[blml] A Psyche Classification

[Roger Pewick]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <Gampas at aol.com>
To: <blml at amsterdamned.org>
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 22:41
Subject: Re: [blml] A Psyche Classification


> Dealer North – Love All
> North
> Scoring:
> Hybrid
>
> K 9 7  3
> 6 4
> K 10  5
> K Q 9 7
> .
> J 6 4  2             A  5
> K J 10 7 5 3     Q 9 8 2
> 9                     Q  8 6 3 2
> 6  3                 10  4
>
> Q 10  8
> A
> A J 7  4
> A J 8 5 2
>
> West North East South
> Pass Pass Pass 1C
> 2H Dble* 2S 3D
> Pass 4C 4H 5C
> Pass Pass Pass
>
> 2H was weak; *alerted, ‘likely’ to have four spades
> Result: 5C - 1 by  South = -50
>
> Tournament Director’s comments: I feel this is close to being Amber –
> although pass may be the advisable action, many players would have raised 
> spades,
> and West must have been aware that this is a potential psyche situation. 
> I
> ruled the psyche GREEN.
>
> The above was a psyche in the Pachabo in England, originally ruled green 
> by
> the TD and reclassified by the L&E as red. It would seem from  later 
> minutes
> that East-West produced the opinion of three Grandmasters who  would all 
> have
> passed on the West hand. East-West submitted arguments that 2S  implied a 
> heart
> fit (it is clearly fit non jump to any average plus player), and  pass
> therefore showed a minimum. I would tend to agree with them - West knows 
> that it is
> not their hand, and raising spades will only help North-South  diagnose a
> double fit, when East-West may have to save at the five (or even six) 
> level.
>
> I can understand that antipathy towards "nasty, dirty, horrible" psyches
> generates this type of verdict. I would however, have reclassified it as 
> amber,
> rather than green. It is a common psyche situation, and the benefit of the
> doubt  has to be given to the opponents of the pair who psyched. After the 
> red
> classification there should have been a score adjustment when South  had 
> gone
> off in a cold game, although I did not see this adjustment in the  L&E 
> minutes.
> How would others have classified it?



One of the consequences of a system such as green-amber-red is that it 
manufactures something to do.  you have this rule- and to satisfy it you 
have to do something, and someone else has to do something, and you pay 
attention to it instead of taking care of business, and as with most things 
that are done, people get it wrong, and a lot of people put in a lot of 
effort to undo the wrong, and all this time people are distracted from 
taking care of business.



Maybe the point of the rule is to give players something to do that will 
distract them from taking care of business.  In 1959 Victor Mollo made such 
a point in his book, Bridge Psychology.



The breach of propriety in bridge bluffing lies in the improper detection 
that a [intentional] bluff has occurred.  There are three primary routes of 
the impropriety [1] secret communication (as in outside of calls and plays- 
finger signals for instance)  a very, very small proportion of impropriety. 
[2] the ‘unconscious’ or not tip-off to partner [UI] that ‘my hand may not 
match my bidding’ (for instance as by dramatic haste or slowness).  In other 
words the partner has UI that explains his fielding of the deviation.  By 
far the greatest proportion of impropriety.  [3] the  ‘unconscious’ or not 
tip-off to partner [UI] that the cards are probably sitting right to bluff 
(for instance a hasty pass may suggest “I’m truly broke” so there is less 
danger that partner will have enough to get into trouble.



In the case presented there was no evidence that the 2H bidder gave UI to 
partner that it would be favorable to bluff,  Nor was there the suggestion 
that the 2S bidder gave UI to partner that he bluffed.



Impropriety derives from the presence of UI, not from the judgment or lack 
thereof exerted by the player who does not have UI.



regards

roger pewwick