[blml] A Psyche Classification

[Tim West-Meads]

Burn wrote:

> Nobody is doing any such thing. This isn't a question of improper 
> disclosure of an understanding (that has nothing to do with
> psyching, for it is a sine qua non of a psyche that it is not based
> on any kind of understanding). 

Indeed.  And it is a sine qua non of a red psych that the auction has
provided evidence that the pair did indeed have an understanding.
It is a judgement call as whether a particular sequence provides
sufficient evidence to rule that an understanding exists.  Very little
judgement is subsequently required to determine whether that
understanding represents an *unauthorised* agreement - it's just a matter
of checking the OB.

> When we classify a psyche (or more properly, the actions of a player 
> following a psyche by his partner) as "red", we do not actually say >
"you had such-and-such an understanding, 

Yes, we do! OB6b1 "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."   That is very notion of a red psych within the
EBU regulations.  OK so "Red Psych" is a misnomer but what it means (and
is defined as in the OB) is "We have determined that this wasn't a psych
at all."

If the actions of a player following a psych provide evidence of an
understanding then that understanding might be found to be properly
disclosed, improperly disclosed, or unauthorised (and thus illegal).  
Adjustment (if any) will be based on which of those applies.

Take a simple auction where one opens 1N on Kx,Axxx,KQx,JTxx.  Partner
bids 2H and one continues with 2S which partner passes with
Qxxxxx,x,xxx,xxx.  We do not automatically rule "fielded psych" we ask
questions and arrive at the conclusion that the pair had an understanding
to play transfers.  We adjust if the failure to announce/disclose caused
damage.