Illegal psyche

[weejonnie]

I thought EBU only treated misbids like psyches if they were fielded, I'm sure Gordon will tell me if I'm wrong.

EBU Whitebook - AUG 2018 version

 

1.4.1 (in part)

 

Players are required to disclose their agreements, both explicit and implicit. If a player believes, from partnership experience, that partner may have deviated from the system this must be disclosed to the opponents. If a player properly discloses this possibility, the player will not be penalised for fielding it, although there may be a penalty for playing an illegal method.

 

 

1.4.2.1 Red Psyche

 

The actions of the psycher’s partner following a psyche – and, possibly, further actions by the psycher – may provide evidence of an undisclosed, and therefore illegal, understanding. If so, then the partnership is said to have ‘fielded’ the psyche. The TD will judge actions objectively by the standards of a player’s peers; that is to say intent will not be taken into account.

As the judgement by the TD will be objective, some players may be understandably upset that their actions are ruled to be fielding. If a player psyches and their partner takes action that appears to allow for it then the TD will treat it as fielding.

 

A partnership’s actions on one board may be sufficient for the TD to find that it has a concealed partnership understanding (CPU) and the score will be adjusted in principle (see §1.4.4). This is classified as a red psyche.

 

1.4.5.1

A misbid is fielded when the actions of the partner of the player who misbid suggest a different partnership understanding than the apparent agreement. There is no longer an automatic adjustment for a fielded misbid. Instead, the TD will determine what the likely partnership understanding is and rule on possible misinformation on that basis. It is also possible that the partner was able to field the misbid because of unauthorised information from the player who misbid and the TD will investigate to see if there should be an unauthorised information ruling.

...

 

There is an automatic 25% (increased from 10%) penalty for a fielded psyche (60%-15%)

[barmar]

Also, does the RA's regulation specify a rectification, or does it simply say "you can't do that"?

ACBL's regulations, for example, prohibit psyching strong, artificial openings and responses thereto. But GCC doesn't specify the rectification. I guess it would be the same as if the pair were found to be playing an illegal method, but no specific punishment for that is specified, either. I suppose it would be a procedural penalty.

 

Fielding, on the other hand, is a form of misinformation -- partner of the psycher allows for the psych based on partnership experience, which makes it an implicit agreement, which must be disclosed (even if it's a prohibited method).

[Vampyr]

WBF Systems Policy, 2.4 Brown Sticker Conventions and Treatments, d) Psychic bids protected by system or required by system. at WBF Championships BSC’s are restricted or prohibited, depending on the category. You’re claiming that such regulatins are illegal. But wouldn’t the WBF know that?

 

Well, yes, but the EBU now allows Drury, which is pretty much a protected psyche. A 2♣ opening is also protected if partner is expected to bid 2♦ almost all of the time. Does the WBU consider these bids illegal?

[Tramticket]

2D means 10-14 4441 distribution. They play Precision. Regulation says psyche of artificial opening calls are illegal. I tried to simplify all of this by saying start off by assuming there was an infraction, asking mainly to discuss what the adjustment should be, or whether there should be no adjustment as the self-inflicted damage is too severe. Also, a precise calculation backed by law references is wished for.

 

You asked for Law references:

 

40.C.1 "A player may deviate from his side's announced understandings, provided that his partner has no more reason than the opponents to be aware of the deviation [but see B2(a)(v) above]."

 

This takes us to:

 

40.B.2.(a) "The Regulating Authority:

(v) may restrict the use of psychic artificial calls."

 

Your posts states that you confirmed that your regulating authority has prohibited the use of psyches for this type of call (artificial opening calls).

 

From this, you will see that there is no Law prohibiting a psyche, but since there is a local regulation, I would expect that the local regulation should also specify the rectification for breach of the regulation. Unfortunately, I doubt that the regular responders on this forum have detailed knowledge of your local (singapore?) regulations - is it not possible to confirm the rectification from whatever source that you have used to ascertain the existence of the regulation.

 

If the regulation does not specify the rectification, then I don't think that the Laws will provide any direct help (unsurprisingly since there is no Laws prohibiting psyches). In these circumstances, I think that the director would have discretion to apply an appropriate penalty with the objective of restoring equity. A psyche is not a Special Partnership Understanding as defined by 40,B.1.(b) but I think that the rectification suggested in 40.B.4 would provide a useful template:

 

"When a side is damaged by an opponent's use of a special partnership understanding that does not comply with the regulations governing the tournament the score shall be adjusted. A side in breach of those regulations may be subject to a procedural penalty." I take this as meaning "restore equity and impose a procedural penalty for serial breaches"

[sanst]

Well, yes, but the EBU now allows Drury, which is pretty much a protected psyche. A 2♣ opening is also protected if partner is expected to bid 2♦ almost all of the time. Does the WBU consider these bids illegal?

No, of course not. As long you disclose your agreements properly, these are no psyches. But a classic example of a protected psyche is 2♣ as strong, but done with a weak hand with diamonds and passing the 2♦ reply. That is done by pairs that play 2♦ as multi and don’t have a weak diamond call. Another example is the 2NT reply at a ‘Muiderberg’, weak 5M-4+m, by agreement 15+HCP, but made with a weak hand with both minors. Those bids are illegal.

[Vampyr]

No, of course not. As long you disclose your agreements properly, these are no psyches.

But a classic example of a protected psyche is 2♣ as strong, but done with a weak hand with diamonds and passing the 2♦ reply

 

Yes, as I mentioned in the post just above. And opening a 3rd or 4th seat 1M with long clubs (or both minors if you play 2-way) and passing the hoped-for 2♣ response. Sorry if my previous post was not clear.

[pescetom]

I hope nobody would suggest that playing garbage stayman is illegal at this point. We for instance play that opener will only reply in a major when holding a 5-card major and that responder does not guarantee a rebid, which makes it pretty safe to bid stayman holding long diamonds and little else. All disclosed to opponents of course.

[Tramticket]

I hope nobody would suggest that playing garbage stayman is illegal at this point. We for instance play that opener will only reply in a major when holding a 5-card major and that responder does not guarantee a rebid, which makes it pretty safe to bid stayman holding long diamonds and little else. All disclosed to opponents of course.

 

Your 2♣inquiry sounds more like Keri. As long as you properly disclose this bid, I am sure that it is fine. But I don't think that it should be described as Stayman.

 

I can't speak with any knowledge about Italy, but in England a 2♣ bid should be announced as Stayman if it is bid in response to a natural 1NT opening, there has been no intervention, and only where it is used to ask for a four card major. Your 2♣ artificial inquiry would be alerted rather than announced as Stayman in England.

 

The Stayman bid may or may not promise a four-card major (the announcement is still Stayman), so more usual forms of Garbage Stayman are allowed.

[Vampyr]

Your 2♣inquiry sounds more like Keri.

 

Just sounds like 5-card Stayman to me.

 

Anyway I think that the point has been made that there are loads of protected (not 100% safe, but pretty good) psyches which are, in fact, allowed.

[pescetom]

Your 2♣inquiry sounds more like Keri. As long as you properly disclose this bid, I am sure that it is fine. But I don't think that it should be described as Stayman.

 

I can't speak with any knowledge about Italy, but in England a 2♣ bid should be announced as Stayman if it is bid in response to a natural 1NT opening, there has been no intervention, and only where it is used to ask for a four card major. Your 2♣ artificial inquiry would be alerted rather than announced as Stayman in England.

 

The Stayman bid may or may not promise a four-card major (the announcement is still Stayman), so more usual forms of Garbage Stayman are allowed.

In Italy as yet there are no announcements, and any conventional bid including Stayman must be alerted. I'm contrary on principle to supplying names of conventions rather than explanations of bids, so I usually explain something like "enquiry for majors, initially for 5 card suits, promises nothing in terms of distribution or strength".

 

I'm not thrilled at calling our convention Stayman because it is native 5-card and has some innovative developments quite different from Puppet and more rigorously similar over both 1nt and 2nt. But ultimately it's just another way of exploring fit in majors after an nt opening, so a Stayman it is.