[1eyedjack]

JRG, on May 12 2004, 12:21 PM, said:

Another question: Didn't the ACBL ban "Controlled Psyches" at one stage (perhaps still do)? I vaguely remember that the original Kaplan-Sheinwold system contained controlled psyches.

Particular sponsoring organisations have the authority to ban controlled psyches. Most sponsoring organisations have such a regulation. I do not know whether BBO site rules have such a stipulation, but in the absence of a regulation I would expect that by default they are allowed on BBO. Personally I would recommend that BBO adopt a proscription of such methods. One of the very few proscriptions that I would support, in fact.

As to the regulation by the sponsoring organisation of psyches generally I recently posted a query at:

http://forums.bridge...p?showtopic=527

The two responses to this query seem to be reasonably intelligent, although there is a lack of reference to statutory authority.

[McBruce]

Firstly: Once again we have this strange attitude from several posters that a bid which shows a hand completely different from the one held is not a psyche if it is made in a situation where psyching makes no sense.

This is complete rubbish. The 1♠ opener is a psyche by definition, and if your partnership has predefined rules as to when a psyche makes sense and when one does not, this is a PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT and you had better start alerting.

Secondly: most organizations have some form of the Principle of Coincidence, an adjunct of the Principle of Full Disclosure, which states that if one partner takes an action which is outside of agreed system AND partner then takes a second action outside of system which combines with the first to provide success, then there is evidence that the pair is not complying with Full Disclosure. There is a warning not to overuse the principle, but comparing the example on the ACBL version (linked above) to the example submitted in this thread by mpefritz, we can get an idea of the severity of the problem here.

ACBL: The following combination of overbid and underbid is an example of the PRINCIPLE OF COINCIDENCE. East, whose card is marked 15-17, opens one notrump with a balanced 13. West with 10 points decides to bid only 2NT and eight tricks are the maximum available. This "lucky coincidence" is the result of two improbable actions which, in combination, "work". The PRINCIPLE OF COINCIDENCE defines this sequence to be an infraction of ACBL regulations (full-disclosure). The score on the board should be adjusted whenever the misinformation directly damages the non-offenders (as by placing an extra card or wrong card in declarer's hand allowing an extra trick(s) to be made). Whether or not a score adjustment is made, a procedural penalty for the offenders should be considered.

In the ACBL example a score adjustment is possible and a procedural penalty is likely when one partner overbids by a queen and the other underbids by a queen. In mpefritz's example, the opening bid of 1♠ on a 6-count is three times as much a distortion, and partner's failure to double is a coincidence. If it were possible on BBO, I would give a procedural penalty unless the players were novices. We don't know the rest of the hand, so we don't know if a score adjustment is reasonable.

Note than the ACBL's version at least does not allow for the 1N - 2N auction to be adjusted to 3N down one. The only score adjustment possible is to give the defenders back tricks that they lost based on assuming declarer had a full 1NT opener. In mpefritz's example, the E-W side doesn't get to play 1NT doubled based on the Rule of Coincidence. But if 1NT should go down because declarer placed cards in the openers hand, the score would be adjusted.