[blml] Psyches & deviations

[Wayne Burrows]

On 20/01/07, Nigel <Guthrie at ntlworld.com> wrote:
> [Wayne Burrows]
> > 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.
> >
> [nige1]
>
> After thousands of words of argument, it appears that we have been in
> agreement from the start :)
>
> Wayne and Eric imagined that Grattan and his supporters insist that the
> director rule on the hands and auction alone, but we took it for granted
> that the director would gather available evidence :)
>
> Grattan and his supporters were under the impression that W&E refuse to
> rule CPU on the basis
> of a single board -- but W&E assumed that Grattan & Co would not ask
> appropriate questions as well :)
>

>From the Orange Book we have:

"6 B 1 The actions of the psycher's partner following a psyche – and,
possibly, further actions
by the psycher himself – may provide evidence of an unauthorised, and therefore
illegal, understanding. If so, then the partnership is said to have
'fielded' the psyche.
The TD will judge actions objectively by the standards of a player's
peers; that is to say
intent will not be taken into account.
6 B 2 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.
6 B 3 A partnership's actions on one board may be sufficient for the
TD to find that it has an
unauthorised understanding and the score will be adjusted in principle
(eg 60% to the
non-offending side and 30% to the offending side is normal in pairs).
This is classified
as a Red psyche."

I object to:

1. "The TD will judge actions objectively by the standards of a
player's peers; intent will not be taken into account"

This seems to suggest to me that if a bid looks like a CPU then it
will be considered a CPU whether or not I have an explanation.

2. "some players may be understandably
upset that their actions are ruled to be fielding"

To me this suggests that it is known that some innocent actions will
be considered as illegal fields.  I contend that it is very easy to
sift the illegal actions from the legal here except if a player or
pair are intent on cheating and in that case when they are finally
caught they should be treated correspondingly harshly.  There is no
need to use the arguement 'that looks like a field so it must be a
field' and punish innocent players.

3. "A partnership's actions on one board may be sufficient ..."

I don't believe that a partnership's actions would ever be sufficient.
 If they were sufficient then there would be no need to ask questions
that you content Grattan and co. would ask.  I am happy that a
partnership's actions on one board could create a suspicion and they
frequently do for me. Nevertheless simple questions will usually clear
up the situation and as I contend unless they are intent on cheating
by answering those questions falsely will normally easily establish
whether or not there is a CPU.  But it is never that the actions on
the one board were sufficient to convict.

It is possible particularly with an inexperienced partnership that
they answer any questions falsely without intent simply because they
have not noticed a pattern. My experience however is that at least as
often in their naivity they will convict themselves by their answers.

Wayne