agreements/understanings".

[nige1]

Careful reading of the pertinent regulations leads me to conclude that you are including in the term "red psych" things the regulation does not so include (because they are not psychs).

I concede that the regulations do distinguish red-psychs from red-deviations and red-misbids. I contend, however, directors classify a "psych" as red when they suspect that it is not a psych.

[blackshoe]

Well, I suppose a player could say "I psyched", and the TD could say "no you didn't, because you have a CPU". Better, perhaps, would be "you may not have realized it, but since your partner appears to have fielded your "psych", your partnership has actually arrived at an implicit agreement that you might bid this way, and that agreement must be disclosed."

 

I don't suppose it matters much, as long as everyone concerned knows what it all means.

[gnasher]

I don't suppose it matters much, as long as everyone concerned knows what it all means.

They don't, so it does.

[Free]

I wouldn't consider any evidence. Color it green. However it's a controled psych, so they might have to alert next time.

 

First of all I don't think they even have an agreement on what to do after such auction since it very rarely comes up. Second, it's pretty obvious to bid your Major, partner never has void-void in the Majors so you still might have a fit. And third, you don't expect partner to pass 3M, otherwise he would've passed 2♦.

[mycroft]

I'm confused, Free, by your last sentence. I would bid 3H with the minors reversed and without the (then)CK. Why is it obvious to make the same bid with the (comparatively) huge hand South does have? Are you going to bid 5D over 4H? Over 3NT? When are you going to tell partner you have the right hand for 6D? See below for one reason why it might be obvious, but it sure *looks* like "well, our agreement is 3D Natural, but I don't actually believe that's what he has". As to why 3D instead of passing 2Dx, is passing 2Dx really "I'd rather play diamonds than your major, pard"?

 

They do have an agreement - they gave it at the table. If it's *wrong*, or incomplete, then there's MI. If it's wrong, and the fact that the real agreement - "Forcing, natural or both majors" - was deliberately left undisclosed, there's a real problem.

 

Yes, "red psychic" is code for "it's not a psychic, it's a CPU, based on the evidence presented". In this case, to avoid that, we would want evidence that North figured out the hole in the system, and realized that he can probably make it work in this manner as well, and partner didn't expect the pass of 3H. Also, they'd have to convince us that South's suppression of Kxx of partner's suit in a great hand (in context, for a Multi weak 2) was required - that, for instance, 4D would show the "big hand". Of course, that's more likely to be convincing than if 2D was mini-Multi only (if they were playing mini-Multi, and South bid 3H instead of 4D, I'd think that itself was enough evidence of "red psychic").

 

"Fielding the psychic", no matter what the name it's called or the regulatory process attached, has always been a MI/CPU/IllegalPU issue. EBU's "red", in context is "fielded, in a situation where it's not likely that random players of that level would have been able to." "Controlled psychic" is another term for "partnership understanding", usually used where that if that PU was disclosed, it would be illegal.

[nige1]

deleted

[Chris L]

 

As to why 3D instead of passing 2Dx, is passing 2Dx really "I'd rather play diamonds than your major, pard"?

 

It's not uncommon to play a pass of the double as "I'm happy to consider playing in 2Dx if you are at all suitable, pd" with redouble saying "bid your major" and other bids as they would be without the double.

[vigfus]

There must be very strong evidence that south knew that north was messing upp things, to rule his 3♦ bid amber or red.

South's 3♥ bid is very logical. He had not yet told his partner which was his major.

TD's have to be careful not to destroy the fun of bridge in situations like that.

Has psycing been banned in poker ?

[gordontd]

South's 3♥ bid is very logical. He had not yet told his partner which was his major.

His partner's bid has said "I'm not going to ask you which major you hold, because it's more important for me to tell you I have diamonds". In that context, why would you bid a major your partner doesn't want to know about, rather than supporting his minor?

[alphatango]

His partner's bid has said "I'm not going to ask you which major you hold, because it's more important for me to tell you I have diamonds". In that context, why would you bid a major your partner doesn't want to know about, rather than supporting his minor?

 

In the context of holding a "good weak two" with diamond support, how about a plan of 3H followed by 4D over 3NT, 5D over 4H, 5C(!) over 4D, etc.? Perhaps inferior to a direct 4D/4H bid, but not illogical, surely? (What if an inquiry might have required opener's (wrong) weak two to respond 3M, forcing responder to bid 4D to show the diamond suit -- also a plausible reason for bidding 3D here rather than 2NT?)

 

The possibility of strong options in 2D also seems to detract from the viability of 3D as a controlled psyche, even if one were to require opener bid 3M all the time with a weak 2. Perhaps it depends on the relative frequency of the various options?

[RMB1]

There must be very strong evidence that south knew that north was messing up things, to rule his 3♦ bid amber or red.

 

There is no such requirement for "very strong evidence" to rule "amber". All that is needed is "some" evidence.

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.