EBU Psyche Classifications

[jallerton]

The EBU Orange Book gives the following guidance on the classification of psyching:

 

6 B Fielding

6 B 1 The actions of the psychers 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 players 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.

6 B 3 A partnerships 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 (see 6 D). 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.

6 B 6 A TD may use evidence from a partnerships actions on two or more boards to assess

a partnerships actions. Whilst a single instance may not provide sufficient evidence of an unauthorised understanding to warrant a score adjustment, a repetition reinforces the conclusion that an unauthorised understanding exists. In other words, if two psyches are classified as Amber, the classification of both automatically becomes Red, and the score on all such boards is adjusted accordingly.

 

Suppose that North psyches a 15-17 1NT opening on a random 6-count and South passes. Now consider six cases:

 

Case 1: South has an average balanced 7-count. A poll of South's peers indicates that 90% agree with pass, only 10% of them would have raised to 2NT.

 

Case 2: South has a poor balanced 8-count. A poll of South's peers indicates that 60% agree with pass, 40% of them would have raised to 2NT.

 

Case 3: South has a good balanced 8-count. A poll of South's peers indicates that 40% agree with pass, 50% of them would have raised to 2NT and 10% would have tried 3NT.

 

Case 4: South has an average balanced 9-count. A poll of South's peers indicates that 20% agree with pass, 50% of them would have raised to 2NT and 30% would have gone straight to 3NT.

 

Case 5: South has an average balanced 10-count. A poll of South's peers indicates that 0% agree with pass, 30% of them would have raised to 2NT and 70% would have gone straight to 3NT.

 

Case 6: South has an average balanced 12-count. A poll of South's peers indicates that 0% agree with pass, 0% of them would have raised to 2NT and 100% would have gone straight to 3NT.

 

In which of these cases should the psyche be classified as "Green", which should be classified as "Amber" and which should be classified as "Red"?

[RMB1]

Postponing answering the question for the moment.

 

In practice we would ask both players why they bid as they did.

If either appears totally clueless then there may be nothing to record/clasify.

If either deviation from system / common evaluation is due to some mechanical problem then it may not be a psyche or it may not be red.

 

I suspect that the way the classifications appear in practice does not match well with the wording in the Orange Book, and ultimately this is what OP is trying to address.

[jallerton]

For the purposes of answering my question, Robin, please assume in all cases that South says that he bid what he judged his hand was worth opposite a 15-17 1NT opening, whilst North says he psyched because it seemed like a good idea at the time.

[barmar]

I assume you included cases 1, 5, and 6 simply for completeness -- would anyone seriously suggest anything other than Green, Red, and Red for them, respectively?

 

The only possible questions would be whether 2 is Green or Amber, and whether 3 and 4 are Amber or Red. I lean towards Green, Amber, and Red.

[RMB1]

For the purposes of answering my question, Robin, please assume in all cases that South says that he bid what he judged his hand was worth opposite a 15-17 1NT opening, whilst North says he psyched because it seemed like a good idea at the time.

 

Thanks, those are the sort of answers that I expected for purposes of the exercise. In the later cases, South will usually say more (but more noise than signal).

 

1 and 2: Green

Somewhere between 3 and 4 is Amber, not sure how I would rule on actual 3 and 4.

5 and 6: Red

[gnasher]

3 is green; 4 is amber. It would be off-topic for me to say what I think of the regulations, so I won't.

[Cascade]

It would be off-topic for me to say what I think of the regulations, so I won't.

 

I guess that means it is off topic to agree with you.

[shintaro]

:rolleyes:

 

Green Green Amber and 3 Reds B-)

[bluejak]

To quote Max Bavin, Red means there is no real alternative to the idea that the call is unreasonable. So in Case 4, some people would pass, it cannot really be Red.

[barmar]

What I find hard to believe is that someone who would psyche like this would partner with someone who might pass in case #4. Not even inviting on a 9 count seems like a novice thing to do, and one doesn't generally psyche when playing with a novice. So I question the premise of that case.

[Finch]

What I find hard to believe is that someone who would psyche like this would partner with someone who might pass in case #4. Not even inviting on a 9 count seems like a novice thing to do, and one doesn't generally psyche when playing with a novice. So I question the premise of that case.

 

I have the pleasure of seeing all psyches that the TD is asked to record from EBU events, and it's very common for an experienced player to psyche when playing with a very weak partner, on the grounds that partner won't notice/the good player has to generate all the swings themselves.

[AlexJonson]

By choosing 15-17 1NT as the example, jallerton has demonstrated that the current EBU regulations don't entirely make sense.

 

We are told psychs are definitely, definitely... forever part of the game. If you don't allow them, you are not playing Bridge.

 

The EBU sails very close to the wind, and given jallerton's example I'd say the EBU crosses the boundary in its current guidance, and attempts to disallow or actively discourage legitimate psychs.

[BunnyGo]

By choosing 15-17 1NT as the example, jallerton has demonstrated that the current EBU regulations don't entirely make sense.

 

We are told psychs are definitely, definitely... forever part of the game. If you don't allow them, you are not playing Bridge.

 

The EBU sails very close to the wind, and given jallerton's example I'd say the EBU crosses the boundary in its current guidance, and attempts to disallow or actively discourage legitimate psychs.

 

What are you talking about? The EBU does nothing of the kind. It actively discourages fielding your partner's psychic bids. You are allowed to make psychic bids.

 

Furthermore, I have absolutely no idea why you think 15-17 NT or jallerton's example in any way suggest that the EBU disallow's psyches.

[AlexJonson]

What are you talking about? The EBU does nothing of the kind. It actively discourages fielding your partner's psychic bids. You are allowed to make psychic bids.

 

Furthermore, I have absolutely no idea why you think 15-17 NT or jallerton's example in any way suggest that the EBU disallow's psyches.

 

Let's make it more clear?

 

Pretty much no-one psychs 15-17 NT. But of course, of course, it would be legal.

 

If no-one psychs it, how do you field it.

 

Do try to think it through in a practical way.

[jallerton]

Thanks, those are the sort of answers that I expected for purposes of the exercise. In the later cases, South will usually say more (but more noise than signal).

 

1 and 2: Green

Somewhere between 3 and 4 is Amber, not sure how I would rule on actual 3 and 4.

5 and 6: Red

 

That's interesting. Are you saying that 'amber' covers a narrow range and that a down the middle 'amber' situation would be case 3a below?

 

Case 3a: South has a poor balanced 9-count. A poll of South's peers indicates that 30% agree with pass, 50% of them would have raised to 2NT and 20% would have tried 3NT.

 

I have another related question. The EBU psyche forms ask whether this type of psyche has occurred in this partnership before and, if yes, on how many occasions during the last year. If a partnerships admits to a having history of this type of psyche [a less likely situation than the partnership actually having a history of this type of psyche!] does than make you more liable to rule (say) case 3 'amber' rather than 'green'?

[RMB1]

Pretty much no-one psychs 15-17 NT. But of course, of course, it would be legal.

 

If no-one psychs it, how do you field it.

 

That I think is the point. Assuming no one psyches 15-17 1NT but nevertheless someone open 1NT on 6HCP and partner passes with the values to raise, then it is very likely 1NT was not a psyche it was a call based on a concealed partnership to sometimes open 1NT on 6HCP and not to disclose this.

[BunnyGo]

Let's make it more clear?

 

Pretty much no-one psychs 15-17 NT. But of course, of course, it would be legal.

 

If no-one psychs it, how do you field it.

 

Do try to think it through in a practical way.

 

Let's try this again:

 

1) You are not allowed to bid as if your partner has psyched. This is called "fielding" your partner's psychic bid and is the illegal action that can occur when someone psyches. This is what can be rated "green", "amber", or "red", and the EBU discourages "amber" and strongly discourages "red".

 

2) You are strongly encouraged to figure out when the opponent psyches and "field" this by making a bid to suggest to your partner that you are suspicious of the auction.

 

Based on your writings, you seem to have conflated the two. Do try to think.

[AlexJonson]

That I think is the point. Assuming no one psyches 15-17 1NT but nevertheless someone open 1NT on 6HCP and partner passes with the values to raise, then it is very likely 1NT was not a psyche it was a call based on a concealed partnership to sometimes open 1NT on 6HCP and not to disclose this.

 

But you miss the part where responder has a boundary hand, and may as a 100% innocent player of Bridge be branded with strange colours for passing. The normal case for amber(?) I don't know.

 

(This post has nothing to do with personal history, just grappling with the current EBU position).

[BunnyGo]

But you miss the part where responder has a boundary hand, and may as a 100% innocent player of Bridge be branded with strange colours for passing. The normal case for amber(?) I don't know.

 

(This post has nothing to do with personal history, just grappling with the current EBU position).

 

It seemed like the majority of responders above suggested that cases 1,2, and 3 were green (a few suggested that 3 was close). It seems like "red" came only with gross deviations and even "amber" was not something most respondents would consider borderline.

 

There is no penalty from the rules either for "amber", only for repeated "amber".

 

Yes, you may be in earnest whilst passing these "borderline" cases. This is why the EBU has seen fit to only give a warning. But quite frankly, someone who manages to repeatedly seem to end up on the wrong side of borderline is not unlikely to be (perhaps subliminally) taking advantage of something.

[blackshoe]

It seems like "red" came only with gross deviations and even "amber" was not something most respondents would consider borderline.

 

Interesting observation. From the laws:

 

Psychic call (commonly “psych[e]” or “psychic”): A deliberate and gross misstatement of honor strength and/or of suit length.

 

If it's not a gross deviation it's not a psych, so it cannot be anything but "green".

[jallerton]

To quote Max Bavin, Red means there is no real alternative to the idea that the call is unreasonable. So in Case 4, some people would pass, it cannot really be Red.

 

Would you still clasify the psyche as 'amber' (rather than 'red') if an even lower percentage, say 5% or 10% agreed with the hand valuation of the psycher's partner?

 

Where would you drawn the line between 'green' and 'amber?

[mrdct]

If it's not a gross deviation it's not a psych, so it cannot be anything but "green".

If it's not a psych, it won't even be "green" as the question of fielding won't be assessed. Perhaps these should be called "transperant".

[BunnyGo]

Interesting observation. From the laws:

 

 

 

If it's not a gross deviation it's not a psych, so it cannot be anything but "green".

 

True, but I'd intended it as a deviation by responder, as in the case above of a 10 pt hand passing a 1NT opening.

[mrdct]

True, but I'd intended it as a deviation by responder, as in the case above of a 10 pt hand passing a 1NT opening.

I would suggest that a 10hcp hand passing a strong 1NT opening is well beyond "fielding". To do that you either have a wire or mixed-up an ace with a pip. To quote Samuel L Jackson, "It ain't the same f***ing ball park. It ain't the same league. It ain't even the same f***ing sport".

[blackshoe]

"Fielding" means "illegally accounting for the possibility that partner has psyched". Responder is either fielding, or he isn't. Thus, I have no idea what "well beyond fielding" means.