[Vampyr]

Quote

Psyches and misbids are different and are not treated as the same legally. Furthermore, why should they be?

The case Law in England was when a player opened a Benjamin 2♦ [equivalent to an Acol 2♣] at a time when it was illegal to psyche such bids. The player had forgotten that she played Benjamin with this partner, so she had opened what she believed to be a Multi 2♦. Pass, 2♥, Pass, Pass to a player with an excellent knowledge of the Laws and Regulations. He held a 4=1=4=4 12 count and passed, which was not a success, since 4♠ was cold.

He argued that since the opponents were not allowed to psyche a Benjamin 2♦ he assumed the pass was a mistake and he saw no need to re-open. In England if you use an illegal convention then the board is scored as Ave-/Ave+ to the user under Law 12C1D and a Regulation [unless the non-offending side does better than Ave+]. He thus asked for Ave+.

The TD decided that the bid was a misbid not a psyche and ruled result stood. The AC upheld the TD and commented they nearly kept the deposit. The L&EC upheld the TD, pointing out that the Regulation only covered psyches, not misbids.

I think this is crazy. In jurisdictions that have regulations on what bids can be psyched, what difference can it make whether you "meant" to psyche or not? Presumably the regulation was meant to protect the opponents, and you have fu cked up their auction every bit as much as if you had done it on purpose.

Why does "it was a mistake" absolve a person of responsibility? This evening, I took a wrong view and misplayed a hand badly. Should I get the score adjusted, as it was a mistake? This sort of reasoning works very well for exams. If I have got a question wrong, obviously it is because I have made a mistake. Should I score 100% every time, since mistakes don't count?

And on a slightly different subject -- is it legal to regulate which categories of bids can and cannot be psyched?

[pran]

Vampyr, on 2012-May-30, 20:00, said:

[...]
And on a slightly different subject -- is it legal to regulate which categories of bids can and cannot be psyched?

Laws 40B1 and 40B2{a}

[barmar]

Vampyr, on 2012-May-30, 20:00, said:

I think this is crazy. In jurisdictions that have regulations on what bids can be psyched, what difference can it make whether you "meant" to psyche or not?

In the real world, intent is the difference between murder and manslaughter.

Quote

Why does "it was a mistake" absolve a person of responsibility?

Because mistakes are hard to avoid, since we're fallible human beings. But if you do something deliberately, you could also have chosen NOT to do it, and if the rules prohibit it then you MUST make that choice.

[blackshoe]

Mistakes don't always absolve one of responsibility. Consider the manslaughter/murder case. The punishment may not be as severe as for murder, but if one is convicted of manslaughter there will be punishment.

[nige1]

Vampyr, on 2012-May-30, 20:00, said:

I think this is crazy. In jurisdictions that have regulations on what bids can be psyched, what difference can it make whether you "meant" to psyche or not? Presumably the regulation was meant to protect the opponents, and you have fu cked up their auction every bit as much as if you had done it on purpose.
Why does "it was a mistake" absolve a person of responsibility? This evening, I took a wrong view and misplayed a hand badly. Should I get the score adjusted, as it was a mistake? This sort of reasoning works very well for exams. If I have got a question wrong, obviously it is because I have made a mistake. Should I score 100% every time, since mistakes don't count?
And on a slightly different subject -- is it legal to regulate which categories of bids can and cannot be psyched?

I agree with vampyr. Many laws (like this one) reward carelessness, rationalization and prevarication while penalizing honesty. Even directors who excel on their mind-reading course must sometimes worry about implying that a putative offender is being economical with the truth. .

[jeffford76]

Vampyr, on 2012-May-30, 20:00, said:

I think this is crazy. In jurisdictions that have regulations on what bids can be psyched, what difference can it make whether you "meant" to psyche or not? Presumably the regulation was meant to protect the opponents, and you have fu cked up their auction every bit as much as if you had done it on purpose.

I agree with this. I would prefer not to have "no psyche" rules, but if they are going to be there, it's presumably to allow the opponents to know that the bid is real. I know we generally assume people are honest, but I also don't like that the legality of a call depending on what the player tells me they were thinking when they made it.

And it has to be just as legal to say "you can only play X if you don't misbid or psyche it" as to say "you can only play X if you don't psyche it".

[blackshoe]

Mistakes are part of the game. A game in which mistakes are not permitted isn't worth playing.

[nigel_k]

pran, on 2012-May-31, 02:05, said:

Laws 40B1 and 40B2{a}

Really? It has always been my understanding that only psyches of artificial calls can be regulated, and that is under 40B2d.

[pran]

nigel_k, on 2012-May-31, 14:01, said:

Really? It has always been my understanding that only psyches of artificial calls can be regulated, and that is under 40B2d.

Law 40B1{a} said:

In its discretion the Regulating Authority may designate certain partnership understandings as “special partnership understandings”. A special partnership understanding is 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.

Note that there is no formal requirement here that the call in question by definition is artificial.

Law 40B2{a} said:

The Regulating Authority is empowered without restriction to allow, disallow, or allow conditionally, any special partnership understanding.

Such conditions can very well include that psyching is not allowed.

Be aware that as of the 2007 laws a regulating authority has been given very wide powers.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2012-May-31, 11:41, said:

Mistakes are part of the game. A game in which mistakes are not permitted isn't worth playing.

LOL a game in which mistakes are permitted isn't worth playing. In theory, bridge would be an every-way draw if there were not mistakes.

Bridge must be the only game in which mistakes are not penalised based on the state of mind of the player. I look forward to the football offside rule being amended so that if a player wasn't aware he was offsides, it didn't count...

[bluejak]

Vampyr, on 2012-May-31, 19:33, said:

LOL a game in which mistakes are permitted isn't worth playing. In theory, bridge would be an every-way draw if there were not mistakes.

Bridge must be the only game in which mistakes are not penalised based on the state of mind of the player. I look forward to the football offside rule being amended so that if a player wasn't aware he was offsides, it didn't count...

Perhaps it is time you looked at the football rules then.

If a ball hits your hand, no infraction. If you use your hand deliberately to play the ball, that's illegal.

If you kick an opponent, that's a direct free kick. If you do not intend to kick him but he just falls over your leg which you have unintentionally left in his way, that's a lesser offence with a lesser penalty, an indirect free kick.

It's all very well to quote the offside rule as an example, but that compares with revoking where intent is irrelevant. Both football and bridge [and many other disciplines] have rules that depend on intent and rules that do not.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2012-May-31, 10:45, said:

Mistakes don't always absolve one of responsibility. Consider the manslaughter/murder case. The punishment may not be as severe as for murder, but if one is convicted of manslaughter there will be punishment.

My point was to show that intent is considered relevant. The amount of difference it makes is dealt with on a case by case basis.

In the case of manslaughter, the consequences of the mistake are so serious (someone dies) that we still give a serious punishment, so that people know that they should be extra careful in dangerous situations. But we give harsher punishment to murder, because intentional killing means you're a "bad" or "evil".

Getting back to psyches versus misbids.... Usually, deviating from your agreements is going to impact your side more than the opponents, so misbidding tends to be a "victimless crime" (I know this isn't always the case, but it's probably true most of the time). But when players psych, they don't do so randomly -- they try to do it in situations where they believe the downside is low (e.g. favorable vulnerability and partner is a passed hand, so he's not likely to get us too high). That's the big difference between misbids and psyches -- the level of control you have over the impact on your side versus the opponents.

[StevenG]

It would be easier if Regulating Authorities had the power to ban specific bids, rather than partnership agreements. That would completely remove all the lawyering from these situations.

[pran]

StevenG, on 2012-June-01, 03:38, said:

It would be easier if Regulating Authorities had the power to ban specific bids, rather than partnership agreements. That would completely remove all the lawyering from these situations.

Which of the 35 possible different legal bids do you have in mind as candidates to be forbidden (regardless of the applicable partnership agreements)?

[StevenG]

All I'm saying is that if a bid (in context) is illegal as part of a partnership agreement, then it would be better if the bid was absolutely illegal. No saying "it's a psych" or "it's a deviation" or "we don't have an agreement" or "it's a misbid" or any other device to make it allowable.

[Vampyr]

StevenG, on 2012-June-01, 05:17, said:

All I'm saying is that if a bid (in context) is illegal as part of a partnership agreement, then it would be better if the bid was absolutely illegal. No saying "it's a psych" or "it's a deviation" or "we don't have an agreement" or "it's a misbid" or any other device to make it allowable.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here -- something like, if transfer opening bids are not permitted, then you cannot open 1♥ with a spade suit, as a psyche? Well, it might be possible to make deviations, non-discussed bids or misbids illegal, but you cannot make psyches illegal. Although some jurisdictions try their best, by making artificial bids, or strong bids or whatever non-psyche-able.

[CamHenry]

Vampyr, on 2012-May-30, 20:00, said:

Why does "it was a mistake" absolve a person of responsibility? This evening, I took a wrong view and misplayed a hand badly. Should I get the score adjusted, as it was a mistake? This sort of reasoning works very well for exams. If I have got a question wrong, obviously it is because I have made a mistake. Should I score 100% every time, since mistakes don't count?

Not a valid argument, I'm afraid. In the original example, opener made a mistake and opponents suffered for it. In your example, your score suffered as a result of your mistake.

Of course, if you'd said "I screwed up my entries, and therefore had to play to drop the Q doubleton offside when missing six cards in a side suit - but it worked", it would be more directly comparable. Are you trying to argue away your right to get lucky like that?

Mistakes do count; saying "it is not permitted to make a mistake when opening a (e.g.) Benji 2♦" is saying "only robots may play Benji". The trouble with regulating against mistakes is that, in practice, you restrict the permitted systems.

[barmar]

StevenG, on 2012-June-01, 03:38, said:

It would be easier if Regulating Authorities had the power to ban specific bids, rather than partnership agreements. That would completely remove all the lawyering from these situations.

They already have this power. For instance, ACBL prohibits Multi 2♦ in GCC events.

But they don't want to prohibit strong 2♣, since this is a common convention used by the majority of ACBL players. They just want to prevent players from bidding it psychically.

[RMB1]

barmar, on 2012-June-01, 14:23, said:

They already have this power. For instance, ACBL prohibits Multi 2♦ in GCC events.

I think StevenG wants the power to ban bidding 2♦ with a weak hand with a six card major , even if your agreement is that 2♦ is not systemically Multi (so that 2♦ is a psyche/misbid).

[Cyberyeti]

The psyches/misbids that need to be banned and penalised are where a pair want to play an illegal agreement, modify it so it meets the local regs, then "psyche/misbid" it with some of the hands they wanted to put in it but weren't allowed to.

Example (hypothetical, the UK rules don't quite say this): I want to play 2♣ over a natural 1♣ as 3 suited short in clubs.

The regulations say I have to specify a suit that must have 4 cards or more.

I nominate spades, but occasionally do it when 3451 anyway.