Deviation or Psyche

[nige1]

Let's keep the discussion to answering the question in the poll, and leave discussion of what the laws "should" be to another thread.

OK. although the poll's purpose seems to be to suggest a definition, which should be in the rules.

[Fluffy]

If this is true, then it sounds like a case where Fluffy and his partner are playing different systems and hiding behind the notion of a deviation to

 

1. Conceal an illegal agreement

2. Play an illegal system

 

And then I though an agreement required 2 members of a partnership to be aware of something, silly me.

[barmar]

I mean anything more is a gross deviation. I assume the poll is an attempt to define "minor deviation". On second thoughts, I agree with Trinidad, that intention should be the distinction. The rules should deal with deviations, both minor and gross -- normally without consideration of intent. A deviation would then only be classifiable as a psych (now redefined as any deliberate deviation) by a director who passed the TD mind-reading course. A TD who passed with distinction, should be licensed to reclassify a psych as a pseudo-psych or CPU (i.e. subject to a concealed partnership understanding).

How can you determine whether the player "deliberately intended to deceive" if you don't first define whether the call is actually deceptive? And for that, you need to determine whether the deviation is gross enough to be considered deceptive.

 

That's why the definition of a psych involves both intent and grossness. When a player upgrades a 14 count to 1NT, it's intentional, but it's not deceptive because he believes it's an accurate description of the strength of the hand.

[paulg]

How can you determine whether the player "deliberately intended to deceive" if you don't first define whether the call is actually deceptive? And for that, you need to determine whether the deviation is gross enough to be considered deceptive.

 

That's why the definition of a psych involves both intent and grossness. When a player upgrades a 14 count to 1NT, it's intentional, but it's not deceptive because he believes it's an accurate description of the strength of the hand.

My interpretation of the original question was that it asked us to consider hands that were not worthy of an upgrade.

[barmar]

I'm also with the other posters who said you can't name a specific point count deviation. Hand evaluation is a judgement call, and point count is a helpful bit of input.

 

Distinguishing psychs from deviations is similar to the SCOTUS distinction between pornography and erotica: it can't be defined objectively, but you know it when you see it.

[steve2005]

When I open a 13 count in 1NT when our range is16-18 suposedly, I am doing a deviation, my intention is totally to have a sensible constructive bidding into our best possible contract, just that the best possible contract requires a certain member of our partnership to declare. But it doesn't really matter much on the rules.

imho a psyche. and don't see why you would do partner will bid 3N on balanced 9 hcp with no play

[nige1]

How can you determine whether the player "deliberately intended to deceive" if you don't first define whether the call is actually deceptive? And for that, you need to determine whether the deviation is gross enough to be considered deceptive.

Minor "deviations" may be a matter of style, and each player's style may be different but If you know your partner's "style" of "deviation", then it's disclosable (IMO).

 

Before leading to 1N, I usually ask about its meaning and am told, say, 12-14 HCP, without qualification. Many people regard some 11 HCP hands as worth 12 HCP. Many regard some 14 HCP hands as too good for 1N. Some treat a poor 15 HCP as worth only 14 HCP. A few both "upgrade" and "downgrade". A few do neither. Such "deviations" usually depend on vulnerability, position, the possession of a five card suit, or other factors. Again, players' "styles" differ. To defend properly, however, you need to know declarer's "style". Failure to disclose "style" is deceptive enough to significantly increase the likelihood of a contract making. Is this kind of deception "just Bridge"?

[blackshoe]

I think that if you need to know about style, you need ask specifically that question. At least, in the ACBL, where as I read the regulation there's no implication that prior disclosure (e.g. on the system card, or via pre-alert) is required, and no implication or statement that style matters should be routinely included in response to general questions asked at the table. Still, I think one could argue for disclosing matters of style in response to a general question. "Principle of Full Disclosure" and all that.

[nige1]

I'm also with the other posters who said you can't name a specific point count deviation. Hand evaluation is a judgement call, and point count is a helpful bit of input. Distinguishing psychs from deviations is similar to the SCOTUS distinction between pornography and erotica: it can't be defined objectively, but you know it when you see it.

pornography is erotica for the poor. :)

[gnasher]

But Andy, 40B1A talks about partnership understanding. How can that be used to restrict psyches?

You wish to have a partnership understanding that a opening 2♣ is artificial and shows a very strong hand. The regulator says "(a) We designate that as a special partnership understanding. (b) We allow you to have this understanding, on condition that you don't psych it." So the regulator has achieved the effect of 40B2d without actually using 40B2d. Thus 40B2d is redundant.

 

They could, but they don't.

My point was that the presence of a definition of "psych" in the laws is irrelevant. If you removed all references to psychs from the Laws, regulating authorities would have exactly the same powers as they do at present.

[ArtK78]

Minor "deviations" may be a matter of style, and each player's style may be different but If you know your partner's "style" of "deviation", then it's disclosable (IMO).

 

Before leading to 1N, I usually ask about its meaning and am told, say, 12-14 HCP, without qualification. Many people regard some 11 HCP hands as worth 12 HCP. Many regard some 14 HCP hands as too good for 1N. Some treat a poor 15 HCP as worth only 14 HCP. A few both "upgrade" and "downgrade". A few do neither. Such "deviations" usually depend on vulnerability, position, the possession of a five card suit, or other factors. Again, players' "styles" differ. To defend properly, however, you need to know declarer's "style". Failure to disclose "style" is deceptive enough to significantly increase the likelihood of a contract making. Is this kind of deception "just Bridge"?

 

Based on this post, I may change my description of my regular partner's opening 1NT bids to something along the lines of "A hand that my partner believes is worth a good 14 to 17 HCP" [that is our strong NT range].

 

That would cover a situation where he upgraded what others might consider to be a mediocre or worse 14 count or downgraded an 18 count. I have seen him do both.

[nige1]

When I open a 13 count in 1NT when our range is16-18 suposedly, I am doing a deviation, my intention is totally to have a sensible constructive bidding into our best possible contract, just that the best possible contract requires a certain member of our partnership to declare. But it doesn't really matter much on the rules.

But there are many regulations that forbid a psyche to a strong opening such as 2♣. And I constantly see bids I would call plain psyches from weak players. The day I had a 22 count and saw my RHO open 2♣ I wasn't very happy, but there was nothing I could do.

I really hope that this is a joke...

It's jocular braggadocio :)

f this is true, then it sounds like a case where Fluffy and his partner are playing different systems and hiding behind the notion of a deviation to

1. Conceal an illegal agreement

2. Play an illegal system

And then I though an agreement required 2 members of a partnership to be aware of something, silly me.

What's silly is putting this sort of stuff down in writing (cause I for one am forwarding this to your national organization and I hope the treat you the same way they treated the good Doctors)

It's silly if taken seriously :)

[blackshoe]

You wish to have a partnership understanding that a opening 2♣ is artificial and shows a very strong hand. The regulator says "(a) We designate that as a special partnership understanding. (b) We allow you to have this understanding, on condition that you don't psych it." So the regulator has achieved the effect of 40B2d without actually using 40B2d. Thus 40B2d is redundant.

 

 

My point was that the presence of a definition of "psych" in the laws is irrelevant. If you removed all references to psychs from the Laws, regulating authorities would have exactly the same powers as they do at present.

And psychs of natural bids?

[gnasher]

And psychs of natural bids?

 

That depends whether you think that this:

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.

allows you to treat a natural bid as a special partnership understanding. If it does, you can ban psychs of natural bids; if it doesn't you can't.

 

The two sentences I've quoted above don't really belong in the same set of rules: the first one says the RA can classify anything as an SPU, and the second seems to say that it can't.

[blackshoe]

I suppose what it means is 'In its discretion the Regulating Authority may designate any partnership understanding which, in the opinion of the Regulating Authority, may not be readily understood and anticipated by a significant number of players in the tournament, as a "special partnership understanding"'.

 

While Law 40B2{a} allows the RA to ban any "special partnership understanding", I don't see how this can apply to psychs, because psychs are not matters of understanding, they're deviations from an understanding. Law 40C specifically makes legal deviations, including psychs, from partnership understandings, special or otherwise. Law 40B2{d} is thus not only not redundant, it is necessary if RAs are to be allowed to restrict psychs of artificial bids.

[gnasher]

While Law 40B2{a} allows the RA to ban any "special partnership understanding", I don't see how this can apply to psychs, because psychs are not matters of understanding, they're deviations from an understanding. Law 40C specifically makes legal deviations, including psychs, from partnership understandings, special or otherwise. Law 40B2{d} is thus not only not redundant, it is necessary if RAs are to be allowed to restrict psychs of artificial bids.

I didn't say that psychs are a matter of understanding - obviously they're not. I said that the regulator's right to allow SPUs conditionally includes the right to say "You may have this understanding, but only if you never psych it."

[blackshoe]

I didn't say that psychs are a matter of understanding - obviously they're not. I said that the regulator's right to allow SPUs conditionally includes the right to say "You may have this understanding, but only if you never psych it."

I don't think the RA can get away with that, as it directly contradicts Law 40C.

[barmar]

The two sentences I've quoted above don't really belong in the same set of rules: the first one says the RA can classify anything as an SPU, and the second seems to say that it can't.

The first says that RAs can designate some PUs as SPUs, and the second explains the criteria it should use to do so. "certain" doesn't mean "any".

[barmar]

I've been playing with my regular partner for about a dozen years. When I'm 4-4 in the minors, I pretty much always open 1♦. He varies. I recently mentioned in a discussion that I'm consistent, he's random. He corrected me, saying it's not random. But he's never explained his actual criteria to me, and I've never picked up on it by myself.

 

So just because someone has a style, it doesn't mean you'll be able to disclose it.

[nige1]

I've been playing with my regular partner for about a dozen years. When I'm 4-4 in the minors, I pretty much always open 1♦. He varies. I recently mentioned in a discussion that I'm consistent, he's random. He corrected me, saying it's not random. But he's never explained his actual criteria to me, and I've never picked up on it by myself.

 

So just because someone has a style, it doesn't mean you'll be able to disclose it.

IMO, The law is a bit woolly. Some players use "Style" (like "GBK") to rationalize non-disclosure. What you know about partner's style is an implicit understanding. Hence, even under current law, it's disclosable. For example, when Barmar or his partner open 1♣ and an opponent asks about the auction, at any stage, then

• Barmar should say e.g. "Partner may open 1♣ with 4-4 in the minors", whereas
• His partner should say "With 4-4 in the minors, partner would open 1♦"

Is this a counsel of perfection?

[Trinidad]

Nigel, you are continuously mixing style or partnership agreements with GBK.

 

Style and partnership agreements belong to the partnership. It is not only about "Do we play Multi?", but also about "Would we open a Multi on ♠75 ♥KJT865 ♦632 ♣73? (And if so, at what seat and vulnerability.) You need to disclose the agreements and the style.

 

General Bridge Knowledge is everything that is not partnership specific. An example could be that a reasonably advanced player knows that game in a 4-4 fit might play better than game in a 5-3 fit. Therefore, he will/might explore for a 4-4 fit in hearts when there is a known 5-3 fit in spades, where somebody fresh from the bridge course will count 8 spades, 26 HCPs and bids 4♠ ("well done!"). That has nothing to do with the partnership, the player can use this knowledge with any partner, which is why it is called General Bridge Knowledge. You do not need to disclose that a 4-4 fit might play better than a 5-3 fit.

 

Rik

[nige1]

Nigel, you are continuously mixing style or partnership agreements with GBK. Style and partnership agreements belong to the partnership. It is not only about "Do we play Multi?", but also about "Would we open a Multi on ♠75 ♥KJT865 ♦632 ♣73? (And if so, at what seat and vulnerability.) You need to disclose the agreements and the style. General Bridge Knowledge is everything that is not partnership specific. An example could be that a reasonably advanced player knows that game in a 4-4 fit might play better than game in a 5-3 fit. Therefore, he will/might explore for a 4-4 fit in hearts when there is a known 5-3 fit in spades, where somebody fresh from the bridge course will count 8 spades, 26 HCPs and bids 4♠ ("well done!"). That has nothing to do with the partnership, the player can use this knowledge with any partner, which is why it is called General Bridge Knowledge. You do not need to disclose that a 4-4 fit might play better than a 5-3 fit.

IMO few bidding agreements are GBK -- and almost none of those belatedly described as such by opponents.

[Trinidad]

IMO few bidding agreements are GBK -- and almost none of those belatedly described as such by opponents.

Bidding agreements are never GBK.

 

(Except that two partners can share their GBK and learn from each other. Then what used to be GBK, now is a bidding agreement. E.g.: we will try to find a 4-4 fit even if we already have a 5-3 fit.)

 

Rik

[Fluffy]

What's silly is putting this sort of stuff down in writing (cause I for one am forwarding this to your national organization and I hope the treat you the same way they treated the good Doctors)

 

I suggest you find a good translator first, your best argument is threatening me? really?

[gnasher]

Bidding agreements are never GBK.

 

(Except that two partners can share their GBK and learn from each other. Then what used to be GBK, now is a bidding agreement. E.g.: we will try to find a 4-4 fit even if we already have a 5-3 fit.)

If they had to share it, it was merely BK, not GBK.

 

The example you give is certainly not GBK. Widely believed, yes, but that's not the same as generally known.