Help
blackshoe, on Jun 18 2009, 06:17 AM, said:
Take a look at the EBU regulations on psychic bids. (Section 6, page 29 of the document). No, they don't apply outside the EBU, but they're a reasonable approach, and worth reading and understanding for that reason.
Personally I think that this is one of the worst-written pieces of regulation I have ever seen, though I agree that they way that it's usually applied in practice is reasonable. Here are some of my objections (mostly copied from a rec.games.bridge post I made a few years ago):
EBU Oracle Book said:
The actions of the psycher’s partner following a psyche – and, possibly, further actions by the psycher himself – may provide evidence of an unauthorised, and therefore illegal, understanding. If so, then the partnership is said to have ‘fielded’ the psyche.
Taken literally, this means that an action that provides any evidence, however slight, of an unauthorised understanding constitutes "fielding".
Quote
A TD may find that whilst there is some evidence of an unauthorised understanding it is not sufficient, of itself, to justify an adjusted score. This is classified as an Amber psyche.
A possible interpretation of the word "some" in this sentence is "any". As applied in practice "some" means "a reasonable amount of", but if so the rules should say so.
Quote
A partnership’s actions on one board may be sufficient for the TD to find that it has an unauthorised understanding and the score will be adjusted
What's the relevance of whether an understanding is "unauthorised" or not? The EBU penalises psyches under Law 40. Therefore the TD is finding that a concealed partnership understanding exists.
The above are all just complaints about the wording. My biggest criticisms, however, are about the substance of the rules:
(1) Nowhere in the EBU's regulations does it say that it's improper to intentionally field a psyche. Provided that no agreement or UI exists, it is apparently quite proper to deliberately field a psyche, hoping to get away with it but willing to pay the penalty otherwise.
(2) The regulations describe the process to be followed by the TD, but do not explain what is required of the players, or what standards should be applied in classifying a player's action. This places both players and directors in an unnecessarily difficult position.
Suppose that I am on lead after the auction pass-1C-2H-3NT. I think a diamond lead is best, but others might prefer a heart. I am aware, from my own hand, the opponents' demeanour, and the fact that my partner has not forsworn psyching, that my partner may have psyched. One of the risks of leading a diamond is that if partner has, in fact, psyched, my action may be classified as "red", in which case we will be assigned a score of 30%.
I would like (a) to play within the rules and (b) to evaluate the aforementioned risk. I can't reliably do either, because the regulations don't tell me what is required of me in this position, or what criteria will be used to decide whether to adjust the score.
