Fielded Psyche - evidence standards
For UI, we have "logical alternatives". For disputed facts we have "balance of probabilities"
What is the level of evidence required for a psyche to be ruled "fielded"? Since we are looking for "evidence of an undisclosed, and therefore illegal, understanding", how sure must we be to rule based on a single occurrence (as opposed to a pattern)?
Comments
FWIWIMHO You could ask experienced players at the table if they think there was any evidence of fielding. WB 8.40.1.9
Otherwise the WB says basically that if their partner might have allowed for the call to be psychic then it will be regarded as being fielded
"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." WB 1.4.2.1
Whether it is a CPU or not depends, I suspect on what the player's partner did. Since a psych by definition is a deliberate and gross misstatement from strength and/ or length one suspects that fielding (red psych) would be evidenced by a deliberate and gross deviation from the expected response. e.g. not doubling a 1NT overcall of partner's bid when holding 14 points. A failure to double on fewer points (10 or 11) might be suspicious (amber) but some players are reluctant to double low-level contracts.
If someone without knowledge/experience of the psycher's habits would nevertheless conclude that partner has grossly deviated in some way then an action by partner which allows for the gross deviation is not necessarily fielding.
If the action by partner is not a logical alternative and is the right thing to do opposite the psycher's actual hand then this looks like fielding.
It might be preferable to say that that if an action does not appear to a logical choice opposite what the bid is supposed to show, but is the right thing to do opposite the actual hand...
(It comes to much the same thing, I think, but I prefer to avoid using terminology (here, "logical alternative") which has a defined meaning in a particular context, in a different context, unless it is with the specific intention of applying the same meaning to the new context, which I don't think was probably your intention here).
It was my intention to use "not a logical alterative" to mean "an action that almost no one would make or even consider". I agree that using the term in this other context may not be helpful.