[Fluffy]

When someone forgets the agreements it might end up with an artificial bid beign psyched. The rules in my country ban psyches on artificial bids, is it correct to adjust scores based on this rule after someone missbids even when after the missbid they did everything correct taking the LAs they should etc?

[nigel_k]

If they forget their agreement it is not a psyche. A psyche has to be deliberate.

[Vampyr]

Fluffy, on 2012-May-30, 03:06, said:

When someone forgets the agreements it might end up with an artificial bid beign psyched. The rules in my country ban psyches on artificial bids, is it correct to adjust scores based on this rule after someone missbids even when after the missbid they did everything correct taking the LAs they should etc?

nigel_k, on 2012-May-30, 03:18, said:

If they forget their agreement it is not a psyche. A psyche has to be deliberate.

I think that rules cannot be consistently applied without misbids being treated as psyches. In general, laws and regulations that require you to get into the head of the bidder are wrong.

Exceptions can, of course, be made for novices, like in that "weak 2 in clubs" thread (if psyching a SAF bid is prohibited in the given jurisdiction).

[Cyberyeti]

I think there has to be the odd exception made.

I posted a hand a while back where somebody opened a multi (which he plays with other partners) while playing Acol 2s with the guy he was actually sitting opposite. Should they get nailed to the wall if they happened to be playing Benji instead of a natural Acol 2 ? I think not.

[bluejak]

Vampyr, on 2012-May-30, 04:35, said:

I think that rules cannot be consistently applied without misbids being treated as psyches. In general, laws and regulations that require you to get into the head of the bidder are wrong.

Psyches and misbids are different and are not treated as the same legally. Furthermore, why should they be?

The case Law in England was when a player opened a Benjamin 2♦ [equivalent to an Acol 2♣] at a time when it was illegal to psyche such bids. The player had forgotten that she played Benjamin with this partner, so she had opened what she believed to be a Multi 2♦. Pass, 2♥, Pass, Pass to a player with an excellent knowledge of the Laws and Regulations. He held a 4=1=4=4 12 count and passed, which was not a success, since 4♠ was cold.

He argued that since the opponents were not allowed to psyche a Benjamin 2♦ he assumed the pass was a mistake and he saw no need to re-open. In England if you use an illegal convention then the board is scored as Ave-/Ave+ to the user under Law 12C1D and a Regulation [unless the non-offending side does better than Ave+]. He thus asked for Ave+.

The TD decided that the bid was a misbid not a psyche and ruled result stood. The AC upheld the TD and commented they nearly kept the deposit. The L&EC upheld the TD, pointing out that the Regulation only covered psyches, not misbids.

[Fluffy]

bluejak, on 2012-May-30, 07:38, said:

Furthermore, why should they be?

Because it is easy to psyche and then say you forgot. And since psyches are rare anyway nobody will have enough evidence for the contrary. Obviously this cannot be done with 2♣ opener as it is too obvious, but look at the 2♦ case.

[bluejak]

That is just like saying you did not hesitate. In the cases where it matters whether you misbid or psyched, the TD makes a judgement, similar to deciding whether there was a hesitation or not.

[barmar]

Vampyr, on 2012-May-30, 04:35, said:

In general, laws and regulations that require you to get into the head of the bidder are wrong.

That would be more appropriate to in the Changing Laws forum. In this forum we try to apply the Laws as written. And in the case of distinguishing misbids from psyches, that's what they require.

Actually, all they really require is that the player answer the director's questions honestly. Most of the Laws assume that players don't lie; when they make mistakes, they admit them. There are some borderline cases where players may actually deceive themselves (look up "cognitive dissonance" in wikipedia). The hardest cases, I think, are distinguishing between mechanical problems and brain farts or not seeing other bids. E.g. last night I opened 1♠, LHO (a novice and new to the club) started bidding 1♠ herself, but returned it to the box and substituted 2{CL] just before it hit the table (which I think is OK in ACBL -- the bid isn't considered made until it's on the table), fumbling as if it had been a mechanical problem; but when her hand came down as dummy, I don't think anyone was surprised that she had 5 spades (I don't think her partner took advantage of the UI, and they ended up in a poor contract so we weren't damaged). It was pretty obvious that she didn't really have a slip of the fingers, she just didn't see my opening until her bid was almost made.

But if someone forgets an agreement, my experience is that they're usually willing to admit it.

[jallerton]

Fluffy, on 2012-May-30, 09:06, said:

Because it is easy to psyche and then say you forgot. And since psyches are rare anyway nobody will have enough evidence for the contrary. Obviously this cannot be done with 2♣ opener as it is too obvious, but look at the 2♦ case.

bluejak, on 2012-May-30, 13:18, said:

That is just like saying you did not hesitate. In the cases where it matters whether you misbid or psyched, the TD makes a judgement, similar to deciding whether there was a hesitation or not.

There an important difference, David.

In the disputed hesitation situation, the TD is told by two players that there has been a hesitation, and he is told by the other two players that there has not been a hesitation. The TD knows that whatever he determines the facts to be, he has to apparently disbelieve two people. (Also whether there was a hesitation or not can be a matter of opinion; sometimes in non-ruling situations I believe an opponent has hesitated and when I talk to my partner afterwards (s)he does not agree; on other occasions my partner has sensed a slight hesitation which I did not notice.)

Contrast this with the present case. There's no grey area here: either the player knew what his bid showed or he did not. Only one player knows what happened, so the TD asks the player who made the disputed bid. If that player says that he forgot the system rather than psyched, is the TD ever going to have sufficient evidence to accuse that player of lying?

[Phil]

In Anaheim, 2000, a tired Phil opened a light 1♣ in 3rd seat with an 11 count. This worked nicely as our opponents could not get to the proper contract.

The only problem was I was playing Precision at the time. The opponents were not pleased and I received an A(-) for my efforts.

[bluejak]

jallerton, on 2012-May-31, 11:59, said:

There an important difference, David.

In the disputed hesitation situation, the TD is told by two players that there has been a hesitation, and he is told by the other two players that there has not been a hesitation. The TD knows that whatever he determines the facts to be, he has to apparently disbelieve two people. (Also whether there was a hesitation or not can be a matter of opinion; sometimes in non-ruling situations I believe an opponent has hesitated and when I talk to my partner afterwards (s)he does not agree; on other occasions my partner has sensed a slight hesitation which I did not notice.)

Contrast this with the present case. There's no grey area here: either the player knew what his bid showed or he did not. Only one player knows what happened, so the TD asks the player who made the disputed bid. If that player says that he forgot the system rather than psyched, is the TD ever going to have sufficient evidence to accuse that player of lying?

Sorry, I don't buy this argument. I judge, I do not accuse anyone of lying ever. And I shall continue to make judgements as long as I am a TD because that is what TDs do.

[barmar]

bluejak, on 2012-May-31, 23:06, said:

Sorry, I don't buy this argument. I judge, I do not accuse anyone of lying ever. And I shall continue to make judgements as long as I am a TD because that is what TDs do.

If someone makes a statement of fact in a situation where he can be expected to know the answer, and you make a judgement contrary to this, then you are in effect accusing him of either lying.

Of course, the qualifier "can be expected to know the answer" is not always the case. This is what makes hesitation cases tricky -- most people are really poor judges of how much time elapses (10 seconds is longer than most people think). Even cases about "what were you thinking when you XXXed?" can be confounded by cognitive dissonance. But people like to think they know themselves, so if there's a judgement against them on something like this, they're naturally going to feel as if they're being called a liar. Or you're calling them delusional because they don't know their own minds.

[iviehoff]

jallerton, on 2012-May-31, 11:59, said:

If that player says that he forgot the system rather than psyched, is the TD ever going to have sufficient evidence to accuse that player of lying?

Phil, on 2012-May-31, 12:03, said:

In Anaheim, 2000, a tired Phil opened a light 1♣ in 3rd seat with an 11 count. The only problem was I was playing Precision at the time. I received an A(-) for my efforts.

So apparently a TD was so willing to rule (apparently wrongly), no doubt that on the balance of probabilities it seemed unlikely that you would forget your basic system in mid-session, when you had previously faultlessly remembered it numerous times.

I've never heard anyone say what a clever wheeze it would be to psyche a strong bid, no doubt because the risk you'll end up going for a telephone number in the high contract partner raises you to outweighs the occasional gain. So probably the director should have realised that, although unlikely, it was more likely a misbid than the even more unlikely possibility of a psyche.

On one occasion my partner misbid Benjamin 2D holding a weak 2, chance gave us a cold top; our opponents were gracious in realising that they had no recourse to law. But I remember that best because it was an exception: other occasions of misbidding strong bids have resulted in a poor score.

[gordontd]

iviehoff, on 2012-June-01, 03:35, said:

I've never heard anyone say what a clever wheeze it would be to psyche a strong bid,

A few years ago I was called to a table where David Burn (dburn), who was on that occasion playing Strong Twos, had opened 2♠ with a classic Weak Two hand. I asked him if he had forgotten, and he said something like "no, I remembered just before I made the bid, but then I realised I had never psyched a Strong Two before, so I thought it would be rather fun to do."

Clever? I don't know. Wheeze? Certainly.

[Cyberyeti]

I have perpetrated a psyche/misbid of an artificial bid out of turn for extra opprobrium.

LHO deals and RHO playing a strong club has very obviously run out of fingers and toes to count points. I have a suitable hand for a panama bid over a strong club so the auction goes P-P-1♣ and I bid 2♣. Unfortunately, that was what I thought happened, in fact RHO was in another world and hadn't opened his club yet, so I'd just psyched/misbid an Acol 2♣ out of turn.

[bluejak]

barmar, on 2012-May-31, 23:53, said:

If someone makes a statement of fact in a situation where he can be expected to know the answer, and you make a judgement contrary to this, then you are in effect accusing him of either lying.

No. I have no sympathy in bridge, in life generally, or anywhere with this argument.

When someone says "That is in effect calling me a liar" then he and only he is calling himself a liar: I have not. Furthermore, I always doubt the ethics of people who say things like this: such a statement to me is evidence they may have lied. If I accuse someone of being a liar I say "You are lying". I never call someone a liar 'in effect'.

Rulings in bridge are given on preponderance of evidence and judgement: anyone who cannot accept this is a pain. Anyone who starts talking about being accused "in effect" of something when they have not been accused is doing the accusing themselves. Sure it is a well-known tactic by unethical players.

[barmar]

I guess you also must be one of those rare people who never use euphemisms, either. You just come out and say everything on your mind explicitly, no matter how it will make other people feel.

How is someone supposed to interpret a ruling that can only be correct if you don't believe what they said? What are you implying about them? You can't say "nothing", because actions do have implications.

Of course, you're often between a rock and a hard place. If you have to rule in a "he said, she said" situation, you can only rule in favor of one of them. The other must be lying or deluded, and you can't begrudge them resenting the implied accusation.