[blml] A Psyche Classification

[Tim West-Meads]

DALB wrote: 
> [DALB]
> 
> It is a curious fact that people who are vehemently opposed to the 
> notion that failure to raise spades with four of them does not
> deserve a classification above green are people who are, on many
> occasions, known to hold hands that do not very much resemble the
> bids they make.

More drivel.  The failure to raise spades provides (IMO) some evidence
that the pair are not playing 2S as "natural".  What agreement (implicit,
experiential, or whatever) are you suggesting the pair had in order to
rule a red psych?  I really don't care what conclusion you come to
because *whatever* the agreement it is legal according to EBU regulations.
My "vehement opposition" is to those idiots who rule a psych "red" when
the agreement that has been deemed to exist is an otherwise legal one and
the matter is like any other disclosure ruling.

> 
> [TWM]
> 
> If no such agreement is deemed to exist then it's a green psych.
> 
> [DALB]
> 
> Nonsense. 

It can't be nonsense.  If you deem the pair to have had no disclosable
agreement/understanding/experience then you have no option but to rule
the psych green.  OTOH if you determine that the pair has an agreement to
play 2S as "often mock spades" you will need to consult the OB as to the
legality of such an agreement wrt the Pachabo. (I've checked, it would be
legal).

> If West is not going to support spades with this hand, 
> when is he going to support spades? And if he is never going to
> support spades, then his partnership has an understanding that was
> concealed from the opponents at the time, 

So you judge there is an improperly disclosed understanding (such is the
right of a TD).  That means there was a failure to alert 2S.  Law21 tells
us that this constitutes MI and refers us to Law40c.  Law40c says that we
adjust if the MI damaged opps.  You may also impose a PP/DP for such lack
of disclosure.  What you are not permitted to do under either EBU
regulation or the law is rule that failure properly to disclose, of
itself, makes a convention "illegal".

> and may well be concealed from other opponents at  other times.

And one would instruct the OS to inform their opponents (via CC and
alerts) properly in future.

> [TW}
> 
> FWIW I'd incline towards the player having taken a view based on his
> general experience rather than partnership knowledge.
> 
> [DALB]
> 
> This means that the player's "general experience" is that people 
> who bid spades in this auction don't have them. 

Say rather that "not everybody who bids Spades on this auction always has
them".  I don't know (AFAIA) the Pachabo player concerned but I do know
I'd be suspicious of the 2S bid if it arose on a perfect anonymity site
such as Bridge4Money.  It's *my* general experience which engenders such
suspicion - nothing to do with partner.

> Perhaps he plays a lot of his bridge against the likes of West-Meads
> and Probst, but I assure you that such experience is very far from 
> "general".

It matters not one whit what experience is actually "general" (a
meaningless concept if one tries to interpret it as "universal").  What
matters is if his bid is based on experience of/with the *specific*
partner or *HIS* general experience of the game. If playing with a new
partner one would be less inclined to presume the existence of relevant
partnership experience.

Tim