[blml] Psyches & deviations

[Wayne Burrows]

On 14/01/07, Nigel <Guthrie at ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> > [Wayne Burrows]
> > 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.
> >
> [nige1]
>
> Conveniently, Wayne omits from consideration the many other fielding
> cases where everyone may have the values for their call :)

It is not convenient at all.  If there is no evidence that someone
does not have the full values for a bid then an unusual action is a
stronger indication that there might be a CPU.  I would still argue
that in most cases you would need to investigate further.

I am merely trying to illustrate the problems with an automatic
classification based on one instance of an event occurring.

>
> Wayne's example -- where it is certain that somebody lacks the values
> for his call -- is still interesting.
>
> I agree with Wayne that partners seem rapidly to acquire an awareness of
> each other's intentions, even in the absence of discernable unauthorised
> inrormation.
>
> Even in a context in which partner is prone to psych and opponents have
> never been known to psyche, however, I think that the director should
> still classify the fielded psych as *amber* at least.
>

I disagree if it is certain that the opponents *never* psyche the it
is equally certain that it must be partner who has psyched.  Now you
need no partnership understanding at all to be able to field any
psyche.  Your ability to field is a direct consequence of the
opponents being solid citizens.

> You have two opponents but only one partner. Hence, I concede that if,
> in this context,  partner is twice as likely to misbid or psych than an
> opponent then the fielded psych should be categorised as *amber* at most.
>

Ok but when the odds of the opponents psyching are much less then than
this then it is much more reasonable to assume it is partner that is
operating than the opponents - and as i said before you can do this
without any partnership understanding.

> IMO the crucial problem with the present legislation is that the law is
> *too lax (and too complex)* not *too strict (and too simple)*.
>
> For example CPUs and UI seem to be common but most cases of fielding
> cater for deliberate *minor* departures from advertised methods (i.e.
> they involve fielded *deviations* rather than psychs). So they rarely
> occasion a director call and never attract adverse ruling. Many previous
> threads feature small deviations (for example in HCP) that even if
> reported would be unlikely to attract adverse comment because so many
> players and directors share Wayne's laissez faire attitude
>

I do not think my approach is laissez faire.  I am happy to penalize
those with CPU.  I am simply not happy to penalize based on no
evidence.  Or worse to penalize based on evidence contrived by a
definition in a regulation.  Especially when the regulation is of
dubious legality.

At the club recently I was playing against a pair - one who was a
member of my learner's class 2 years ago (although he had played a
little bridge some 20 years earlier) and the other a more experienced
and keen club player who has been known to mix it up a bit.  They were
not a regular partnership. My learner had 13 hcp and heard his partner
open the bidding but in a competitive auction sold out to 3D with a
fit for partner.  This worked as they had no game.  And the operator
had psyched.

In England this is an automatic 'Red Psyche' - at least by my reading
of the regulation no judgement is allowed - "If a player psyches and
his partner
takes action that appears to allow for it then the TD will treat it as
fielding." Orange Book 6B2.

In NZ I simply enquired of the opponents how often they psyched found
out that it had been very infrequent in that new partnership.  I
believed them and so moved on to the next board without a director
call.

I certainly think an enviroment in which the CPU is properly
investigated is much better than one where no CPU is defined as CPU.

Of course the opponents may lie in response to questions and so we
might not establish the existence of a CPU when in fact there is one.
But then the situation is not simply one of a CPU but of a partnership
(or player) deliberately cheating. If this gets found out then I would
expect much more severe consequences than an unfavourable ruling under
L40A or B.

Curiously Nigel's contention that there is more of a problem with
deviations than wiht psyches is also regulated out of existence by the
Orange Book which mandates the opposite:

"A partnership's actions following a deviation may provide evidence of
an unauthorised understanding, but they are less likely to do so than
after a psyche. As with psyches, deviations may be classified as Red,
Amber or Green." Orange Book 6B7

Wayne