[blml] A Psyche Classification

[Guthrie]

[Roger Pewick]
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.

[nige1]
IMO, the EBU colour-coding of psychs is an excellent protocol that we 
look forward to being incorporated in the new edition of TFLB.

Other jurisdictions seem to tolerate CPUs (at one extreme) or ban 
psychs for all practical purposes (the other extreme). The EBU 
protocol seems ideal: it allows real psychs but deters CPU and UI.

[Roger Pewick]
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.

[nige1]

IMO, an impropriety occurs when you are better equipped than opponents 
to detect a deliberate systemic deviation by partner because of 
unauthorised information or a concealed partnership understanding.

[A] Typically, this expectation is from experience of playing with or 
against that player. Your opponents may not share that experience, so 
making use of it is unfair.

[B] In many long-standing partnerships, there are subtle, perhaps 
subliminal, clues, which you must try to ignore -- although it is 
tempting to rationalise such information as "intuition" or some such.

(Of course it is OK to act on clues from the demeanour of opponents).

I am unsure to exactly which of Roger Pewick's categories, [A] and [B] 
belong but most "red psych" cases involve suspicion of either or both.

IMO Richard Pewick misses the point of the EBU classification of 
"psychs". Rarely will a partnership admit to a CPU or to taking 
advantage of UI. Without such an admission, impropriety is hard to prove.

Nevertheless, the coincidence of  the *second* compensating deviation 
is improbable and suspicious. By penalising and recording such 
fortunate coincidences (without accusing the perpetrators of anything 
except unusually good luck), you deter potential improprieties by them 
or others.

It seems to work -- and would work better if more rigorously enforced.

Inevitably it is still hit or miss. Most CPUs and UI will still go 
undetected and unpenalised. But surely it is a small step in the right 
direction?