Misbids and Psyches

[Cascade]

 

Really? It has always been my understanding that only psyches of artificial calls can be regulated, and that is under 40B2d.

 

In its discretion the Regulating Authority may designate certain partnership understandings as “special partnership understandings”. A special partnership understanding is one whose meaning, in the opinion of the Regulating Authority, may not be readily understood and anticipated by a significant number of players in the tournament.

Note that there is no formal requirement here that the call in question by definition is artificial.

 

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

 

Note that there is no formal requirement here that the call in question by definition is artificial.

 

 

Such conditions can very well include that psyching is not allowed.

 

Be aware that as of the 2007 laws a regulating authority has been given very wide powers.

 

Really on what basis can a natural 1♠ opening be regulated so as to disallow psyches of it?

 

1. Psyching is not a "special partnership understanding" - it is a departure from one's partnership understandings

 

2. A natural 1♠ is not an understanding that "may not be readily understood and anticipated" and therefore cannot sensibly, reasonably or legally be deemed to be a "special partnership understanding" that can be regulated.

[mycroft]

Sensibly, reasonably I'll give you, Wayne. However, I'm sure that the same WBFLC that gave us the Endicott Fudge (apologies to Grattan for the name, but he was (and is) the messenger) will happily tell you that a natural 1♠ is a SPU if the NCBO chooses to consider it such. Or, more specifically, "an agreement not to never psych a natural 1♠ is an SPU".

 

And if the WBFLC don't so decree, the NCBO will just throw in the Endicott Fudge again. You're allowed not to agree not to psych a natural 1M call, but if you do choose so to not agree, you can't play any conventions after your natural 1M call, responses, rebids, conventional defence to a conventional defence, whatever.

 

Now, would you rather it be a SPU?

 

Sorry for all the multiple negatives, but they're unfortunately correct.

[barmar]

I had one of those. The auction against a weaker pair went (1♦)-2NT-3♥; 3♠-p. When asked about 2NT after the 2NT call, they said it shows the two lower unbid suits. One player bid it with "top and bottom" because he didn't have a call for T&B, but knew that partner would work it out if he pulled 3♥ to 3♠. And partner did.

 

The only problem with this is that the GCC requires a NT overcall (in this position) to guarantee a known suit. So, they're playing an illegal agreement (well, they could have got away with telling me it showed "clubs and a major"), that was implied even if not explicitly agreed (because bidder "knew" that partner would get it), and was misdescribed. And they chose to argue with the ruling of misinformation because "everybody should be able to work this out, it's General Bridge Knowledge", so I gave them the option of accepting the MI ruling or getting a Use of Illegal Convention, *and* MI ruling.

 

"But that's stupid!" Well, yes, but that's not my fault, and *you* agreed to playing under those rules when you bought your entry.

Even if they don't explicitly explain it as "clubs and a major", clubs is still a known suit if it can be either Unu or T&B, so how can you rule that it's an illegal convention?

 

If this is the first time it has come up for them, I don't think you can rule MI, either. Their agreement was Unu, and that's how it was explained. He improvised with a psyche, and his partner managed to work it out, but it doesn't seem like there was any special, undisclosed partnership understanding behind this -- they luckily were on the same wavelength. From now on, they should explain it as clubs and a major.

[ArtK78]

In the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge (American Edition), under Definitions, appears the definition of Psychic Call, as follows:

 

Psychic Call: A deliberate and gross misstatement of honor strength or suit length.

This same definition appears in the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge of the English Bridge Union (2007 Laws). And I am sure that the same definition appears in other versions of the Laws.

 

Since a psychic call is a DELIBERATE action, it cannot be a misbid. A misbid, by definition, is not deliberate.

 

So, the answer to the question set forth in the OP - "What difference can it make whether you "meant" to psyche or not?" - is that it is impossible to psyche by accident. A psyche is an intentional call, so it cannot be done without intent.

[mycroft]

Barmar: it was the "well, that's obviously what it has to mean, anybody would understand that sequence" part of the explanation as to why they both got it. That clearly shows (despite being pretty accurate, at least to experienced enough players) that there is implicit agreement, even only by bridge logic. Since that was not worked out by the weaker pair, but it was a clear (implicit) agreement, there was MI.

 

The "illegal convention" part was when they were starting to describe it as "any two suits". I was the one that brought up the "if you choose to play it as 'the other minor and either major', and explained it that way, it would be legal."

[Vampyr]

Since a psychic call is a DELIBERATE action, it cannot be a misbid. A misbid, by definition, is not deliberate.

 

So, the answer to the question set forth in the OP - "What difference can it make whether you "meant" to psyche or not?" - is that it is impossible to psyche by accident. A psyche is an intentional call, so it cannot be done without intent.

 

None of this makes any difference. I am not concerned about the "meaning" of psyche v misbid, just the treatment of these by the RA, particularly when there is a prohibition to psyche a particular bid. (By "what difference" I meant with reference to the opponents, for whom the regulation is presumably designed to protect. Sorry for the confusion.)

[blackshoe]

You seem to be saying that if it is by regulation illegal to psych a particular call, it's also illegal to misbid it. I don't see how that can be workable. Unless you want to bar novices and forgetful folks from the game.

[Vampyr]

You seem to be saying that if it is by regulation illegal to psych a particular call, it's also illegal to misbid it. I don't see how that can be workable. Unless you want to bar novices and forgetful folks from the game.

 

No one is "barred" just because they might be penalised for an infraction. A few penalties might help to jog a player's memory, or convince a partnership that they are not playing the method at all. In practice, the misbids will usually not not result in damage, the director will not be called, and the novices/amnesiacs will not be affected. Similarly, misbids that result in an illegal method being played (eg 3♣ overcall showing clubs or the other two, assuming that it is illegal somewhere) should be treated as if the illegal method was actually being played (in fact it often is).

[blackshoe]

Mistakes are part of the game and should not be arbitrarily penalized. Cases where frequent forgets lead to an implicit PU are different.

[barmar]

Barmar: it was the "well, that's obviously what it has to mean, anybody would understand that sequence" part of the explanation as to why they both got it. That clearly shows (despite being pretty accurate, at least to experienced enough players) that there is implicit agreement, even only by bridge logic. Since that was not worked out by the weaker pair, but it was a clear (implicit) agreement, there was MI.

But advancer didn't know about this implicit agreement until overcaller rebid and he worked it out.

 

The "illegal convention" part was when they were starting to describe it as "any two suits". I was the one that brought up the "if you choose to play it as 'the other minor and either major', and explained it that way, it would be legal."

There was no mention of "any two suits" in your earlier post. And if the pair plays Michaels, there's no reason for 2NT to include majors, so the only possibilities are ♣+♥ and ♣+♠ (unless "any" also includes opener's suit).

[barmar]

None of this makes any difference. I am not concerned about the "meaning" of psyche v misbid, just the treatment of these by the RA, particularly when there is a prohibition to psyche a particular bid. (By "what difference" I meant with reference to the opponents, for whom the regulation is presumably designed to protect. Sorry for the confusion.)

To relate that to my earlier analogy, this would be an argument for not distinguishing murder from manslaughter -- either way, the victim is dead, so it doesn't matter to them (or their loved ones) why you did it.

 

But for moral reasons we do distinguish -- you're considered a worse person if you do something bad intentionally than if you do it accidentally, and deserve harsher punishment. We also believe that deterrence is more effective against intentional actions, since the prospect of punishment should influence your decision. Since it's really hard for players to prevent their own misbids (except maybe by simplifying their system to fit their abilities), and misbids are often self-punishing since partner misunderstands them, we don't consider it appropriate to penalize them -- it won't work as a deterrent, nor do we consider misbidders to have moral failings that should be punished.

[Vampyr]

To relate that to my earlier analogy, this would be an argument for not distinguishing murder from manslaughter -- either way, the victim is dead, so it doesn't matter to them (or their loved ones) why you did it.

 

But for moral reasons we do distinguish -- you're considered a worse person if you do something bad intentionally than if you do it accidentally, and deserve harsher punishment. We also believe that deterrence is more effective against intentional actions, since the prospect of punishment should influence your decision. Since it's really hard for players to prevent their own misbids (except maybe by simplifying their system to fit their abilities), and misbids are often self-punishing since partner misunderstands them, we don't consider it appropriate to penalize them -- it won't work as a deterrent, nor do we consider misbidders to have moral failings that should be punished.

 

Simplification of system should be mandatory for frequent misbidders anyway. I don't agree with you about how hard it is for players to prevent their own misbids; I remember making two in the last ten years. (One was 2NT-3NT intended as natural, when systemically it was not, and one was 1♥-2NT as a GF raise when systemically it was not, so at least our opponents were not damaged!)

 

But anyway, what is all this talk about morality? Bridge is a game, and no one dies no matter what happens at the table, and moral failings have nothing to do with it. I am talking about regulations, which are rules of the game, not criminal laws. Accidentally breaking the rules of a game is morally neutral, and whether the infraction should attract a penalty is a decision made for the benefit of the game, not for the punishment of evil-doers.

[blackshoe]

I don't agree with you about how hard it is for players to prevent their own misbids; I remember making two in the last ten years.

How many did you make in your first year playing bridge? :)

 

What about the 70+ year olds who are just now getting started? I have a new partner (I got talked into mentoring him). He's been playing for a couple of months, maybe. He misbids frequently. He misplays frequently. I point out his mistakes after the session, and he says "I agree." Next time, he does it again. He has potential, but... :unsure:

[bluejak]

The psyches/misbids that need to be banned and penalised are where a pair want to play an illegal agreement, modify it so it meets the local regs, then "psyche/misbid" it with some of the hands they wanted to put in it but weren't allowed to.

 

Example (hypothetical, the UK rules don't quite say this): I want to play 2♣ over a natural 1♣ as 3 suited short in clubs.

 

The regulations say I have to specify a suit that must have 4 cards or more.

 

I nominate spades, but occasionally do it when 3451 anyway.

If you are suggesting this is not illegal I do not agree. While it might be difficult to determine that is what records are for. If you make the bid from time to time with 3451 and partner knows it you are playing an illegal agreement: worse, you are playing it and not disclosing it, so if I determine that you are doing this deliberately and knowledgeably not only will you get a bad board from me but you will be reported to your National Authority by me.

 

Really on what basis can a natural 1♠ opening be regulated so as to disallow psyches of it?

 

1. Psyching is not a "special partnership understanding" - it is a departure from one's partnership understandings

 

2. A natural 1♠ is not an understanding that "may not be readily understood and anticipated" and therefore cannot sensibly, reasonably or legally be deemed to be a "special partnership understanding" that can be regulated.

A natural 1♠ opening can be deemed to be an SPU legally. An SPU my legally have a regulation that it may not be psyched.

 

You seem to be saying that if it is by regulation illegal to psych a particular call, it's also illegal to misbid it. I don't see how that can be workable. Unless you want to bar novices and forgetful folks from the game.

Legally you can make a regulation disallowing misbidding a specific agreement.

 

Mistakes are part of the game and should not be arbitrarily penalized. Cases where frequent forgets lead to an implicit PU are different.

I agree you should not penalise, but it is legal to disallow misbidding an agreement.

 

Simplification of system should be mandatory for frequent misbidders anyway.

Absolutely not. First, people have to learn things in the first place. Second, frequent misbidders benefit their opponents in the long run - why take their opponents' advantage away?

[blackshoe]

Legally you can make a regulation disallowing misbidding a specific agreement.

 

I agree you should not penalise, but it is legal to disallow misbidding an agreement.

 

Absolutely not. First, people have to learn things in the first place. Second, frequent misbidders benefit their opponents in the long run - why take their opponents' advantage away?

Legal, of course. Wise is another question. Your last paragraph above is one reason it's not wise.

[barmar]

Simplification of system should be mandatory for frequent misbidders anyway. I don't agree with you about how hard it is for players to prevent their own misbids; I remember making two in the last ten years. (One was 2NT-3NT intended as natural, when systemically it was not, and one was 1♥-2NT as a GF raise when systemically it was not, so at least our opponents were not damaged!)

I guess you're a really good player. I'll bet lesser players make misbids more often, especially if they change partners frequently and have different agreements with different partners. It's easy for such players to forget which agreement they have with the current partner.

 

But anyway, what is all this talk about morality? Bridge is a game, and no one dies no matter what happens at the table, and moral failings have nothing to do with it. I am talking about regulations, which are rules of the game, not criminal laws. Accidentally breaking the rules of a game is morally neutral, and whether the infraction should attract a penalty is a decision made for the benefit of the game, not for the punishment of evil-doers.

Of course accidents are morally neutral, but intentional violations are not. If they're extreme enough we call the perpetrators cheaters, and we take serious action against them: they may be publically embarassed, causing them to be shunned by other players, and we may suspend them from the league.

[jeffford76]

I would agree that in general penalizing misbids isn't a good idea.

 

The problem is in the specific case of bids that regulations prevent the psyching of. Presumably the point of having those regulations is that it is deemed to be a worse game if people can make the bid without having the hand required by the bid. I fail to see how if that is true that it matters whether the making of the bid was intentional or unintentional.

 

When misbids are allowed for bids that can't be psyched I just don't see the point of the rule banning psyches. What is it achieving?

[barmar]

When misbids are allowed for bids that can't be psyched I just don't see the point of the rule banning psyches. What is it achieving?

It should reduce the occurrence of these bids that don't match the hand. We may not be able to achieve perfection, but why not try to reduce the number of problem auctions?

[jeffford76]

It should reduce the occurrence of these bids that don't match the hand. We may not be able to achieve perfection, but why not try to reduce the number of problem auctions?

 

Well, I would argue that we *can* achieve perfection if the regulation prohibits the misbid with the psyche.

 

I just don't see much difference between "You can trust this bid unless they misbid" and "You can trust this bid unless they misbid or psyched". My actions over it just aren't going to be any different.

 

But there's an enormous difference between "You can trust this bid" and "You can trust this bid unless they misbid or psyched" to the point that I could understand a regulation to achieve it (even though personally I wouldn't want it).

[mjj29]

I just don't see the point of the rule banning psyches. What is it achieving?

Fixed your post

[Vampyr]

Well, I would argue that we *can* achieve perfection if the regulation prohibits the misbid with the psyche.

 

This is obviously true, and it seems that it wouldn't hurt "lesser players" very much since it would only apply to psyches that are prohibited.

 

Luckily I play in an NBO that does not prohibit psyches of any class of bids, so I guess I shall leave it to the less fortunate to worry about this problem.

[Vampyr]

Fixed your post

 

Well, indeed, but this discussion is in the context of psyches are banned; unbanning is of course better, but perhaps less likely.

[campboy]

To relate that to my earlier analogy, this would be an argument for not distinguishing murder from manslaughter -- either way, the victim is dead, so it doesn't matter to them (or their loved ones) why you did it.

I think that is too much of a simplification.

 

Suppose convention X may not be psyched. If you psyche it the penalty would presumably be a score adjustment if there is damage, plus a PP. Now suppose the regulation also says you may not misbid it. If you do so I would imagine the penalty would be a score adjustment if there was damage, but no PP. This is roughly the difference between murder and manslaughter: both are illegal because of the effect on the victim, but one carries a higher penalty because it is deliberate.

[blackshoe]

The current law does not distinguish between bids you can psych and bids you cannot psych. Same for misbids- the law does not even contemplate the possibility of prohibiting misbids. Yet we have regulations, at least in some places, prohibiting certain psychs, and now here we are discussing the idea of throwing misbids into the pot. Why? Is it because some influential players get annoyed when someone perpetrates a successful psych against them, or someone's misbid works out well? Is it a holdover from Don Oakie's (and others') crusade against any psychs at all? Has there been a problem with frequent psychs or misbids (e.g., Ghestem) resulting in a high probability there is a CPU, and people would rather legislate against the psych/misbid than apply the existing law (which IMO is quite adequate to handle such cases)? Is it something else? I think before we can suggest a viable law or regulation in this area, we ought to identify why we are doing it, and why the current law is inadequate.

[Cyberyeti]

The psyches/misbids that need to be banned and penalised are where a pair want to play an illegal agreement, modify it so it meets the local regs, then "psyche/misbid" it with some of the hands they wanted to put in it but weren't allowed to.

 

Example (hypothetical, the UK rules don't quite say this): I want to play 2♣ over a natural 1♣ as 3 suited short in clubs.

 

The regulations say I have to specify a suit that must have 4 cards or more.

 

I nominate spades, but occasionally do it when 3451 anyway.

 

If you are suggesting this is not illegal I do not agree. While it might be difficult to determine that is what records are for. If you make the bid from time to time with 3451 and partner knows it you are playing an illegal agreement: worse, you are playing it and not disclosing it, so if I determine that you are doing this deliberately and knowledgeably not only will you get a bad board from me but you will be reported to your National Authority by me.

I think you misunderstand, I'm saying it IS illegal and needs particularly harsh punishment. The I was from the point of view of the cheat, not meaning me.