[Sjoerds]

---

Experts NS and EW Teams
After EW went for -4 they called me.
2NT was clearly a psych and the convention card stated "rare" at that chapter. This was the second time this match that this pair bid 2NT as a psych(admitted).
EW stated too that dbl wasn't the best action to take; they have no agreements over dbl in this situation. Dbl after an opening of 1NT means ♠ and ♥.

South stated: "be happy I didn't double"

How do you rule

[Lanor Fow]

Was it the same person who pyshced twice?

Were the partnership in question asked how often they psyche this, or when the last time they psyched this before this match?

[Sjoerds]

Lanor Fow, on 2012-October-30, 07:04, said:

Was it the same person who pyshced twice?

I don't know. Is it important?

Lanor Fow, on 2012-October-30, 07:04, said:

Were the partnership in question asked how often they psyche this, or when the last time they psyched this before this match?

I leave this one open for the moment.

[helene_t]

Sjoerds, on 2012-October-30, 06:56, said:

South stated: "be happy I didn't double"

He obviously fielded his partner's psyche when he failed to double, and I think this is a quite serious violation, especially as it was the second time in the match a 2NT opening was psyched by this partnership.

Edit: maybe East's double disclosed North's psyche since from South's point of view it is nearly impossible that East holds both majors or a penalty double if North has a real 2NT opening. I am not sure if I would buy that excuse, I am inclined to say no.

This post has been edited by helene_t: 2012-October-30, 07:44

[wank]

south can work out that someone's at it. it only makes sense for it to be north, so i'd say no problem unless in a jurisdiction which treats fielding of psyches harshly (i'm thinking of england grrrr).

obv now they've psyched 2nt twice it's in danger of becoming a partnership understanding, so if a 3rd time comes up i'd be inclined to adjust. i would also be asking them if they had done it before and making sure the national authority's records were checked for a pattern, in case this wasn't only the 2nd time.

[bluejak]

Psyching is not illegal: psyching twice in the same way in a short space of time is not illegal.

So what is [or might be] illegal?

MI? "Psyches are rare." Well, my psyches these days are probably very rare. But that would not stop me psyching on consecutive boards if the boards and opponents suited. Nor does it mean a description of very rare is MI. So, unless we find this pair regularly psyches, there is no infraction.

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.

In England/Wales this is a Red Psyche. Ave-/Ave+ and a further PP. In this case the South action is so egregious [see, I can use that word too! ] that the normal 10% is not enough, so 10% or equivalent is not enough. 9 imps to E/W whatever the result in the other room as a combination of Artificial Adjustment and PP.

In other jurisdictions you are meant to use Law 12C but the problem is that the 2NT bid is the illegal action, being a breach of Law 40C1, so you have to adjust according to Law 12B1, but without the infraction means the expectation after two passes. The only sensible way to deal with this is the English way, ie apply Law 12C1D.

[lamford]

wank, on 2012-October-30, 07:47, said:

south can work out that someone's at it. it only makes sense for it to be north, so i'd say no problem unless in a jurisdiction which treats fielding of psyches harshly.

obv now they've psyched 2nt twice it's in danger of becoming a partnership understanding, so if a 3rd time comes up i'd be inclined to adjust.

I think you are obliged to assume it is East who is "at it" until demonstrated conclusively otherwise. If you redouble, and partner bids 3♦ then your obligations have been met. Otherwise, the following applies:
"A player may deviate from his side's announced understandings always provided that his partner has no more reason to be aware of the deviation than have the opponents."

The failure to redouble here would, in I hope every jurisdiction, be treated as fielding, and classified as red in the EBU. It looks like a routine 3 IMPs to the non-offenders, or whatever the regulation is in the jurisdiction in question.

And I see I have posted just after Bluejak, with whose similar views I agree, although I think 9 IMPs is too much.

[helene_t]

I don't think South is under obligation to redouble. I wouldn't do it myself (ok, irelavant, I am not a peer of South who is reportedly an expert). But South might be content with 2NTx, maybe North can redouble, maybe North would take redbl as dogtail, maybe E would bid 3♦ if South redoubles.

[bluejak]

If you do not redouble then failure to double 3♠ is fielding, and disgracefully so.

[wank]

lamford, on 2012-October-30, 07:52, said:

I think you are obliged to assume it is East who is "at it" until demonstrated conclusively otherwise. If you redouble, and partner bids 3♦ then your obligations have been met. Otherwise, the following applies:
"A player may deviate from his side's announced understandings always provided that his partner has no more reason to be aware of the deviation than have the opponents."

The failure to redouble here would, in I hope every jurisdiction, be treated as fielding, and classified as red in the EBU. It looks like a routine 3 IMPs to the non-offenders, or whatever the regulation is in the jurisdiction in question.

And I see I have posted just after Bluejak, with whose similar views I agree, although I think 9 IMPs is too much.

that's the ebu position, hence i edited my original comment to say i consider the ebu's stance to be harsh. i think mostly around the world, the partner of the psycher is allowed to try and work out what's going on when it's obvious that something's not right, and if he thinks the most likely culprit for the nonsensical nature of an auction is partner, he's allowed to take whatever action he sees fit, as long as that assessment isn't based on prior knowledge.

the ebu's position seems to assume prior knowledge whenever the partner of a psycher makes a successful judgement. there shouldn't be any need to make such an assumption though - we collect psyche forms (i don't know how these are handled, admittedly) so any prior knowledge should become evident.

as for why i think south can work out what's going on here, east is very unlikely to be making a psychic double as it will too often end the auction and result in a large number of doubled overtricks being scored up. this is presuming the double wasn't conventional.

[wank]

bluejak, on 2012-October-30, 08:03, said:

If you do not redouble then failure to double 3♠ is fielding, and disgracefully so.

there's no reference in the laws to fielding. it's an ebu term. the ebu treats these things in a different manner to most countries - think of fielding misbids.

[blackshoe]

The EBU's approach to fielding misbids has nothing to do with this case.

[billw55]

wank, on 2012-October-30, 08:05, said:

if he thinks the most likely culprit for the nonsensical nature of an auction is partner, he's allowed to take whatever action he sees fit, as long as that assessment isn't based on prior knowledge.

Perhaps, but in this case it evidently was based on prior knowledge.

lamford, on 2012-October-30, 07:52, said:

And I see I have posted just after Bluejak, with whose similar views I agree, although I think 9 IMPs is too much.

I don't. Obvious CPU, obvious fielding, by players who obviously know better. Bringing the hammer down hard is 100% appropriate.

[Codo]

Yes no way for south to count his 8 HCPS with the expected 21 from partner and the penalty double from East with (here) 15 HCPS (surely minimum) and work out that someone psyched.
As Wank pointed out, If someone psyched, could it be a psyched penalty double of 2 NT? Did anybody in the world ever did that? Hardly. So, if you are a simple soul and count HCPS, who did psych?

Look at the hands: East double was NOT for the majors. It was penalty. Now south should act as if it was not despite the fact that nobody ever claimed that the X of 2 NT was conventional?

[RMB1]

blackshoe, on 2012-October-30, 08:29, said:

The EBU's approach to fielding misbids has nothing to do with this case.

Because this case did not happen in EBU juristiction?

But the EBU approach to fielding misbid is the same as the approach to fielding psyches - a red fielded psyche is a finding that the original call was not a psyche but instead was a call which by parnership understanding has the disclosed meaning and some other meaning - a red fielded misbid is a finding that the original call was not a misbid but instead was a call which by parnership understanding has the disclosed meaning and some other meaning.

[aguahombre]

Do want you want to N/S.

East lost a chance to really nail N/S if he had passed and so did South. Can't get any redder than that.

East got busy and deserves what he got. Would he be complaining if South's HCP were held by North, instead? the double would presumably still be removed by West, because that is what he did.

[blackshoe]

This case is about a psych. Perhaps I should have said "the fact that the EBU approach to fielded misbids is the same as its approach to fielded psychs has nothing to do with this case".

[Trinidad]

Let me put it like this:

I psyche a 2NT opening. The opponents double and it turns out they have a misunderstanding and we get a good board for free. They do not fix their agreements.

If I see a second opportunity to psyche 2NT in the very same match, I would use it. This has nothing to do with a CPU with partner. It doesn't have anything to do with partnership understandings at all. It has something to do with exploiting a critical weakness in the opponents' bidding. I might even call 2NT "natural" in the sense of "the bid that has the best expected result without any special agreements with partner being necessary".

I would warn the opponents that if they don't fix this whole in their system right now, I might keep exploiting it.

Rik

[Sjoerds]

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

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.

The pass of 2NT doubled looks as an easy game to me .
On the pass of 3♠ he stated that he worked out that his partner must have psyched.

[bluejak]

wank, on 2012-October-30, 08:09, said:

there's no reference in the laws to fielding. it's an ebu term.

Sure, but that's just language. There is a reference to fielding in the Laws - read Laws 40A3 and 40C1 - but not the use of the word.

As for it being an EBU term, yes, the EBU has defined it. But many years of posting on RGB have convinced me it is also a term used in other countries, though - confusingly - with two different meanings.

There are plenty of words used in Laws matters - eg, in discussions here - which do not appear in the Laws.