Fielded Psyche
I was recently called to the table as director in this situation:
Dealer N, neither vul.
Bidding starting with North: 1C - P - 1S - Dbl
3S - All pass.
I was called by W, when the North hand went down as dummy:
spades Q 6 5 3
hearts 3
diamonds J
clubs Q J 10 6 4 3 2
North's explanation was "I didn't think I was strong enough to bid 3.", followed by ums and ahs when others pointed out that 3C was the right bid.
I have been told, admittedly hearsay, that North often doesn't have her bid.
North South are a long established partnership, but not of a very high standard. North is an active trained Club Director.
I deemed it a psyche and entered it in the Psyche Book.
I was a playing director, but looked at the board at the end of the session.
This was the South hand.
spades K J 9 7
hearts 10 7 5 2
diamonds A Q 9 7
clubs 8
My immediate reaction was that I would not have passed 3S without knowing about the psyche. I polled 5 other people, not experts, and showed them the auction and the South hand. All said immediately that they would bid 4S. I therefore ruled the psyche to have been fielded.
My decision has been appealed by North on the grounds that she didn't know what a psyche was, therefore couldn't have psyched.
I would welcome others opinions on my ruling.
Comments
I did put sensible spacing in it, but it has not been preserved. I hope it is still understandable.
There are three possibilities here:
In any case, there's been an infraction, but we need to know what the actual N/S agreement (possibly implicit) about this sequence is to know which infraction. My guess is that the third possibility applies, i.e. N is known to bid erratically like this with extreme hands, and S is allowing for it without letting the opposition know that that's what S is doing.
That said, as luck would have it, the penalty for a fielded psyche and for an illegal agreement are the same (the score is adjusted to Av+/Av- unless the actual score was better for the opponents), so regardless of how this is ruled, the end result is likely to be the same (unless as Director you feel that a PP is warranted; I don't think a PP is warranted here unless the players were actively trying to deceive the opponents about their agreements).
I admit to having some sympathy for North: when a hand has extreme distribution, I tend to bid it very strongly (although I wouldn't consider 7411 to be enough to bid an effectively 5 HCP hand as 15+; it's a strong shape, but not that strong). That said, I'm expecting my partner to raise with support, rather than allow for whatever hand type I might hold; if I'm bidding a hand as though I have 16 HCP, it's because I want my partner to value it as 16 HCP when making, e.g., raise-to-game decisions. Additionally, I won't make an opening 1-of-a-suit bid with a hand that's very weak points-wise (overcalls are another matter).
That said, I don't believe North's argument about not knowing what a psyche is; that's a subject that must surely be covered in Director training. That reason for appeal is so dubious that N/S don't seem to deserve much benefit of the doubt, and may warrant a PP in its own right. (That said, if it's your ruling that was appealed, you should probably let some other Director decide whether the appeal is frivolous, and if so, what the penalty should be.)
North is a trained club director but did not know what a psyche was?
North needs to understand the minimum strength for opening 1 bids (8+ HCP and rule of 18/19 in first or second position) in the Blue Book, and agree a minimum strength with South,
I do wonder what she learned from the Club Director training! I find it very hard to believe that she doesn't know what a psyche is. This leads me to believe that she was "trying it on" or playing an illegal agreement. I suspect that North will have no knowledge of the Blue Book and does not realise what she has done. The fact that she is a Club Director weakens her case in my view.
North's testimony seems clear that there is very strong evidence of a non-permitted agreement here and that this was not a psyche. There certainly seemed no intent to deceive.
I have just been covering psyches on a series of Club TD training courses and asked my attendees what they would call, playing IMP Pairs at Love all, with
!s AJ84
!h AKQ53
!d J
!c AQ2
with LHO dealing and passing, partner opening 3 !c showing 5-5 in the minors and 8-11 HCP, and RHO bidding 3 !s .
I had already polled a dozen folks of similar standard to this pair, and almost all chose 6 !c direct or else something they thought might investigate a slam. The player at the table had chosen 3NT and partner (who does know what a psyche is) had just 3 HCP ( !d K ), so I had ruled a Red Psyche. So I thought this would be a good example of fielding.
But I hadn't reckoned on some of the course attendees deciding they would bid 3NT! !
Barrie Partridge - CTD for Bridge Club Live
3NT seems reasonable on shape until you actually count the high card points and realise that the hand is way too strong to stop short of at least a suit slam.
At lower levels, there are plenty of players who won't bid a slam on less than around 33 combined HCP, but I'm assuming that the player at the table was good enough to know that slams are often possible with less. So if the course attendees were weaker than the players at the table, thinking that 3NT is reasonable seems plausible.
You cannot determine that a psyche has been fielded without determining that there has been a psyche in the first place.
You cannot determine that there has been a psyche without determining what the relevant agreements are.
From everything that was said in the OP, I am very much inclined to agree with Barrie that the combination of actions suggests that both players effectively know what is going on, so this is systemic rather than a psyche.
If players call the TD concerned about a psyche (and possible fielding thereof), but the TD determines that the action is likely to have been systemic, then four issues arise:
1. permitted agreements
2. disclosure
3. disclosure
4. disclosure
I am also, with others, unimpressed that a person with a TD qualification seems so lacking in comprehension of the issues.
In my idle moments I sometimes read through the (red) book of rules for revision and I have been known to look at the Blue Book. I've never been tempted to learn the White Book from cover to cover.
Alan
I don't think anyone has ever suggested learning the White Book from cover to cover! If by the "(red) book of rules" you mean the Laws of Duplicate Bridge 2007, may I suggest investing in (or downloading) the 2017 version?
By contrast, at the club where I direct most frequently, there are a couple of pairs whose unusual actions (looked at objectively) are drawn to the TDs' attention more than just occasionally; and the players drawing such attention are normally inclined to start off by saying "X psyched..."
Quite often the conclusion is "but that's just how X bids", so once again it's a question of disclosure, disclosure disclosure.
It is very difficult to determine whether the issue is a fielded psyche or an illegal system. They never have system cards, and I could not get a straight answer as to why they bid as they did. The systems allowed for the session in question are:
Level 2.
No strong club systems.
Any defence to an opening 1NT.
I very much doubt that there was intent to deceive in this case, but there has still been an infraction. Even if it was not deliberate, I feel that equity should be restored to the non-offending side.
I awarded 60/40 and applied a PP. Perhaps the PP was a bit harsh.
In the case of opening bids (and overcalls) there is not too much difference between a (red) fielded psyche and an illegal agreement.
A fielded pysche is where there is evidence of a concealed partnership understanding - in the case of an opening bid, this understanding would be illegal if it were properly disclosed.
An illegal agreement is where the agreement is properly disclosed or at least not properly concealed and does not meet the regulation.
The adjustment/penalty for a fielded psyche is worse for the offenders than for an illegal agreement - so the TD does not need to worry too much about distinguishing a single occurence of a psyche versus illegal agreement.
"I could not get a straight answer as to why they bid as they did."
I think you did get a straight answer in "I didn't think I was strong enough to bid 3 !c " and in claiming to not know what a psyche is.
That the permitted agreements for the session were EBU Level 2 is interesting as it suggests that the session may be intended for novices and less experienced players, and this strengthens my assertion that there's a non-permitted agreement here rather than simply a mis-bid, or even a psyche.
The White Book 2.8.3.3 and also 8.40.3 cover rulings on non-permitted agreements. The difference between deciding between psyche and non-permitted agreements is that generally we don't give procedural penalties for use of non-permitted agreements, so your comment "Perhaps the PP was a bit harsh" transpires, in my opinion, to be spot on.
I just noticed from your OP that North has appealed your ruling. I can see why she has wished to appeal. If the process hasn't started, you might consider revising your ruling (as you can under Law 82B1) by switching to ruling under Blue Book 6C1 "A one-level opening bid in a suit must either show 11+ HCP, or show 8+HCP and satisfy the Rule of 19". This might avert the request to appeal.
Barrie Partridge - CTD for Bridge Club Live
The debate here is, of course, in the word "show". If the N/S agreement is that the 1!c opener shows 11+ HCP, N's bid is legal even if N's hand doesn't actually contain 11+ HCP (but South must then play North for 11+ HCP or else commit an infraction).
... or else provide evidence of an infraction
The concealed agreement is the illegality - the fielding provides evidence but is not itself the infraction