[gnasher]

bluejak, on 2012-October-30, 07:49, said:

So what is [or might be] illegal?
...
What else? Fielding a psyche, ie a breach of Laws 40A3 and 40C1. The method of dealing with fielded psyches differs from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, which is one of the reason we ask OPs to state jurisdiction when asking questions.

Does the pass of 3NT suggest South is allowing for the 2NT not to be natural, ie is he allowing for his partner not to have his bid? Of course it does: he had game values opposite a natural 2NT bid and took no positive action. Definitely fielded.

There are lots of reasons that South might play for North to have psyched. If he did it because North psyches a lot, they have a CPU and have broken Laws 40A3 and 40C1.

If, on the other hand, South reasoned "We're losing the match; therefore partner is more likely than usual to have psyched; the odds favour playing for him to have psyched, so that's what I've going to do", there is no CPU - South is simply making a judgement of probabilities based upon the state of the match. If there is no CPU, no Law has been broken. You can call South's actions fielding if you like, but that doesn't make them, or the 2NT opening, illegal.

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2012-October-30, 09:48

[mycroft]

I would have told South that if 3♠ made, and I were called to report the [2nd] psychic, I would have adjusted the score to 3♠X= - and I'd be willing to take arguments about a pull to 4♦, but as with that hand both 3♠ and 4♦ could be going down, they'd better be good.

I am not sure I am adjusting the score - but I am ruling from the failure to either XX or double 3♠ that there's an undisclosed partnership understanding, and that South bid throughout based on it. Yes, E-W also know the evidence, but they did pretty well to handle it, it's just unlucky that the cards are such that N-S make whatever they bid.

Everybody's saying that the double of 2NT "clearly shows values", and exposes the psychic - I don't know why it would. Why couldn't East have North's hand, even without the ♣Q? I'd expect, if it were penalty, that it was penalty based on tricks, not big balanced; Simon's "Obviously, you have 15 points. Equally obviously, they are making 3NT" applies in spades to this one - East is going to be endplayed at Trick 1 (granted, so is North, but if South has the balance, he's probably getting his tricks before East does; and if West runs, or doubles a runout, we're in a world of hurt).

I remember giving up -400 in 1NTxx once - we had 25-27 high, so it seemed good. Doubler had ♠AKQJxxx and showed "strong NT values".

Trinidad's "I'll keep doing it if you can't patch it" turns it into a non-concealed partnership understanding. *If it's legal* in the event, then E-W is hosed. If not, then it's an illegal convention, and if used, will be punished as such.

So, with all the rambles, score stands, N/S PP for clearly making at least one call based on an undisclosed partnership understanding. Next hand please, and please report any further funny stuff, even if it turns out that it's all perfectly legal.

[Mbodell]

I don't really understand this thread. Who plays that immediate X of 2nt is penalty on values? Really? And if I hold a flattish 8 count I'm going to pass and hope we take a few overtricks in 2ntX worried that someone (maybe CHO) will take out a XX by me. My partner and I would not have discussed what XX of 2ntX with X as penalty, because who uses it for that and if they do how often does it come up (and if it does come up how certain is it that someone is psyching at the table - either the 2nt bidder or the Xer)?

The pass of 3♠ seems odd. I guess if East said that X shows "equal or better" penalty of 2nt, or even 15+ penalty, then South does know someone is faking. And North not doubling gives a slight clue that it is more likely to be East. But I think a X is called for.

[ahydra]

South might have fielded the psyche by not doubling 3S, but surely there's no damage because that just turns 400 into 1100? I'm more worried about whether he should redouble 2NT, but maybe that's conventional for them (e.g. I think South is entitled to believe partner might draw analogies to 1NTX auctions and bid 2C expecting a 5c suit opposite, for example).

Can we not class the X of 2NT as WoG? It's entirely plausible for North to hold two heart stops (A10xx) and have 9 tricks in the minors / pointy suits before East can knock both of these out. That hand is a clear double of 3NT, but not 2NT.

Every double of 2NT I've ever encountered has been for penalty. Yes it might make more sense to play it as two-suiter or something, but I would imagine there are plenty of national-level partnerships without such an agreement.

ahydra

[Cyberyeti]

ahydra, on 2012-October-31, 04:36, said:

South might have fielded the psyche by not doubling 3S, but surely there's no damage because that just turns 400 into 1100? I'm more worried about whether he should redouble 2NT, but maybe that's conventional for them (e.g. I think South is entitled to believe partner might draw analogies to 1NTX auctions and bid 2C expecting a 5c suit opposite, for example).

Can we not class the X of 2NT as WoG? It's entirely plausible for North to hold two heart stops (A10xx) and have 9 tricks in the minors / pointy suits before East can knock both of these out. That hand is a clear double of 3NT, but not 2NT.

Every double of 2NT I've ever encountered has been for penalty. Yes it might make more sense to play it as two-suiter or something, but I would imagine there are plenty of national-level partnerships without such an agreement.

ahydra

I have no issue with the X of 2N, it's a small gamble, but not stupid.

I have no issue with S not redoubling (would be artificial for us, not sure for NS), 2Nx=/+1 figures to be a nice gain anyway and is more likely to stay there than 2Nxx.

W's 3♠ smacks of a system misunderstanding as you really wouldn't want to move this and find partner has Xd off 6 cashing clubs, the SEWoG definition doesn't seem to deal with system misunderstanding, it appears W is assuming partner has shown some spades as would be shown over 1N.

Not doubling 3♠ does appear to be a field.

[Trinidad]

Except for in the UK, concluding or guessing that your partner has psyched is not against any law. It is only against the laws if your conclusion or guess is based on an explicit or implicit concealed partnership understanding.

Let's assume that this pair indeed psyches rarely. (If they normally psyche twice a session, it is simply a case of MI.) Now they psyche a 2NT opening against this pair and repeat the very same psyche a few boards later. How can one possibly consider that a concealed partnership understanding if they just made the very same psyche right in front of these opponents? The least one could say is that they didn't do a very good job at concealing it. I would say that the opponents know just as much as partner, which is exactly what they are entitled to know.

Rik

[gnasher]

Trinidad, on 2012-October-31, 07:40, said:

Except for in the UK, concluding or guessing that your partner has psyched is not against any law.

It's not against any rule in England either. It's merely subject to penalty.

[mycroft]

Trinidad, on 2012-October-31, 07:40, said:

Except for in the UK, concluding or guessing that your partner has psyched is not against any law. It is only against the laws if your conclusion or guess is based on an explicit or implicit concealed partnership understanding.

gnasher, on 2012-October-31, 08:12, said:

It's not against any rule in England either. It's merely subject to penalty.

It's written badly(*), but the argument in England is that bidding as if partner has psyched is evidence of implicit partnership understanding, and if the evidence is strong enough, whether on the one hand, or from repeated experience, or in addition to knowledge about previous actions by this pair/player, the ruling will be as if the CPU existed, and the penalty will be a fairly normal CPU ruling.

(*) from a "this is actually legal, and here's the legal foundation" perspective. From a "here's how we rule", or "this is why we have to rule this way" TD perspective, and from a "these are your obligations when psyching/believing a misbid" player perspective, it's much better than if the legal dance was spelled out.

[gnasher]

mycroft, on 2012-October-31, 10:18, said:

It's written badly(*), but the argument in England is that bidding as if partner has psyched is evidence of implicit partnership understanding, and if the evidence is strong enough, whether on the one hand, or from repeated experience, or in addition to knowledge about previous actions by this pair/player, the ruling will be as if the CPU existed, and the penalty will be a fairly normal CPU ruling.

Isn't that what I said? It's not against the rules to do it, but it will be penalised as though you have, in fact, broken the rules.

Quote

From a ... "these are your obligations when psyching/believing a misbid" player perspective, it's much better than if the legal dance was spelled out.

That's a strange thing to say. The English regulations don't impose any obligations on a player who thinks his partner may have psyched.

[bluejak]

Trinidad, on 2012-October-31, 07:40, said:

Except for in the UK, concluding or guessing that your partner has psyched is not against any law. It is only against the laws if your conclusion or guess is based on an explicit or implicit concealed partnership understanding.

Same as in the UK. If you field it, it's based on a CPU in any country in the world. The difference in the UK is how we deal with a fielded psyche, not whether it is fielded.

[barmar]

mycroft, on 2012-October-31, 10:18, said:

It's written badly(*), but the argument in England is that bidding as if partner has psyched is evidence of implicit partnership understanding, and if the evidence is strong enough, whether on the one hand, or from repeated experience, or in addition to knowledge about previous actions by this pair/player, the ruling will be as if the CPU existed, and the penalty will be a fairly normal CPU ruling.

Basically, it seems that the EBU is admitting that evidence of a CPU is really hard to get -- it requires extensive record keeping across different venues, and the ability to access and analyze these records. With this, a pair could go from club to club, making similar psyches in each session, and the TDs would never notice the pattern -- each of them just sees one psyche, so it looks like an isolated event.

So once you admit that it's not really feasible to detect CPUs reliably, what do you do? You could allow all psyches (which is effectively what happens most of the time in other jurisdictions), or you could use his partner's actions as evidence: if his action allows for the psyche, it implies a CPU. IANAL, but the EBU rules seem to be analogous to "circumstantial evidence" in criminal law.

[Sjoerds]

barmar, on 2012-October-31, 14:37, said:

So once you admit that it's not really feasible to detect CPUs reliably, what do you do? You could allow all psyches (which is effectively what happens most of the time in other jurisdictions), or you could use his partner's actions as evidence: if his action allows for the psyche, it implies a CPU. IANAL, but the EBU rules seem to be analogous to "circumstantial evidence" in criminal law.

Partner passes 3♠ because he figured out 2NT might be a psych. Does this mean that in EBU rules this is judged as fielding?

[bluejak]

Sure. You have no evidence that partner has psyched rather than the double - which surely no-one plays as 20+ balanced - was dubious. Why should you decide partner has psyched rather than the doubler has not got a suitable hand? Simple: partner is prone to psyching 2NT openings.

Note that if you had redoubled 2NT and partner had pulled it, now letting them play 3♠ is normal and not fielding at all. The evidence that partner has psyched rather than an opponent is playing around is now adequate.

[gnasher]

Sjoerds, on 2012-October-31, 15:03, said:

Partner passes 3♠ because he figured out 2NT might be a psych. Does this mean that in EBU rules this is judged as fielding?

Yes. Or at least Bluejak says so in post #6, and he should know.

In England there is, so far as I know, no published explanation of what constitutes fielding and what does not. All the rules say is that if your actions provide evidence of a CPU you are assumed to have one. There are two examples in the TD's guide of situations where you can legitimately assume partner has psyched, but these both involve the psycher taking an "impossible" action like passing a forcing bid.

In practice, it appears that the psycher's partner can't use a probablistic approach - he can only cater for a psych if there is no other reasonable explanation for the auction.

Of course, none of this has any bearing on how to rule in the Netherlands.

[Trinidad]

bluejak, on 2012-October-31, 13:55, said:

Same as in the UK. If you field it, it's based on a CPU in any country in the world.

That's simply not true. For starters there are many countries in the world where the term "fielding a psyche" doesn't even exist. And if "fielding a psyche" doesn't exist one cannot say that "fielding a psyche" is based on a CPU.

In other countries players are allowed to guess (or gamble) that it was partner who psyched (and they won't be penalized for guessing correct).

In this particular case, almost by definition, there cannot be a CPU: The opponents were perfectly aware of the possibility to psych a 2NT opening. It had happened right before! Nothing was concealed -the opponents had the same information as partner- hence no CPU. And as long as there is no CPU, you can bid what you like (except in the UK).

Rik

[Trinidad]

gnasher, on 2012-October-31, 17:36, said:

[What Bluejak says and how things are in the UK.]

Of course, none of this has any bearing on how to rule in the Netherlands.

+1

Rik

[RMB1]

Trinidad, on 2012-October-31, 17:40, said:

In this particular case, almost by definition, there cannot be a CPU: The opponents were perfectly aware of the possibility to psych a 2NT opening. It had happened right before! Nothing was concealed -the opponents had the same information as partner- hence no CPU. And as long as there is no CPU, you can bid what you like

But if you have a partnership understanding that 2NT may be 20-21 BAL or some <20 hands, this may not be a permitted agreement.

Trinidad, on 2012-October-31, 17:40, said:

(except in the UK).

I think it is a mistake to assume that the Scots follow the EBU approach in this matter (or in any matter). In couple of years they may formalise this separation from English regulation more widely.

[Trinidad]

RMB1, on 2012-October-31, 17:58, said:

But if you have a partnership understanding that 2NT may be 20-21 BAL or some <20 hands, this may not be a permitted agreement.

That is entirely true, and an entirely different issue. But one prior occurrence doesn't make an agreement.

But the whole 'fielding a psyche' thing is based around full disclosure. We don't accept it if partner knows more than the opponents. Most of the time, the criterion is that partner knows as little as the opponents. Here, the opponents knew as much as partner.

Rik

[Trinidad]

RMB1, on 2012-October-31, 17:58, said:

I think it is a mistake to assume that the Scots follow the EBU approach in this matter (or in any matter). In couple of years they may formalise this separation from English regulation more widely.

Please read "England" wherever I wrote "UK". Those British Islands can be confusing.

We have the same problem on this side of the North Sea. There is a difference between "The low lands/countries", "The Netherlands" and "Holland". But outside the Benelux nobody knows what it is. (And then I didn't even mention "The Kingdom of The Netherlands", which -again- is different.)

Rik

[RMB1]

Trinidad, on 2012-October-31, 18:19, said:

We have the same problem on this side of the North Sea. There is a difference between "The low lands/countries", "The Netherlands" and "Holland". But outside the Benelux nobody knows what it is. (And then I didn't even mention "The Kingdom of The Netherlands", which -again- is different.)

Noted. I guess there are such mistakes made in refering to regions of many countries.