[blml] Psyches & deviations

[Wayne Burrows]

On 12/01/07, Nigel <Guthrie at ntlworld.com> wrote:
> You *field* a psych when partner "psychs" and you depart from system in
> a way that seemingly allows for it  (It does not matter what your
> intention is; or even if are aware of partner's psych).
>
> The *rule of coincidence* is the suspicion of a CPU when you field
> partner's "psych". (It may be obvious that *somebody* is at it, but you
> should have reason to expect that it is partner rather than either
> opponent).
>
> Under the EBU, A *single such coincidence* that suggests a likely CPU,
> attracts a 60%-30% penalty for a *red* psyche. When there is a mild
> suspicion of a CPU but inadequate evidence then the psych is *amber*.
> Most psychs are above board, showing no evidence of fielding, so are
> *green*.

IMO this penalty based on a single coincidence is grossly unfair and
contrary to L40A which gives a player the right to make 'any' call.

Lets say I am aware that the bidding doesn't not 'add up' and further
than I suspect partner has psyched but without certain knowledge that
it is partner who does not have his bid and I take some action to
cater to the possibility that partner has psyched or does not have his
bid for some other reason then (in a simple world) two things may
occur ...

1. It may have been partner who psyched or whatever and we avert a disaster

2. It could have been the opponent who psyched and I create a disaster

As long as there is some chance that it is 2 and not 1 that occurs
then it can not be claimed that my choice of calls is based on a CPU.
It is not clear what that chance should be but I would think that an
experienced player playing against 'normal' opponents even in a new
partnership would get this decision right more often than not - there
are some auctions that my opponents have never psyched; there are some
players that I know will never psyche etc there are many reasons that
are nothing to do with a CPU.

Clearly one instance of a coincidence is not sufficient evidence to
establish whether or not a partnership ever gets these situations
wrong.  And going wrong occasionally would be clear evidence that
there is not a concealed partnership agreement.

Penalizing psyches based on one coincidence is clearly an attempt to
discourage psyches which are a legimate part of the game. To me this
is in conflict with L40A. Therfore I would argue it is an illegal
regulation L80F.

Wayne