[paulg]

RMB1, on 2012-October-31, 17:58, said:

I think it is a mistake to assume that the Scots follow the EBU approach in this matter (or in any matter). In couple of years they may formalise this separation from English regulation more widely.

At the moment it is not an issue. There is only one player in Scotland who psyches occasionally, but since his psyches are indistinguishable from his normal bidding no-one cares. And there is one player who everyone psyches against, which only one person cares about.

[gnasher]

Trinidad, on 2012-October-31, 18:19, said:

We have the same problem on this side of the North Sea. There is a difference between "The low lands/countries", "The Netherlands" and "Holland". But outside the Benelux nobody knows what it is. (And then I didn't even mention "The Kingdom of The Netherlands", which -again- is different.)

I bet you didn't know about this though:
http://en.wikipedia....d,_Lincolnshire

[Trinidad]

gnasher, on 2012-November-01, 05:06, said:

I bet you didn't know about this though:
http://en.wikipedia....d,_Lincolnshire

You won the bet. Do they wear orange over there on April 30th?

Rik

[Vampyr]

gnasher, on 2012-October-31, 11:18, said:

That's a strange thing to say. The English regulations don't impose any obligations on a player who thinks his partner may have psyched.

I don't think that is strictly true.

I once lost an appeal when it was pretty obvious that partner (1-level, NV) was the one who was at it, rather than the opponents (4-level, V). But it took me a long time to work out just how obvious it was... finally I found a construction that involved my partner opening 1NT with a singleton (which I had never seen him do), and the opponents bidding with marginal values... so I doubled 4♠

Now partner pulled, exposing his psyche, but was deemed to have used UI (He had opened 1NT on something like an 8-count with 7 clubs). We submitted it to the NA and lost there too.

THe EBU policy basically dictates that if you psyche, you must lose out or you will be adjusted against.

[bluejak]

The EBU policy is that if you psyche and get a good board with no fielding you will not be ruled against.

The fact that the term "fielding" is not used in some jurisdictions does not mean that Laws 40A and 40C do not apply in those jurisdictions.

If I say that a psyche is fielded that is my opinion. I do not speak for the EBU.

[Vampyr]

bluejak, on 2012-November-01, 09:43, said:

The EBU policy is that if you psyche and get a good board with no fielding you will not be ruled against.

I am sure that this is the policy, but not as sure about the practice. Later I will post the hand in question and see what people have to say about it.

[gnasher]

gnasher, on 2012-October-31, 11:18, said:

The English regulations don't impose any obligations on a player who thinks his partner may have psyched.

Vampyr, on 2012-November-01, 09:39, said:

I don't think that is strictly true.

Then I expect you can point to the section of the English regulations which imposes such an obligation.

[Vampyr]

gnasher, on 2012-November-01, 11:44, said:

Then I expect you can point to the section of the English regulations which imposes such an obligation.

I don't know if there is such a section; what I do know is that it is necessary to rule out all other possibilities before you can guess that partner has psyched. In fact I think that you can assume that he did only after it is exposed (by partner's own action).

[gnasher]

Vampyr, on 2012-November-01, 12:10, said:

I don't know if there is such a section; what I do know is that it is necessary to rule out all other possibilities before you can guess that partner has psyched. In fact I think that you can assume that he did only after it is exposed (by partner's own action).

I was making the very specific point that the EBU regulations don't contain any sentence on the lines of "If you suspect your partner has psyched, you must ...." You may have some other point to make, but I'd prefer it if you did so without telling me I'm wrong when I'm not.

[1eyedjack]

gnasher, on 2012-November-01, 12:46, said:

I was making the very specific point that the EBU regulations don't contain any sentence on the lines of "If you suspect your partner has psyched, you must ...." You may have some other point to make, but I'd prefer it if you did so without telling me I'm wrong when I'm not.

I don't think it unreasonable to assume that the the TD/appeals committee/NA considered themselves bound by the(ir) regulations when they ruled against Vampyr. If we accept that the ruling is correct for the hand, and that the ruling is based on the regulations to which they were bound, it should follow that the regulations support Vampyr's statement, without the need to quote a particular sentence buried therein.

[RMB1]

1eyedjack, on 2012-November-01, 13:24, said:

I don't think it unreasonable to assume that the the TD/appeals committee/NA considered themselves bound by the(ir) regulations when they ruled against Vampyr. If we accept that the ruling is correct for the hand, and that the ruling is based on the regulations to which they were bound, it should follow that the regulations support Vampyr's statement, without the need to quote a particular sentence buried therein.

I do not know any details of the ruling bneyond what was posted here but it appears to have been a UI ruling. Psycher's partner made a slow penalty double - psycher pulled - but it was ruled that psycher had a logical alternative of Pass (even though he had psyched) and score was adjusted. The fact that the double was slow because psycher's partner was wondering whether she was constrained because she suspected that partner had psyched and they were subsequently ruled against does not mean that that the EBU had regulations saying she was constrained.

[FrancesHinden]

Vampyr, on 2012-November-01, 09:55, said:

I am sure that this is the policy, but not as sure about the practice. Later I will post the hand in question and see what people have to say about it.

That is neither the policy nor the practice and you have absolutely zero evidence to suggest it is.
I review all 'records of hands' filled in a EBU events and I have seen plenty of successful psyches and plenty of unsuccessful ones.

[Vampyr]

FrancesHinden, on 2012-November-01, 16:08, said:

That is neither the policy nor the practice and you have absolutely zero evidence to suggest it is.
I review all 'records of hands' filled in a EBU events and I have seen plenty of successful psyches and plenty of unsuccessful ones.

I would be interested in seeing these. I suspect that a large proportion of the successful psyches are hands in which partner is not called upon to do anything.

[bluejak]

Yes, I imagine so. how does that affect anything? First you tell us that under English regs you cannot get a successful psyche. Now you tell us we can get a successful psyche, but only if something-or-other happens. Obviously. So?

Incidentally, before I was voted off the L&EC I saw every psyche form for many many years, and the assertion is certainly not true.

My regular partner decided to psyche. First she opened 1♠ third in hand: -800. Some months later she bid 1NT in some sequence for other. -300 against nothing. Some months later she opened a Green Spanish spade. I raised to 2♠ on a hand that most people would pass on. The defence allowed her about six tricks and were a bit miffed to find 4♠ was cold their way. Note that I took some action.

[Cyberyeti]

bluejak, on 2012-November-01, 09:43, said:

The EBU policy is that if you psyche and get a good board with no fielding you will not be ruled against.

Ah, as against the Norfolk de facto rule which states that after opps have psyched, you can be as unethical as you like as the psychers will never win a ruling whatever you've done.

Bitter and twisted, Norwich.