[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.

[1eyedjack]

JRG, on May 12 2004, 12:21 PM, said:

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.

Particular sponsoring organisations have the authority to ban controlled psyches. Most sponsoring organisations have such a regulation. I do not know whether BBO site rules have such a stipulation, but in the absence of a regulation I would expect that by default they are allowed on BBO. Personally I would recommend that BBO adopt a proscription of such methods. One of the very few proscriptions that I would support, in fact.

As to the regulation by the sponsoring organisation of psyches generally I recently posted a query at:

http://forums.bridge...p?showtopic=527

The two responses to this query seem to be reasonably intelligent, although there is a lack of reference to statutory authority.

[McBruce]

Firstly: Once again we have this strange attitude from several posters that a bid which shows a hand completely different from the one held is not a psyche if it is made in a situation where psyching makes no sense.

This is complete rubbish. The 1♠ opener is a psyche by definition, and if your partnership has predefined rules as to when a psyche makes sense and when one does not, this is a PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT and you had better start alerting.

Secondly: most organizations have some form of the Principle of Coincidence, an adjunct of the Principle of Full Disclosure, which states that if one partner takes an action which is outside of agreed system AND partner then takes a second action outside of system which combines with the first to provide success, then there is evidence that the pair is not complying with Full Disclosure. There is a warning not to overuse the principle, but comparing the example on the ACBL version (linked above) to the example submitted in this thread by mpefritz, we can get an idea of the severity of the problem here.

ACBL: The following combination of overbid and underbid is an example of the PRINCIPLE OF COINCIDENCE. East, whose card is marked 15-17, opens one notrump with a balanced 13. West with 10 points decides to bid only 2NT and eight tricks are the maximum available. This "lucky coincidence" is the result of two improbable actions which, in combination, "work". The PRINCIPLE OF COINCIDENCE defines this sequence to be an infraction of ACBL regulations (full-disclosure). The score on the board should be adjusted whenever the misinformation directly damages the non-offenders (as by placing an extra card or wrong card in declarer's hand allowing an extra trick(s) to be made). Whether or not a score adjustment is made, a procedural penalty for the offenders should be considered.

In the ACBL example a score adjustment is possible and a procedural penalty is likely when one partner overbids by a queen and the other underbids by a queen. In mpefritz's example, the opening bid of 1♠ on a 6-count is three times as much a distortion, and partner's failure to double is a coincidence. If it were possible on BBO, I would give a procedural penalty unless the players were novices. We don't know the rest of the hand, so we don't know if a score adjustment is reasonable.

Note than the ACBL's version at least does not allow for the 1N - 2N auction to be adjusted to 3N down one. The only score adjustment possible is to give the defenders back tricks that they lost based on assuming declarer had a full 1NT opener. In mpefritz's example, the E-W side doesn't get to play 1NT doubled based on the Rule of Coincidence. But if 1NT should go down because declarer placed cards in the openers hand, the score would be adjusted.