[blml] Psyches & deviations

[Wayne Burrows]

On 17/01/07, Nigel <Guthrie at ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> > [Eric Landau]
> > For Nigel's notion of "context" to be useful in distinguishing among
> > "green", "amber" and "red" psychs (it's not clear whether Nigel is
> > suggesting that it is), a player would not only have to be presumed to
> > know how likely partner was to psych in a given context, but also how
> > likely his opponents were to do so.  The former presumption is merely
> > dubious; the latter is absurd.
> >
> [nige1]
> Really Eric?
>
> I am sure that Eric Landau is right that you shouldn't take into account
> partner's propensity to choose which
> context in which to psyche; but I think it is OK to estimate the
> likelihood of an opponent's psych; there are
> some contexts in which nobody seems to psych. If opponents are in such a
> context, perhaps, you can justify
> "fielding" partner's psych.
>
> Manifestly, in contexts where somebody does not have the values for his
> call, but there is no evidence as
> to the culprit, it is 2:1 that an opponent has misbid or psyched rather
> than partner.
>
> So that fielding is normally an anti-percentage action; and a priori
> grounds for grave suspicion.
>
> Like Grattan, I feel that a single "red field" should justify an
> adjusted score.
>
> Most alternative strategies seem to encourage pairs to devise CPUs.

This is speculative at best.

>
> It might work to record every psych and deviation and to collate the
> data internationally but it would be a
> massive administrative task and might even come into conflict with
> data-protection and privacy law.
>
> What CPU counter-measures would Eric Landau and Wayne Burrows advocate.
> Or do they recommend
> an even more permissive attitude to CPUs?
>

I would advocate investigating whether a concealed partnership
agreement exists.  This should be easy with a few questions.  If the
players turn out to be not telling the truth in response to those
questions then when they are found out we hit them with a serious
cheating allegation.  I would expect it would not take very many short
to medium term bans to get the vast majority of players conforming to
a proper disclosure of their methods.

I am fully against a permissive attitude to CPUs but I am also
strongly against a random regulation mandating a ruling of CPU where
one does not exist.

Wayne