[olegru]

ACBL land

---

Spots approximated.
EW bids were alerted and explained as shown. EW claimed that explanations are correct and both bids are bluffs.
NS had an accident due to different understanding of South double.

Everithing kosher?

[mjj29]

Well, in the EBU we'd definitely be looking at this since we have a regulation that says if both players psych on the same board it's at least Amber. This won't immediately cause a score adjustment, but any other suspicious events could cause it to be upgraded and I would be talking very seriously with the players to ask them what was going on. The result of this could lead me to rule it as an implicit understanding and adjust accordingly.

I don't think the ACBL has a similar regulation, but I hope any director would look suspiciously on these kind of events.

[richlp]

olegru, on 2013-March-26, 11:45, said:

ACBL land

---

Spots approximated.
EW bids were alerted and explained as shown. EW claimed that explanations are correct and both bids are bluffs.
NS had an accident due to different understanding of South double.

Everithing kosher?

Perhaps even Kosher for Passover.

Unless there are recorder memos about this pair I would find it hard to rule anything other than result stands.

[ArtK78]

richlp, on 2013-March-26, 14:34, said:

Perhaps even Kosher for Passover.

Unless there are recorder memos about this pair I would find it hard to rule anything other than result stands.

Can't be Kosher for Passover. I am sure it got a rise out of the opponents.

[gnasher]

mjj29, on 2013-March-26, 11:57, said:

Well, in the EBU we'd definitely be looking at this since we have a regulation that says if both players psych on the same board it's at least Amber.

I think the EBU regulation says only that it's likely to be at least amber.

Quote

I don't think the ACBL has a similar regulation, but I hope any director would look suspiciously on these kind of events.

Do you think that the director should be more suspicious of this than of two psychs by the partnership on two different boards?

[blackshoe]

I had a player tell me today (conversationally) that "you're not allowed to make more than one psych per session". I told him that I think he would find that the rules (laws and regulations) don't say that. I don't think he believed me.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2013-March-26, 22:44, said:

I had a player tell me today (conversationally) that "you're not allowed to make more than one psych per session". I told him that I think he would find that the rules (laws and regulations) don't say that. I don't think he believed me.

They certainly don't say that.
But more frequent psyching may easily lead to a pattern which should seriously be considered CPU (unless disclosed).

[iviehoff]

There was a famous court case that occurred in Britain. A couple had two consecutive sudden infant deaths. The government's Chief Scientist, who was a famous paediatrician, but unfortunately with a weak command of probability theory, testified in court that one SID was sufficiently uncommon that two SIDs had to be murder, and the defence lawyers also had an insufficient command to realise that they were being sold nonsense. Fortunately there was an outcry in the scientific press, and a retrial tore the evidence to shreds and the woman was acquitted.

The faulty understanding of the CS came from a failure to appreciate that when the events are not independent, you can't just multiply the probabilities. Also a failing to appreciate that whilst SIDs are uncommon, so is infanticide, and in fact SID is more likely than infanticide. Another issue is that you fail to pick up the conditional probability if you imprison all double-SIDs as murderers. It turned out that is what had been happening, and there was a handful of other double-SID "murderers" with no other evidence against them languishing in prison who eventually got released.

This reminds us that the relevant question in this case is not "How often do you psyche", and then square it. Relevant questions include "How likely is it you would psyche given the cards in front of you,", and "how often is a 1D opener first in hand a psyche at this vulnerability?"

[WellSpyder]

iviehoff, on 2013-March-27, 03:36, said:

The faulty understanding of the CS came from a failure to appreciate that when the events are not independent, you can't just multiply the probabilities.

Surely it is precisely because the psyches may not be independent events that there is a suggestion of a CPU when both partners psyche on the same hand. You may well be more tempted to psyche yourself if you suspect your partner of having psyched.

[iviehoff]

WellSpyder, on 2013-March-27, 04:31, said:

Surely it is precisely because the psyches may not be independent events that there is a suggestion of a CPU when both partners psyche on the same hand. You may well be more tempted to psyche yourself if you suspect your partner of having psyched.

Quite so. But what I am cautioning against is the fallacious argument that deduces they must be related, because it is too unlikely that they could be independent.

[WellSpyder]

iviehoff, on 2013-March-27, 05:00, said:

Quite so. But what I am cautioning against is the fallacious argument that deduces they must be related, because it is too unlikely that they could be independent.

OK. But in that case I don't find your analogy useful. Of course the standards of proof required in the two sets of circumstances are rather different, but in any case I think you are drawing the wrong conclusion. My own interpretation of the SID issue is that it is a perfectly reasonable (non-fallacious) argument that two cases are almost certainly related because it is so unlikely that they could be independent. The problem, though, is in understanding how the cases are related, since the causes of SID are not well understood.

[iviehoff]

WellSpyder, on 2013-March-27, 06:46, said:

But in that case I don't find your analogy useful.
... The problem, though, is in understanding how the cases are related, since the causes of SID are not well understood.

The main point of my analogy was simply to illustrate the fallacy of taking the probabilty of the single event, without any context, and squaring it, and say "that's so unlikely it can't be true", though I also explored some other probabilistic points of possible relevance to illustrate the complexity. But it is certainly not, nor intended to be, a perfect analogy, it is far from being that.

If dealer's choice of a first in hand psyche is rare or unprecendented; if his choice of 1D as a psychic opening is rare or unprecedented; if the responder frequently psyches over a take-out double; then, probably it is just a (not so very surprising) coincidence. If first-in-hand psyches are well-known in that partnership, if 1D opening is known as a likely psyched bid for that partnership, then things are more more suspicious.

[keeper2]

Forgive me for returning to the original topic, but don't both psyches violate the ACBL GCC prohibition of "Psyching of artificial or conventional opening bids and/or conventional
responses thereto. Psyching conventional suit responses, which are less than 2NT, to natural openings" ?

Since 1D promises only 2 diamonds it is not "natural" according to ACBL definitions. Moreover, since the 2H bid shows 5H +4spades it is also conventional according to the ACBL.

[ArtK78]

keeper2, on 2013-March-27, 10:52, said:

Forgive me for returning to the original topic, but don't both psyches violate the ACBL GCC prohibition of "Psyching of artificial or conventional opening bids and/or conventional
responses thereto. Psyching conventional suit responses, which are less than 2NT, to natural openings" ?

Since 1D promises only 2 diamonds it is not "natural" according to ACBL definitions. Moreover, since the 2H bid shows 5H +4spades it is also conventional according to the ACBL.

Good point.

It seems that psyching a "could be short" 1♦ opening is not permitted. Furthermore, it seems that psyching a 2♥ call over the double which conventionally means 5+ hearts 4+ spades and a weak hand is also not permitted.

[wyman]

ArtK78, on 2013-March-27, 11:03, said:

Good point.

It seems that psyching a "could be short" 1♦ opening is not permitted. Furthermore, it seems that psyching a 2♥ call over the double which conventionally means 5+ hearts 4+ spades and a weak hand is also not permitted.

If a precision diamond is not considered natural, then psyching it is verboten. I was a little unclear as to whether the 2H call was a "conventional response" since it's in a competitive auction. I was pretty sure that it was anything-goes in competition.

[ArtK78]

wyman, on 2013-March-27, 11:54, said:

If a precision diamond is not considered natural, then psyching it is verboten. I was a little unclear as to whether the 2H call was a "conventional response" since it's in a competitive auction. I was pretty sure that it was anything-goes in competition.

It is hard to term the first call of the partner of the opening bidder anything other than a "response" even if it is in competition. That said, I don't know if there is anything in writing that spells out the definition of a response. There does not appear to be a definition of the term "response" in the laws.

Interestingly, the definition of the expected length of the suit holding for a bid to be considered to be a natural opening bid and the definition of a conventional call are not mutually exclusive. While it is specified that, for a minor suit opening bid to be natural, the expected suit length must be 3+, the definition of a conventional call is:

Convention: A bid which, by partnership agreement, conveys a meaning not necessarily related to the denomination named or, in the case of a pass, double or redouble, the last denomination named. In addition, a pass which promises more than a specified amount of strength, or artificially promises or denies values other than in the last suit named.

I suppose that if an expected suit length of 2+ for a 1♦ opening is not natural, then, under the definiton of a conventional call, it conveys a meaning not necessarily related to the denomination named. As a lawyer, that does not seem intuitively obvious to me, since the requirement of 2+ cards in the suit is specifically related to the denomination named. As the ACBL has attempted to define the term "natural call," it would be nice if the definition of a conventional call were any call that is not a natural call, but that is not what we have. But, as is stated on the ACBL webpage under the heading "Alert Definitions:"

The new Alert procedure includes a number of definitions whose purpose is to clarify important concepts and create standard terminology. This procedure uses the admittedly "fuzzy" terminology of "highly unusual and unexpected" as the best practical solution to simplifying the Alert Procedure. The "highly unusual and unexpected" should be determined in light of historical usage rather than local geographical usage. To ensure full disclosure, however, at the end of the auction and before the opening lead, declarer is encouraged to volunteer to explain the auction (including available inferences).

In my opinion, the terminology of "highly unusual and unexpected" is not the only "fuzzy" terminology found in the ACBL procedures.

[gnasher]

ArtK78, on 2013-March-27, 12:58, said:

As the ACBL has attempted to define the term "natural call," it would be nice if the definition of a conventional call were any call that is not a natural call, but that is not what we have.

I think that would be the definition of an "artificial call", though the ACBL might not agree with me.

[lalldonn]

Not sure that this matters, but the 2♥ bid showed 5+ spades 4+ hearts, not 5+ hearts 4+ spades. I know that seems contradicted by west's pass on the second round but it is true. West passed to try and force north to make an immediate decision and leave him more bids to make (indeed he chose 2♠) rather than send it back around to south.

[ArtK78]

gnasher, on 2013-March-27, 14:28, said:

I think that would be the definition of an "artificial call", though the ACBL might not agree with me.

Perhaps. But then you have this:

Treatment: A natural call which, by partnership agreement, carries a specific message about the suit bid or the general strength or shape of the hand.

So a treatment is some hybrid of a natural call and a conventional call, but it is not a conventional call by definition. Therefore, the only conventional calls are not natural.

[barmar]

ArtK78, on 2013-March-27, 16:11, said:

Perhaps. But then you have this:

Treatment: A natural call which, by partnership agreement, carries a specific message about the suit bid or the general strength or shape of the hand.

So a treatment is some hybrid of a natural call and a conventional call, but it is not a conventional call by definition. Therefore, the only conventional calls are not natural.

I think "treatment" is intended for things like weak 2's, or the choice of strength of natural NT bids. Or if you play Flannery, the expectation that 1♥-1♠ usually shows 5 spades.

Natural and artificial calls are mutually exclusive, I believe. All artificial calls are conventional, some natural calls may also be.