[Ranmit]

I want to know what are the legal and/or ethical requirements while responding to partner's psyches.

I hold the hand AKJxx xxx xxxx x as dealer, South. (Opps vul, we are not).

The bidding goes P(me) P 1S Dbl.

I now bid 2S supporting partner, over which West bids 2NT indicating a full stopper in Spades and 8+ points. I am now certain that my partner has psyched (He has psyched in the past, and here cannot have 5 card Spades since West has at least 4 spades to the Q). East bids 4H and the bid comes to me.
Legally and ethically (if the two are different) what am I supposed to do:
1. Do I have to alert opponents of the psyche bid?
2. If it was a normal 1S bid by partner, I would have bid 4S over the 4H. Knowing that it is a Psyche, is it OK to pass?

(my partner had 3 points and a doubleton spade. Opponents were making 6H. While my partner and I had no specific agreement about psyches, I knew that he had bid them in the past.)

[Tramticket]

Did you suspect that your partner had psyched when you raised 1♠ to 2♠? Many would bid more than just 2♠ with five-card support, eight points (all in spades) and a singleton - particularly once the opponents compete with a take-out double. If at this stage you were bidding in the belief that your partner might or might not have spades, then you probably have a partnership understanding that needed to be alerted.

The situation is different if you become aware that your partner psyched through authorised information (the auction). But why can't your opponent hold ♠QT9 and choose to bid 2NT? Why can't your opponent have an inadequate stop? Why can't your opponent have psyched? I don't think that you have AI that your partner has psyched from the bidding.

[Ranmit]

Say the 2S was an honest (though probably not the best) bid - partner opens weak 11 pointers also in the third position, so I was Conservative.
After 2NT though, I am very suspicious. I know this WEST would not have bid 2nt with a 3 carder Q. Of course possibilities of misbids / psyches by opponents exist - but the key point is: My bid to pass vs go to 4S is based on MY BELIEF of partner's psyche. What (if anything) am I legally / ethically supposed to do in this situation?
Thanks!

Edit: if the 2s response is muddying the issue here - take a more generic case where the first response to the psychic is honest, but a subsequent bid is based on the knowledge that partner had psyched?

[Cyberyeti]

Ranmit, on 2018-May-16, 09:05, said:

Say the 2S was an honest (though probably not the best) bid - partner opens weak 11 pointers also in the third position, so I was Conservative.
After 2NT though, I am very suspicious. I know this WEST would not have bid 2nt with a 3 carder Q. Of course possibilities of misbids / psyches by opponents exist - but the key point is: My bid to pass vs go to 4S is based on MY BELIEF of partner's psyche. What (if anything) am I legally / ethically supposed to do in this situation?
Thanks!

You have to bid as if partner has his bid, and really should have bid >2 first time.

What exactly happens if you don't may vary by jurisdiction, but it's a very bad thing to get a reputation for fielding psyches, and the score will be adjusted usually to something not very generous possibly with a penalty on top.

In my student days when I psyched a lot, one of my partnerships ended when partner fielded 2 psyches in a week (except on neither occasion had I actually psyched, so we just got bad results rather than adjusted scores).

[pran]

Ranmit, on 2018-May-16, 07:49, said:

I want to know what are the legal and/or ethical requirements while responding to partner's psyches.

I hold the hand AKJxx xxx xxxx x as dealer, South. (Opps vul, we are not).

The bidding goes P(me) P 1S Dbl.

I now bid 2S supporting partner, over which West bids 2NT indicating a full stopper in Spades and 8+ points. I am now certain that my partner has psyched (He has psyched in the past, and here cannot have 5 card Spades since West has at least 4 spades to the Q). East bids 4H and the bid comes to me.
Legally and ethically (if the two are different) what am I supposed to do:
1. Do I have to alert opponents of the psyche bid?
2. If it was a normal 1S bid by partner, I would have bid 4S over the 4H. Knowing that it is a Psyche, is it OK to pass?

(my partner had 3 points and a doubleton spade. Opponents were making 6H. While my partner and I had no specific agreement about psyches, I knew that he had bid them in the past.)

There is a very fine line between having a call accepted as a psyche (which is legal and protected by:

Law 40 C 1 said:

A player may deviate from his side’s announced understandings, provided that his partner has no more reason than the opponents to be aware of the deviation [but see B2(a)(v) above]. Repeated deviations lead to implicit understandings which then form part of the partnership’s methods and must be disclosed in accordance with the regulations governing disclosure of system. If the Director judges there is undisclosed knowledge that has damaged the opponents he shall adjust the score and may assess a procedural penalty.

(my enhancement in red) )
and an undisclosed partnership understanding.

The problem is not your partner's call, it is your possible use of experience with your partner.
My immediate reaction is that, although you would have a normal raise to just 2♠ without the intervening Dbl, this double changes the situation so that you should bid at least 3♠, maybe even 4♠ to make it more difficult for opponents to find their best contract.

To answer your specific questions:
1: No, you have no legal reason at the time to alert your partner's 1♠ bid
2: You are required to call as if you trust that your partner is not psyching.

[blackshoe]

pran, on 2018-May-16, 10:08, said:

2: You are required to call as if you trust that your partner is not psyching.

Until the auction makes it clear that he is.

[gordontd]

blackshoe, on 2018-May-16, 16:22, said:

Until the auction makes it clear that he is.

...which this one did not, despite the OP's protestations.

[weejonnie]

There are four players at the table. One (the OP) is definitely not psyching. That leaves three: so the a priori odds are 2:1 in favour of one of the opponents not having their bid - after, all players are fallible. I can even imagine circumstances where your partner might have shaved off a spade for his opening bid, or LHO (With QTX) is trying for a NT game and is protecting his spade fragment. West could even be psyching to keep you out of your spade game.

The only get out would be in law 40B - although the conditions aren't really met (opponents haven't enquired) - would alerting the call and then saying that partner has a tendency to psych in these positions meet it? Of course you may then be playing an illegal agreement "1♠ shows either spades and a hand with opening values (but may be weaker than 1st and 2nd position) or a weak hand without spades"

5. (a) When explaining the significance of partner’s call or play in reply to an opponent’s
enquiry (see Law 20) a player shall disclose all special information conveyed to him
through partnership agreement or partnership experience but he need not disclose
inferences drawn from his knowledge and experience of matters generally known to
bridge players.

Is the fact that psyching in third position is very common "generally known to bridge players"?

The only way to know that partner is psyching is if he does an action that is inexplicable in any other way - usually when he runs after being supported by partner and doubled for penalties.

Finally: from the EBU white book

"Players are required to disclose their agreements, both explicit and implicit. If a player believes, from partnership experience, that partner may have deviated from the system this must be disclosed to the opponents. If a player properly discloses this possibility, the player will not be penalised for fielding it, although there may be a penalty for playing an illegal method."

"The actions of the psycher’s partner following a psyche – and, possibly, further actions by the psycher himself – may provide evidence of an undisclosed, and therefore illegal, understanding. If so, then the partnership is said to have ‘fielded’ the psyche. The TD will judge actions objectively by the standards of a player’s peers; that is to say intent will not be taken into account.

As the judgement by the TD will be objective, some players may be understandably upset that their actions are ruled to be fielding. If a player psyches and their partner takes action that appears to allow for it then the TD will treat it as fielding.

A partnership’s actions on one board may be sufficient for the TD to find that it has a concealed partnership understanding (CPU) and the score will be adjusted in principle (see §1.4.4). This is classified as a red psyche."

(Obviously how each RA handles the consequence of psyching is up to them - they can't forbid a natural psych, though, only a conventional one)

[sfi]

pran, on 2018-May-16, 10:08, said:

2: You are required to call as if you trust that your partner is not psyching.

Why? I don't see where the laws say that.

Additionally, the OP has good evidence that partner has at least shaded their bid and no UI to constrain their action. Once 2S is chosen, I don't see a legal reason why South has to hang the side by bidding 4S.

On the other hand, the 2S action suggests that South may have some expectation that partner is psyching, which does suggest prior experience that should be disclosed to the opponents.

[pran]

A fundamental principle which is often overlooked is that a deviation from disclosed agreements/understandings is (legally) a psyche only if partner has no more reason than the opponents to be aware of the deviation.

So stating that "partner has a tendency to psych in these positions" (or words to similar effect) automatically makes that partner's call included in the partnership's agreements/understandings and no longer a legal psyche.

[lamford]

weejonnie, on 2018-May-17, 01:39, said:

A partnership’s actions on one board may be sufficient for the TD to find that it has a concealed partnership understanding (CPU) and the score will be adjusted in principle

I think this is the case here. I would adjust to what is likely to happen after an initial raise to 3S.

[pescetom]

weejonnie, on 2018-May-17, 01:39, said:

(Obviously how each RA handles the consequence of psyching is up to them - they can't forbid a natural psych, though, only a conventional one)

The laws seem to suggest that they can't forbid a natural psych, but nevertheless they do, sometimes. My own RA (FIGB) forbids psychs of any kind in local tournaments. I'm not sure how they would justify that, but it certainly makes things a lot simpler.

weejonnie, on 2018-May-17, 01:39, said:

"The actions of the psycher’s partner following a psyche – and, possibly, further actions by the psycher himself – may provide evidence of an undisclosed, and therefore illegal, understanding. If so, then the partnership is said to have ‘fielded’ the psyche. The TD will judge actions objectively by the standards of a player’s peers; that is to say intent will not be taken into account.

I take that last sentence to mean "if you did anything that would be unlikely for your peers (given your partner's bidding and your disclosed agreements) then the TD will judge that you fielded, independent of whether or not that was your intent" - correct?

[weejonnie]

pescetom, on 2018-May-17, 05:04, said:

The laws seem to suggest that they can't forbid a natural psych, but nevertheless they do, sometimes. My own RA (FIGB) forbids psychs of any kind in local tournaments. I'm not sure how they would justify that, but it certainly makes things a lot simpler.


I take that last sentence to mean "if you did anything that would be unlikely for your peers (given your partner's bidding and your disclosed agreements) then the TD will judge that you fielded, independent of whether or not that was your intent" - correct?

To be honest, I can't see how they can. The Laws are very specific on this point, 'suggest' is too mild, 'demand' is probably better - the Laws give the RAs powers in certain specific areas, but only providing the regulations are not in conflict with the laws themselves. Would be interesting if someone did psych and then appealed quoting the laws.

If the organisation are relying on law 40B1

"(b) 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."

then they are missing the point of 40B1a

1. (a) An agreement between partners, whether explicit or implicit, is a partnership understanding.

Which means that the RA (as does the EBU) can forbid players agreeing to psych in certain situations e.g. to always open 1 Spade 3rd in hand at favourable vulnerability, but by definition a psych is not an agreement.

The director, of course must apply the laws in the lawbook (taking into account the procedures defined by the RA)

A. Director’s Duty
It is the responsibility of the Director to rectify errors of procedure and to maintain the progress of the game in a manner that is not contrary to these Laws.


Yes - (in the EBU) you don't have to prove intent. If you action appears to be allowing for partner having psyched then you will be penalised - the hand is regarded as unplayable and an artificial score is applied - 60%, 40% and THEN a 10% penalty is imposed - meaning that the side adjudicated as having psyched get a maximum of 30%.

The OP seems to be allowing for the fact that partner has psyched by only raising to 2 Spades with AKJXX trump support. Although the law doesn't apply the same rules to responses as to law 16B, nevertheless it is a useful similarity. (If you believe that your partner has psyched then you may not select a call demonstrably suggested by the psych if there is a logical alternative)

[pescetom]

weejonnie, on 2018-May-17, 05:58, said:

To be honest, I can't see how they can. The Laws are very specific on this point, 'suggest' is too mild, 'demand' is probably better - the Laws give the RAs powers in certain specific areas, but only providing the regulations are not in conflict with the laws themselves. Would be interesting if someone did psych and then appealed quoting the laws.

If the organisation are relying on law 40B1

"(b) 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."

then they are missing the point of 40B1a

1. (a) An agreement between partners, whether explicit or implicit, is a partnership understanding.

Which means that the RA (as does the EBU) can forbid players agreeing to psych in certain situations e.g. to always open 1 Spade 3rd in hand at favourable vulnerability, but by definition a psych is not an agreement.

Thanks.
I used "suggest" rather than "demand" because I can see that the power to restrict natural pyschic calls is implicitly excluded (law 40B2a states that the RA may restrict the use of artificial psychic calls, without mentioning natural ones), but I do not see a law that affirms the right to make a psychic call (law 40c1 is entitled "Deviation from System and Psychic Action" but while it says clearly that a player may deviate from his side’s announced understandings it offers no such explicit assurance for psychic action, which is hardly just a special case of deviation from announced understandings).
But yes, it is evident that psyches are considered legitimate and I think it would be hard to argue against an appeal.

weejonnie, on 2018-May-17, 05:58, said:

The director, of course must apply the laws in the lawbook (taking into account the procedures defined by the RA)

A. Director’s Duty
It is the responsibility of the Director to rectify errors of procedure and to maintain the progress of the game in a manner that is not contrary to these Laws.

So I guess "rectify errors of procedure" must also include "rectify consequences of erroneous procedure" or even "avoid applying erroneous procedures" - interesting.

[FelicityR]

If you are not bidding 4♠ with ♠AKJxx ♥xxx ♦xxxx ♣x after partner opens 1♠ in third then, in my view, at this favourable vulnerability you are aware of a psyche and are cheating. My apologies for being so direct but you asked for an opinion on this forum and I have given it.

[pran]

weejonnie, on 2018-May-17, 05:58, said:

[...]
but by definition a psych is not an agreement.
[...]

Quite correct; by definition (in the laws) a psyche is a deliberate and gross misstatement of honour strength and/or of suit length.

Now if you have a partnership understanding (whether explicit or implicit) that an opening bid of 1♠ in certain situations may be short in spades and/or weak in honour strength then this opening bid is never a psyche, and it must be disclosed as a partnership understanding/agreement!

[Ranmit]

Thanks all for the discussion!

The specific regulations and laws got a bit much for me, so for my benefit I am summarising what seems to be the consensus view below:

1. The first response bid has to be based on the assumption that the opening bid wasn't a psyche - in this case 3♠ (at least).
2. If the bidding then went 3NT P 4♥, I am obligated to bid 4♠ as I would on a true 1♠ opening, because this bidding, BY ITSELF, is not enough evidence of partner's psyche (Tram ticket's post, Weejonnie's first post. Though Sfi seems to disagree here?)
3. If however, there was clear evidence from the bidding* that partner psyched, I am then allowed to bid taking the psyche into consideration.

Is this an accurate summary?

(*Will this ever be true though, if we also have to consider possibilities of opponents also psyching / not having their bids - as suggested in the posts above?)

Thanks again.

[TylerE]

FelicityR, on 2018-May-17, 08:43, said:

If you are not bidding 4♠ with ♠AKJxx ♥xxx ♦xxxx ♣x after partner opens 1♠ in third then, in my view, at this favourable vulnerability you are aware of a psyche and are cheating. My apologies for being so direct but you asked for an opinion on this forum and I have given it.

Some of us like not automatically going for -200 just because we have a 10 card fit.

[weejonnie]

If you have a partnership agreement to open light in 3rd (not psych) then I think that 3♠ would be acceptable - after all you have a 7+ losers - and partner can raise to 4 with a reasonable opening. In which case you would not need to bid 4♠ over 4♥ having limited your hand.

On the bidding suggested

P - P - 1♠ - X -
2♠ - 2NT - P - 3NT -
P - 4♥ - P - P -
?

then I think you do have to take some action. Your LHO might be fooling around on purpose to try and talk you out of your game, and then panicked when partner raised to 3NT. (Hence it is not obvious that partner has psyched)

If you don't save at favourable vulnerabilty with a hand with hardly any defensive strength then this does look like an attempt at fielding (I wouldn't call it cheating as you are staying within the correct procedures, and it will be up to the TD to decide whether you have an implicit undisclosed partnership agreement)

On the OPs general point - if it is apparent that partner has psyched then you can take that into account. I don't think there are any rules about this (certaily not in the laws) - but if you feel that it is obvious to your opponents (given the bidding) that your partner is the one that has psyched and not one of them, then you can allow for it. I suppose you could ask one of them if they have a partnership agreement not to psych under any circumstances...

[blackshoe]

pran, on 2018-May-17, 02:11, said:

A fundamental principle which is often overlooked is that a deviation from disclosed agreements/understandings is (legally) a psyche only if partner has no more reason than the opponents to be aware of the deviation.

I think this is a mis-reading, or perhaps a mis-stating of the law. That phrase applies to all deviations, not just psychs. Your point seems to be that if the bidder's partner is aware of the possibility, then it's not a psych. That's true, but if he's aware of a particular deviation, then it's not a deviation either.

pran, on 2018-May-17, 02:11, said:

So stating that "partner has a tendency to psych in these positions" (or words to similar effect) automatically makes that partner's call included in the partnership's agreements/understandings and no longer a legal psyche.

Precisely. Same for deviations that aren't "gross".