[EricK]

So you can have a situation where two pairs in the same compeition who play the same system bid a pair of hands in exactly the same fashion (including a psyche, and a follow up which does not cater for that psyche), and one is acting illegally and the other legally?

[skjaeran]

EricK, on Jun 20 2009, 09:43 AM, said:

So you can have a situation where two pairs in the same compeition who play the same system bid a pair of hands in exactly the same fashion (including a psyche, and a follow up which does not cater for that psyche), and one is acting illegally and the other legally?

Yes, sure you can. Just read the law and understand it, and you'll see that's the case.

But that's not the crux of it. The point is that if you have been in the situation before, and know partner's tendencies, you have to disclose themit. If not, you don't disclose your partnership understandings; explicit or implicit; which your opponents are entitled to.

[EricK]

But my point is that if you do disclose your partnership tendenices, and don't actually cater for your partner having psyched even if it is a tendency to psyche in that situation, then that should be sufficient. Anything else is practically unworkable.

[skjaeran]

EricK, on Jun 20 2009, 12:24 PM, said:

But my point is that if you do disclose your partnership tendenices, and don't actually cater for your partner having psyched even if it is a tendency to psyche in that situation, then that should be sufficient. Anything else is practically unworkable.

If you disclose your partnership tendencies, thus giving the opps both your explicit and implicit agreements, everything is fine, yes. Provided these implicit agreements are legal in the event you're playing. An implicit agreement isn't a psyche, by definition.

[EricK]

This just seems ridiculous to me.

Since most psyches would be systemically illegal, it seems one is never be able to disclose partner's psyching tendencies, since the very fact that you know enough to disclose them, means he his no longer able to bid those psyches.

[blackshoe]

It's like this. Your partner can psych. After he makes the same psych some number of times, so that you begin to expect that psych, you have an implicit agreement that the bid includes the "psych" hand type. If that agreement is legal, you're fine, so long as you explain it as part of your agreements. If the agreement is not legal, partner can no longer make that psych. But this has no effect on other psychs. Each particular psych is treated separately.

[awm]

I'd go a bit further than blackshoe, and say that it's not just the number of times partner has made the same psych, it's the frequency. Basically, the odds of partner making a particular psych on a particular hand have to be very low in order for it to remain a psych and not an agreement. But there's not a hard limit -- I'd say someone who has psyched the 1♠ response three times out of a partnership history that includes only five 1♥-X-1♠ auctions has effectively an agreement, whereas someone who has psyched the 1♠ response six times out of a partnership history that includes five hundred 1♥-X-1♠ auctions does not have an agreement. Obviously no one keeps a real count of these things, but seeing the same psych in the same partnership multiple times within a period of a few sessions is normally actionable.

[cherdanno]

EricK, on Jun 20 2009, 08:49 AM, said:

This just seems ridiculous to me.

Since most psyches would be systemically illegal, it seems one is never be able to disclose partner's psyching tendencies, since the very fact that you know enough to disclose them, means he his no longer able to bid those psyches.

You are approaching this from the wrong point of view. The most important principle is full disclosure. You may not have more knowledge about the meaning of your partner's bid than the opponents.
We can argue about psychs all night long. Full disclosure is 100 times as important, and the rules dealing with psychs (and your handling of them) may not violate full disclosure.
If you think there is something wrong with the rules, then you should lobby for more permissive regulation of agreements. You shouldn't try to weaken full disclosure.

I think I have posted "full disclosure" often enough for now, but I am happy to explain the importance of the concept further if you think it may be necessary.

[EricK]

awm, on Jun 20 2009, 05:10 PM, said:

I'd go a bit further than blackshoe, and say that it's not just the number of times partner has made the same psych, it's the frequency. Basically, the odds of partner making a particular psych on a particular hand have to be very low in order for it to remain a psych and not an agreement. But there's not a hard limit -- I'd say someone who has psyched the 1♠ response three times out of a partnership history that includes only five 1♥-X-1♠ auctions has effectively an agreement, whereas someone who has psyched the 1♠ response six times out of a partnership history that includes five hundred 1♥-X-1♠ auctions does not have an agreement. Obviously no one keeps a real count of these things, but seeing the same psych in the same partnership multiple times within a period of a few sessions is normally actionable.

But there are two frequencies at play - the relative frequency of the two hand types (e.g. how often does one hold a weak hand with short spades and hearts support, compared to how often one holds a responding hand with a spade suit), and the frequency with which one psyches when holding a suitable hand.

Depending on these frequencies, it can easily be the case that one can psyche very frequently on a particular hand type and yet psyche very rarely in that auction

[EricK]

cherdanno, on Jun 20 2009, 07:09 PM, said:

EricK, on Jun 20 2009, 08:49 AM, said:

This just seems ridiculous to me.

Since most psyches would be systemically illegal, it seems one is never be able to disclose partner's psyching tendencies, since the very fact that you know enough to disclose them, means he his no longer able to bid those psyches.

You are approaching this from the wrong point of view. The most important principle is full disclosure. You may not have more knowledge about the meaning of your partner's bid than the opponents.
We can argue about psychs all night long. Full disclosure is 100 times as important, and the rules dealing with psychs (and your handling of them) may not violate full disclosure.
If you think there is something wrong with the rules, then you should lobby for more permissive regulation of agreements. You shouldn't try to weaken full disclosure.

I think I have posted "full disclosure" often enough for now, but I am happy to explain the importance of the concept further if you think it may be necessary.

But I thought this was the point of view I was approaching it from! I have never suggested people shouldn't disclose their partner's psyching tendencies. On the contrary I am claiming that as long as they disclose it, and as long as they continue not to allow for their partner having psyched, then partner should be able to psyche as much as he wants.

Anything else seems unworkable.

[peachy]

EricK, on Jun 21 2009, 03:10 AM, said:

cherdanno, on Jun 20 2009, 07:09 PM, said:

EricK, on Jun 20 2009, 08:49 AM, said:

This just seems ridiculous to me.

Since most psyches would be systemically illegal, it seems one is never be able to disclose partner's psyching tendencies, since the very fact that you know enough to disclose them, means he his no longer able to bid those psyches.

You are approaching this from the wrong point of view. The most important principle is full disclosure. You may not have more knowledge about the meaning of your partner's bid than the opponents.
We can argue about psychs all night long. Full disclosure is 100 times as important, and the rules dealing with psychs (and your handling of them) may not violate full disclosure.
If you think there is something wrong with the rules, then you should lobby for more permissive regulation of agreements. You shouldn't try to weaken full disclosure.

I think I have posted "full disclosure" often enough for now, but I am happy to explain the importance of the concept further if you think it may be necessary.

But I thought this was the point of view I was approaching it from! I have never suggested people shouldn't disclose their partner's psyching tendencies. On the contrary I am claiming that as long as they disclose it, and as long as they continue not to allow for their partner having psyched, then partner should be able to psyche as much as he wants.

Anything else seems unworkable.

However; "as much as he wants" has regulated limits. Even if a psych were a different psych each time the player makes it, frequent psyching that could be considered as "frivolous" is not allowed, at least in ACBL. I seem to remember something like 'twice a session' is too much, but maybe someone could actually link the regulation/advice from ACBL.

[gnasher]

EricK, on Jun 21 2009, 09:10 AM, said:

But I thought this was the point of view I was approaching it from! I have never suggested people shouldn't disclose their partner's psyching tendencies. On the contrary I am claiming that as long as they disclose it, and as long as they continue not to allow for their partner having psyched, then partner should be able to psyche as much as he wants.

You may think that the rules should say that, but they don't. The Laws say that:
- If your partner makes a given category of psyche too often, it becomes an implicit agreement.
- Once such an agreement exists, it must be disclosed.
- The Regulating Organisation has the right to regulate such agreements. That includes the right to forbid your having a particular implicit agreement.

Quote

Anything else seems unworkable.

It seems perfectly workable to me. Tell your partner to stop psyching so much, or make sure that your agreements, whether explicit or implicit, are allowed.

[blackshoe]

From A 2005 Summer NABC bulletin article by Mike Flader:

Quote

1. An agreement to psych, either explicit or implicit, is illegal. Apattern of frequent psychs suggests an agreement, as do calls made by the psycher’s partner in an auction when partner has made a call that is a psych. When a director deems that a pair has such an agreement, he may award an adjusted score if he believes that the opponents have been damaged as a direct result of the illegal agreement. He may, in addition, assess a procedural penalty against a guilty pair even if there is no damage to the non-offending side.
2. Frequent or excessive psychs are illegal. If it is reported to the director that a pair has psyched three times in a session, the director should proceed under the assumption that this is the case.
3. Frivolous or unsportsmanlike psychs are also illegal. Apair deemed to be psyching in the hopes of creating a favorable swing on the last round of an event against the leaders when the offending pair is out of contention is deemed to be doing this. The same applies to a pair who attempts to help friends by “taking a flyer.” Players must attempt to win even if their position is hopeless. The penalty for doing this could be as severe as an appearance before a conduct and ethics committee with possible probation or suspension for the offenders.

Advice on how to handle psychs at the club level was offered in the next day's bulletin.

[PassedOut]

Thanks for the link. Some good suggestions there:

Quote

• Define for everyone what a psych actually is — a gross misstatement of either the strength or the shape of one’s hand made with the intention of misleading the opponents.

• Require that all psychs be reported – twice. Once by the victims and once by the offenders. A notice to this effect should be posted in the club’s playing area. All directors in the club should be aware of the policy and its purpose – to increase everyone’s enjoyment of the game.

And the following statements touch on an issue raised in a different thread:

Quote

A top pair should not have to psych against pairs with considerably less experience. Encourage them to “play it straight,” a tactic which will result in a friendlier atmosphere and help the less experienced pairs improve and can even lead to the mentoring of the newer pairs. The top pairs will still win most of the time. Suggest to them that psyching against weaker pairs in a club game should be viewed as unsportsmanlike.

I wonder how many clubs have implemented these suggestions, particularly the double reporting of psyches.

[matmat]

Quote

3. Frivolous or unsportsmanlike psychs are also illegal. Apair deemed to be psyching in the hopes of creating a favorable swing on the last round of an event against the leaders when the offending pair is out of contention is deemed to be doing this. The same applies to a pair who attempts to help friends by “taking a flyer.” Players must attempt to win even if their position is hopeless. The penalty for doing this could be as severe as an appearance before a conduct and ethics committee with possible probation or suspension for the offenders.

to me those are incompatible statements...

[PassedOut]

matmat, on Jun 21 2009, 11:53 AM, said:

Quote

3. Frivolous or unsportsmanlike psychs are also illegal. Apair deemed to be psyching in the hopes of creating a favorable swing on the last round of an event against the leaders when the offending pair is out of contention is deemed to be doing this. The same applies to a pair who attempts to help friends by “taking a flyer.” Players must attempt to win even if their position is hopeless. The penalty for doing this could be as severe as an appearance before a conduct and ethics committee with possible probation or suspension for the offenders.

to me those are incompatible statements...

They certainly seem to be.

[uday]

Quote

An agreement to psych, either explicit or implicit, is illegal. Apattern of frequent psychs
suggests an agreement

Thus an ACBL-land partnership that has an implicit agreement to psych is doing something illegal. We can decide later what exactly is meant by "pattern of frequent psychs"

It seems that psychs within regular partnerships ( in ACBL-land ) should eventually cross some threshold (thus generating an implicit agreement) and become illegal implicit agreements. Can we think of any partnership that has curtailed its psyching on this basis ? Any at all?

[matmat]

uday, on Jun 21 2009, 02:42 PM, said:

It seems that psychs within regular partnerships ( in ACBL-land ) should eventually cross some threshold (thus generating an implicit agreement) and become illegal implicit agreements. Can we think of any partnership that has curtailed its psyching on this basis ? Any at all?

I feel like it really shouldn't be the psyches that are regulated, since they are legal, but rather much stringent rules and penalties should be placed on fielding them. A good and ethical player will be aware of the possibility that their partner may have psyched, but will not act on this knowledge until the psych is revealed.

An approach like that may strain partnerships, since, imo, it is quite difficult to ignore p's likely psych.

[blackshoe]

uday, on Jun 21 2009, 02:42 PM, said:

Thus an ACBL-land partnership that has an implicit agreement to psych is doing something illegal. We can decide later what exactly is meant by "pattern of frequent psychs"

It seems that psychs within regular partnerships ( in ACBL-land ) should eventually cross some threshold (thus generating an implicit agreement) and become illegal implicit agreements. Can we think of any partnership that has curtailed its psyching on this basis ? Any at all?

This is a Law, not a regulation, so it applies everywhere, not just in the ACBL. As to your two questions, I have no idea.

[helene_t]

matmat, on Jun 21 2009, 08:53 PM, said:

A good and ethical player will be aware of the possibility that their partner may have psyched, but will not act on this knowledge until the psych is revealed.

Is that really the lawful thing to do?

It seems to me that if I can infer that my p is likely to have psyched without the psych have being "revealed" it means that we have an implicit agreement to psyche. Which is an oxymoron.

The ethical (lawful) thing to do would be to disclose our agreements. If this means that our agreements become illegal (for example (1♣)-1♠ meaning either a normal overcall or on rare occasions a weak hand with three little spades would be a BSC if 1♣ was a natural bid), we will have to psyche less.

Maybe if I can infer p is likely to have psyched because I can count 55 HCPs in the deck and opps' calls are unlikely to be psychs it doesn't count as "revealed" (since the information may not be available to opps), but in that case I think I should be allowed to field the psych. The litmus test being: if I could field this psych with an unknown p I am allowed to field it with my regular p also.