Autumn Congress Final ruling

[campboy]

Indeed, a malapropism by me!

Oh, I assumed it was a deliberate (and rather clever) joke.

[aguahombre]

We never learn. No matter how obvious the malaprop, someone will explain our "mistake".

[jallerton]

I am assuming that the inclusion of these details on Pianola means that there is no super-injunction preventing the naming and shaming of the pair in question.

 

Why? The details on the website show the results at each table, not the auctions. Why do you conclude from this that it's permissible to 'name and shame' players who (assuming they don't read this forum) are not able to defend themselves?

 

You should think very carefully before posting a link and supporting information to enable the players' identity to be inferred quite so easily. I seem to recall that another frequent poster was widely criticised a couple of years ago for providing identifying information, in a rather less blatant manner.

[jallerton]

This is a case where anybody with a little bridge experience will be pretty sure that partner has psyched, independent of any partnership understanding. If you hold a poll, present the hand, the auction and the vulnerability and ask: "What is going on?", you will hear two possible answers:

 

1) partner has psyched

2) we are not playing with the same deck

 

I've been playing bridge for 20 years now. Believe it or not, none of my partners has ever psyched when they played with me (or on the few occasions that they played against me). Never. If I can sense that partner has psyched, anybody can.

 

If other players -who don't even know who partner is- conclude that partner has psyched, then how can the conclusion that partner has psyched be based on an undisclosed partnership understanding?

 

Rik

 

You are jumping to conclusions, but I'll forgive you as you do not appear to have any experience in identifying psyches in practice.

 

Yes there appear to be quite a lot of points in the pack; that normally just implies that everyone is a bit light for their actions. The fact that partner has chosen to bid 1♠, despite appearing to hold relatively few high cards, suggests to me that he wants to emphasise spades, presumably at least five spades with some shape. Why do you assume that a player does not hold the suit he has chosen to bid?

[mr1303]

Sorry the vul was game all.

[Trinidad]

You are jumping to conclusions, but I'll forgive you as you do not appear to have any experience in identifying psyches in practice.

 

Yes there appear to be quite a lot of points in the pack; that normally just implies that everyone is a bit light for their actions. The fact that partner has chosen to bid 1♠, despite appearing to hold relatively few high cards, suggests to me that he wants to emphasise spades, presumably at least five spades with some shape. Why do you assume that a player does not hold the suit he has chosen to bid?

Perhaps the fact that I hold 4 of them myself and the fact that the opponents have advertised between 5 and 8 of them? Partner cannot have enough spades to want to emphasize them.

 

Partner could have 4 spades, but then he doesn't have the strength that is required for 1♠: my 16 + his 5 + 2NT 10 leaves 9 for a takeout double of 1♥ with something like 3244 distribution.

 

You cannot see the distribution and the strength separately: If partner has enough spades to emphasize them (5 or more), then the opponents don't have enough spades for their bidding. And if partner has exactly 4 spades there are not enough HCPs in the deck.

 

I already said earlier that there is only one way that I can come up with four hands that are somewhat consistent with the auction: South has made an Aunt Millie double, showing an opening hand without any requirements regarding shape. Then it is possible to give South a 0454 with 13 HCPs and partner 6 spades to the jack and out.

 

Rik

[PeterAlan]

I won't comment on the specific instance (not least because I know some of the players identified by Lamford, though I have no idea whether or not they were involved in the auction under discussion), except to remark that the auction 1♥-(X)-1♠ is such a hoary old chestnut as a "baby psyche" that even I know about it, to the extent that (tongue only partly in cheek) it should come under the heading of "General Bridge Knowledge".

 

But it raises the following interesting thought. The 1♠ bid onwards is not regulated under Level 4 (Blue Book 7.4.1: "From responder's first call onwards all partnership understandings are permitted"), so what are your thoughts on the position if E (in the OP) / W (at the table apparently) had alerted partner's 1♠ and, when asked about it, explained that "it's a two-way bid: either a normal 1♠ response, or a weak hand, short in ♠, probably with ♥ support, and with that or another run-out destination available". Whilst there is a bar on systemic psyching it's not at all obvious that that test is applicable, and nor is the bar on psychic controls. (Rather unfortunately, these psyche-related regulations now appear only in the White Book, not the Blue, and even fewer players will read that.)

[mycroft]

Or South psyched his double. Or North doesn't know (or South doesn't agree on) what 2NT means. Or South did, in fact, with AJx x Kxxx JTxxx, decide to double. I might have, too.

 

Why are you believing the opponents over your partner? I'm sure you never do it the rest of the time, but when partner psyched, it's always so obvious that the opponents' bidding is perfect, having not seen their cards. Note, I'm not aiming that last sentence at anyone in particular - whenever I'm at a fielded psychic ruling (or a deliberate misbid ruling) "it's obvious that..." *always* shows up somewhere.

[jallerton]

Perhaps the fact that I hold 4 of them myself and the fact that the opponents have advertised between 5 and 8 of them? Partner cannot have enough spades to want to emphasize them.

 

Partner could have 4 spades, but then he doesn't have the strength that is required for 1♠: my 16 + his 5 + 2NT 10 leaves 9 for a takeout double of 1♥ with something like 3244 distribution.

 

You cannot see the distribution and the strength separately: If partner has enough spades to emphasize them (5 or more), then the opponents don't have enough spades for their bidding. And if partner has exactly 4 spades there are not enough HCPs in the deck.

 

I already said earlier that there is only one way that I can come up with four hands that are somewhat consistent with the auction: South has made an Aunt Millie double, showing an opening hand without any requirements regarding shape. Then it is possible to give South a 0454 with 13 HCPs and partner 6 spades to the jack and out.

 

Rik

 

Most people play that the T/O doubler has implied at least 3 spades. The 2NT bid showed a decent stop in hearts, not spades. The opponents' spade fit could be 3-1; maybe 4th hand has a difficult call with a 15(43) or 1633 shape. Even if you do not consider this to be consistent with their bidding, why should you assume that partner, not one of the opponents, is the person who has deviated from their system?

[bluejak]

I am assuming that the inclusion of these details on Pianola means that there is no super-injunction preventing the naming and shaming of the pair in question.

This seems an unwarranted assumption. As jallerton says:

 

Why? The details on the website show the results at each table, not the auctions. Why do you conclude from this that it's permissible to 'name and shame' players who (assuming they don't read this forum) are not able to defend themselves?

 

You should think very carefully before posting a link and supporting information to enable the players' identity to be inferred quite so easily. I seem to recall that another frequent poster was widely criticised a couple of years ago for providing identifying information, in a rather less blatant manner.

According to forum rules:

 

"It is often unsuitable for players to be named in cases posted to these four forums, unless a poster is naming himself, or has the agreement of the person named. So posts should generally not name players, though giving the perceived level of a player is normal. If a poster considers a post should name a player or players for a particular reason he can seek advice from a moderator first, giving the reason."

 

There have been cases where players are identifiable, which is generally considered to be a breach of the above, though it is a judgement based on how identifiable. Many months ago a poster claimed someone was identifiable, and someone who never posts here was invited to support him by also claiming it was identifiable. It is not our policy to make great efforts to stop someone with such a mind from finding out.

 

But this case is different. As soon as a link was posted to a website where players can be easily identified then in my view the forum rules were breached. I have deleted the offending post, and also another post that quoted it in full [for no apparent reason].

 

So while I am not worried about whether people whose aim is to cause trouble could find something out I am worried when people make identification very easy, and that is not permitted in these forums.

[Cascade]

This seems an unwarranted assumption. As jallerton says:

 

 

According to forum rules:

 

"It is often unsuitable for players to be named in cases posted to these four forums, unless a poster is naming himself, or has the agreement of the person named. So posts should generally not name players, though giving the perceived level of a player is normal. If a poster considers a post should name a player or players for a particular reason he can seek advice from a moderator first, giving the reason."

 

There have been cases where players are identifiable, which is generally considered to be a breach of the above, though it is a judgement based on how identifiable. Many months ago a poster claimed someone was identifiable, and someone who never posts here was invited to support him by also claiming it was identifiable. It is not our policy to make great efforts to stop someone with such a mind from finding out.

 

But this case is different. As soon as a link was posted to a website where players can be easily identified then in my view the forum rules were breached. I have deleted the offending post, and also another post that quoted it in full [for no apparent reason].

 

So while I am not worried about whether people whose aim is to cause trouble could find something out I am worried when people make identification very easy, and that is not permitted in these forums.

 

I am unconvinced that this practice is best or even practical. It should be normal to be able to report what happens at the table. This is completely analogous to what happens in sports everywhere. Can you imagine a report "the goal was disallowed because a player who we can't identify was offside."

 

In addition publicity and technology have arguably cleaned up many sports. Hiding the actions of players does little to progress fair play.

[lamford]

But it raises the following interesting thought. The 1♠ bid onwards is not regulated under Level 4 (Blue Book 7.4.1: "From responder's first call onwards all partnership understandings are permitted"), so what are your thoughts on the position if E (in the OP) / W (at the table apparently) had alerted partner's 1♠ and, when asked about it, explained that "it's a two-way bid: either a normal 1♠ response, or a weak hand, short in ♠, probably with ♥ support, and with that or another run-out destination available". Whilst there is a bar on systemic psyching it's not at all obvious that that test is applicable, and nor is the bar on psychic controls. (Rather unfortunately, these psyche-related regulations now appear only in the White Book, not the Blue, and even fewer players will read that.)

Indeed, I recall a frequent psycher's partner alerting 1♠ in this auction at Young Chelsea on a Friday night as "showing 13 cards". That seems to cater for all hand types and is a permitted means of developing the auction.

[aguahombre]

I am unconvinced that this practice is best or even practical. It should be normal to be able to report what happens at the table. This is completely analogous to what happens in sports everywhere. Can you imagine a report "the goal was disallowed because a player who we can't identify was offside."

 

In addition publicity and technology have arguably cleaned up many sports. Hiding the actions of players does little to progress fair play.

Kindly use spitballs, steroids, or point-shaving for your sports analogy. Offside? Gimme a break.

[lamford]

Kindly use spitballs, steroids, or point-shaving for your sports analogy. Offside? Gimme a break.

In this country we report: "a Liverpool forward, who cannot be named for legal reasons, was banned for 10 games for biting a Chelsea player. It is against FA rules to inspect team sheets to try to guess who he is."

[StevenG]

So, if any breach of forum rules has occurred, it was by RMB1 and mr1303, who jointly enabled identification of the players by giving the event and one of the partnerships by their postings.

I agree completely. I have, out of curiosity, identified many of the so-called offenders in EBU events just from the hand (as given in the post) and the EBU results pages. (Mostly I want to find out how strong and/or experienced they are). Most, but not all, of those I looked for from the recent Brighton series were easy to find. You can't stop it, other than by distorting the original hand - why try?

[gnasher]

The EBU's point of view in these cases is that it is hard to prove that such agreements exist, but that the proof is in the pudding:

    If a player takes an unusually cautious action, to accomodate for the possibility that partner has psyched, that proves that such an agreement exists.

I think the EBU's position is closer to ... the director will rule as though such an agreement existed.

[gnasher]

Yes there appear to be quite a lot of points in the pack; that normally just implies that everyone is a bit light for their actions. The fact that partner has chosen to bid 1♠, despite appearing to hold relatively few high cards, suggests to me that he wants to emphasise spades, presumably at least five spades with some shape. Why do you assume that a player does not hold the suit he has chosen to bid?

It's not a matter of assuming partner has psyched, but of catering for the possibility that he has done so. If you judge, without using a CPU, that a possible explanation for the auction is that partner has psyched, the Laws allow you to act on that judgement. An approach which demands certainty before you cater for a psych does not.

[gnasher]

But it raises the following interesting thought. The 1♠ bid onwards is not regulated under Level 4 (Blue Book 7.4.1: "From responder's first call onwards all partnership understandings are permitted"), so what are your thoughts on the position if E (in the OP) / W (at the table apparently) had alerted partner's 1♠ and, when asked about it, explained that "it's a two-way bid: either a normal 1♠ response, or a weak hand, short in ♠, probably with ♥ support, and with that or another run-out destination available". Whilst there is a bar on systemic psyching it's not at all obvious that that test is applicable, and nor is the bar on psychic controls.

That would be legal. The bar is on using an agreement to expose deviations from your announced agreements, not on having an announced agreement that a bid is two-way.

 

(Rather unfortunately, these psyche-related regulations now appear only in the White Book, not the Blue, and even fewer players will read that.)

Me too.

[lamford]

That would be legal. The bar is on using an agreement to expose deviations from your announced agreements, not on having an announced agreement that a bid is two-way.

I agree. One can play a 1NT overcall as either 15-17 or a weak two in clubs provided it is alerted and explained as that, under BB7E3c, regardless of how often it is the latter hand type. The latter will tend to pass Stayman, of course. Also 1X-(Dble)-Rdble can be alerted and explained as either 10+ or a weak five-card raise of X, even if the latter hand type rarely occurs.

[billw55]

Kindly use spitballs, steroids, or point-shaving for your sports analogy. Offside? Gimme a break.

I don't think those examples are comparable to a psyche, because 1) they are outright cheating, which a psyche is not, and 2) they are things that the player is doing covertly and attempting to conceal. Whereas, a psyche, like any bid, is known information as soon as it hits the table.

 

In general I tend to think that if a player is willing to make a bid in a public game, then said bid is by default already public information, in that there is no expectation of privacy. Hence I have no problem discussing it in an internet forum. If he is shamed by it (which I really doubt), maybe he shouldn't do it publicly to begin with.

[aguahombre]

I don't think those examples are comparable to a psyche, because 1) they are outright cheating, which a psyche is not, and 2) they are things that the player is doing covertly and attempting to conceal. Whereas, a psyche, like any bid, is known information as soon as it hits the table.

Of course a psyche is not cheating. I was not suggesting it is. We were talking about the fielding of a psyche by illegal means (or just plain illegally). "Offside" in football doesn't carry a stigma. Other acts which are against the rules in a physical sport do carry a stigma, as does fielding a psyche in Bridge.

[mr1303]

By my reckoning, the terms of service say that I may name myself in a post. I did so - I said the events occurred at the table I was playing at. I didn't name anyone else in the post.

 

If I may not refer to events that happened to me, this forum might as well not exist.

[aguahombre]

By my reckoning, the terms of service say that I may name myself in a post. I did so - I said the events occurred at the table I was playing at. I didn't name anyone else in the post.

 

If I may not refer to events that happened to me, this forum might as well not exist.

It is the Law 23 of BBF.

[barmar]

I think the EBU's position is closer to ... the director will rule as though such an agreement existed.

Does that distinction make a difference?

[bluejak]

I am unconvinced that this practice is best or even practical. It should be normal to be able to report what happens at the table. This is completely analogous to what happens in sports everywhere. Can you imagine a report "the goal was disallowed because a player who we can't identify was offside."

 

In addition publicity and technology have arguably cleaned up many sports. Hiding the actions of players does little to progress fair play.

I do sometimes get tired of totally inappropriate comparisons from sports that are totally dissimilar. The forum rules may be wrong or right, but they are not wrong because they are different from spectator sports: bridge is neither spectator, nor is it sport.

 

Of course the last sentence is a reasonable view. Nevertheless, the forum rules are not being changed at this time.

 

By my reckoning, the terms of service say that I may name myself in a post. I did so - I said the events occurred at the table I was playing at. I didn't name anyone else in the post.

 

If I may not refer to events that happened to me, this forum might as well not exist.

The forum rules specifically allow naming oneself.

 

:ph34r:

 

I regret I have had to delete another post. Feel free to continue discussing this case or its ramifications without any attempt to clarify who was involved. If you want to discuss whether the forum rules should be changed, please start another thread. But any discussion that involves whether the original problem was judged fairly or who was at fault is inappropriate: such posts will be deleted and if necessary the topic will be closed.