[blml] Clarification...

[Nigel]

[John Probst]
There is nothing thorny or difficult about psyches. read law 40 until 
you understand it.

When you understand it then read law 75 till you understand it.

Where is the friggin problem?

[nigel]
If John thinks there's no problem. In the light of his admission I 
hope that John isn't consulted about clarifiying the law on psychs :) 
and I'm relieved that I usually disagree with John on this subject.

[A] Herman de Wael and I argue about the simplest basic case (An 
implicit agreement, not disclosed to opponents, that Herman opens 1H, 
3rd in hand, on 0-3HCP and any shape), This argument has never been 
officially resolved on BLML. The rest of the world may be wiser, but 
the law certainly needs clarification, at least for BLMLers :)

[B] The definitions (e.g. Orange Book Glossary) need a thorough 
overhaul. One example...

"A psych is a deliberate gross mistatement of honour strength and or 
suit length".

IMO it should be made clear that a psych is a mistatement of your 
*disclosed* agreements; otherwise a "fielded psych" or "red psych" is 
almost an oxymoron.

[C] Most dubious practices do not involve gross departures from 
disclosed agreements -- they concern *minor deviations* not psychs -- 
and the laws should reflect that.

[E] In theory, *psych controls* are usually illegal. In practice, this 
is another contentious area. For example Drury could be used to cater 
simply for light opening bids; but it also functions as a control for 
out and out psychs. Is it legal to psych when a reply like Drury is 
available to partner?

[D] *Tactical bids* aka "Expert psyches" are a large grey area. (for 
example, cue-bids, trial bids, exclusion asks). IMO, experienced 
partnerships are aware of when and how partner is likely to "operate" 
and so more legislation about disclosure is needed. Arguably, some 
"tactical bids" are controlled psychs.

[F] Legislatures try to *regulate methods*, for example by specifying 
HCP ranges or lower limits for calls. Of course, in  a sensible world, 
all such rules should be scrapped. If we *must* have them however, 
then it should be made clear when and how you can *psych* such 
regulated calls.

[G] One attempt to discourage calls outwith the regulations is to 
forbid subsequent conventional calls. A suggested way of circumventing 
this rule is to confine subsequent conventional calls to the putative 
psycher. If he psyched, he then passes or bids naturally. Otherwise he 
has the option of conventional calls (but all his partner's bids are 
natural). IMO this practice flouts the spirit of the law. It is not 
clear whether it is against the letter of the law.

[H] I think that the law book should no longer skirt round the psych 
issue. It should clearly define a psych vocabulary. Then mandate that, 
after partner psychs, you must act on the odds: if you suspect that 
somebody lacks the values for his bid then you must consider that it 
is more likely that one of your two opponents rather than partner has 
psyched or misbid, unless there is convincing evidence to the 
contrary. If you appear to field a psych then you should be penalized, 
even on the evidence of a single board. (As I understand it, this is 
the gist of the EBU position).

[I] I have always advocated psychs. They add interest and variety to 
the game. Meredith and Collins developed them into an Art form. I 
still maintain that you must desist from those that become implicit 
understandings.