[mpefritz]

MPs, All White, both playing some version of Standard American

1S-1NT-?


♠Q74
♥KJ5
♦AT2
♣J752

After his partner opened 1S and RHO overvcalled 1NT, this hand passed, it went all pass and Club 2 was led.

His partner held

♠96
♥87632
♦96
♣AQ86

I appears that the player who passed 1NT fielded a psyche, and made a lead not consistent with the bidding. HOWEVER, I have no idea of the level of the players and the passing hand could have been a beginner who didn't know to double. Or maybe it was a good player who took a view, AND partner happened to psyche.

I also cannot determine how the bidding would have gone after 1S-1NT-X nor can I know how the hand would have played after a spade lead.

(note: I am 100% NOT suggesting the c-word. no no no no no)

So what is the ruling on an apparently fielded psyche?

fritz

[mink]

hi,

I would assign ave- to the psyching side, ave+ to the 1nt side, look at some other boards of the psyching side and report the whole thing to abuse.

I cannot think of any sane explanation for the pass - beginners and novices make other kinds of mistakes.

Karl

[hrothgar]

mpefritz, on Apr 25 2004, 03:07 PM, said:

MPs, All White, both playing some version of Standard American

1S-1NT-?


♠Q74
♥KJ5
♦AT2
♣J752

After his partner opened 1S and RHO overvcalled 1NT, this hand passed, it went all pass and Club 2 was led.

His partner held

♠96
♥87632
♦96
♣AQ86

I appears that the player who passed 1NT fielded a psyche, and made a lead not consistent with the bidding.  HOWEVER, I have no idea of the level of the players and the passing hand could have been a beginner who didn't know to double.  Or maybe it was a good player who took a view, AND partner happened to psyche.

I also cannot determine how the bidding would have gone after 1S-1NT-X nor can I know how the hand would have played after a spade lead.

(note: I am 100% NOT suggesting the c-word. no no no no no)

So what is the ruling on an apparently fielded psyche?

fritz

First a question: What was the exact bidding sequence?

As written, it looks as if the 1S opening occured in first seat, white on white.
This is potentially the worst possible place to psyche:

Partner is unlimited.
-300 will be a dreadful result if the opponents don't bid and make a game.
-500 will be hopeless regardless of whether the opponents bid game.

Before asking for opinions, you need to provide us with sufficient data to make an informed decision.

With this said and done:

------------
If the 1S opening happened in first seat then I'd be looking for some other explanation than a concealed partnership understanding. A psyche in this position is completely irrational. I'd can't believe that a partnership could have sufficient history of this type of occurence to develop a habit of fielding this sort of thing.

If the 1S bid happened in third seat, then the pass could warrant suspicion. Here, once again, I think that you need to do some investigation. Persoanlly, I would hit 1NT. I would expect my partner's to do the same. If partner did psyche, he'll be prepared to scramble.

However, the first thing that I would investiagte is whether the partnership has a history of playing together. If this is a first or second time partnership, it would be hard to demonstrate a CPU.

[mpefritz]

1st seat white vs white

CPU is a question. But more importantly, suppose, for some reason, the passer legitimately "took a view". This question would not come up if partner did not psyche a 1st seat NV 1S (for all I know, maybe he meant to psyche a 1H bid and misclicked ).

The question is: When someone makes a call that is consistent with (but not for sure determinate of) a fielded psyche, what is the ruling? I suppose what I'm getting so far is to report them for a CPU -- even though it might have been two not-so-good calls that look like CPU.

fritz

For the record, on the prior hand, they had a bad result as we had "magic defense" (according to them) to defeat their contract (although it seemed like the declarer misplayed for down 2). They may have been trying to get a non-standard result to catch up -- so taking a view is possible in my mind.

[hrothgar]

mpefritz, on Apr 25 2004, 07:06 PM, said:

1st seat white vs white

CPU is a question. But more importantly, suppose, for some reason, the passer legitimately "took a view". This question would not come up if partner did not psyche a 1st seat NV 1S (for all I know, maybe he meant to psyche a 1H bid and misclicked ).

The question is: When someone makes a call that is consistent with (but not for sure determinate of) a fielded psyche, what is the ruling? I suppose what I'm getting so far is to report them for a CPU -- even though it might have been two not-so-good calls that look like CPU.

fritz

For the record, on the prior hand, they had a bad result as we had "magic defense" (according to them) to defeat their contract (although it seemed like the declarer misplayed for down 2). They may have been trying to get a non-standard result to catch up -- so taking a view is possible in my mind.

Here is my take on matters:

The combination of the 1S opening and the pass over 1NT certainly seem suspicious.

I think that the hand that passed has a clear cut double of a 1NT overcall.
With this said and done, I would pretty much just ignore the result.
I'd make a note of the pair and probably wouldn't play against them again.

As to the "ruling" for a fielded psyche:

What venue was the hand played in?

If this was a torunament, the ruling depends on whatever strucutre that the tournament organizer choses to impose.

If this was social bridge in the main lobby, their really isn't anyone to get a ruling from, nor would a score correction really mean anything...

[Free]

mpefritz, on Apr 25 2004, 09:07 PM, said:

I appears that the player who passed 1NT fielded a psyche, and made a lead not consistent with the bidding.

I don't think the lead is 'not consistent with the bidding', because leading from Qxx into a stopped suit is usually giving away a trick, especially if declarer has KJx (very possible imo). 1♠ only promisses an opening hand, but no top honour (or 2).
About the non-double, I think you're completely right, it's not a normal bid! If you don't double with such hand, I don't know what you need. Ofcourse it can be a beginner who thinks double would be negative or something, but it's still not normal...

It's imo a fielded psych, but I'm not a TD, so I don't know what has to happen

[luis]

This merits an automatic suspension.

[mrdct]

One swallow doesn't make a summer. Make a note of it and see if this partnership have further similar occurences.

There is no specific law against fielding a psyche, just the general duty of disclosure to the opps of your methods and understandings. If they frequently psyche, particularly in 1st seat white vs. white, then that should be disclosed. If it's a one-off bid in an irrational attempt to recover from a previous bad board, then they do so at their own peril. I would be interested to know if the guy who passed 1NT had taken similar actions in the past and found his partner with a genuine opening hand.

The pass of 1NT isn't a totally ridiculous bid. He may have taken the view that if his RHO has a strong NT, his side wont have much chance of making game, so why not have a crack at defending 1NT on a lead that declarer may not be anticipating rather than doubling and allowing the opponents to find their ♦ fit which may well play better than NT. Personally I would double then bid 2♠ after the opps find 2♦ - but I don't think "pass" necessarily indicates that any funny business is going on.

[Shrike]

The psyche would be "red" in the EBU, meaning it would earn the pair a 30% matchpoint score, if I understand their regs. In other jurisdictions it would merit suspicion, but no automatic sanction. Wihthout evidence of a CPU (more evidence than just the auction and lead on this deal, IMO), there has been no provable violation.

[mrdct]

Under EBU rules (refer section 6.2), the awarding of 30% score for a "Red Psyche" only arises when the tournament director finds that the partnership has an "unauthorised - and therefore illegal - understanding". Such a finding carries with it a fairly clear, imho, implication that the pair are cheating (i.e. playing with concealed partnership understandings).

The EBU rules further state that "in the majority of cases the TD will find nothing untoward and classify it as a "Green Psyche". The EBU also have a thing called an "Amber Psyche", that seems to be the situation where the TD suspects that there may be an unauthorised understanding, but the evidence isn't strong enough to warrant an adjusted score.

I would suggest that to establish that an unauthorised understanding exists, the action taken by the player that "fielded" the psyche needs to be an action outside of the "logical alternatives" that a player of that level of competence would ordinarily consider. In this case, "pass" is clearly a "logical alternative" that has at least some rational bridge arguments in its favour.

[Gerben47]

First of all let me say that I would double this 1NT, and expect to be in big company. 4th hand is limited to about 1 or 2 HCP and this contract will not be a lot of fun for declarer (see kamikaze NT thread about having fun in 1NT doubled with 17 opposite 0).

However, I realize that many weaker players would not know what to do in this situation and pass. I see no reason to adjust this in a tournament unless there is no explanation other than fielded psyche.

If there is any doubt about someone fielding a psyche, I allow it. This is my view as both player and director. Nowadays people start pointing fingers at psychers and their partners far too quickly.

In general, accusing someone of cheating is a strong accusation. You better have extremely good proof.

Gerben

[hotShot]

Hi!

I think they are playing a "forcing pass" system.

1♠ shows any hand below opening, and then pass with 10 hcp is normal bidding.

hotShot

[Free]

most people use 1♥ for such opening, and it's still not a good reason to let them get away with it. There was NO alert of the 1♠, so there was hidden information. Still a heavy warning imo!

[hotShot]

Free, on Apr 26 2004, 01:24 PM, said:

most people use 1♥ for such opening, and it's still not a good reason to let them get away with it. There was NO alert of the 1♠, so there was hidden information. Still a heavy warning imo!

I wanted to point out that this might not be a psyche (makes no sence in first hand) but an unusual system not alerted.

Hidden information is bad enough, but perhaps not as bad as taking views or worse.

[Shrike]

mrdct, on Apr 26 2004, 02:17 AM, said:

Under EBU rules (refer section 6.2), the awarding of 30% score for a "Red Psyche" only arises when the tournament director finds that the partnership has an "unauthorised - and therefore illegal - understanding".  Such a finding carries with it a fairly clear, imho, implication that the pair are cheating (i.e. playing with concealed partnership understandings).

The EBU rules further state that "in the majority of cases the TD will find nothing untoward and classify it as a "Green Psyche".  The EBU also have a thing called an "Amber Psyche", that seems to be the situation where the TD suspects that there may be an unauthorised understanding, but the evidence isn't strong enough to warrant an adjusted score.

I would suggest that to establish that an unauthorised understanding exists, the action taken by the player that "fielded" the psyche needs to be an action outside of the "logical alternatives" that a player of that level of competence would ordinarily consider. In this case, "pass" is clearly a "logical alternative" that has at least some rational bridge arguments in its favour.

There was an official WBF statement a while back (sorry, I can't find it or state the exact context) that to pass with a ten count (actually, I think it may have been nine) after partner opened and RHO bid one notrump was "unacceptable" (I think this was the word used). I believe there's at least a good chance that in the psyche-hating EBU they'd rule this one red under 6.2 without more -- the auction is prima facie evidence of a CPU of some sort. Essentially, under the WBF dictum and what I believe to be normal practice, pass is not considered a logical alternative in this circumstance. Can't be sure, I'm not EBU, but that's the impression I get about the way things work there. (Exception: different ruling if the TD determines that the opponents play an unusual (but unalerted) system or that they are absolute beginners.)

If this one came to me at an ACBL tournament, I would ask some pointed questions but wouldn't do anything else if they said the right things and nothing else weird came up.

Officialdom is careful not to use the C-word when ruling on psyches, but essentially a rule like EBU's is an admission that they can't prove cheating directly, so they'll infer it under some circumstances. I don't think that's appropriate on line, even though it's easier to cheat and hard to prove it -- maybe this proves my position is inconsistent. (Well, not really inconsistent, because I think the EBU position is misguided; might suggest it's untenable, though.)

[xx1943]

hrothgar, on Apr 25 2004, 10:29 AM, said:

However, the first thing that I would investiagte is whether the partnership has a history of playing together. 

Is this possible in BBO?

Albrecht

[inquiry]

xx1943, on May 12 2004, 03:18 AM, said:

hrothgar, on Apr 25 2004, 10:29 AM, said:

However, the first thing that I would investiagte is whether the partnership has a history of playing together. 

Is this possible in BBO?

Albrecht

Within reason. First you can ask them, do you play together (easy enough). Second you can go to Myhands and enter one of the players name and a number of days like 50 (usually only 30 or so days of hands there). The open th page and use CNTL-F to search for the other player's name. If they play together a lot, it generally easy to find them playing together at other times.

Hardly seems worth the effort, however.

Ben

[JRG]

Free, on Apr 25 2004, 11:02 AM, said:

mpefritz, on Apr 25 2004, 09:07 PM, said:

I appears that the player who passed 1NT fielded a psyche, and made a lead not consistent with the bidding.

I don't think the lead is 'not consistent with the bidding', because leading from Qxx into a stopped suit is usually giving away a trick, especially if declarer has KJx (very possible imo). 1♠ only promisses an opening hand, but no top honour (or 2).
About the non-double, I think you're completely right, it's not a normal bid! If you don't double with such hand, I don't know what you need. Ofcourse it can be a beginner who thinks double would be negative or something, but it's still not normal...

It's imo a fielded psych, but I'm not a TD, so I don't know what has to happen

HUH? Bad to lead a ♠ because declarer may hold ♠ KJx??

If partner holds ♠Axxxx (presumably 5-card majors) or even ♠Axxx, declarer gets ONLY the one ♠ trick he is always entitled to. Also, you have cleared and set up the ♠ suit after the first two tricks.

Sure the suit may be blocked, but presumably the "opener" has an "opening bid" and will get in once or twice.

[JRG]

Shrike, on Apr 26 2004, 12:48 AM, said:

The psyche would be "red" in the EBU, meaning it would earn the pair a 30% matchpoint score, if I understand their regs. In other jurisdictions it would merit suspicion, but no automatic sanction. Wihthout evidence of a CPU (more evidence than just the auction and lead on this deal, IMO), there has been no provable violation.

I was under the impression that fielding a psyche, absent pre-alerts or alerts of bids that may be psychic, is considered prima facie evidence of a concealed partnership agreement.

[JRG]

Forgive me if the topic of psyching has been beaten death, but I have a comment and question on psyching in general.

I know that psychic bids (and plays) are pefectly legal according The Laws (within certain constraints). I also know that there are players who feel so strongly about psyches that they consider them to be cheating. Also, there are clubs (live) that I have played at that have restrictions on psyches (for example, only one psyche allowed per pair per session).

The topic is obviously divisive. Nevertheless:

I psyche extremely rarely (just personal style and a desire for partnership trust) and I have a personal policy of trying never to psyche against players who are weaker than I am. Before anyone points out that it is unnecessary, that is not the reason -- I think it simply ruins the game for the weaker players.

However, I have no issues with people psyching against me. Perhaps if it happened more often (for example, a certain player's lovely psychic 3NT bid), I would gain enough experience to recognize them and combat them better.

However, and here is the question, should we consider psychics in the same realm as (highly) unusual methods? If we do, shouldn't the onus be on the pair that often psyches (I don't know quite how to define "often") to make sure the opponents know that they do so?

Another question: Didn't the ACBL ban "Controlled Psyches" at one stage (perhaps still do)? I vaguely remember that the original Kaplan-Sheinwold system contained controlled psyches.