Section 6B of the Orange Book (reproduced below) describes the procedure to be followed by a TD in the event of a psych or misbid. It says that the classification of North's action will be based upon his action on the current board, and possibly on other boards from the same event. In about 400 words discussing the TD's approach, there is no suggestion that he will gather or consider any other evidence. The sentence "If a player psyches and his partner takes action that appears to allow for it then the TD will treat it as fielding" seems to imply that other evidence will not be considered relevant.
My interpretation of this rule is that the director classifies North's actions solely on the basis of his actions on this board, his actions on other boards in the same event, and his bridge-playing ability. By way of corroboration of my interpretation, earlier in this thread the chairman of the L&EC and a National TD seemed to think that they could rule using only the fact that North's actions appeared to cater for a misbid, without considering any of the four factors in my previous email.
Are you saying that EBU TDs are taught a different interpretation of this part of the regulations?
Are they told to ask questions such as "How often have you played together?", "How often does South forget your system?", "Has South forgotten this convention before?"
EBU regulations said:
6 B Fielding
6 B 1 The actions of the psycher's partner following a psyche – and, possibly, further actionsby 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.
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.
6 B 2 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 his partner
takes action that appears to allow for it then the TD will treat it as fielding.
6 B 3 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 in principle (see 6 D). This
is classified as a Red psyche.
6 B 4 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. In particular, if both partners psyche on the same hand, then a classification of at least Amber is likely to be justified.
6 B 5 In the majority of cases the TD will find nothing untoward and classify it as a Green psyche.
6 B 6 A TD may use evidence from a partnership's actions on two or more boards to assess a partnership's actions. Whilst a single instance may not provide sufficient evidence of an unauthorised understanding to warrant a score adjustment, a repetition reinforces
the conclusion that an unauthorised understanding exists. In other words, if two psyches are classified as Amber, the classification of both automatically becomes Red, and the score on all such boards is adjusted accordingly.
6 B 7 A partnership's actions following a deviation may provide evidence of an unauthorised understanding, but they are less likely to do so than after6 B 8 A partnership's actions following a misbid may provide evidence of an unauthorised
understanding, but they are less likely to do so because of the lack of intent to mislead.
As with psyches, misbids may be classified as Red, Amber or Green.
6 B 9 Because of the difference between the player's understanding of his call and any alerts and answers to questions by his partner it is quite common for unauthorised information problems to be present.
Help
Trinidad, on 2012-February-04, 00:07, said: