[pescetom]

---

MP tournament. West and North are experienced players, both playing with intermediates who are not their regular partners.

After the auction shown, South goes down 6 for -300 (other tables are in 3NT+1 or 5♦=). West calls the Director arguing that South's unalerted 2♦ bid was psychic (not allowed by the RA at this level of competition) and forced West to pass rather than show his diamonds. South explains that his bid of 2♦ shows a minimal raise of opener's ♥ (an artificial bid which would be alertable under RA rules). There is some confusion as to whether or not NS had agreed this, but there is no related document and North admits that he took the bid as natural. He points out that EW could easily have bid to game despite the mishap.

How should the Director proceed here?

[nige1]

pescetom 'MP tournament. West and North are experienced players, both playing with intermediates who are not their regular partners. After the auction shown, South goes down 6 for -300 (other tables are in 3NT+1 or 5♦=). West calls the Director arguing that South's unalerted 2♦ bid was psychic (not allowed by the RA at this level of competition) and forced West to pass rather than show his diamonds. South explains that his bid of 2♦ shows a minimal raise of opener's ♥ (an artificial bid which would be alertable under RA rules). There is some confusion as to whether or not NS had agreed this, but there is no related document and North admits that he took the bid as natural. He points out that EW could easily have bid to game despite the mishap. How should the Director proceed here?'
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Under current law, IMO, the TD should...
1. Establish the actual NS agreement. With no evidence to the contrary, the TD might well believe South, In which case, North should have alerted.
2. Determine whether EW were damaged. The TD is likely to judge that EW would have fared better with correct information.
3. Judge whether subsequent EW passivity is wild and gambling -- or a serious error unrelated to the infraction. A TD familiar, with the law, should judge that East's timidity does not qualify as such.
4. Estimate and weight likely outcomes, assuming EW have correct information, North remains in ignorance, and his failure to alert is UI to South,
e.g. 3N+1 or +2 , 5♦=, ♦ partscores, and the actual result.
5. As well as players at the table, the TD should check his assessments with their peers and other directors. The TD should probably assign most weight to 3N+2, giving the victims the benefit of the doubt. If the TD strongly suspects North of prevarication, he might record the incident, with a view to further sanctions.
6. Study of events at other tables might help the TD to estimate likely results, objectively. Unfortunately, this sensible procedure is deprecated by legal experts, for reasons that aren't obvious.

---

[sanst]

An RA is not allowed to forbid psychic bids. In this case S tells that the bid isn’t a psych, but shows a minimal hearts support. There is no proof to the contrary, so the TD should assume misinformation and act accordingly. I would probably decide on a weighed score with 3NT+1 and +2 and 5♦= as parameters.

[sanst]

nige1, on 2019-July-13, 09:20, said:

6. Study of events at other tables might help the TD to estimate likely results, objectively. Unfortunately, this sensible procedure is deprecated by legal experts, for reasons that aren't obvious. [/hv]

The obvious reason is that, since the infraction didn’t take place at the other tables, you shouldn’t assume that the outcome at this table is comparable to that at the other tables. OTOH, when deciding on weighing factors you can look at the table results to see what the peers have done. If in this case everyone makes 3NT+2 it’s obvious that you shouldn’t decide on an AS of 5♦=.

[pran]

sanst, on 2019-July-14, 02:13, said:

An RA is not allowed to forbid psychic bids. In this case S tells that the bid isn’t a psych, but shows a minimal hearts support. There is no proof to the contrary, so the TD should assume misinformation and act accordingly. I would probably decide on a weighed score with 3NT+1 and +2 and 5♦= as parameters.

Quite correct.
However

Law 40B2{a} said:

The Regulating Authority:
(i) is empowered without restriction to allow, disallow, or allow conditionally, any special partnership understanding.
(ii) may prescribe a System Card, with or without supplementary sheets, for the prior listing of a partnership’s understandings, and regulate its use.
(iii) may prescribe alerting procedures and/or other methods of disclosure of a partnership’s methods.
(iv) may disallow prior agreement by a partnership to vary its understandings during the auction or play following an irregularity committed by the opponents.
(v) may restrict the use of psychic artificial calls.

for instance to protect inexperienced players in events arranged for their training.

OP wrote: "West and North are experienced players, both playing with intermediates who are not their regular partners",
which is a strong indication that this was the case here, in which case RA has not exceeded its power.

[sanst]

pran, on 2019-July-14, 03:15, said:

Quite correct.
However

for instance to protect inexperienced players in events arranged for their training.

OP wrote: "West and North are experienced players, both playing with intermediates who are not their regular partners",
which is a strong indication that this was the case here, in which case RA has not exceeded its power.

It states nowhere that this was a training or that the players are novices. Intermediate in my book means that they are neither experienced or good, nor inexperienced or bad players, just somewhere in between. Anyway, this was not a psych, so it’s no use discussing it.

[pran]

sanst, on 2019-July-14, 03:58, said:

It states nowhere that this was a training or that the players are novices. Intermediate in my book means that they are neither experienced or good, nor inexperienced or bad players, just somewhere in between. Anyway, this was not a psych, so it’s no use discussing it.

It could hardly be an ordinary event when: "West and North are experienced players, both playing with intermediates who are not their regular partners"?

[weejonnie]

pran, on 2019-July-14, 03:15, said:

Quite correct.
However

for instance to protect inexperienced players in events arranged for their training.

OP wrote: "West and North are experienced players, both playing with intermediates who are not their regular partners",
which is a strong indication that this was the case here, in which case RA has not exceeded its power.

Which part of 40B2a are the RA relying on?

(i) is empowered without restriction to allow, disallow, or allow conditionally, any special partnership understanding.

A psych by definition is not a special partnership understanding.

(ii) may prescribe a System Card, with or without supplementary sheets, for the prior listing of a partnership’s understandings, and regulate its use.

You may regulate the use of the System CArd - but the psych does not appear on the system card and thus cannot be regulated.

(iii) may prescribe alerting procedures and/or other methods of disclosure of a partnership’s methods.

Doesn't apply here (if the bid by South was a psych)

(iv) may disallow prior agreement by a partnership to vary its understandings during the auction or play following an irregularity committed by the opponents.

No irregularity applies in this situation.

(v) may restrict the use of psychic artificial calls.

The 2D call (if a natural psych) is not artificial.

Note that the TD is to presume misexplanation rather than mis-bid in absence of evidence to the contrary. The evidence is usually a system card or partnership notes. Were any available?

[blackshoe]

sanst, on 2019-July-14, 02:13, said:

An RA is not allowed to forbid psychic bids. In this case S tells that the bid isn’t a psych, but shows a minimal hearts support. There is no proof to the contrary, so the TD should assume misinformation and act accordingly. I would probably decide on a weighed score with 3NT+1 and +2 and 5♦= as parameters.

The law does not speak of proof to the contrary, it speaks of evidence to the contrary. Here, there is such evidence: the fact that North did not alert 2!D and the fact that North stated he "took the bid as natural". However, this evidence highlights that there is not agreement between the members of this pair as to whether 2!D is artificial. So the director applies Law 85, and decides on the basis of the of weight he assigns to the evidence he can collect. So, given that this is not a regular partnership, is it more likely that the experienced North forgot one of their agreements, or that the intermediate South assumed an agreement that did not exist? This may depend on facts not (yet) in evidence, such as how long ago the partnership was formed, the players' tendencies (is North, experienced though he is, forgetful?) and perhaps other things.

[blackshoe]

pran, on 2019-July-14, 03:15, said:

Quite correct.
However

for instance to protect inexperienced players in events arranged for their training.

OP wrote: "West and North are experienced players, both playing with intermediates who are not their regular partners",
which is a strong indication that this was the case here, in which case RA has not exceeded its power.

Your conclusion does not follow from the law you quoted. My conclusion is that the RA (or perhaps the club, if it is not the RA) has indeed exceeded its power.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2019-July-14, 06:24, said:

Your conclusion does not follow from the law you quoted. My conclusion is that the RA (or perhaps the club, if it is not the RA) has indeed exceeded its power.

So your opinion is that when we in our club run an event where inexperienced players are each paired with an experienced player for their benefit to gain experience, and announce that no psyches are allowed, then we (being the RA for this event) exceed our power?

I don't think so.

[pescetom]

As Nige pointed out, the Director's attempt to establish the real NS agreement is a vital turning point here. Unfortunately I know nothing more that what I wrote about what was said or asked, so we have to discuss hypotheses here.

blackshoe, on 2019-July-14, 06:22, said:

The law does not speak of proof to the contrary, it speaks of evidence to the contrary. Here, there is such evidence: the fact that North did not alert 2!D and the fact that North stated he "took the bid as natural". However, this evidence highlights that there is not agreement between the members of this pair as to whether 2!D is artificial. So the director applies Law 85, and decides on the basis of the of weight he assigns to the evidence he can collect. So, given that this is not a regular partnership, is it more likely that the experienced North forgot one of their agreements, or that the intermediate South assumed an agreement that did not exist? This may depend on facts not (yet) in evidence, such as how long ago the partnership was formed, the players' tendencies (is North, experienced though he is, forgetful?) and perhaps other things.

Sounds reasonable. I was not there, but know all the players well. NS have occasionally played together and until quite recently I believe that North would have imposed that any new suit after opponent's double is natural, weak and non-forcing. But now North has switched to 2/1 and probably agreed to handle interference differently. South was taught to play 2♥ as a natural minimal raise and 2♦ as natural and forcing, but he would let North decide the agreement. North is not at all forgetful, South has a tendency to get confused under stress and I would not be surprised if that is part of what happened here.

[pescetom]

weejonnie, on 2019-July-14, 05:16, said:

Which part of 40B2a are the RA relying on?

(i) is empowered without restriction to allow, disallow, or allow conditionally, any special partnership understanding.

A psych by definition is not a special partnership understanding.

(ii) may prescribe a System Card, with or without supplementary sheets, for the prior listing of a partnership’s understandings, and regulate its use.

You may regulate the use of the System CArd - but the psych does not appear on the system card and thus cannot be regulated.

(iii) may prescribe alerting procedures and/or other methods of disclosure of a partnership’s methods.

Doesn't apply here (if the bid by South was a psych)

(iv) may disallow prior agreement by a partnership to vary its understandings during the auction or play following an irregularity committed by the opponents.

No irregularity applies in this situation.

(v) may restrict the use of psychic artificial calls.

The 2D call (if a natural psych) is not artificial.

Note that the TD is to presume misexplanation rather than mis-bid in absence of evidence to the contrary. The evidence is usually a system card or partnership notes. Were any available?

This and other posts focussed on the psyche ban and related implications.
I think you are right about 40B2.
This was a local instance of a national simultaneous tournament, so fully competitive with no provisions for beginners.
East has been playing for over a year (and is promising) and South for 5+ years, so they are not beginners either.
The dividing line for the RA is "local" - at a regional tournament or higher a psyche of 2♦ would be fully legal.
Even at local level, the penalty for a psyche is relatively mild (10% of a top), so essentially Director would just restore equity and little more.
I doubt that system card or partnership notes were available, unless they were relying on the 2/1 system taught to South (in which case the documented agreement is that 2♦ is natural and forcing).

[sanst]

pescetom, on 2019-July-14, 07:57, said:

This and other posts focussed on the psyche ban and related implications.
I think you are right about 40B2.
This was a local instance of a national simultaneous tournament, so fully competitive with no provisions for beginners.
East has been playing for over a year (and is promising) and South for 5+ years, so they are not beginners either.
The dividing line for the RA is "local" - at a regional tournament or higher a psyche of 2♦ would be fully legal.
Even at local level, the penalty for a psyche is relatively mild (10% of a top), so essentially Director would just restore equity and little more.
I doubt that system card or partnership notes were available, unless they were relying on the 2/1 system taught to South (in which case the documented agreement is that 2♦ is natural and forcing).

What law does this RA apply to forbid and penalize psychs?

[sanst]

pran, on 2019-July-14, 07:29, said:

So your opinion is that when we in our club run an event where inexperienced players are each paired with an experienced player for their benefit to gain experience, and announce that no psyches are allowed, then we (being the RA for this event) exceed our power?

I don't think so.

You indeed do exceed your power. Where do the Laws permit a ban on natural psychs? But you can request the players not to psych, given the nature of the event and any decent player would comply.

[sanst]

pran, on 2019-July-14, 03:15, said:

OP wrote: "West and North are experienced players, both playing with intermediates who are not their regular partners",
which is a strong indication that this was the case here, in which case RA has not exceeded its power.

Read the posts #12 and #13. These are not inexperienced players. Besides, intermediate certainly doesn’t mean inexperienced or novice.

[pescetom]

sanst, on 2019-July-14, 08:32, said:

What law does this RA apply to forbid and penalize psychs?

The RA does not say. I agree that law 40 does not seem to delegate this power except for some specific psyches.

[pescetom]

One issue I was interested in is Nige's point 3: does East's passivity constitute a serious error for a player of his level (or any level)?

The pressure is certainly on East, but I cannot see why to pass, excluding some kind of double shot which is not the case here.

A related question is how much to weight 3nt+1 or +2 versus 5d, considering the specific auction.

[barmar]

A likely reason for experienced players playing with intermediates who aren't their regular partners is a Pro-Am or Individual. In a club with lots of experienced players, intermediates are likely to be ams.

These types of events also tend to stretch or exceed the RA's rights. In our club's Individuals, we prescribe a specific set of system cards you can choose from. And in both, we allow players to consult their own CC.

[Vampyr]

pran, on 2019-July-14, 07:29, said:

So your opinion is that when we in our club run an event where inexperienced players are each paired with an experienced player for their benefit to gain experience, and announce that no psyches are allowed, then we (being the RA for this event) exceed our power?

I don't think so.

If it is a lesson, sure. And of course any event not sanctioned by the RA can have whatever rules it wants.

When I was a child playing bridge in my dining room, I used a Goren bidding wheel. So did my sister and sometimes even the adults. The ACBL was not welcome to come into my house and tell us that this is not how bridge is played.