[Trinidad]

hrothgar, on 2014-November-21, 07:07, said:

Fluffy, on 2014-November-21, 06:57, said:

When I open a 13 count in 1NT when our range is16-18 suposedly, I am doing a deviation, my intention is totally to have a sensible constructive bidding into our best possible contract, just that the best possible contract requires a certain member of our partnership to declare. But it doesn't really matter much on the rules.

I really hope that this is a joke...

Why?

If Fluffy gets paid to make his client win, then he has an excellent bridge reason to deviate. And as long as his partner doesn't know what he is doing, it is only a deviation. For a partnership agreement you need two people.

If, however, Fluffy gets paid to give his client a fun time at the table (or to teach) he has no reason at all to deviate. Just let his partner declare the contract, let him score 35% and let him have a good time. Fluffy might even decide deviate into the other direction: downgrade out of a 1NT opening to make his partner declarer.

It all depends on your aim.

Rik

[hrothgar]

Trinidad, on 2014-November-21, 07:21, said:

Why?

If Fluffy gets paid to make his client win, then he has an excellent bridge reason to deviate. And as long as his partner doesn't know what he is doing, it is only a deviation. For a partnership agreement you need two people.

If, however, Fluffy gets paid to give his client a fun time at the table (or to teach) he has no reason at all to deviate. Just let his partner declare the contract, let him score 35% and let him have a good time. Fluffy might even decide deviate into the other direction: downgrade out of a 1NT opening to make his partner declarer.

It all depends on your aim.

Rik

If this is true, then it sounds like a case where Fluffy and his partner are playing different systems and hiding behind the notion of a deviation to

1. Conceal an illegal agreement
2. Play an illegal system

[blackshoe]

gnasher, on 2014-November-21, 00:42, said:

Or they could define their own terminology for a particular category of deviation, and then restrict that.

They could, but they don't.

[nige1]

nige1, on 2014-November-20, 19:30, said:

IMO the WBFLC should not have separate psych and deviation categories, for law purposes. And if they must distinguish them then they should, themselves, specify objective criteria. Unfortunately, this seems to be one of the multitude of responsibilities that the WBFLC have delegated to local regulators and failing that to director judgement. FWIW, IMO, a deviation should be at most 1 card or 1 HCP and not both.

I mean anything more is a gross deviation. I assume the poll is an attempt to define "minor deviation".

Trinidad, on 2014-November-21, 00:33, said:

For me the definition would focus around intent, rather than HCPs. For me when a person deviates, he is trying to make the best descriptive call he has available. He may be plugging a system hole and not have an other call available, or the call that the system actually would dictate has some drawbacks for the particular auction that developed. In practice, there is no real grey area. People psyche because they deliberately want to paint a false picture of their hand. Then they do not pick a call that is a mere queen off painting a correct picture of their hand.

gnasher, on 2014-November-21, 00:42, said:

I'm surprised that you think it matters. Although the Laws do define a psych, the distinction between a psych and a deviation is irrelevant as far as the Laws are concerned. They are treated identically for the purposes of establishing implicit understandings, disclosure of those understandings, and rectification for damage caused by non-disclosure. There are only two differences in law between a psych and a deviation (MO).
(1) The footnote to 17D, relating to psyching after bidding a hand from the wrong board, and
(2) 40B2d The Regulating Authority may restrict the use of psychic artificial calls.
But this is irrelevant, because the Laws also say
40B1a In its discretion the Regulating Authority may designate certain partnership understandings as "special partnership understandings"
40B2a The Regulating Authority is empowered without restriction to allow, disallow, or allow conditionally, any special partnership understanding.
So even without 40B2d the Regulating Authority could restrict psychs. Or they could define their own terminology for a particular category of deviation, and then restrict that.

On second thoughts, I agree with Trinidad, that intention should be the distinction. The rules should deal with deviations, both minor and gross -- normally without consideration of intent. A deviation would then only be classifiable as a psych (now redefined as any deliberate deviation) by a director who passed the TD mind-reading course. A TD who passed with distinction, should be licensed to reclassify a psych as a pseudo-psych or CPU (i.e. subject to a concealed partnership understanding).

[blackshoe]

Let's keep the discussion to answering the question in the poll, and leave discussion of what the laws "should" be to another thread.

[nige1]

blackshoe, on 2014-November-21, 09:33, said:

Let's keep the discussion to answering the question in the poll, and leave discussion of what the laws "should" be to another thread.

OK. although the poll's purpose seems to be to suggest a definition, which should be in the rules.

[Fluffy]

hrothgar, on 2014-November-21, 07:42, said:

If this is true, then it sounds like a case where Fluffy and his partner are playing different systems and hiding behind the notion of a deviation to

1. Conceal an illegal agreement
2. Play an illegal system

And then I though an agreement required 2 members of a partnership to be aware of something, silly me.

[barmar]

nige1, on 2014-November-21, 09:28, said:

I mean anything more is a gross deviation. I assume the poll is an attempt to define "minor deviation". On second thoughts, I agree with Trinidad, that intention should be the distinction. The rules should deal with deviations, both minor and gross -- normally without consideration of intent. A deviation would then only be classifiable as a psych (now redefined as any deliberate deviation) by a director who passed the TD mind-reading course. A TD who passed with distinction, should be licensed to reclassify a psych as a pseudo-psych or CPU (i.e. subject to a concealed partnership understanding).

How can you determine whether the player "deliberately intended to deceive" if you don't first define whether the call is actually deceptive? And for that, you need to determine whether the deviation is gross enough to be considered deceptive.

That's why the definition of a psych involves both intent and grossness. When a player upgrades a 14 count to 1NT, it's intentional, but it's not deceptive because he believes it's an accurate description of the strength of the hand.

[paulg]

barmar, on 2014-November-21, 10:36, said:

How can you determine whether the player "deliberately intended to deceive" if you don't first define whether the call is actually deceptive? And for that, you need to determine whether the deviation is gross enough to be considered deceptive.

That's why the definition of a psych involves both intent and grossness. When a player upgrades a 14 count to 1NT, it's intentional, but it's not deceptive because he believes it's an accurate description of the strength of the hand.

My interpretation of the original question was that it asked us to consider hands that were not worthy of an upgrade.

[barmar]

I'm also with the other posters who said you can't name a specific point count deviation. Hand evaluation is a judgement call, and point count is a helpful bit of input.

Distinguishing psychs from deviations is similar to the SCOTUS distinction between pornography and erotica: it can't be defined objectively, but you know it when you see it.

[steve2005]

Fluffy, on 2014-November-21, 06:57, said:

When I open a 13 count in 1NT when our range is16-18 suposedly, I am doing a deviation, my intention is totally to have a sensible constructive bidding into our best possible contract, just that the best possible contract requires a certain member of our partnership to declare. But it doesn't really matter much on the rules.

imho a psyche. and don't see why you would do partner will bid 3N on balanced 9 hcp with no play

[nige1]

barmar, on 2014-November-21, 10:36, said:

How can you determine whether the player "deliberately intended to deceive" if you don't first define whether the call is actually deceptive? And for that, you need to determine whether the deviation is gross enough to be considered deceptive.

Minor "deviations" may be a matter of style, and each player's style may be different but If you know your partner's "style" of "deviation", then it's disclosable (IMO).

Before leading to 1N, I usually ask about its meaning and am told, say, 12-14 HCP, without qualification. Many people regard some 11 HCP hands as worth 12 HCP. Many regard some 14 HCP hands as too good for 1N. Some treat a poor 15 HCP as worth only 14 HCP. A few both "upgrade" and "downgrade". A few do neither. Such "deviations" usually depend on vulnerability, position, the possession of a five card suit, or other factors. Again, players' "styles" differ. To defend properly, however, you need to know declarer's "style". Failure to disclose "style" is deceptive enough to significantly increase the likelihood of a contract making. Is this kind of deception "just Bridge"?

[blackshoe]

I think that if you need to know about style, you need ask specifically that question. At least, in the ACBL, where as I read the regulation there's no implication that prior disclosure (e.g. on the system card, or via pre-alert) is required, and no implication or statement that style matters should be routinely included in response to general questions asked at the table. Still, I think one could argue for disclosing matters of style in response to a general question. "Principle of Full Disclosure" and all that.

[nige1]

barmar, on 2014-November-21, 11:22, said:

I'm also with the other posters who said you can't name a specific point count deviation. Hand evaluation is a judgement call, and point count is a helpful bit of input. Distinguishing psychs from deviations is similar to the SCOTUS distinction between pornography and erotica: it can't be defined objectively, but you know it when you see it.

pornography is erotica for the poor.

[gnasher]

helene_t, on 2014-November-21, 01:56, said:

But Andy, 40B1A talks about partnership understanding. How can that be used to restrict psyches?

You wish to have a partnership understanding that a opening 2♣ is artificial and shows a very strong hand. The regulator says "(a) We designate that as a special partnership understanding. (b) We allow you to have this understanding, on condition that you don't psych it." So the regulator has achieved the effect of 40B2d without actually using 40B2d. Thus 40B2d is redundant.

blackshoe, on 2014-November-21, 08:32, said:

They could, but they don't.

My point was that the presence of a definition of "psych" in the laws is irrelevant. If you removed all references to psychs from the Laws, regulating authorities would have exactly the same powers as they do at present.

[ArtK78]

nige1, on 2014-November-21, 11:35, said:

Minor "deviations" may be a matter of style, and each player's style may be different but If you know your partner's "style" of "deviation", then it's disclosable (IMO).

Before leading to 1N, I usually ask about its meaning and am told, say, 12-14 HCP, without qualification. Many people regard some 11 HCP hands as worth 12 HCP. Many regard some 14 HCP hands as too good for 1N. Some treat a poor 15 HCP as worth only 14 HCP. A few both "upgrade" and "downgrade". A few do neither. Such "deviations" usually depend on vulnerability, position, the possession of a five card suit, or other factors. Again, players' "styles" differ. To defend properly, however, you need to know declarer's "style". Failure to disclose "style" is deceptive enough to significantly increase the likelihood of a contract making. Is this kind of deception "just Bridge"?

Based on this post, I may change my description of my regular partner's opening 1NT bids to something along the lines of "A hand that my partner believes is worth a good 14 to 17 HCP" [that is our strong NT range].

That would cover a situation where he upgraded what others might consider to be a mediocre or worse 14 count or downgraded an 18 count. I have seen him do both.

[nige1]

Fluffy, on 2014-November-21, 06:57, said:

When I open a 13 count in 1NT when our range is16-18 suposedly, I am doing a deviation, my intention is totally to have a sensible constructive bidding into our best possible contract, just that the best possible contract requires a certain member of our partnership to declare. But it doesn't really matter much on the rules.
But there are many regulations that forbid a psyche to a strong opening such as 2♣. And I constantly see bids I would call plain psyches from weak players. The day I had a 22 count and saw my RHO open 2♣ I wasn't very happy, but there was nothing I could do.

hrothgar, on 2014-November-21, 07:07, said:

I really hope that this is a joke...

It's jocular braggadocio

hrothgar, on 2014-November-21, 07:42, said:

f this is true, then it sounds like a case where Fluffy and his partner are playing different systems and hiding behind the notion of a deviation to
1. Conceal an illegal agreement
2. Play an illegal system

Fluffy, on 2014-November-21, 10:07, said:

And then I though an agreement required 2 members of a partnership to be aware of something, silly me.

hrothgar, on 2014-November-21, 12:02, said:

What's silly is putting this sort of stuff down in writing (cause I for one am forwarding this to your national organization and I hope the treat you the same way they treated the good Doctors)

It's silly if taken seriously

[blackshoe]

gnasher, on 2014-November-21, 12:11, said:

You wish to have a partnership understanding that a opening 2♣ is artificial and shows a very strong hand. The regulator says "(a) We designate that as a special partnership understanding. (b) We allow you to have this understanding, on condition that you don't psych it." So the regulator has achieved the effect of 40B2d without actually using 40B2d. Thus 40B2d is redundant.


My point was that the presence of a definition of "psych" in the laws is irrelevant. If you removed all references to psychs from the Laws, regulating authorities would have exactly the same powers as they do at present.

And psychs of natural bids?

[gnasher]

blackshoe, on 2014-November-21, 18:33, said:

And psychs of natural bids?

That depends whether you think that this:

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.

allows you to treat a natural bid as a special partnership understanding. If it does, you can ban psychs of natural bids; if it doesn't you can't.

The two sentences I've quoted above don't really belong in the same set of rules: the first one says the RA can classify anything as an SPU, and the second seems to say that it can't.

[blackshoe]

I suppose what it means is 'In its discretion the Regulating Authority may designate any partnership understanding which, in the opinion of the Regulating Authority, may not be readily understood and anticipated by a significant number of players in the tournament, as a "special partnership understanding"'.

While Law 40B2{a} allows the RA to ban any "special partnership understanding", I don't see how this can apply to psychs, because psychs are not matters of understanding, they're deviations from an understanding. Law 40C specifically makes legal deviations, including psychs, from partnership understandings, special or otherwise. Law 40B2{d} is thus not only not redundant, it is necessary if RAs are to be allowed to restrict psychs of artificial bids.