[PhilKing]

aguahombre, on 2013-October-22, 04:26, said:

And the offence was what? Using one's brain?

The penalty is for "fielding" a psyche - not for working out partner has psyched and taking appropriate evasive action. Even in England you are allowed to use your brain! (Though it is rare.)

[CamHenry]

In response to the original question, my immediate reaction was "I'm doubling; I can compete in ♠ later if partner can't double them". This caters for:
- oppo having lost a wheel
- partner having made a light bid and having spades with no values
- partner trying to talk oppo out of spades and actually having heart support; he can reveal the psych later and therefore clear up the situation (e.g. ... 2N-X-XX-3♥)

On the other hand, my class of player is NOT the class of player who stays in such events as far as the final, so I may not be a peer of the player in question

[mr1303]

As it was, partner has psyched, and bid 1S on a 2344 3 count or similar (I don't have the full hand records).

The player holding this hand passed, and the auction ended after 2NT.

How would you rule on the pass of 2NT? EBU land, so traffic lights in operation.

Would it make a difference if you're called to the same pair 5 minutes later to record another psyche?

[mycroft]

PhilKing, on 2013-October-22, 04:42, said:

The penalty is for "fielding" a psyche - not for working out partner has psyched and taking appropriate evasive action. Even in England you are allowed to use your brain! (Though it is rare.)

Ah, two countries separated by a common language again.

In NA, "fielding" a psychic means doing something you wouldn't do normally because you feel partner psyched. How one feels that is irrelevant. (It also means systemic catches to calls that are systemically allowed, but would be illegal under the appropriate chart if people didn't claim they were psychics, but that's irrelevant to the conversation).

In UK, "fielding" a psychic means making a call that implies or shows uses of information not available to the opponents - implying or showing use of a CPU (in NA, that would be "illegally fielding"). If partner exposes the psychic to the kibitzer that just plays poker, and you allow for it, it's not fielding (although it would be in NA).

So it seems you are violently agreeing.

[ahydra]

mr1303, on 2013-October-22, 06:19, said:

As it was, partner has psyched, and bid 1S on a 2344 3 count or similar (I don't have the full hand records).

The player holding this hand passed, and the auction ended after 2NT.

How would you rule on the pass of 2NT? EBU land, so traffic lights in operation.

Would it make a difference if you're called to the same pair 5 minutes later to record another psyche?

Well you've seen the poll results. This is clear fielding IMO and (probably both, but certainly this) psyche(s) should be classified as Red.

ahydra

[Zelandakh]

If 2NT is natural I double and consider 3♠.
If 2NT is minors I bid 3♦, considering double and 3♠.

Passing 2NT would be at least amber and probably red but better to leave that designation to the experienced EBU TDs. I would certainly want to ask East if they have seen a psyche from this partner in a similar auction in the past.

[aguahombre]

mr1303, on 2013-October-22, 06:19, said:

As it was, partner has psyched, and bid 1S on a 2344 3 count or similar (I don't have the full hand records).

The player holding this hand passed, and the auction ended after 2NT.

How would you rule on the pass of 2NT? EBU land, so traffic lights in operation.

Would it make a difference if you're called to the same pair 5 minutes later to record another psyche?

ahydra, on 2013-October-22, 10:00, said:

Well you've seen the poll results. This is clear fielding IMO and (probably both, but certainly this) psyche(s) should be classified as Red.

Yes, IMO, passing ---rather than doubling---would throw this one under the moving traffic and against the lights. It fielded the one type of (dangerous) psyche which Responder actually had.

And, yes, that second one 5 minutes later would make a difference. But, I wouldn't know about the second one and maybe it wouldn't have ocurred if I had been called for the first one.

[campboy]

Comment removed as it appears this ruling is still subject to something...

[billw55]

So, what is the penalty for a red fielded psyche?

[campboy]

billw55, on 2013-October-22, 11:57, said:

So, what is the penalty for a red fielded psyche?

In the EBU, better (for NOS) of table score and ave+/ave-, plus a fine of the standard amount.

[jallerton]

Did the TD ask Opener why (s)he passed over 2NT? If so, what was the response?

[mr1303]

Robin? Any ideas on that one?

[Trinidad]

gnasher, on 2013-October-21, 12:19, said:

In England (which is where the Autumn Congress takes place), if you field a psych you will be awarded 30%. Possibly that's the right thing to do anyway: if partner has psyched, 4♥x is likely to score less than 30%.

The EBU doesn't have law 40A3 and 40C1?

In this case, I can use my bridge brain to conclude that it is highly likely that partner has psyched. I do not need a CPU to reach that conclusion. (That is proven by the fact that I knew that partner had psyched and I didn't even know who partner was.)

Law 40A3 is very clear. I can chose any call I want, as long as it is not based on a CPU. Pass (or any other call taking into account that partner has psyched) here is not based on a CPU, so I can chose it.

If partner psyches frequently (Law 40C) then we get an implicit partnership understanding. In that case, I have to disclose this understanding to the opponents (and the understanding may be illegal).

If there is any infraction, it is not in realizing partner has psyched, or choosing a call based on that realization, but in the lack of disclosure of an implicit understanding to the opponents.

Rik

[RMB1]

mr1303, on 2013-October-22, 17:51, said:

Robin?

Sorry to be stuffy but I'm not in a position to discuss this hand.

[Zelandakh]

Trinidad, on 2013-October-22, 19:47, said:

If partner psyches frequently (Law 40C) then we get an implicit partnership understanding. In that case, I have to disclose this understanding to the opponents (and the understanding may be illegal).

Which is why we need to ask East if they have seen a psyche from this partner in a similar auction in the past. I would assume that the TD did ask this East - does the OP know the answer given?

[mr1303]

No, sadly I don't. From Robin's reply it looks as though the pair in question may be up for an L & E committee hearing.

I was the take-out doubler. I didn't report the psyche straight away at the time, but I did report it once I'd seen the hand records and overheard a director call against the same pair for reporting a psyche.

[billw55]

So, is it ever allowed to deduce partner's psyche from the bidding, and act accordingly, without penalty?

[lamford]

billw55, on 2013-October-23, 06:25, said:

So, is it ever allowed to deduce partner's psyche from the bidding, and act accordingly, without penalty?

Of course, but only when it is clear from the auction that it is partner who has psyched. If partner passes Stayman, or pulls a penalty double of a 1NT overcall, then this exposes the psyche. Until that time, you have to assume the opponents have psyched or misbid.

[Trinidad]

lamford, on 2013-October-23, 06:09, said:

Indeed. I presume that it was board 20 in the Teams final, and West took no action at all and 2NT went one off. I think that would be a fielded psyche, regardless whether partner had psyched before. If the player passes there is enough evidence of a CPU on this board alone to rule it red and apply the penalties in the White Book. The second psyche is judged on its merits, but this one would provide further evidence of a potential CPU.

I don't get this at all.

Let me first say what I do get:
This pair seems to psyche frequently and it doesn't disclose that. Clear. That's an infraction. In addition they may have an illegal implicit agreement (I don't know). That would be a second infraction. In this case, that seems to be relatively easy to prove. Fine, go ahead and adjust and penalize.

The EBU's point of view in these cases is that it is hard to prove that such agreements exist, but that the proof is in the pudding:
    If a player takes an unusually cautious action, to accomodate for the possibility that partner has psyched, that proves that such an agreement exists.

Now the point that I don't get:
The assumption that there must be an agreement for partner to accomodate for a psyche is not always valid. If it is blatantly obvious from the auction and one's own hand that someone has psyched, and the vulnerability is favorable then everything screams that partner has psyched, also if there is no partnership understanding.

In such a case (like this one), there is no proof in the pudding. (After all, I know that partner psyched and I don't even know who (s)he is. How could I possibly have a concealed agreement with him/her?)

You cannot use the traffic light system if the underlying assumption (the proof is in the pudding) is not valid.

Rik

[billw55]

lamford, on 2013-October-23, 06:39, said:

Of course, but only when it is clear from the auction that it is partner who has psyched. If partner passes Stayman, or pulls a penalty double of a 1NT overcall, then this exposes the psyche. Until that time, you have to assume the opponents have psyched or misbid.

So, there will still be judgment calls as to how obvious it is that partner psyched. Such as this very case. Apparently, this one was not obvious enough. I now charge you to create one of your constructions where the psyche is more obvious than in this thread, but less obvious than (say) passing stayman. Give us a true borderline case if you can.