Is this a psyche or cheating?

[AL78]

My bridge partner has just told me a situation which cropped up on BBO where she got a bottom because they were diverted from the killing lead by one of the opponents doing what sounded to me like a psyche, but she is adament they were cheating.

 

Her opponents bid up to a slam, and on the way her LHO bid 3♠, which was alerted as 0-1 spades. I'm not sure whether or not her RHO had bid spades naturally in the auction, it is possible. Her partner on lead holding the spade ace decided on the basis of this description not to lead it. It turned out that the person who bid 3♠ and alerted it held two losing spades, and a spade lead was necessary for the defence to take two spade tricks before the losers were thrown on diamonds. She seems to believe this was deliberate mis-information and therefore cheating, whereas I am inclined to believe it was a psyche aimed to divert the killing lead. What are your thoughts?

 

The director was called at the time and questioned the opponents. The one who made the 3♠ bid claimed he got his spades and clubs mixed up, e.g. he/she was looking at the club void and clicked on the wrong black suit. The result was allowed to stand.

 

She asked one or two senior players at the club (who are very experienced directors) who sided with her saying it was out of order, and there seems to be a view that psyches should be illegal.

[glen]

I found the hand. Opener had 2-7-4-0, hearts headed by AKJ, diamonds by KQ. The auction was 1♥-2NT(Jacoby)-3♠-4♥-6♥.

 

The person who bid 3♠ is one of the most senior TDs in the world. If he is cheating we are in serious trouble. Fortunately, looking at their other boards I see no signs of cheating.

[hrothgar]

Where to begin?

 

Let's start with the most obvious. The two senior players in your club are idiots, they don't understand the laws of the game, and you really shouldn't ask their opinions on these sorts of issues.

 

Next: A misbid is neither a psych or cheating. You have a completely different set of rules at play here. So, if you / the director genuinely believe that a misbid occurred / the player in question made a mistake, its case closed. With this said and done, lying about a misbid and pretending that this is what happened when in fact you did make a lead inhibiting psych is a grave offense.

 

Next: Lets assume that this was actually a lead inhibiting psych. This is completely legal so long as there isn't some kind of concealed partnership agreement at play. Many strong players practice these sorts of psychs. Some very strong players (for example Zia) do so repeatedly.

[AL78]

I found the hand. Opener had 2-7-4-0, hearts headed by AKJ, diamonds by KQ. The auction was 1♥-2NT(Jacoby)-3♠-4♥-6♥.

 

The person who bid 3♠ is one of the most senior TDs in the world. If he is cheating we are in serious trouble. Fortunately, looking at their other boards I see no signs of cheating.

 

How did you find the hand and identify the players so quickly? I wasn't even playing.

[gordontd]

How did you find the hand and identify the players so quickly? I wasn't even playing.

I was one of the players (responder). Certainly my partner said that when he bid 3S he thought spades was his short suit and that is what the 3S bid means for us.

 

But let's also clear up another point that the original poster made, which is that if my partner had deliberately departed from our agreements (psyched) then as long as I had no more reason to suspect this than the opponents, which was the case, this is entirely legitimate.

[AL78]

Where to begin?

 

Let's start with the most obvious. The two senior players in your club are idiots, they don't understandd the laws of the game, and you really shouldn't ask their opinions on these sorts of issues.

 

Next: A misbid is neither a psych or cheating. You have a completely different set of rules at play here. So, if you / the director genuinely believe that a misbid occurred / the player in question made a mistake, its case closed. With this said and done, lying about a misbid and pretending that this is what happened when in fact you did make a lead inhibiting psych is a grave offense.

 

Next: Lets assume that this was actually a lead inhibiting psych. This is completely legal so long as there isn't some kind of concealed partnership agreement at play. Many strong players practice these sorts of psychs. Some very strong players (for example Zia) do so repeatedly.

 

I don't think the senior players are idiots, they just have a strong moral view on psyching (e.g. just because you can, doesn't mean you should).

 

You are otherwise voicing my thoughts, it was a psyche aimed at deflecting a potentially damaging lead and so allowed by the rules.

 

My friend just sounded rather bitter about it, which is understandable (if wrong) as she has been the victim of cheating in the past.

[gordontd]

The person who bid 3♠ is one of the most senior TDs in the world.

Actually I think you have us the wrong way around.

[AL78]

I was one of the players (responder). Certainly my partner said that when he bid 3S he thought spades was his short suit and that is what the 3S bid means for us.

 

But let's also clear up another point that the original poster made, which is that if my partner had deliberately departed from our agreements (psyched) then as long as I had no more reason to suspect this than the opponents, which was the case, this is entirely legitimate.

 

I agree, unfortunately trying to convince someone their strong assertion is wrong is often futile.

 

I apologise if my original post caused offence. I didn't agree with my friend, but wanted to double check here.

[hrothgar]

I don't think the senior players are idiots, they just have a strong moral view on psyching (e.g. just because you can, doesn't mean you should).

 

You are otherwise voicing my thoughts, it was a psyche aimed at deflecting a potentially damaging lead and so allowed by the rules.

 

My friend just sounded rather bitter about it, which is understandable (if wrong) as she has been the victim of cheating in the past.

 

I have absolutely no use for people who get asked questions about the rules of the game and start substituting their own personal aesthetics.

 

You friend needs to learn to get over this.

In particular, they need to understand that their belief that some other pair has cheated them in the past is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

[glen]

Actually I think you have us the wrong way around.

You are correct

[glen]

How did you find the hand and identify the players so quickly? I wasn't even playing.

You said "My bridge partner", so after finding who, looked up hands. Then after find the board, looked up more hands by the opponents.

[gordontd]

I apologise if my original post caused offence.

No, it didn't cause offence. I would much rather have the question raised here, where I can answer it, than have people going around talking about it in ways that I can't respond to.

[AL78]

No, it didn't cause offence.

 

Good. I asked a delicate question which could easily have antagonised several people, especially one or both of the pair involved, and that is the last thing I want to do.

[pilowsky]

I agree with everyone - except the 'idiot' comment (which was completely unnecessary). On the other hand, given that TD's hold a position of special authority in our community, perhaps their play should be held to a higher standard.

If a policeman breaks the law, then who can you trust?

An innocent mistake is fine, but these ought to be logged and tracked so that, for his own good, and the good of the game everyone can sleep well at night - or in my case the day - being on the other side of the world...

[gordontd]

If a policeman breaks the law, then who can you trust?

Nobody broke the law.

[pilowsky]

Nobody broke the law.

 

That's what I said Gordon. It's the principle of Caesar's wife. Nobody is accusing you of wrongdoing.

[blackshoe]

there seems to be a view that psyches should be illegal.

Seems to me this view is wrong-headed, and in any case irrelevant, since psyches are not illegal.

 

This case demonstrates one problem with the online custom of explaining the meanings of your own calls. There may be others. Here, the assumption by the player that her opponent was cheating is perhaps understandable, she having been a victim in the past, but there is really no basis for it.

 

BTW, if he had bid 3!S on purpose, that would have been a psych, and he still would have and should have explained the agreement correctly that it was a splinter. What he said though was that he mis-clicked. That's a mis-bid, not a psych. Still requires the same explanation — splinter — of their actual agreement.

[gordontd]

That's what I said Gordon.

I don't think it is what you said, which is why I made the point.

[gordontd]

Here, the assumption by the player that her opponent was cheating is perhaps understandable, she having been a victim in the past, but there is really no basis for it.

Since she thought that this situation indicated cheating, we have no way of knowing if she really had been a victim of it in the past. Perhaps it had been another misbid or a psyche. Since she has asked the opinion of those who seem to think that psyching is tantamount to cheating, she might well have gained the wrong impression about her previous experience.

[pilowsky]

I don't think it is what you said, which is why I made the point.

 

You seem to be going out of your way to deliberately misunderstand me. What exact point are you trying to make Gordon?

What I said was that Tournament Directors are I the position of Caesar's wife this is a well-known legal principle. I specifically said that you were not chaeting.

If you are unfamiliar with the expression, it means "

• (proverb) Those in positions of authority should avoid even the implication of impropriety."

 

Do not persist in trying to call me out in this way it is childish. How do you know what other people 'think'? Is this something that you seriously believe yourself capable of?

 

I don't know about the other people in this thread but I am not accusing you of anything.

[Huibertus]

As for any other sport or game, players are allowed to make mistakes, if that were not allowed no skill difference would be allowed.

 

And for psychs, they are regulated and allowed. So using a psyche is not cheating (unless it is known a bid can be a psych and this is not disclosed) Bridge law 40;

 

C. Deviation from System and Psychic Action

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]. Repeated deviations lead to implicit understandings which then form part of the

partnership’s methods and must be disclosed in accordance with the regulations governing

disclosure of system. If the Director judges there is undisclosed knowledge that has

damaged the opponents he shall adjust the score and may assess a procedural penalty.

2. Other than in C1 above, no player is obliged to disclose to the opponents that he has

deviated from his announced methods.

 

 

As for this (type off) bidding sequence, remember who did it. I used to regularly play against a partnership where we basically knew, we were very likely to be able to cash the first two tricks in the suit of the first control bid N/W player of the pair, very usefull knowledge ;)

[AL78]

Since she thought that this situation indicated cheating, we have no way of knowing if she really had been a victim of it in the past. Perhaps it had been another misbid or a psyche. Since she has asked the opinion of those who seem to think that psyching is tantamount to cheating, she might well have gained the wrong impression about her previous experience.

 

She definitely has experienced cheating from players at our club, buth at the physical club and online, although as said it means nothing regarding this instance.

 

First occasion: At the physical club before COVID, her partner alerted her to one of her opponents trying a subtle peek-a-boo to get a glimpse of her hand, who then took a very anti-percentage line of play on the basis of her holding a specific honor card which got them a top.

 

Second occasion (not proved but highly likely): BBO auction by opponents: 1♥ - 2♦ - pass. The 2♦ response was based on a long suit and a four count. The 1♥ opener held a 15 count. They get a top because 2♦ makes and no-one else finds it, it is the only contract that makes their way. These opponents were a married couple (and are poor players) so had the capability to look at each others hands. It is easy to get away with this because it is virtually impossible to prove.

 

There have been other suspicious occasions on BBO by a different married couple (suspected by more than one other player).

 

Sadly there exist people who just want to win, don't have the ability to be a winner, can't be bothered to put in the time and effort to become a winner, and lack a moral compass, so take the attitude anything is good if they can get away with it.

 

These past experiences may have made her a bit oversensitive. Whilst I was disputinig her claim, it appeared she didn't really understand the difference between a mis-bid, a psyche, and a mis-explanation. I tried to explain that if the opponents have given an accurate description of their agreements (which he had), then if one of them has a hand inconsistent with that agreement, that is not against the rules.

[dsLawsd]

If, as it appears, that this auction was brought to the attention of the TD then that should be the end of the matter and the incident should be recorded. In the ACBL that would be a memo to the recorder. The TD should urge the person who said they mis-clicked to change their settings to verify their bids. These things do happen.

 

But well regarded players should be extra careful when playing against lower rated or inexperienced pairs (if that was the case). The TD did have the option to adjust the score and apparently chose not to do so.

 

ACTIVE ETHICS///

[nige1]

[hv=lin=st||md|2S58JKH2D7TC3456TA,S29H5789JKAD58QKC,S347TAH3D269JC78J,|rh||ah|Board 4|sv|b|mb|1H|mb|p|mb|2N|an|GF raise|mb|p|mb|3S|an|0-1 !s, good hand|mb|p|mb|4H|mb|p|mb|6H|mb|p|mb|p|mb|p|pg||pc|D9|pc|D3|pc|D7|pc|DK|pg||pc|HJ|pc|H3|pc|HQ|pc|H2|pg||pc|CK|pc|CA|pc|HA|pc|C8|pg||pc|D5|pc|D2|pc|DA|pc|DT|pg||pc|CQ|pc|C3|pc|S2|pc|C7|pg||pc|D4|pc|S5|pc|DQ|pc|D6|pg||mc|12|]400|300|Al78 "My bridge partner has just told me a situation which cropped up on BBO where she got a bottom because they were diverted from the killing lead by one of the opponents doing what sounded to me like a psyche, but she is adamant they were cheating."

+++++++++++++++++++

As everybody has pointed out:

 

Whether deliberate or a mistake, departure from your agreements is legal (provided it's as much a surprize to partner as to opponents).

 

Edited to remove names as GordonTD requested. [/hv]

[sfi]

But well regarded players should be extra careful when playing against lower rated or inexperienced pairs (if that was the case). The TD did have the option to adjust the score and apparently chose not to do so.

 

ACTIVE ETHICS///

The director has no legal basis to adjust the score, and should be subject to sanction for doing so. Ethics doesn't come into play here.