[pescetom]

Yesterday against opponents who play 5-card majors with 2+card 1♣ (4+card 1♦), their uncontested auction went: 1♣ - 3NT; pass. I faced my lead of the fourth of five clubs and my ashen-faced opponent laid down the dummy with five spades and a singleton Ace in clubs (!) Director told us to play on, and when they made 3NT= she ruled that the score stands, as the opponents only damaged themselves, having a viable contract of 4♠; had they made 3NT+1 she would have assigned 4♠ instead.

This seems fair enough, but is it technically correct? Clearly the opener deviated from their agreement, but equally clearly her partner did not expect it. Is there an infraction here? Could/should the Director assign 4♠ if 3NT made an overtrick?

[gordontd]

pescetom, on 2018-October-10, 06:22, said:

Yesterday against opponents who play 5-card majors with 2+card 1♣ (4+card 1♦), their uncontested auction went: 1♣ - 3NT; pass. I faced my lead of the fourth of five clubs and my ashen-faced opponent laid down the dummy with five spades and a singleton Ace in clubs (!) Director told us to play on, and when they made 3NT= she ruled that the score stands, as the opponents only damaged themselves, having a viable contract of 4♠; had they made 3NT+1 she would have assigned 4♠ instead.

This seems fair enough, but is it technically correct? Clearly the opener deviated from their agreement, but equally clearly her partner did not expect it. Is there an infraction here? Could/should the Director assign 4♠ if 3NT made an overtrick?

It seems neither fair nor correct to me. A polite question as to the basis of this hypothetical adjustment might be in order.

[DozyDom]

I can't imagine this ever leading to an adjustment on the facts given. Seems a slightly bizarre assertion.

[Cyberyeti]

If their agreement is 2+ and he missorted or psyched, there is no reason for an adjustment however many tricks are made.

[Tramticket]

I have often fancied myself as a detective ...

pescetom, on 2018-October-10, 06:22, said:

against opponents who play 5-card majors with 2+card 1♣ (4+card 1♦)

This seems to clear up what their actual agreement is.

pescetom, on 2018-October-10, 06:22, said:

Clearly the opener deviated from their agreement, but equally clearly her partner did not expect it.

This confirms what the agreement is and also confirms that there was no other implicit agreements since the partner was as surprised as you were.

pescetom, on 2018-October-10, 06:22, said:

my ashen-faced opponent laid down the dummy with five spades and a singleton Ace in clubs

Do you think that, perhaps, your opponent mis-sorted their cards? Do you think that maybe one of the spades was sorted as a club? They are the same colour (black)

pescetom, on 2018-October-10, 06:22, said:

Director told us to play on

Who called the director? And why?

pescetom, on 2018-October-10, 06:22, said:

had they made 3NT+1 she would have assigned 4♠ instead

Are you really sure that you called the director? Or was it a passing cleaner, door-to-door salesman or other person unfamiliar with bridge?

[pescetom]

Tramticket, on 2018-October-10, 08:39, said:

Do you think that, perhaps, your opponent mis-sorted their cards? Do you think that maybe one of the spades was sorted as a club?

Yes of course, there is no other logical explanataion.

Tramticket, on 2018-October-10, 08:39, said:

Who called the director? And why?

The Declarer, who was anxious to establish that it had not been a psyche (which would have been an infraction, under national rules). And no, nobody had suggested that.

[pescetom]

gordontd, on 2018-October-10, 06:29, said:

It seems neither fair nor correct to me.

Thanks, it seemed incorrect, but I wasn't certain.

[Cyberyeti]

pescetom, on 2018-October-10, 09:01, said:

Yes of course, there is no other logical explanataion.

Reminds me of opening 1N with a 4(23)4 hand realising after partner transferred to spades that both black suits were clubs

[barmar]

Last night I was kibitzing a hand (we had a sit-out, so I kibitzed the hands we didn't get to play), and her partner but her in a hopeless contract (doubled and down 4 versus the opponents' possible game) because he thought her 2♣ overcall was actually an opening bid showing 22+. After the hand he suggested that maybe he needs to get his peripheral vision checked.

Anyway, I'm with the responses that say there's no basis for a potential adjustment -- misbids happen, and if they land on their feet it's rub of the green. Not to mention that the "national rule" that prohibits psychs is not valid.

[sanst]

pescetom, on 2018-October-10, 09:01, said:

The Declarer, who was anxious to establish that it had not been a psyche (which would have been an infraction, under national rules). And no, nobody had suggested that.

Then your national rules are at variance with Law 40C1. Besides, it’s only one card less than the required minimum and therefore not a psych.

[pescetom]

sanst, on 2018-October-10, 15:53, said:

Then your national rules are at variance with Law 40C1. Besides, it’s only one card less than the required minimum and therefore not a psych.

Yes they do seem at variance with law 40; nevertheless they are in force. Fifty percent is not a small deviation, and the minimum of two cards is in any case justified only in presence of two four card majors which is not the case here. If the bid was intentional (which of course it was not) I'm pretty sure it would be deemed a psyche here.

[lamford]

pescetom, on 2018-October-10, 09:01, said:

The Declarer, who was anxious to establish that it had not been a psyche (which would have been an infraction, under national rules). And no, nobody had suggested that.

I have often heard that psyches are not allowed in Italy, and checked the rules for the most recent event I could find, the Montegrotto Terme Festival, and that makes it clear:

"<snip>It continues to be the case that random psychics may occur as the laws allow, without warning, so long as these can no more be anticipated by the partner than by the opponents.<snip>"

The phrasing "it continues to be the case" suggests that some think that it does not. I spoke to the former Technical Director of the Italian Bridge Federation, Lorenzo Stoppini, about this, and he stated that all Italian bridge tournaments are played under EBL rules which allows psychic bids, as long as they are not fielded, of course. He acknowledged that they were discouraged at club level and that some clubs try to prevent them with varying degrees of success. I think it is pretty much the same in the US. I could not find the Italian Bridge Federation rules online. Do you have the relevent clause, please?

This example would not even be a psyche if it was deliberate.

[pescetom]

lamford, on 2018-October-11, 04:48, said:

I have often heard that psyches are not allowed in Italy, and checked the rules for the most recent event I could find, the Montegrotto Terme Festival, and that makes it clear:

"<snip>It continues to be the case that random psychics may occur as the laws allow, without warning, so long as these can no more be anticipated by the partner than by the opponents.<snip>"

The phrasing "it continues to be the case" suggests that some think that it does not. I spoke to the former Technical Director of the Italian Bridge Federation, Lorenzo Stoppini, about this, and he stated that all Italian bridge tournaments are played under EBL rules which allows psychic bids, as long as they are not fielded, of course. He acknowledged that they were discouraged at club level and that some clubs try to prevent them with varying degrees of success. I think it is pretty much the same in the US. I could not find the Italian Bridge Federation rules online. Do you have the relevent clause, please?

The ban on psyches applies only to local tournaments, not to higher level events like Montegrotto Terme.
It's probably some time since Lorenzo directed a local tournament
You can find the relevant rule in the "Norme Integrative 2017" , Appendix 2. article 2.b page 29:


b) A livello di Tornei Locali – sia Federali che Societari – è fatto divieto di effettuare
psichiche di qualsiasi genere. Quale che sia stato l’esito della mano, l’Arbitro penalizzerà
la coppia colpevole del 10% del Top, riservandosi di risarcire la coppia innocente
qualora abbia subito un danneggiamento quale diretta conseguenza dell’infrazione. In
altre parole, l’Arbitro ristabilirà l’equità, risolvendo naturalmente ogni dubbio a favore
della coppia innocente.

Translation:
b) In Local Tourmanents - whether organised by the Federation or by Clubs themselves - psyches of any kind are forbidden. Independent of the result of the hand, the Director will penalise the offending side 10% of Top, and may adjust the score of the non-offending side if they were damaged as a direct result of the infraction. In other words, he will restore equity, obviously resolving any doubt in favour of the non-offending side.

[lamford]

pescetom, on 2018-October-11, 05:32, said:

The ban on psyches applies only to local tournaments, not to higher level events like Montegrotto Terme.
It's probably some time since Lorenzo directed a local tournament
You can find the relevant rule in the "Norme Integrative 2017" , Appendix 2. article 2.b page 29:

Translation:
b) In Local Tourmanents - whether organised by the Federation or by Clubs themselves - psyches of any kind are forbidden. Independent of the result of the hand, the Director will penalise the offending side 10% of Top, and may adjust the score of the non-offending side if they were damaged as a direct result of the infraction. In other words, he will restore equity, obviously resolving any doubt in favour of the non-offending side.

Thanks. There does not appear to be any requirement by the WBF on federations to hold events under the Laws of Bridge, so I guess they can do as they wish. Do they state that games are otherwise played under the Laws?

[pescetom]

lamford, on 2018-October-11, 05:56, said:

Thanks. There does not appear to be any requirement by the WBF on federations to hold events under the Laws of Bridge, so I guess they can do as they wish. Do they state that games are otherwise played under the Laws?

I would be surprised if the WBF imposed no such requirement - probably some minor deviations just slip through the net. The WBF Code of Practice in 2003 stated "A psychic call is lawful if not based upon a partnership understanding. No penalty or score adjustment may be awarded against such lawful action".

The Federation supplies the Laws (both the original in English and a literal translation) together with the national Rules to be integrated with the Laws, and the latter document even uses the same numbering scheme as the former to be clear. So it seems evident that the two are intended to be compatible and to be applied together.

[lamford]

pescetom, on 2018-October-11, 06:31, said:

I would be surprised if the WBF imposed no such requirement - probably some minor deviations just slip through the net. The WBF Code of Practice in 2003 stated "A psychic call is lawful if not based upon a partnership understanding. No penalty or score adjustment may be awarded against such lawful action".

The Federation supplies the Laws (both the original in English and a literal translation) together with the national Rules to be integrated with the Laws, and the latter document even uses the same numbering scheme as the former to be clear. So it seems evident that the two are intended to be compatible and to be applied together.

I agree for events run under the auspices of the WBF or EBL. I presume that nobody has challenged the local regulations, or they might expressly state that events are held under a different set of laws.

[barmar]

lamford, on 2018-October-11, 07:38, said:

I agree for events run under the auspices of the WBF or EBL. I presume that nobody has challenged the local regulations, or they might expressly state that events are held under a different set of laws.

Is there really any other "set of laws"? I'm sure their directors carry the same Law book, they just ignore certain laws that they find inconvenient, similar to the way many Christians treat some Bible passages as archaic and not relevant in modern society (it's the infallible word of God, except when it isn't).

[pescetom]

barmar, on 2018-October-11, 12:06, said:

Is there really any other "set of laws"? I'm sure their directors carry the same Law book, they just ignore certain laws that they find inconvenient, similar to the way many Christians treat some Bible passages as archaic and not relevant in modern society (it's the infallible word of God, except when it isn't).

A more precise analogy might be that of a priest who has to follow both the Bible and the edicts of his church: it may be easier not to see any contradictions.

[barmar]

pescetom, on 2018-October-11, 13:01, said:

A more precise analogy might be that of a priest who has to follow both the Bible and the edicts of his church: it may be easier not to see any contradictions.

I wasn't really distinguishing between the church and the priests/congregants -- they're all cherry-picking, but they pick different cherries. And different denominations pick different cherries as well. The Anglican Church was created by a king who didn't agree with the Bible's prohibition against divorce.

But if the only law that's widely ignored is the one allowing psyches, and only in limited circumstances, that's unlikely to result in a holy war.