Autumn Congress Final ruling

[Zelandakh]

If 2NT is natural I double and consider 3♠.

If 2NT is minors I bid 3♦, considering double and 3♠.

 

Passing 2NT would be at least amber and probably red but better to leave that designation to the experienced EBU TDs. I would certainly want to ask East if they have seen a psyche from this partner in a similar auction in the past.

[aguahombre]

As it was, partner has psyched, and bid 1S on a 2344 3 count or similar (I don't have the full hand records).

 

The player holding this hand passed, and the auction ended after 2NT.

 

How would you rule on the pass of 2NT? EBU land, so traffic lights in operation.

 

Would it make a difference if you're called to the same pair 5 minutes later to record another psyche?

 

Well you've seen the poll results. This is clear fielding IMO and (probably both, but certainly this) psyche(s) should be classified as Red.

Yes, IMO, passing ---rather than doubling---would throw this one under the moving traffic and against the lights. It fielded the one type of (dangerous) psyche which Responder actually had.

 

And, yes, that second one 5 minutes later would make a difference. But, I wouldn't know about the second one and maybe it wouldn't have ocurred if I had been called for the first one.

[campboy]

Comment removed as it appears this ruling is still subject to something...

[billw55]

So, what is the penalty for a red fielded psyche?

[campboy]

So, what is the penalty for a red fielded psyche?

In the EBU, better (for NOS) of table score and ave+/ave-, plus a fine of the standard amount.

[jallerton]

Did the TD ask Opener why (s)he passed over 2NT? If so, what was the response?

[mr1303]

Robin? Any ideas on that one?

[Trinidad]

In England (which is where the Autumn Congress takes place), if you field a psych you will be awarded 30%. Possibly that's the right thing to do anyway: if partner has psyched, 4♥x is likely to score less than 30%.

The EBU doesn't have law 40A3 and 40C1?

 

In this case, I can use my bridge brain to conclude that it is highly likely that partner has psyched. I do not need a CPU to reach that conclusion. (That is proven by the fact that I knew that partner had psyched and I didn't even know who partner was.)

 

Law 40A3 is very clear. I can chose any call I want, as long as it is not based on a CPU. Pass (or any other call taking into account that partner has psyched) here is not based on a CPU, so I can chose it.

 

If partner psyches frequently (Law 40C) then we get an implicit partnership understanding. In that case, I have to disclose this understanding to the opponents (and the understanding may be illegal).

 

If there is any infraction, it is not in realizing partner has psyched, or choosing a call based on that realization, but in the lack of disclosure of an implicit understanding to the opponents.

 

Rik

[RMB1]

Robin?

Sorry to be stuffy but I'm not in a position to discuss this hand.

[Zelandakh]

If partner psyches frequently (Law 40C) then we get an implicit partnership understanding. In that case, I have to disclose this understanding to the opponents (and the understanding may be illegal).

Which is why we need to ask East if they have seen a psyche from this partner in a similar auction in the past. I would assume that the TD did ask this East - does the OP know the answer given?

[mr1303]

No, sadly I don't. From Robin's reply it looks as though the pair in question may be up for an L & E committee hearing.

 

I was the take-out doubler. I didn't report the psyche straight away at the time, but I did report it once I'd seen the hand records and overheard a director call against the same pair for reporting a psyche.

[billw55]

So, is it ever allowed to deduce partner's psyche from the bidding, and act accordingly, without penalty?

[lamford]

So, is it ever allowed to deduce partner's psyche from the bidding, and act accordingly, without penalty?

Of course, but only when it is clear from the auction that it is partner who has psyched. If partner passes Stayman, or pulls a penalty double of a 1NT overcall, then this exposes the psyche. Until that time, you have to assume the opponents have psyched or misbid.

[Trinidad]

Indeed. I presume that it was board 20 in the Teams final, and West took no action at all and 2NT went one off. I think that would be a fielded psyche, regardless whether partner had psyched before. If the player passes there is enough evidence of a CPU on this board alone to rule it red and apply the penalties in the White Book. The second psyche is judged on its merits, but this one would provide further evidence of a potential CPU.

I don't get this at all.

 

Let me first say what I do get:

This pair seems to psyche frequently and it doesn't disclose that. Clear. That's an infraction. In addition they may have an illegal implicit agreement (I don't know). That would be a second infraction. In this case, that seems to be relatively easy to prove. Fine, go ahead and adjust and penalize.

 

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.

 

Now the point that I don't get:

The assumption that there must be an agreement for partner to accomodate for a psyche is not always valid. If it is blatantly obvious from the auction and one's own hand that someone has psyched, and the vulnerability is favorable then everything screams that partner has psyched, also if there is no partnership understanding.

 

In such a case (like this one), there is no proof in the pudding. (After all, I know that partner psyched and I don't even know who (s)he is. How could I possibly have a concealed agreement with him/her?)

 

You cannot use the traffic light system if the underlying assumption (the proof is in the pudding) is not valid.

 

Rik

[billw55]

Of course, but only when it is clear from the auction that it is partner who has psyched. If partner passes Stayman, or pulls a penalty double of a 1NT overcall, then this exposes the psyche. Until that time, you have to assume the opponents have psyched or misbid.

So, there will still be judgment calls as to how obvious it is that partner psyched. Such as this very case. Apparently, this one was not obvious enough. I now charge you to create one of your constructions where the psyche is more obvious than in this thread, but less obvious than (say) passing stayman. Give us a true borderline case if you can.

[Trinidad]

Of course, but only when it is clear from the auction that it is partner who has psyched. If partner passes Stayman, or pulls a penalty double of a 1NT overcall, then this exposes the psyche. Until that time, you have to assume the opponents have psyched or misbid.

That is not what Law 40A3 says.

A player may make any call or play without prior announcement provided that such call or play is not based on an undisclosed partnership understanding (see Law 40C1).

 

This says clearly that if I think my partner has psyched, I can allow for that, as long as my thinking that partner has psyched is not based on an undisclosed partnership understanding. I do not need to assume that the opponents have psyched or misbid.

 

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

[lamford]

This says clearly that if I think my partner has psyched, I can allow for that, as long as my thinking that partner has psyched is not based on an undisclosed partnership understanding. I do not need to assume that the opponents have psyched or misbid.

I agree that is how the Law should be interpreted, but the EBU (and other organisations with an antithesis towards psyches) have indicated that a partnership's actions on one board can be indicative of a CPU. They get round the word "Repeated" in "Repeated deviations lead to implicit understandings" in 40C1 with some fudge like "well this is so gregarious that there must be other instances". In my opinion, ruling a red psyche on one instance is illegal, but the EBU have decided that this is the way they will interpret the Law. And I think the ACBL would act similarly, but perhaps an ACBL director would confirm whether one instance can lead to an adjusted score.

[Trinidad]

[Link to the actual deal]

I think it is reasonable to assume that this was the actual deal. However, there is a difference between the situation in the OP and the actual deal that is important to me: in the OP the vulnerability was favorable whereas in reality the vulnerability was all red.

 

At favorable vulnerability (as presented in the OP) it is pretty obvious that partner did the psyching. At all red this is not so obvious, meaning that there is "some proof in that pudding".

 

Rik

[lamford]

I think it is reasonable to assume that this was the actual deal.

mr1303 should be able to confirm that it was game all. Other possibilities are an error in the board numbers on Pianola, or a different board number being used for some reason.

[barmar]

"well this is so gregarious that there must be other instances".

gregarious

adjective

(of a person) fond of company; sociable : he was a popular and gregarious man.

 

ITYM egregious :)

 

Interesting etymological note: "egregious" originally meant remarkably good, but its meaning flipped in the late 16th century, probably due to ironical use (similar to the slang use of "bad" to mean good).

[lamford]

gregarious

adjective

(of a person) fond of company; sociable : he was a popular and gregarious man.

Indeed, a malapropism by me!

[blackshoe]

Indeed. I presume that it was board 20 in the Eastbourne Bowl, and West took no action at all and 2NT went one off. I think that would be a fielded psyche, regardless whether partner had psyched before.

You get to a CPU one of two ways: either they explicitly made an agreement, and then failed to disclose it as required, or the agreement is implicit and comes from partnership experience. So if you rule this to be fielded when there's no partnership experience, you're saying they deliberately set this up. That's possible I suppose, but without better evidence than I've seen here, I don't buy it.

[mycroft]

...or an opponent forgot that 2NT here doesn't show minors. Or does show and fails to Alert. Or he's getting ready to get doubled in some number of diamonds, better than your game, and getting doubled in 2NT is what he thinks is the best way to do that. Or...

 

But, you know, if your partner is known (to you) to frequently psych (as opposed to the world who think it's illegal, and if not that, then at least immoral or fattening), then in this auction, it's "obvious" that partner psyched, as opposed to those pesky opponents. And the reason for that is...?

[aguahombre]

...or an opponent forgot that 2NT here doesn't show minors. Or does show and fails to Alert. Or he's getting ready to get doubled in some number of diamonds, better than your game, and getting doubled in 2NT is what he thinks is the best way to do that.

Which brings us back to a Double of 2NT being good Bridge and just fine, ethically; but, Pass not being such.

 

IMO, everyone except the poster who says he was the original Doubler did something wrong. The Responder's 1♠ bid, though not illegal in itself, deserved a worse fate than the table result if no irregularity by partner ensued. The 2NT jump was just plain unwarranted hand evaluation, for which I would be inclined to make no adjustment for the NOS, regardless of what I might do to the OS.

[campboy]

Oops, just noticed Robin's post, which suggests I'm not allowed to comment either. Edited October 23, 2013 by campboy