Psyche

[Trinidad]

Except for in the UK, concluding or guessing that your partner has psyched is not against any law. It is only against the laws if your conclusion or guess is based on an explicit or implicit concealed partnership understanding.

 

Let's assume that this pair indeed psyches rarely. (If they normally psyche twice a session, it is simply a case of MI.) Now they psyche a 2NT opening against this pair and repeat the very same psyche a few boards later. How can one possibly consider that a concealed partnership understanding if they just made the very same psyche right in front of these opponents? The least one could say is that they didn't do a very good job at concealing it. ;) I would say that the opponents know just as much as partner, which is exactly what they are entitled to know.

 

Rik

[gnasher]

Except for in the UK, concluding or guessing that your partner has psyched is not against any law.

It's not against any rule in England either. It's merely subject to penalty.

[mycroft]

Except for in the UK, concluding or guessing that your partner has psyched is not against any law. It is only against the laws if your conclusion or guess is based on an explicit or implicit concealed partnership understanding.

It's not against any rule in England either. It's merely subject to penalty.

It's written badly(*), but the argument in England is that bidding as if partner has psyched is evidence of implicit partnership understanding, and if the evidence is strong enough, whether on the one hand, or from repeated experience, or in addition to knowledge about previous actions by this pair/player, the ruling will be as if the CPU existed, and the penalty will be a fairly normal CPU ruling.

 

(*) from a "this is actually legal, and here's the legal foundation" perspective. From a "here's how we rule", or "this is why we have to rule this way" TD perspective, and from a "these are your obligations when psyching/believing a misbid" player perspective, it's much better than if the legal dance was spelled out.

[gnasher]

It's written badly(*), but the argument in England is that bidding as if partner has psyched is evidence of implicit partnership understanding, and if the evidence is strong enough, whether on the one hand, or from repeated experience, or in addition to knowledge about previous actions by this pair/player, the ruling will be as if the CPU existed, and the penalty will be a fairly normal CPU ruling.

Isn't that what I said? It's not against the rules to do it, but it will be penalised as though you have, in fact, broken the rules.

 

From a ... "these are your obligations when psyching/believing a misbid" player perspective, it's much better than if the legal dance was spelled out.

That's a strange thing to say. The English regulations don't impose any obligations on a player who thinks his partner may have psyched.

[bluejak]

Except for in the UK, concluding or guessing that your partner has psyched is not against any law. It is only against the laws if your conclusion or guess is based on an explicit or implicit concealed partnership understanding.

Same as in the UK. If you field it, it's based on a CPU in any country in the world. The difference in the UK is how we deal with a fielded psyche, not whether it is fielded.

[barmar]

It's written badly(*), but the argument in England is that bidding as if partner has psyched is evidence of implicit partnership understanding, and if the evidence is strong enough, whether on the one hand, or from repeated experience, or in addition to knowledge about previous actions by this pair/player, the ruling will be as if the CPU existed, and the penalty will be a fairly normal CPU ruling.

Basically, it seems that the EBU is admitting that evidence of a CPU is really hard to get -- it requires extensive record keeping across different venues, and the ability to access and analyze these records. With this, a pair could go from club to club, making similar psyches in each session, and the TDs would never notice the pattern -- each of them just sees one psyche, so it looks like an isolated event.

 

So once you admit that it's not really feasible to detect CPUs reliably, what do you do? You could allow all psyches (which is effectively what happens most of the time in other jurisdictions), or you could use his partner's actions as evidence: if his action allows for the psyche, it implies a CPU. IANAL, but the EBU rules seem to be analogous to "circumstantial evidence" in criminal law.

[Sjoerds]

So once you admit that it's not really feasible to detect CPUs reliably, what do you do? You could allow all psyches (which is effectively what happens most of the time in other jurisdictions), or you could use his partner's actions as evidence: if his action allows for the psyche, it implies a CPU. IANAL, but the EBU rules seem to be analogous to "circumstantial evidence" in criminal law.

Partner passes 3♠ because he figured out 2NT might be a psych. Does this mean that in EBU rules this is judged as fielding?

[bluejak]

Sure. You have no evidence that partner has psyched rather than the double - which surely no-one plays as 20+ balanced - was dubious. Why should you decide partner has psyched rather than the doubler has not got a suitable hand? Simple: partner is prone to psyching 2NT openings.

 

Note that if you had redoubled 2NT and partner had pulled it, now letting them play 3♠ is normal and not fielding at all. The evidence that partner has psyched rather than an opponent is playing around is now adequate.

[gnasher]

Partner passes 3♠ because he figured out 2NT might be a psych. Does this mean that in EBU rules this is judged as fielding?

Yes. Or at least Bluejak says so in post #6, and he should know.

 

In England there is, so far as I know, no published explanation of what constitutes fielding and what does not. All the rules say is that if your actions provide evidence of a CPU you are assumed to have one. There are two examples in the TD's guide of situations where you can legitimately assume partner has psyched, but these both involve the psycher taking an "impossible" action like passing a forcing bid.

 

In practice, it appears that the psycher's partner can't use a probablistic approach - he can only cater for a psych if there is no other reasonable explanation for the auction.

 

Of course, none of this has any bearing on how to rule in the Netherlands.

[Trinidad]

Same as in the UK. If you field it, it's based on a CPU in any country in the world.

That's simply not true. For starters there are many countries in the world where the term "fielding a psyche" doesn't even exist. And if "fielding a psyche" doesn't exist one cannot say that "fielding a psyche" is based on a CPU. :)

 

In other countries players are allowed to guess (or gamble) that it was partner who psyched (and they won't be penalized for guessing correct).

 

In this particular case, almost by definition, there cannot be a CPU: The opponents were perfectly aware of the possibility to psych a 2NT opening. It had happened right before! Nothing was concealed -the opponents had the same information as partner- hence no CPU. And as long as there is no CPU, you can bid what you like (except in the UK).

 

Rik

[Trinidad]

[What Bluejak says and how things are in the UK.]

 

Of course, none of this has any bearing on how to rule in the Netherlands.

+1

 

Rik

[RMB1]

In this particular case, almost by definition, there cannot be a CPU: The opponents were perfectly aware of the possibility to psych a 2NT opening. It had happened right before! Nothing was concealed -the opponents had the same information as partner- hence no CPU. And as long as there is no CPU, you can bid what you like

 

But if you have a partnership understanding that 2NT may be 20-21 BAL or some <20 hands, this may not be a permitted agreement.

 

(except in the UK).

I think it is a mistake to assume that the Scots follow the EBU approach in this matter (or in any matter). In couple of years they may formalise this separation from English regulation more widely.

[Trinidad]

But if you have a partnership understanding that 2NT may be 20-21 BAL or some <20 hands, this may not be a permitted agreement.

That is entirely true, and an entirely different issue. But one prior occurrence doesn't make an agreement.

 

But the whole 'fielding a psyche' thing is based around full disclosure. We don't accept it if partner knows more than the opponents. Most of the time, the criterion is that partner knows as little as the opponents. Here, the opponents knew as much as partner. ;)

 

Rik

[Trinidad]

I think it is a mistake to assume that the Scots follow the EBU approach in this matter (or in any matter). In couple of years they may formalise this separation from English regulation more widely.

Please read "England" wherever I wrote "UK". Those British Islands can be confusing.

 

We have the same problem on this side of the North Sea. There is a difference between "The low lands/countries", "The Netherlands" and "Holland". But outside the Benelux nobody knows what it is. (And then I didn't even mention "The Kingdom of The Netherlands", which -again- is different.)

 

Rik

[RMB1]

We have the same problem on this side of the North Sea. There is a difference between "The low lands/countries", "The Netherlands" and "Holland". But outside the Benelux nobody knows what it is. (And then I didn't even mention "The Kingdom of The Netherlands", which -again- is different.)

 

Noted. I guess there are such mistakes made in refering to regions of many countries.

[paulg]

I think it is a mistake to assume that the Scots follow the EBU approach in this matter (or in any matter). In couple of years they may formalise this separation from English regulation more widely.

At the moment it is not an issue. There is only one player in Scotland who psyches occasionally, but since his psyches are indistinguishable from his normal bidding no-one cares. And there is one player who everyone psyches against, which only one person cares about.

[gnasher]

We have the same problem on this side of the North Sea. There is a difference between "The low lands/countries", "The Netherlands" and "Holland". But outside the Benelux nobody knows what it is. (And then I didn't even mention "The Kingdom of The Netherlands", which -again- is different.)

I bet you didn't know about this though:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holland,_Lincolnshire

[Trinidad]

I bet you didn't know about this though:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holland,_Lincolnshire

You won the bet. Do they wear orange over there on April 30th? ;)

 

Rik

[Vampyr]

That's a strange thing to say. The English regulations don't impose any obligations on a player who thinks his partner may have psyched.

 

I don't think that is strictly true.

 

I once lost an appeal when it was pretty obvious that partner (1-level, NV) was the one who was at it, rather than the opponents (4-level, V). But it took me a long time to work out just how obvious it was... finally I found a construction that involved my partner opening 1NT with a singleton (which I had never seen him do), and the opponents bidding with marginal values... so I doubled 4♠

 

Now partner pulled, exposing his psyche, but was deemed to have used UI (He had opened 1NT on something like an 8-count with 7 clubs). We submitted it to the NA and lost there too.

 

THe EBU policy basically dictates that if you psyche, you must lose out or you will be adjusted against.

[bluejak]

The EBU policy is that if you psyche and get a good board with no fielding you will not be ruled against.

 

The fact that the term "fielding" is not used in some jurisdictions does not mean that Laws 40A and 40C do not apply in those jurisdictions.

 

If I say that a psyche is fielded that is my opinion. I do not speak for the EBU.

[Vampyr]

The EBU policy is that if you psyche and get a good board with no fielding you will not be ruled against.

 

I am sure that this is the policy, but not as sure about the practice. Later I will post the hand in question and see what people have to say about it.

[gnasher]

The English regulations don't impose any obligations on a player who thinks his partner may have psyched.

 

I don't think that is strictly true.

Then I expect you can point to the section of the English regulations which imposes such an obligation.

[Vampyr]

Then I expect you can point to the section of the English regulations which imposes such an obligation.

 

I don't know if there is such a section; what I do know is that it is necessary to rule out all other possibilities before you can guess that partner has psyched. In fact I think that you can assume that he did only after it is exposed (by partner's own action).

[gnasher]

I don't know if there is such a section; what I do know is that it is necessary to rule out all other possibilities before you can guess that partner has psyched. In fact I think that you can assume that he did only after it is exposed (by partner's own action).

I was making the very specific point that the EBU regulations don't contain any sentence on the lines of "If you suspect your partner has psyched, you must ...." You may have some other point to make, but I'd prefer it if you did so without telling me I'm wrong when I'm not.

[1eyedjack]

I was making the very specific point that the EBU regulations don't contain any sentence on the lines of "If you suspect your partner has psyched, you must ...." You may have some other point to make, but I'd prefer it if you did so without telling me I'm wrong when I'm not.

 

I don't think it unreasonable to assume that the the TD/appeals committee/NA considered themselves bound by the(ir) regulations when they ruled against Vampyr. If we accept that the ruling is correct for the hand, and that the ruling is based on the regulations to which they were bound, it should follow that the regulations support Vampyr's statement, without the need to quote a particular sentence buried therein.