[blml] Psyches & deviations [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Wayne Burrows]

On 14/01/07, Nigel <Guthrie at ntlworld.com> wrote:
> [Wayne Burrows]
>
> >> No Richard you miss my point.  My argument is that one instance of a
> >> 'psyche' is always insufficient to establish a concealed partnership
> >> agreement.
> >>
> >> At university my statistics lecturer after we had sat a test was asked
> >> if they had been marked.  He responded that he had been interupted
> >> after marking only one paper but that we had done well based on "an
> >> unbiased sample of one".
> >>
> >> If we could establish a CPU then I would all for punishing the
> >> players. If we cannot then I am against punishing innocent players.
> >>
> [nige1]
> What are the criteria for the *establishment* of an irregularity?
> [A] near certainty?
> [B] beyond reasonable doubt?
> [C] the balance of probability?
>
> IMO
> [A] If witnesses catch an already suspected repeat offender in the act,
> that might establish a crime with *near certainty*.
> [B] Most criminal convictions, especially of a *one-off offence*, have
> to be satisfied by *circumstantial evidence* and the *reasonable doubt*
> criterion.
> [C] In a civil case, if you rule for one side, you must rule against the
> other, so the *balance of probability* usually suffices.
>
> At the bridge table, unless complete records are assiduously kept,  the
> director  usually deals with  a *one-off case*. Normally, the director
> has to judge on the *balance of probability*. The best legal analogy is
> a *civil* dispute rather than a *criminal* case because *one side or the
> other must suffer*.

I dislike balance of probabilities since it means in close cases
nearly half of those found guilty are penalized or more accurately
nearly half of those penalized are not guilty and we do not even
bother to find out whether or not they are guilty.  As noted below we
just absolve ourselves of responsibility by saying that others who
acted like this would be guilty so we are going to penalize you
anyway.

> I fear that Wayne believes that if the director rules *red psych*
> against a pair, that he is accusing  them of  a CPU (cheating if they
> know the law)  As Grattan makes clear, this pair could even be friends,
> whom the director believes to be pure as the driven snow. The director's
> ruling means merely that if a number of pairs fielded a similar psych in
> the same way, most of them would be likely to be guilty of a CPU or
> something similar.

No I don't care what the director is accusing me of doing if I am not
doing it and I get my good score taken away and awarded a 30% board
then I am not happy.

The EBU acknowledges this problem in the Orange Book.

Orange Book 6B2 "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 his partner takes action that
appears to allow for it then the TD will treat it as fielding."

This is in direct conflict with L40A which allows that player to "make
any call ... provided that such call or play is not based on a
partnership understanding".  As such it is my opinion that the EBU
regulation is outside the EBU's power in publishing supplementary
regulations - L81F "to publish or announce regulations supplementary
to, but not in conflict with, these Laws". A regulation requiring that
an innocent player is ruled against when the law allows that player to
make 'any call' is clearly a significant conflict.

Clearly we cannot use the call as a basis for establishing a
'partnership understanding' since we would see the same evidence
whether the call was illegally based on an understanding or not.

What other people do at a different table is no basis to make a ruling
at my table.

Years ago a friend of mine who at the time was a roll-your-own
cigarette smoker bought a packet of filters.  The label on the filters
said 'average contents 100'. He said I don't want to know what is in
every other packet I want to know what is in this packet. It is much
better to investigate each case.

> A practical alternative is to condone most implicit understandings about
> psychs -- but that sacrifices the principle of full disclosure.

I imagine if we had a "Red Psyche" rule in NZ I would be able to get
most of the LOLs at our club in any session.  They frequently misbid
and their partner's frequently field their misbid with a misbid of
their own.  When the two misbids compensate and they land in the right
spot I would be delighted if I could call the director and get a 60-30
adjustment.

This rule must be chaos or perhaps most calls that meet the red psyche
definition are just not reported.

Wayne