[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2015-April-05, 15:52, said:

Yes. A policy that only exists on paper is worth as much as the paper it's written on.

I don't think I've ever heard of a club being censured or losing its sanction because they don't follow the letter of the Laws. I'll bet there are hundreds of clubs that prohibit psyches, for example.

Wouldn't surprise me any. Seems silly to me though. Good psych positions don't come up all that often. It's all about the perception, I suppose. Reality doesn't matter.

[pran]

barmar, on 2015-April-05, 15:52, said:

Yes. A policy that only exists on paper is worth as much as the paper it's written on.

I don't think I've ever heard of a club being censured or losing its sanction because they don't follow the letter of the Laws. I'll bet there are hundreds of clubs that prohibit psyches, for example.

A general ban on psyches is of course not according to Law.

But Law 40 gives a club the powers to ban psyches on artificial calls (L40B2d) and to ban psyches on natural calls repeated so frequent that they become part of implied partnership understandings (L40C).

As a rule of the thumb I would suggest that once or possibly twice a year should be the limit.

[billw55]

UdcaDenny, on 2015-April-03, 20:02, said:

Im really thankful for all feedback and support which I hoped shud make the TD in my club change his thinking but he only got angry and answering: "It is worthless discussing these matters with you since you don't listen or read what is written. Please do NOT send me any more messages about this---I am tired of wasting time." Unfortunatly some people can never admit they are wrong and the Committee of the club feel the authoroty so I guess I have to live with it.

What did you expect? We already told you to learn live with it or quit.

The bottom line is, at this club, these are the rules, whether written or not.

[blackshoe]

pran, on 2015-April-06, 01:54, said:

A general ban on psyches is of course not according to Law.

But Law 40 gives a club the powers to ban psyches on artificial calls (L40B2d) and to ban psyches on natural calls repeated so frequent that they become part of implied partnership understandings (L40C).

As a rule of the thumb I would suggest that once or possibly twice a year should be the limit.

I do not think 40C gives a club (or any other TO or RA) the right to ban psychs on natural calls. What 40C says is that repeated violations of disclosure requirements (in this case of an implicit understanding) may be penalized. That, to me, implies procedural penalties. Of course if the implicit understanding is otherwise illegal, that's another story — and a different law (40B5).

I also think that the laws do not define "frequent". My dictionary does: "occurring or done on many occasions, in many cases, or in quick succession". "Many" means "a large number of:" Two is not a large number. Neither is three. I understand the human desire to attach numbers here, but that ain't the way it should work. It's a judgment call.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2015-April-06, 07:41, said:

I also think that the laws do not define "frequent". My dictionary does: "occurring or done on many occasions, in many cases, or in quick succession". "Many" means "a large number of:" Two is not a large number. Neither is three. I understand the human desire to attach numbers here, but that ain't the way it should work. It's a judgment call.

The dictionary definition of "frequent" is irrelevant. All that matters is whether it has happened enough to form an implicit partnership understanding.

[pran]

pran, on 2015-April-06, 01:54, said:

A general ban on psyches is of course not according to Law.

But Law 40 gives a club the powers to ban psyches on artificial calls (L40B2d) and to ban psyches on natural calls repeated so frequent that they become part of implied partnership understandings (L40C).

As a rule of the thumb I would suggest that once or possibly twice a year should be the limit.

blackshoe, on 2015-April-06, 07:41, said:

I do not think 40C gives a club (or any other TO or RA) the right to ban psychs on natural calls. What 40C says is that repeated violations of disclosure requirements (in this case of an implicit understanding) may be penalized. That, to me, implies procedural penalties. Of course if the implicit understanding is otherwise illegal, that's another story — and a different law (40B5).

I also think that the laws do not define "frequent". My dictionary does: "occurring or done on many occasions, in many cases, or in quick succession". "Many" means "a large number of:" Two is not a large number. Neither is three. I understand the human desire to attach numbers here, but that ain't the way it should work. It's a judgment call.

Law 80B2f said:

The Tournament Organizer’s powers and duties include:
to announce regulations supplementary to, but not in conflict with, these Laws.

This clearly include regulations supplementary to those issued by the Regulating Authority as in:

Law 40B2d said:

The Regulating Authority may restrict the use of psychic artificial calls.

Now we have

Law 40A3 said:

A player may make any call or play without prior announcement provided that such call or play is not based on an undisclosed partnership understanding (see Law 40C1).

and

Law 40C1 said:

A player may deviate from his side’s announced understandings always provided that his partner has no more reason to be aware of the deviation than have the opponents. Repeated deviations lead to implicit understandings which then form part of the partnership’s methods and must be disclosed in accordance with the regulations governing disclosure of system.[...]

which implies that unless the partner has no more reason than the opponents to be aware of the deviation it is not acceptable as a deviation (i.e. psyche) but must be treated as a concealed partnership understanding. (And if this implicit and concealed understanding is such as to make the call artificial then it can of course also be subject to the restriction in L40B2d.)

Note that the word "frequent" in this context is only relevant as one of several possible reasons for partner to be more aware of the deviation than are the opponents.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2015-April-06, 08:38, said:

The dictionary definition of "frequent" is irrelevant. All that matters is whether it has happened enough to form an implicit partnership understanding.

Okay. Twice is, IMO, not enough.

@Sven: if they have an implicit understanding, you rule according to that understanding. If the TO wishes to issue a regulation to the effect that a partnership understanding that includes some normally (for the meaning of a natural call) psychic — that is, it includes a "deliberated and gross misstatement of (the other meaning's) honor strength or suit length — is not permitted, more power to them. But a regulation that simply bans psychs of a natural bid conflicts with the first sentence of Law 40C1, and is therefore illegal. I suppose the TO could make a legal regulation such as I've described, and then rule that any time you psych you have a CPU, but that too is not in accordance with the laws.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2015-April-06, 14:34, said:

Okay. Twice is, IMO, not enough.

@Sven: if they have an implicit understanding, you rule according to that understanding. If the TO wishes to issue a regulation to the effect that a partnership understanding that includes some normally (for the meaning of a natural call) psychic — that is, it includes a "deliberated and gross misstatement of (the other meaning's) honor strength or suit length — is not permitted, more power to them. But a regulation that simply bans psychs of a natural bid conflicts with the first sentence of Law 40C1, and is therefore illegal. I suppose the TO could make a legal regulation such as I've described, and then rule that any time you psych you have a CPU, but that too is not in accordance with the laws.

I believe we agree:

A player who misbids may of course always claim that he psyched, but it is up to the Director whether he accepts the call as a psyche or not. (The way the laws are written it must be seen as a privilege, not a right to have a misbid accepted as a psyche.)

In order to make this decision the Director must establish the apparent meaning of the call in question. This call can only be accepted as a psyche if its apparent meaning implies a gross deliberate misbid on the hand actually held by the player.

The Director must further establish whether in his opinion the partner has more reason than have the opponents to suspect that the call is indeed a misbid, and if so rule concealed partnership understanding rather than psyche. (Note that if the partner has such reason and his suspicion is not disclosed to opponents then concealed partnership understanding should be ruled even when the player does not understand the nature of the misbid.)

And finally, if restrictions on psyching artificial calls are in force the Director must establish whether the apparent meaning of the psyche is artificial.

[barmar]

pran, on 2015-April-06, 09:36, said:

Note that the word "frequent" in this context is only relevant as one of several possible reasons for partner to be more aware of the deviation than are the opponents.

Indeed, the word "frequent" doesn't even appear in Law 40. It just says "repeated deviations", which is even more vague. Presumably they meant repeated deviations of similar types, as it seems nonsensical to claim that if you psych a 1♠ opening one day, psych Blackwood the next day, and then psych a splinter that you've created any particular implicit understanding (except perhaps a general understanding that your bids should be taken with a grain of salt).

[RMB1]

UdcaDenny, on 2015-April-04, 08:01, said:

... The word 'designation' usually refers to the naming of a card or very occasionally a player might point to a card, wishing it to be played. As such Law 45C4(b) applies almost exclusively to misspoken specifications of cards faced upon the table in Dummy. Cards accidently played from any of the other three (non-dummy) hands cannot be withdrawn.

(More preaching to the choir)

I found this in the law book (Law 63A)

Quote

A revoke becomes established:
1. when the offender or his partner leads or plays to the following trick (any such play, legal or illegal, establishes the revoke).
2. when the offender or his partner names or otherwise designates a card to be played to the following trick.

To me, this makes it very clear the designating and leading/playing are different in law.

[UdcaDenny]

45.C.4.b is about a call from dummy. You can read more about it at:
http://web2.acbl.org...-from-Dummy.pdf

Regards,
Dan

Im greatful to Dan Plato at ACBL who helped me to understand this Law better and also gave me above link with 10 examples.
Its a pity ist not written in Law 45.C.4.b that it only applies to intended cards from dummy and not from played cards from
opponents. That would have saved me from a lot of troubles and a friend also said I could get expelled from the club if I dont
drop the subject as our TD will never change his opinion about this Law.
End of the story, now you can continue talking about psychic bids

[aguahombre]

More reasons to continue my ongoing rant to anyone who will listen:

The word, "PLAY", need never/should never be used at the Bridge table.

[pran]

UdcaDenny, on 2015-April-07, 22:08, said:

45.C.4.b is about a call from dummy. You can read more about it at:
http://web2.acbl.org...-from-Dummy.pdf

Regards,
Dan

Im greatful to Dan Plato at ACBL who helped me to understand this Law better and also gave me above link with 10 examples.
Its a pity ist not written in Law 45.C.4.b that it only applies to intended cards from dummy and not from played cards from
opponents. That would have saved me from a lot of troubles and a friend also said I could get expelled from the club if I dont
drop the subject as our TD will never change his opinion about this Law.
End of the story, now you can continue talking about psychic bids

It is worth observing that the subsections of Law 45C "Compulsory Play of Card" begins with:
1: A defender’s card
2: Declarer must play a card from his hand if
3: A card in the dummy
4a: A card must be played if
4b: Until his partner has played a card a player may
5: A penalty card, major or minor,

If Law 45C4b onbly applies to iintended Cards from dummy then why does not Law 45C4a (like Law 45C3) begins with "A card in Dummy" and Law 45C4b with "Until Declarer has played a card"?

WBFLC may be accused of being sloppy (I don't agree), but the distinctions in Law 45C are clear and significant: Law 45C4 (both a and b) applies to cards from any of the four players at the table. (That Law 45C4 is almost never relevant other than when Declarer designates a card from Dummy doesn't change this.)

[Vampyr]

aguahombre, on 2015-April-08, 00:49, said:

More reasons to continue my ongoing rant to anyone who will listen:

The word, "PLAY", need never/should never be used at the Bridge table.

I once had a game with a friend from America who did this. Eventually he got tired of my asking "which one?" And designated cards in an appropriate manner.

[aguahombre]

Vampyr, on 2015-April-08, 06:27, said:

I once had a game with a friend from America who did this. Eventually he got tired of my asking "which one?" And designated cards in an appropriate manner.

Good for you. Of the people around here who are aware of my anti-"play" campaign there are the following subsets:

1) Those who also dislike the practice, and are glad they aren't the ones fronting themselves against it.
2) Those who actually have reformed.
3) Those who can't break the habit.
4) Those who are trying.
5) Those who are indignant that everyone knows what "play" means and it is just fine.
6) Those who continue to say "play" at every trick, just to annoy me.

Extra credit for correctly guessing which is the largest and the smallest subset.

[billw55]

Personally I am fine with "play" and use it sometimes myself. In USA it is understood to mean "follow suit with lowest card", which is not ambiguous, and any rulings should be and are based on that assumption.

[aguahombre]

And for a bonus it gives us another word which could be mistaken for "ACE" or "EIGHT".

[billw55]

aguahombre, on 2015-April-08, 12:00, said:

And for a bonus it gives us another word which could be mistaken for "ACE" or "EIGHT".

All they have in common is a single vowel sound. Should aces or eights be given another name on the same grounds - and spades while we are at it? We will also have to work on high, five, nine, and diamond.

[blackshoe]

billw55, on 2015-April-08, 11:54, said:

Personally I am fine with "play" and use it sometimes myself. In USA it is understood to mean "follow suit with lowest card", which is not ambiguous, and any rulings should be and are based on that assumption.

While I agree regarding rulings, IMO the practice is odious and should be stamped out.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2015-April-08, 13:22, said:

While I agree regarding rulings, IMO the practice is odious and should be stamped out.

I feel very fortunate that this practice is very rare here.