[blml] a psyche classification

[Alain Gottcheiner]

Hi all,

Two more comments

[Roger]
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.

AG : [3] is a good point, often overlooked. However, in the present case, 
there were legal tip-offs : vulnerability + PH + WJO. This is indeed one 
case where the probability of a psyche by a Plutonian partner is 
nonnegligible, so not raising it will not necessarily be proof of a 
specific implicit understanding ("specific understanding" being the antonym 
of "common bridge sense").

There is at least one case when the reason a player gave for psyching was 
"the opponent's mannerism [hesitating halfway to the bidding box] hinted 
that he had a strong and complex hand" and the reason for guessing the 
psyche was exactly the same. 100% legal, I'd say.

If you don't allow for "objective tips", it'll mean that if "there are 55 
points in the deck" you're not allowed to decide partner was the joker, 
based on objective elements (say, vulnerability, or opponent's claim that 
"they never psyche" while you "occasionnally psyche"), lest you be 
castigated as fielders (sorry, Jonty) or, worse, c****s. I don't buy it.

[Tim] 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."

AG : a trifle upsetting. Imagine such a case where there are 55 points in 
the deck. Correctly guessing, without the legal hints I mentioned in the 
first part, would be disallowed, OK. Now why would you say "there was an 
understanding" ? Perhaps there was Rogr's class [2] UI.

A related situation would be the following : if RHO "opened" while it was 
partner's turn, and partner opens a 1-bid, and RHO bids, and thereafter 
there seems to be too many points in the deck, I want to be allowed to 
infer that partner opened light, in order to make things more difficult to 
them (allowed and standard practice), rather than being told we had an 
agreement about our reactions over irregularities (disallowed).

Best regards

    Alain



Best regards

   Alain