[Oof Arted]

1eyedjack, on 2015-May-22, 14:40, said:

---

Context: IMP tourney on BBO in which psychs are barred as a condition of contest.

Does it matter that the TD was NOT asked for ruling on the board (2 of 12) until after board 12 was played???

[helene_t]

If the purpose of the ban is to avoid the issue of cpu versus psyches then yes, an agreement to open this light needs to be disclosed.

If the purpose is to avoid extreme high variance tactics then maybe. Depends on the level of the player. It is quite similar to the recent discussion about a very light limit raise in Germany.

[1eyedjack]

Oof Arted, on 2015-May-24, 03:59, said:

Does it matter that the TD was NOT asked for ruling on the board (2 of 12) until after board 12 was played???

It would not normally matter in a face to face game, I think. If it does matter to the tournament rankings, the OP question remains of academic interest. If there would have been an adjustment but for its being time barred, that is still of some use to know.

[Bbradley62]

pran, on 2015-May-23, 17:34, said:

Bbradley62, on 2015-May-23, 15:51, said:

Was this a pairs event or an individual? ...

... And for this question the nature of the event (pairs or individual) is completely irrelevant.

If this is an individual, then (almost certainly, though I suppose not 100% certainly) there are no partnership agreements and the bid can be evaluated on its face. If it is a pairs event, there are probably partnership agreements, and the bid must be evaluated in light of those agreements.

Ok... I guess I asked this question as result of the cpu discussion, and not specifically to address OP's questions... I agree with those who say that if East says he thinks his hand is worth a 1♠ opening then he did not psych. The rest of the discussion is to determine whether he made a bad bid or made a bid that is consistent with a cpu.

This post has been edited by Bbradley62: 2015-May-24, 10:09

[steve2005]

steve2005, on 2015-May-22, 15:35, said:

6 hcp plus 3 pts for either distribution or length that's 9. I hate to pass a 6-5 with all the points in the long suits. West definitely didn't field it if you do consider it a psyche.

K&R evaluated this hand as 11.3 so I wasn't far off. Yes this can cause problems if you have misfit with partner but your way ahead if you do have a fit.

[barmar]

Cascade, on 2015-May-24, 02:54, said:

Some versions of Acol permit light openings.

And a 5-card major rather than the 6-card minor with these minimum hands, too?

[aguahombre]

It would be a psych if they were playing Bridge. However, barring (unfielded) psychs is not Bridge, so we might as well accept Opener's opinion that it isn't a psych.

It still wasn't fielded, so we don't know and it doesn't matter whether they have a CPU to psych.

[nige1]

1eyedjack, on 2015-May-22, 14:40, said:

Context: IMP tourney on BBO in which psychs are barred as a condition of contest.

---

Opener's 1♠ is a psych (by most criteria e.g. more than a king below average in high cards). Responder didn't appear to field the psych -- although he might have raised ♠s earlier.

If you enter a competition you should comply with its rules, however stupid -- even if the game is no longer Bridge. If you break the rules you may gain an unfair advantage over other competitors, especially when enforcement is sporadic and lax.

In general, the laws of bridge are overly complex and sophisticated. Most local bridge-regulations are chauvinist and unnecessary. You should campaign for reform. But if you should still abide by all the rules, however stupid -- even if infraction is inadequately deterred.

[gnasher]

Oof Arted, on 2015-May-24, 03:59, said:

Does it matter that the TD was NOT asked for ruling on the board (2 of 12) until after board 12 was played???

Not for answering the questions in the original post. If it was a psyhc when it was bid, it's still a psych three days later. Similarly, the question of whether West fielded a psych is unaffected by when you consider that question.

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2015-May-25, 02:00

[barmar]

aguahombre, on 2015-May-24, 17:03, said:

It would be a psych if they were playing Bridge. However, barring (unfielded) psychs is not Bridge, so we might as well accept Opener's opinion that it isn't a psych.

Is that your Catch-22 against bridge clubs that try to ban psychs?

If seems like the Catch-22 should actually go against Opener. Since they're not playing Bridge, the club gets to set the rules, and they decide what is or isn't a psych. Opener's opinion need not matter.

[Bbradley62]

Since I'm in a small minority here, and I'm confused about it, can someone please explain the definition of a psych that the vast majority believes applies here? The definition I've always heard is shown on the ACBL's website:
http://www.acbl.org/...sychic-bidding/

ACBL defines psychic bid said:

a deliberate and gross misstatement of honor strength or suit length

Using this definition, if East believes his hand qualifies as a 1♠ opening, then he has not deliberately misstated the strength of his hand. If his partner agrees with him, then the pair very well may have a concealed partnership understanding. Law 40B1 defines a special partnership understanding as:

Law 40B1 said:

... one whose meaning, in the opinion of the Regulating Authority, may not be readily understood and anticipated by a significant number of players in the tournament.

So, if West agrees that East's 1♠ is appropriate, they have a special partnership understanding, and they should be instructed to disclose it in the future (and possibly be punished for not doing so in this case). If West does not agree with East, then East's bid is a misbid, misunderstanding, or mistake and he should be educated, not punished.

Do other Regulating Authorities define a psychic bid differently than ACBL does?

[blackshoe]

"Psychic call" is defined in chapter one of the laws. The definition is the one given upthread ("ACBL says"). The definition is the same in both versions of the law book, so is the same the world over.

Note: Call, not just bid. If you're dealer, and you have say 13 HCP in some hand, and you deliberately pass, that's a psych in most systems.

[Bbradley62]

So, it's the same as the definition I quoted. Then, why do 81% of poll respondents categorize this as a deliberate misstatement when the bidder made it clear he didn't think it was a misstatement (so, if it is a misstatement it was not deliberate) and he wasn't trying to deceive anyone?

[aguahombre]

Bbradley62, on 2015-May-25, 20:53, said:

So, it's the same as the definition I quoted. Then, why do 81% of poll respondents categorize this as a deliberate misstatement when the bidder made it clear he didn't think it was a misstatement (so, if it is a misstatement it was not deliberate) and he wasn't trying to deceive anyone?

And, furthermore, if West agrees that this is an opening bid, there is a real "catch 22", to quote Barry above. The catch is that if West also values hands that way when deciding to make an opening bid, then sure it is a CPU. However, that pair would undoubtedly have no idea what a CPU or a highly unusual method is; When they learn that the rest of the World doesn't do that, they might then know to alert --- but more likely they will learn that such evaluation is a bad idea.

IMO, a PP consisting of anything other than a warning and instruction for the future would serve no purpose.

[blackshoe]

If opening this hand at the one level is a partnership agreement, there's the question whether it's legal. In a BBO tournament you're not likely to be able to point to any written regulation one way or another (unless it's an ACBL tournament) so you'd probably end up with an off the cuff decision by the director. Whether that same director, or another director, would make the same decision at another time I couldn't say.

In the ACBL an agreement to open a hand at the one level on six HCP is illegal — see Election # 3 on page 136 of TFLB. Whether it's been concealed is another question. Other jurisdictions may have different rules.

[campboy]

Bbradley62, on 2015-May-25, 20:53, said:

So, it's the same as the definition I quoted. Then, why do 81% of poll respondents categorize this as a deliberate misstatement when the bidder made it clear he didn't think it was a misstatement (so, if it is a misstatement it was not deliberate) and he wasn't trying to deceive anyone?

Did he? That information certainly wasn't given us by OP. If EW's methods are roughly mainstream then it is enough of a misstatement to qualify as a psyche if deliberate, and difficult to see how it could be anything but deliberate. If EW's methods are far enough from mainstream that it isn't a psyche then those methods are probably not permitted anyway.

[StevenG]

I don't play in the Acol club any more, but I checked the hand and I know all four players at the table. I have never seen E/W play together, they have not played together before in that tournament in the last 6 months, and they haven't played together in any other game in the last month.

It is highly probable that this was a last-minute partnership desk arrangement, and that East just took a flyer with a distributional hand.

[ArtK78]

StevenG, on 2015-May-26, 05:43, said:

I don't play in the Acol club any more, but I checked the hand and I know all four players at the table. I have never seen E/W play together, they have not played together before in that tournament in the last 6 months, and they haven't played together in any other game in the last month.

It is highly probable that this was a last-minute partnership desk arrangement, and that East just took a flyer with a distributional hand.

That is consistent with the definition of a psych.

[helene_t]

I think he Acol Club would need to provide its own definition of a "psyche". We can, of course, use the law's definition, but since that definition isn't made for the purpose of tournaments that ban psyches, it may not be adequate for such purpose. How a "psyche" should be defined depends on the reason why the Acol Club decided to ban them.

[nige1]

hrothgar, on 2015-May-22, 14:56, said:

If it wasn't a misclick, it looks like a psych

blackshoe, on 2015-May-22, 15:19, said:

Psychs are deliberate actions. Without talking to East, nobody can know whether this call was deliberate.

IMO, on-line, the director shouldn't normally accept such a claim. Anyway, he should be wary of crediting it too readily.