[pescetom]

HardVector, on 2023-August-10, 14:16, said:

In my opinion, while the interference was clearly a psyche, I would not assume it was a partnership agreement in an isolated event. Instead, I would say that there are very easy methods available to unravel the nature of the psyche that clearly were not explored and the result you got was deserved.

Sorry but I find that all rather difficult to follow.
To be a psyche there has to be a partnership agreement to deviate from.
What are the methods that were not employed and who got the result they deserved?

[HardVector]

pescetom, on 2023-August-10, 14:37, said:

Sorry but I find that all rather difficult to follow.
To be a psyche there has to be a partnership agreement to deviate from.
What are the methods that were not employed and who got the result they deserved?

In the original post, I said clearly a psyche. That may not be the case. If their agreement includes hands that have 0 pts, then the bid is not a psyche. I'm not sure what the various organizations allow in a Michaels bid. I do know that after a 1n opening, I can make a similar bid showing both majors and promising nothing. I haven't followed the entire thread here, I just popped in and added my 2 cents. I assumed that the agreement was Michaels. If so, that is a very standard understanding (similar to unusual notrump), and partnerships should have methods in place to counter that. In the bidding, were the 3d and 5d bids explained, or where they attempts to convey something to partner without a clear meaning? In either case, their judgement was that game was the limit and I see no damage in the valueless bid.

The question in these cases, was there damage that made it impossible or highly unlikely that the opponents can find the correct contract. Imo, that answer is no.

Edit: Oh, and the methods that I use are unusual vs unusual. Here, to show a hand that has diamond support and values, I would bid 2s over the 2d interference. 3d would simply be preemptive. However, there are lots of ways to skin this cat.

[pilowsky]

How many swallows does it take?
From the discussion above one is left with the impression that something is a psych only if:
1. The meaning differs from the stated meaning on the card or
2. The partnership is known to have that agreement because that's what they usually do - even if it isn't on the card.

But, is there a third option where an aberrant bid is made and partner decides that - even though they haven't seen it before - the call must be something other than it seems.

At what point does a call become an agreement?
When the bidder bids, or the partner fails to respond appropriately.
Here for example, is the pass by North a psych?
It's hard to say without seeing the other hands.

[blackshoe]

"It's a gross deviation" is only half the picture. To be a psych the bidder has to have intended to psych. Did he?

[pescetom]

blackshoe, on 2023-August-11, 01:52, said:

"It's a gross deviation" is only half the picture. To be a psych the bidder has to have intended to psych. Did he?

"Has to intend to psyche" is surely a tautology?
IIRC the Laws say the deviation must be intentional, which is not the same thing. I have had some senior TDs suggest that there has also to be a primary goal of misleading the opponents and/or that if the primary goal of the deviation is constructive then it is not a psyche, but I don't see much comfort for such reasoning in the Laws either.

The bidder was aware that he was deviating grossly from the agreement about Michaels in second seat, but also that he was not in that situation. He knew they had not discussed this particular situation and while he felt his planned action was perfectly logical he was unsure whether partner would expect it. He knew that the opener might well have difficulty reading the situation, although his prime goal was to disturb the opponents' auction. He had no constructive intent beyond perhaps eliciting an advance that further confused the situation (or survived penalty relatively unscathed).

[pescetom]

HardVector, on 2023-August-10, 17:06, said:

In the original post, I said clearly a psyche. That may not be the case. If their agreement includes hands that have 0 pts, then the bid is not a psyche. I'm not sure what the various organizations allow in a Michaels bid. I do know that after a 1n opening, I can make a similar bid showing both majors and promising nothing. I haven't followed the entire thread here, I just popped in and added my 2 cents. I assumed that the agreement was Michaels. If so, that is a very standard understanding (similar to unusual notrump), and partnerships should have methods in place to counter that. In the bidding, were the 3d and 5d bids explained, or where they attempts to convey something to partner without a clear meaning? In either case, their judgement was that game was the limit and I see no damage in the valueless bid.

The question in these cases, was there damage that made it impossible or highly unlikely that the opponents can find the correct contract. Imo, that answer is no.

Edit: Oh, and the methods that I use are unusual vs unusual. Here, to show a hand that has diamond support and values, I would bid 2s over the 2d interference. 3d would simply be preemptive. However, there are lots of ways to skin this cat.

An agreement to bid Michaels with 0 HCP would be legal in this RA, although as PMarlowe pointed out an excessively wide range would be treated with suspicion.

Michaels is not standard over here, although increasingly common. Relatively few pairs have a conventional defence such as Unusual over Unusual.

The natural 3D and 5D bids are not alertable and no explanation was requested.

I agree that probably many but not all peers of EW could reach 6D despite the interference. Given their lack of discussion and experience together, it's no surprise that they failed. But they probably would have reached 6D or at least 3NT in an Uncontested auction.

[mycroft]

It is not "clearly" a psych. A psychic call is a "gross and deliberate" deviation *from their agreement*. Unless you know what their agreement is, you can not decide that "clearly". It doesn't matter what *your* agreement is here, or even what "normal" is. It might be a shock here, for instance, that South is 4=5 instead of 5=5, but "mini-maxi" Michaels players - well, it's certainly "mini"!

The Director ruled it psychic based on their second-seat agreement (and possibly from their other preempt or preemptive overcall agreements). Again, I'm not going to judge that decision; I wasn't there and I didn't hear what was asked or answered. Again, I'll say that "hey, sometimes there is an advantage to actually discussing your system and knowing it"; and "learning how to explain your agreement and not rely on 'GBK' to fill in the gaps in your half-explanations can be beneficial"; and sometimes those advantages and benefits do not show up in the bidding and play.

Having ruled it psychic, we now decide what to do based on violating the system regulations. I don't know how that works in OP's RA, so I'm not going down that path either. We don't have the hands, but my impression is that failure to even try for 3NT, provided "I bid 5m as what should have obviously been a slam invite" isn't the argument, is the cause of the damage. If they were +660, and were saying that the not permitted call caused them to miss +1370, I might have more sympathy. And yes, I know there are people reading everything I've said in this thread and griping that I'm being too hard on the NOS again. And they may be right.

Off-topic, but yesterday, we had the following auction at our table:

---

After making it, and scoring it up, dummy asks "so, what was the alert on 1NT?" We told them, and congratulated them on believing their partner instead of the opponents. Again, we do not have the hands. But "their bidding convinced me we didn't have enough for slam, so I didn't bother to look" when they *said nothing* about points - well. And 5♦ instead of 3NT (or whichever 3M call says "I want to bid 3NT but I need a stopper in [suit]") is giving up at matchpoints. These are the reasons I "am too hard on the NOS" - these are experienced players (albeit not in a regular partnership), and I expect them to not pull the trick of magically forgetting how to play against opponents who did "something wrong". This is somewhat independent of how I must think or rule as a director (we removed the "players with sufficient experience are expected to protect themselves against 'obvious' failures to Alert or misexplanations", for instance, in favour of other language). OTOH, it might also be my NA biases - OP says Michaels isn't the "obvious, universal" it is over here, and they may not have the reps against it to know how to think against it. However, I repeat my other example hands.

On the other hand, we also do not have the explanations for the calls taken that the TD would have asked E-W for. They could be really quite sensible (in a "make the 90% bid that partner understands rather than the perfect but torture bid, with a new partner" way) that would bring my sympathy back.

As far as "uncontested auction" goes; if this South knows that 2♦ will be considered a psych not allowed by regulations, this South isn't passing - 1♥ at least, and maybe 2♥ (maybe even 1♠, hoping to get the hearts in later). Both of which will *also* be ruled as psychic, sure - but they're permitted...

[mycroft]

blackshoe, on 2023-August-11, 01:52, said:

To be a psych the bidder has to have intended to psych.

Maybe I'm just saying the same thing pescetom is, but I disagree with that statement. To be a psych the bidder must have intended to make that call. The implication is that the bidder also knows it's a gross deviation from their agreement, but I think it still counts if they play 2NT as "minors, 4-8 NV, 8-12V", and the bidder misread the vulnerability and opened with Kxxxx Jxxxx and out. I could be wrong here, but I feel uncomfortable with "I forgot it was a different range vulnerable" (or "I thought we were vul, these stupid red boards" going the other way, opening AKxxx KQxxx and out NV and taking their 3NT for 800 later) and having to guess which statement was a "deliberate deviation".

Edit: maybe I'm going too far there. I'm the big one for "misbids are misbids". But still, proving that I didn't realize it was a "gross deviation" of my agreement because I forgot/misread the vul/didn't know it's different in fourth/... is not going to be trivial. But "chose to bid that, knowing that it was [this much] away from their agreement" at least.

Otherwise, someone who never has heard of "psychic calls" can't psych. Someone who truly believes "I was just faking a cuebid, in order to discourage a club lead into slam, but it's just a Tactical Call/what Zia would do, not a psych!" also hasn't psyched?

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2023-August-11, 01:52, said:

"It's a gross deviation" is only half the picture. To be a psych the bidder has to have intended to psych. Did he?

For it not to be intentional, either they miscounted their points ("I thought the deuce was an Ace"), or they thought their agreement was different (e.g. no minimum opposite a passed partner).

The player should be able to explain why they bid this way.

[barmar]

pilowsky, on 2023-August-10, 22:41, said:

At what point does a call become an agreement?

Except for calls that have been explicitly discussed, this is vague. Law 40C1 simply refers to "repeated deviations", but doesn't say how many repetitions are required. If you want to be pedantic, 2 occurrences is technically "repeated". But I doubt that they really intended that 2 occurrences a year apart would be considered a pattern that partner would remember. It also says that you can deviate "provided that his partner has no more reason than the opponents to be aware of the deviation".

So it has to be repeated often enough that partner will pick up on the pattern and have reason to expect the deviation. That's still very much a judgement call, made even harder if the TD doesn't know the players in question. Some RAs have the concept of recording deviations so the TD can find out whether they have a history that could inform partner.

[pescetom]

barmar, on 2023-August-11, 15:36, said:

For it not to be intentional, either they miscounted their points ("I thought the deuce was an Ace"), or they thought their agreement was different (e.g. no minimum opposite a passed partner).

The player should be able to explain why they bid this way.

South did explain why in this case, he was also well aware of his second seat agreement, conscious that he had none in fourth: see previous posts.


I'm comforted how interesting questions are developing here, but unfortunately (not) I have a demanding weekend with a teams tournament coming up so please allow me time to catch up

[HardVector]

As far as when a psyche becomes an agreement, the guideline I was taught, was that the first time is a psyche, the second instance is an agreement. So that basically allows for one psyche per director interacted with. Some people also don't notify directors when a psyche has occurred. So even if you got psyched, you should call the director so that even if they say, "Sorry, but the result is going to stand", at least you will have the psyche on record if they try it again.

[blackshoe]

My point is that the bidder has to know the agreed meaning of the call and has to have deliberately grossly departed from that meaning for the call to be a psych. "It looks like a psych to me so I'm calling it a psych" doesn't cut it as far as I'm concerned.

On that "primary goal" thing, that's not an interpretation I would make or support. If I were working for one of these senior directors, and he instructed me to rule a call a psych on this basis, my reply would be "I guess you're going to have to fire me, 'cause I ain't doing that".

As to the player "proving" anything, there is no such onus on players in the laws. The Director is tasked to gather what evidence he can, and to rule on the preponderance of the evidence he gathers. It's in the best interests of players to provide what evidence they can to support their position, but they aren't required to prove anything.

[barmar]

HardVector, on 2023-August-11, 19:13, said:

As far as when a psyche becomes an agreement, the guideline I was taught, was that the first time is a psyche, the second instance is an agreement.

That seems like a really poor definition. Suppose there are 5 years between the two instances, is that really enough to establish an agreement? Would partner even be expected to remember that it has happened before?

[pilowsky]

To most mortals an agreement exists if the person they are speaking to understands what they're saying.
It doesn't matter if they've never said it before, or if they say it ten times a day.

If your partner makes an extraordinary call and you fail to act as you ordinarily would then a new agreement exists.
Perhaps the test should be "if partner was a robot (not in the GIB sense) and could only respond according to the precise systemic meaning of a call but doesn't, then a new agreement exists".

A bid only becomes a gross deviation from an understanding if partner understands AND acts in a way that differs from previous agreements.

Life begins when the chicken emerges from the egg.

[sanst]

pilowsky, on 2023-August-16, 20:05, said:

To most mortals an agreement exists if the person they are speaking to understands what they're saying.

Well, it’s night and snowing and your partner tells you that it’s a warm, sunny day, is that an agreement? Life isn’t that simple, nor is bridge .

[mycroft]

Well, if your partner tells the table it's night and snowing, and you bring your sunglasses anyway, I'm checking your ID. If you're not Elwood Blues Corey Hart, you Might Have An Agreement. But "of course we didn't discuss it, and yeah, he did it last year, but that didn't affect my thinking; I just didn't like my spades". Again, bridge isn't that simple, nor is life :-)

Re: prove. I think that blackshoe has the typical USAnian "criminal standard" stuck in their head as their definition of "proof", with its "the prosecution must prove [within a shadow of doubt], the defence doesn't have to prove anything". But we're not putting anybody in jail here (even if the attitude toward psyches seems like it sometimes!) Now, if either side in a civil trial (in the USA) win, did they "prove" anything? Because that's what you're saying happens here - the Judge Director finds and listens to all, and rules based on the preponderance of the evidence (available and presented). And sometimes, yeah, the Laws and/or regulations are written such that "the Director will presume X", in which case, there is an initial "weight of history" that starts on one side of the "preponderance of the evidence" scale. I don't think that's a bad thing, especially in cases where (in general, not in any specific instance) it is so obviously true.

But yes, we sometimes use "prove" in a way that implies "it's up to the potential OS to get out of this" rather than "the OS has to give enough evidence that it wasn't this to overcome the evidence for it". And we should be more careful about that.

Now I do find it interesting that when psychs were the Satanic Panic of bridge, all the arguments were "it wasn't a psych, it was just a mild deviation that was desiged to decieve. But if the opponents are fooled by such a simple thing, it's their problem". Now that what they want to do is not allowed "doesn't apply to a psych", all those same people are claiming "obviously, it's a psych. Nobody, especially partner, would expect this! Especially not the third time it's happened this year!"

[blackshoe]

mycroft, on 2023-August-17, 10:41, said:

Re: prove. I think that blackshoe has the typical USAnian "criminal standard" stuck in their head as their definition of "proof", with its "the prosecution must prove [within a shadow of doubt], the defence doesn't have to prove anything".
…
But yes, we sometimes use "prove" in a way that implies "it's up to the potential OS to get out of this" rather than "the OS has to give enough evidence that it wasn't this to overcome the evidence for it". And we should be more careful about that.

Nope. What I said was

blackshoe, on 2023-August-11, 20:18, said:

As to the player "proving" anything, there is no such onus on players in the laws. The Director is tasked to gather what evidence he can, and to rule on the preponderance of the evidence he gathers. It's in the best interests of players to provide what evidence they can to support their position, but they aren't required to prove anything.

This was primarily in response to several recent comments both here and on BridgeWinners to the effect that "the onus is on the player to prove" whatever. If you can find such an onus in the laws, Mycroft, please point it out to me. It does seem to me, given your "but yes…" that we are essentially in agreement on this point.

[mycroft]

We are. But as I said, there are parts of the Laws and regulations where the scales start tipped in one direction (almost always not in favour of the actor):

• The way Law 25A cases are handled are effectively "you have to convince us of 'mechanical error or slip of the tongue', we will assume 'loss of concentration'."
  
• "provided that partner has no more reason than the opponents to be aware of the deviation" (40C1): maybe not actively, but a player known to be "creative", in a long-term partnership, will have a higher mountain to climb for the Director to not "judge[] there is undisclosed knowledge" than others, just by logic.
  
• It's no longer quite as strong in the ACBL as the "must be convinced" and "level of evidence is OVERWHELMING"(their emphasis) of the old Tech Files document, but 45C4b is still a "the assumption is 'lack of concentration' or 'you were a trick ahead of yourself'. It's a pretty strong assumption."
  
• The classic "onus is on the player" is 70C2's "it is at all likely". Here the standard of evidence is written as much closer to "within a shadow of a doubt". For a very good reason (and why whenever I discuss this, either with the ruling or later or even "So look, about claims...", I mention "there are three legs to a 'trump out' case. It is very difficult to topple two of them. It is very easy to knock out the third: Always Mention The Trump.")
  
• While we're in claims, if you're going to argue that the right line is "normal*", you have a pretty high bar to climb (and the better you are, the higher it is!)
  
• The classic Law 75 "The Director shall assume" phrasing is gone, but the Director's determination is still likely to start on one side of "balanced", and rightfully so.
  
• And of course, the Endicott Rule 40B2a1 (no longer needed for the Fudge because 40B1b) explicitly, deliberately, and commentary at the time stated specifically that "this is our express intent", allows regulations to be biased against the player in all the wonderful ways that are read as "the onus is on the player to prove": (my emphasis throughout)"the Regulating authority is empowered *without restriction* to allow, disallow, *or allow conditionally*" any SPU (and *any agreement* can be designated an SPU by the RA "in their opinion". Per the commentary, "and their decision is final, the RAs know best for their players"). "You aren't allowed to deviate in a way that would make the Agreement disallowed if it wasn't a deviation. Doesn't apply to a psych, but unless it's IOTTMCO, 60 years of players "deviating" their way to playing the agreement the way they want to play it contra regulations is a whole lot of evidence you have to preponderate over to get me to believe it's a 'gross' deviation from *your* agreement".

And yeah, we shortcut "the scales are balanced against you from the start. But please, show me that it's different this time" to "prove", and we probably shouldn't. But I still ask: did the "winning" side of a civil case (in the US) "prove" their case (in general discussion, not necessarily in legal documents)? Because if so, then it's absolutely appropriate to use it in "preponderance of the evidence" judgements, which most of these situations are.

[barmar]

pilowsky, on 2023-August-16, 20:05, said:

To most mortals an agreement exists if the person they are speaking to understands what they're saying.
It doesn't matter if they've never said it before, or if they say it ten times a day.

The Law says that partner partner should be no more likely to recognize it as a psyche than the opponents. So it's not just enough that partner figures out what's going on, there has to be partnership experience that helps them recognize it.

As an analogy, if I speak English, I'll be understood by most other English speakers. That's OK. But in many families, some private idioms may be developed. They might sound like ordinary English, but people outside the family won't understand the intended meaning. This is not allowed in bridge bidding.