[c_corgi]

RMB1, on 2012-June-01, 16:37, said:

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).

This would probably lead to a more coherent set of laws/regulations.

I would prefer less regulation of methods. In particular, restrictions on evaluation and judgement based on whether they have been deemed a "partnership understanding" seem very misguided.

[mycroft]

Cyberyeti, on 2012-June-01, 16:58, said:

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.

I had one of those. The auction against a weaker pair went (1♦)-2NT-3♥; 3♠-p. When asked about 2NT after the 2NT call, they said it shows the two lower unbid suits. One player bid it with "top and bottom" because he didn't have a call for T&B, but knew that partner would work it out if he pulled 3♥ to 3♠. And partner did.

The only problem with this is that the GCC requires a NT overcall (in this position) to guarantee a known suit. So, they're playing an illegal agreement (well, they could have got away with telling me it showed "clubs and a major"), that was implied even if not explicitly agreed (because bidder "knew" that partner would get it), and was misdescribed. And they chose to argue with the ruling of misinformation because "everybody should be able to work this out, it's General Bridge Knowledge", so I gave them the option of accepting the MI ruling or getting a Use of Illegal Convention, *and* MI ruling.

"But that's stupid!" Well, yes, but that's not my fault, and *you* agreed to playing under those rules when you bought your entry.

[Vampyr]

CamHenry, on 2012-June-01, 06:42, said:

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.

No, I am suggesting that you treat a misbid as a psyche. In the case of Benji it wouldn't matter at all, because the convention is usually played in England where there are no restrictions on which bids may be psyched. In other places where it would not be permissible to psyche such a bid, a misbid should get the same penalty.

[Bbradley62]

Vampyr, on 2012-June-04, 16:29, said:

No, I am suggesting that you treat a misbid as a psyche.

In the days before bidding boxes, I twice "heard the wrong word come out of my mouth"; once I opened 1♦ holding six good clubs and a stiff diamond, and once I overcalled 4♥ holding seven good spades and a stiff heart. The director was called after each of these became a screaming top, and both directors agreed with your suggestion and treated my misbid as a psyche.

[Vampyr]

Bbradley62, on 2012-June-04, 16:43, said:

In the days before bidding boxes, I twice "heard the wrong word come out of my mouth"; once I opened 1♦ holding six good clubs and a stiff diamond, and once I overcalled 4♥ holding seven good spades and a stiff heart. The director was called after each of these became a screaming top, and both directors agreed with your suggestion and treated my misbid as a psyche.

Well, that's not a problem. It made no difference to your score, and probably earned you a badass reputation.

[Cascade]

pran, on 2012-May-31, 18:17, said:

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.

Quote

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.

Quote

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

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


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.

Really on what basis can a natural 1♠ opening be regulated so as to disallow psyches of it?

1. Psyching is not a "special partnership understanding" - it is a departure from one's partnership understandings

2. A natural 1♠ is not an understanding that "may not be readily understood and anticipated" and therefore cannot sensibly, reasonably or legally be deemed to be a "special partnership understanding" that can be regulated.

[mycroft]

Sensibly, reasonably I'll give you, Wayne. However, I'm sure that the same WBFLC that gave us the Endicott Fudge (apologies to Grattan for the name, but he was (and is) the messenger) will happily tell you that a natural 1♠ is a SPU if the NCBO chooses to consider it such. Or, more specifically, "an agreement not to never psych a natural 1♠ is an SPU".

And if the WBFLC don't so decree, the NCBO will just throw in the Endicott Fudge again. You're allowed not to agree not to psych a natural 1M call, but if you do choose so to not agree, you can't play any conventions after your natural 1M call, responses, rebids, conventional defence to a conventional defence, whatever.

Now, would you rather it be a SPU?

Sorry for all the multiple negatives, but they're unfortunately correct.

[barmar]

mycroft, on 2012-June-04, 13:27, said:

I had one of those. The auction against a weaker pair went (1♦)-2NT-3♥; 3♠-p. When asked about 2NT after the 2NT call, they said it shows the two lower unbid suits. One player bid it with "top and bottom" because he didn't have a call for T&B, but knew that partner would work it out if he pulled 3♥ to 3♠. And partner did.

The only problem with this is that the GCC requires a NT overcall (in this position) to guarantee a known suit. So, they're playing an illegal agreement (well, they could have got away with telling me it showed "clubs and a major"), that was implied even if not explicitly agreed (because bidder "knew" that partner would get it), and was misdescribed. And they chose to argue with the ruling of misinformation because "everybody should be able to work this out, it's General Bridge Knowledge", so I gave them the option of accepting the MI ruling or getting a Use of Illegal Convention, *and* MI ruling.

"But that's stupid!" Well, yes, but that's not my fault, and *you* agreed to playing under those rules when you bought your entry.

Even if they don't explicitly explain it as "clubs and a major", clubs is still a known suit if it can be either Unu or T&B, so how can you rule that it's an illegal convention?

If this is the first time it has come up for them, I don't think you can rule MI, either. Their agreement was Unu, and that's how it was explained. He improvised with a psyche, and his partner managed to work it out, but it doesn't seem like there was any special, undisclosed partnership understanding behind this -- they luckily were on the same wavelength. From now on, they should explain it as clubs and a major.

[ArtK78]

In the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge (American Edition), under Definitions, appears the definition of Psychic Call, as follows:

Psychic Call: A deliberate and gross misstatement of honor strength or suit length.

This same definition appears in the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge of the English Bridge Union (2007 Laws). And I am sure that the same definition appears in other versions of the Laws.

Since a psychic call is a DELIBERATE action, it cannot be a misbid. A misbid, by definition, is not deliberate.

So, the answer to the question set forth in the OP - "What difference can it make whether you "meant" to psyche or not?" - is that it is impossible to psyche by accident. A psyche is an intentional call, so it cannot be done without intent.

[mycroft]

Barmar: it was the "well, that's obviously what it has to mean, anybody would understand that sequence" part of the explanation as to why they both got it. That clearly shows (despite being pretty accurate, at least to experienced enough players) that there is implicit agreement, even only by bridge logic. Since that was not worked out by the weaker pair, but it was a clear (implicit) agreement, there was MI.

The "illegal convention" part was when they were starting to describe it as "any two suits". I was the one that brought up the "if you choose to play it as 'the other minor and either major', and explained it that way, it would be legal."

[Vampyr]

ArtK78, on 2012-June-05, 11:22, said:

Since a psychic call is a DELIBERATE action, it cannot be a misbid. A misbid, by definition, is not deliberate.

So, the answer to the question set forth in the OP - "What difference can it make whether you "meant" to psyche or not?" - is that it is impossible to psyche by accident. A psyche is an intentional call, so it cannot be done without intent.

None of this makes any difference. I am not concerned about the "meaning" of psyche v misbid, just the treatment of these by the RA, particularly when there is a prohibition to psyche a particular bid. (By "what difference" I meant with reference to the opponents, for whom the regulation is presumably designed to protect. Sorry for the confusion.)

[blackshoe]

You seem to be saying that if it is by regulation illegal to psych a particular call, it's also illegal to misbid it. I don't see how that can be workable. Unless you want to bar novices and forgetful folks from the game.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2012-June-05, 20:21, said:

You seem to be saying that if it is by regulation illegal to psych a particular call, it's also illegal to misbid it. I don't see how that can be workable. Unless you want to bar novices and forgetful folks from the game.

No one is "barred" just because they might be penalised for an infraction. A few penalties might help to jog a player's memory, or convince a partnership that they are not playing the method at all. In practice, the misbids will usually not not result in damage, the director will not be called, and the novices/amnesiacs will not be affected. Similarly, misbids that result in an illegal method being played (eg 3♣ overcall showing clubs or the other two, assuming that it is illegal somewhere) should be treated as if the illegal method was actually being played (in fact it often is).

[blackshoe]

Mistakes are part of the game and should not be arbitrarily penalized. Cases where frequent forgets lead to an implicit PU are different.

[barmar]

mycroft, on 2012-June-05, 13:57, said:

Barmar: it was the "well, that's obviously what it has to mean, anybody would understand that sequence" part of the explanation as to why they both got it. That clearly shows (despite being pretty accurate, at least to experienced enough players) that there is implicit agreement, even only by bridge logic. Since that was not worked out by the weaker pair, but it was a clear (implicit) agreement, there was MI.

But advancer didn't know about this implicit agreement until overcaller rebid and he worked it out.

Quote

The "illegal convention" part was when they were starting to describe it as "any two suits". I was the one that brought up the "if you choose to play it as 'the other minor and either major', and explained it that way, it would be legal."

There was no mention of "any two suits" in your earlier post. And if the pair plays Michaels, there's no reason for 2NT to include majors, so the only possibilities are ♣+♥ and ♣+♠ (unless "any" also includes opener's suit).

[barmar]

Vampyr, on 2012-June-05, 19:36, said:

None of this makes any difference. I am not concerned about the "meaning" of psyche v misbid, just the treatment of these by the RA, particularly when there is a prohibition to psyche a particular bid. (By "what difference" I meant with reference to the opponents, for whom the regulation is presumably designed to protect. Sorry for the confusion.)

To relate that to my earlier analogy, this would be an argument for not distinguishing murder from manslaughter -- either way, the victim is dead, so it doesn't matter to them (or their loved ones) why you did it.

But for moral reasons we do distinguish -- you're considered a worse person if you do something bad intentionally than if you do it accidentally, and deserve harsher punishment. We also believe that deterrence is more effective against intentional actions, since the prospect of punishment should influence your decision. Since it's really hard for players to prevent their own misbids (except maybe by simplifying their system to fit their abilities), and misbids are often self-punishing since partner misunderstands them, we don't consider it appropriate to penalize them -- it won't work as a deterrent, nor do we consider misbidders to have moral failings that should be punished.

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2012-June-06, 09:59, said:

To relate that to my earlier analogy, this would be an argument for not distinguishing murder from manslaughter -- either way, the victim is dead, so it doesn't matter to them (or their loved ones) why you did it.

But for moral reasons we do distinguish -- you're considered a worse person if you do something bad intentionally than if you do it accidentally, and deserve harsher punishment. We also believe that deterrence is more effective against intentional actions, since the prospect of punishment should influence your decision. Since it's really hard for players to prevent their own misbids (except maybe by simplifying their system to fit their abilities), and misbids are often self-punishing since partner misunderstands them, we don't consider it appropriate to penalize them -- it won't work as a deterrent, nor do we consider misbidders to have moral failings that should be punished.

Simplification of system should be mandatory for frequent misbidders anyway. I don't agree with you about how hard it is for players to prevent their own misbids; I remember making two in the last ten years. (One was 2NT-3NT intended as natural, when systemically it was not, and one was 1♥-2NT as a GF raise when systemically it was not, so at least our opponents were not damaged!)

But anyway, what is all this talk about morality? Bridge is a game, and no one dies no matter what happens at the table, and moral failings have nothing to do with it. I am talking about regulations, which are rules of the game, not criminal laws. Accidentally breaking the rules of a game is morally neutral, and whether the infraction should attract a penalty is a decision made for the benefit of the game, not for the punishment of evil-doers.

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on 2012-June-06, 17:30, said:

I don't agree with you about how hard it is for players to prevent their own misbids; I remember making two in the last ten years.

How many did you make in your first year playing bridge?

What about the 70+ year olds who are just now getting started? I have a new partner (I got talked into mentoring him). He's been playing for a couple of months, maybe. He misbids frequently. He misplays frequently. I point out his mistakes after the session, and he says "I agree." Next time, he does it again. He has potential, but...

[bluejak]

Cyberyeti, on 2012-June-01, 16:58, said:

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.

If you are suggesting this is not illegal I do not agree. While it might be difficult to determine that is what records are for. If you make the bid from time to time with 3451 and partner knows it you are playing an illegal agreement: worse, you are playing it and not disclosing it, so if I determine that you are doing this deliberately and knowledgeably not only will you get a bad board from me but you will be reported to your National Authority by me.

Cascade, on 2012-June-04, 18:23, said:

Really on what basis can a natural 1♠ opening be regulated so as to disallow psyches of it?

1. Psyching is not a "special partnership understanding" - it is a departure from one's partnership understandings

2. A natural 1♠ is not an understanding that "may not be readily understood and anticipated" and therefore cannot sensibly, reasonably or legally be deemed to be a "special partnership understanding" that can be regulated.

A natural 1♠ opening can be deemed to be an SPU legally. An SPU my legally have a regulation that it may not be psyched.

blackshoe, on 2012-June-05, 20:21, said:

You seem to be saying that if it is by regulation illegal to psych a particular call, it's also illegal to misbid it. I don't see how that can be workable. Unless you want to bar novices and forgetful folks from the game.

Legally you can make a regulation disallowing misbidding a specific agreement.

blackshoe, on 2012-June-05, 22:00, said:

Mistakes are part of the game and should not be arbitrarily penalized. Cases where frequent forgets lead to an implicit PU are different.

I agree you should not penalise, but it is legal to disallow misbidding an agreement.

Vampyr, on 2012-June-06, 17:30, said:

Simplification of system should be mandatory for frequent misbidders anyway.

Absolutely not. First, people have to learn things in the first place. Second, frequent misbidders benefit their opponents in the long run - why take their opponents' advantage away?

[blackshoe]

bluejak, on 2012-June-07, 08:44, said:

Legally you can make a regulation disallowing misbidding a specific agreement.

I agree you should not penalise, but it is legal to disallow misbidding an agreement.

Absolutely not. First, people have to learn things in the first place. Second, frequent misbidders benefit their opponents in the long run - why take their opponents' advantage away?

Legal, of course. Wise is another question. Your last paragraph above is one reason it's not wise.