[peachy]

RMB1, on Feb 13 2010, 06:04 AM, said:

Vampyr, on Feb 13 2010, 10:50 AM, said:

Psyche, misbid... what's the difference?

Intent

Vampyr, on Feb 13 2010, 10:50 AM, said:

The important thing is that if this bid is not allowed to be psyched (this was the case in the EBU until a couple of years ago), then the same penalties should be applied to misbidding it.

That's not the way the EBU regulation operated. Intent was important and it was not against the regulation to misbid strong artificial openings. There was a famous case (in the EBU Appeals booklets) where someone misbid a multi 2♦ and there was no adjustment although it was illegal to psyche a multi 2♦ (and still is at some levels).

I think that is an unfortunate regulation if despite a bid being illegal, there are no consequences for making that illegal bid.

[blackshoe]

The bid is not illegal in the case Stephanie cited. In fact, that's the whole point. It's illegal to psyche the bid, not to make it.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on Feb 14 2010, 03:54 PM, said:

The bid is not illegal in the case Stephanie cited. In fact, that's the whole point. It's illegal to osyche the bid, not to make it.

I am surprised that the EBU regulation is as it was; a misbid is treated the same as a psyche when in comes to fielding, so one would think that it would be the same in the situation under discussion.

Obviously a regulation that prohibits a certain bid to be psyched but allows it to be misbid is of course legal, but falls foul of both natural justice and the way players perceive that a game should be played.

In addition, many people, including me, feel that Laws that require mindreading on the director's part are misguided.

[bluejak]

peachy, on Feb 14 2010, 03:34 PM, said:

RMB1, on Feb 13 2010, 06:04 AM, said:

Vampyr, on Feb 13 2010, 10:50 AM, said:

Psyche, misbid... what's the difference?

Intent

Vampyr, on Feb 13 2010, 10:50 AM, said:

The important thing is that if this bid is not allowed to be psyched (this was the case in the EBU until a couple of years ago), then the same penalties should be applied to misbidding it.

That's not the way the EBU regulation operated. Intent was important and it was not against the regulation to misbid strong artificial openings. There was a famous case (in the EBU Appeals booklets) where someone misbid a multi 2♦ and there was no adjustment although it was illegal to psyche a multi 2♦ (and still is at some levels).

I think that is an unfortunate regulation if despite a bid being illegal, there are no consequences for making that illegal bid.

You seem to have misunderstood.

It is illegal to psyche a Multi. That is subject to penalty.

It is not illegal to misbid a Multi. That is not subject to penalty.

The person who posted that psyches and misbids are no difference has misunderstood this vital difference.

[bluejak]

Vampyr, on Feb 15 2010, 01:20 AM, said:

blackshoe, on Feb 14 2010, 03:54 PM, said:

The bid is not illegal in the case Stephanie cited. In fact, that's the whole point. It's illegal to osyche the bid, not to make it.

I am surprised that the EBU regulation is as it was; a misbid is treated the same as a psyche when in comes to fielding, so one would think that it would be the same in the situation under discussion.

Obviously a regulation that prohibits a certain bid to be psyched but allows it to be misbid is of course legal, but falls foul of both natural justice and the way players perceive that a game should be played.

In addition, many people, including me, feel that Laws that require mindreading on the director's part are misguided.

A fielded misbid and a fielded psyche are not subject the same penalty in the EBU. However, both being breaches of Law 40, they are both illegal and subject to penalty.

When a call may not be psyched by regulation, it is a completely different situation, covered by different Laws, and it makes no sense whatever to assume that a regulation that does not refer to misbids applies to misbids just because a totally unrelated situation which is a matter of Law not regulation makes certain calls illegal after a misbid.

I think the buzz word "mind-reading" is overused to try to prove something that does not exist. Of course the game would be easier to rule without judgement rulings but that does not make them wrong. In all judgement rulings, TDs and ACs need to judge various evidence.

[Vampyr]

bluejak, on Feb 15 2010, 02:53 AM, said:

The person who posted that psyches and misbids are no difference has misunderstood this vital difference.

They are different yes, but it would be much better if they were dealt with as if they were not.

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on Feb 14 2010, 09:56 PM, said:

bluejak, on Feb 15 2010, 02:53 AM, said:

The person who posted that psyches and misbids are no difference has misunderstood this vital difference.

They are different yes, but it would be much better if they were dealt with as if they were not.

A good player may psych, infrequently. This is within the laws and should be expected (though not, perhaps, against "bunnies").

A poor player or a beginner is likely to misbid, and do it frequently. If you tell such players that misbidding is illegal, they'll find some other game to play.

[bluejak]

I can think of no reason to treat deliberate acts and unintentional acts the same way. Why is it better?

Suppose a player accidentally sees a card of another player. Do you really want to treat it the same way as if he deliberately looked at another player's cards?

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on Feb 15 2010, 06:41 AM, said:

A poor player or a beginner is likely to misbid, and do it frequently. If you tell such players that misbidding is illegal, they'll find some other game to play.

Do not forget that we are talking about a very small number of opening bids, so that it is rather unlikely to happen anyway. In fact I would guess that in most jurisdictions, there are no restrictions on what you may psyche -- although in some places it is in effect illegal to make some misbids -- eg Ghestem.

[Vampyr]

bluejak, on Feb 15 2010, 02:47 PM, said:

I can think of no reason to treat deliberate acts and unintentional acts the same way.  Why is it better?

Suppose a player accidentally sees a card of another player.  Do you really want to treat it the same way as if he deliberately looked at another player's cards?

This argument goes both ways. If you revoke, make an insufficient bid, bid or lead out of turn, etc accidentally, it will be treated the same as if you had done it intentionally.

[Rossoneri]

Vampyr, on Feb 15 2010, 06:04 PM, said:

bluejak, on Feb 15 2010, 02:47 PM, said:

I can think of no reason to treat deliberate acts and unintentional acts the same way.  Why is it better?

Suppose a player accidentally sees a card of another player.  Do you really want to treat it the same way as if he deliberately looked at another player's cards?

This argument goes both ways. If you revoke, make an insufficient bid, bid or lead out of turn, etc accidentally, it will be treated the same as if you had done it intentionally.

I can only see one good reason for making insufficient bids, bids/leads out of turn or revoking intentionally, and that will probably be treated by Law 23.

So, would you argue for the same penalty for manslaughter and murder?

[bluejak]

And how does that affect rulings where it is different?

I just do not see the connection.