[1eyedjack]

It probably varies across NCBOs, but locally I thought that there was a duty to report psyches ... each and every one. It is not gamesmanship. It is supposedly the only way to identify whether an alleged psyche comes as equal surprise to both parties. No-one appears to follow that rule, though.

Interesting point is: if you are going into the last segment in arrears, and as a team during the tea-break you have agreed between you that North-South will play steady and East-West will push for swings, do you have to disclose this to the opposing team? Instinctively I would think that you do, but I have known matches where just such agreements have come to light only after the event.

[luke warm]

jack, the gamesmanship comes about, imho, if a pair calls the td with the aim of harming the psyching team, thru some time penalty... according to the way i read the post, that would be the motive and i think that makes it wrong

as far as alan's post goes, i agree as long as partner of the psyching player bids in a way contrary to logic... iow, if a player is known to psych often in particular conditions, this in itself is not wrong... how his partner bids after the psych can make it wrong

[Cascade]

How his partner bids is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether or not they have an undisclosed agreement.

Any psyche is legal provided it is not based on an undisclosed agreement.

Well by any psyche I mean subject to regulations about not psyching conventional bids etc.

[luke warm]

i understand the rule, wayne... take a situation where you've never discussed this subject with a partner but you have noticed on more than one occasion where he psychs a, say, 1nt call in 3rd seat... now it's impossible for you *not* to know he does that... what do you do with a 9 or 10 count?

that's what i meant by bidding as if partner's bid was what it seems.. if i passed the 9 count, someone could say i was in possession of u.i., and imo they'd be correct

[Chamaco]

Cascade, on Jul 15 2004, 09:03 PM, said:

Calling the director for a psyche is not reasonable unless you think that there has also been an infraction.

Borderline statement, I would rephrase it as follows:

"Calling the director to ask for appeal for a psyche is not reasonable unless you think that there has also been an infraction. But it is reasonable to record the psychers to log their psyche in a psyche's database to ensure that a concealed agreement is not there"

[Cascade]

luke warm, on Jul 19 2004, 09:56 PM, said:

i understand the rule, wayne... take a situation where you've never discussed this subject with a partner but you have noticed on more than one occasion where he psychs a, say, 1nt call in 3rd seat... now it's impossible for you *not* to know he does that... what do you do with a 9 or 10 count?

that's what i meant by bidding as if partner's bid was what it seems.. if i passed the 9 count, someone could say i was in possession of u.i., and imo they'd be correct

You can do what you want with a 9 or 10 count. As long as passing didn't always coincide with partner's psyche and bidding coincide with a maximum then I imagine you will get into plenty of trouble. Noone has ever complained to me when one of my psyches gets me a poor score. Of course if the opponents are going to accept the great scores they get from a psyche then they also have to accept the poor scores when the psyche works.

1NT making 3 and 4 - bottom (MPs) or 10 Imps out
2NTX -4 - another bottom (MPs) or 10+ Imps out

Of course partner's frequent psyches "may"* create an implicit agreement that you have to disclose to the opponents. In addition that implicit agreement may run foul of the system regulators.

It is not U.I. (Unauthorized Information) it is a potential undisclosed agreement. There is no obligation ever to bid in any particular way. L40A that gives us the right to psyche also gives us the right to underbid or overbid as we see fit.

However if your underbid always coincides with partner's psyche (or overbid) then you may need to convince the director or committee that you do not have an undisclosed agreement.

* This is the word in the laws.

[Cascade]

Chamaco, on Jul 20 2004, 01:49 AM, said:

Cascade, on Jul 15 2004, 09:03 PM, said:

Calling the director for a psyche is not reasonable unless you think that there has also been an infraction.

Borderline statement, I would rephrase it as follows:

"Calling the director to ask for appeal for a psyche is not reasonable unless you think that there has also been an infraction. But it is reasonable to record the psychers to log their psyche in a psyche's database to ensure that a concealed agreement is not there"

Is that the regulation in Italy. That the opponents need to call the director to log the psyche. I think that there are much better methods of logging psyches if that is considered necessary.

In NZ but only at the National Championships the method is that the psycher himself must fill in a psyche form with 30 minutes of the end of the session. There are severe penalties threatened for not filling in the psyche form.

IMO this is a better method of recording the information.

Although personally I am not sure that it is valid to regulate the use of psyches in these ways.