[blml] psyches, rule of coincidence

[Jeff Easterson]

blmlers!  I see from the comments that more info is needed.  Cannot any 
longer describe the exact hand since the incident was more than 20 years 
ago.  Here are, however some details, some of which might even be 
pertinent.  I shall refrain from exact names of places and countries in 
case someone might come along and feel that his honour has been impugned.
The tournament took place in an eastern european country in the time 
before the "iron curtain" fell. Players in most eastern european 
countries at that time had little or no access to contemporary or even 
older bridge literature and there were many pretty bizarre systems and 
conventions.  It kept you on your toes as a TD.  The players from two 
balkan countries (not the top players but the second line) did not have 
a very good reputation for highly ethical behaviour.  The first 
instruction given to new players from western Europe when playing in 
this tournament for the first time was to keep your legs stretched out 
at all times under the table when playing against pairs from the two 
countries mentioned above so as to hinder foot contact by the opponents 
under the table.
Anyway, in the cases mentioned in my earlier email, I, naturally, after 
being called by the other pair, questioned the pair which didn't make 
the apparently indicated limit raise (after checking their conv. card). 
  As a blmler said, I am also skeptical and not easy to convince in such 
cases.  In both cases the player not making the limit raise admitted 
that (a) they played limit raises and (b) his hand was a perfect, book, 
example for a limit raise.  When I then asked why he didn't make one 
then I received nothing very convincing (no one even claimed to have 
forgotten the convention).  As I recall the explanations were more like: 
  "I didn't feel like it", "I had a hunch", "I decided to break out of 
the system".  None of them convinced me.  I had not been called 
previously to be told that one of these pairs had refused to make a 
limit raise when the partner had a genuine opening but that means little 
since the TD is often not called in such situations, particularly if 
there has been no damage.  In any case, there had been two psyches in 
each case (at least bids that didn't conform to the announced system) 
and they compensated (each other), in short, the psyche was fielded and 
there was no explanation how or why.  There was also no indication in 
the bidding that someone had psyched (the opponents had passed, 
apparently in normal tempo) but somehow, when the psyche was made, the 
partner of the psycher compensated and was unable to offer an even 
halfway convincing reason for doing so. So, despite it being the first 
occasion for each of these pairs, I adjusted the scores and, in fact, 
I'd do it again.  But, as I said earlier, I see a great deal of value in 
Wolfies rule of coincidence (as long as TDs are careful and don't go 
overboard in applying it).  Unrepentently, JE