Search MSO Worldwide

Appeals

Appeal No 31.
Psychic Call

Open Teams Round 29
Portugal v Romania

Board 15.
Dealer .South
North/South Game.

Please note: Screen runs from top left to bottom right.
			K Q 10 4
			A Q 5 3
			10
			K 6 5 4
	J 9 6 2	N   W E   S			7 5 3
	10 9				J 8 2
	Q J 7 4 2				A K 8 6 5
	10 2				A 7
			A 8
			K 7 6 4
			9 3
			Q J 9 8 3

West	North	East	South
Popescu	Diegues	Feber	Castanheira
			Pass
Pass	1	1	Dble
1	2	Pass	3
All Pass

Contract: Three Clubs, played by North
Result: 11 tricks, +150 to North/South

The Facts: One Heart was a psychic call.

The Director: Applied Law 40A, and found no evidence of anything wrong in East/West.

Ruling: Result Stands

North/South appealed.

The Players: North/South felt that East should have bid 2 or even 3. They have 8 cards in hearts (or that is what East should believe), so why did they let North/South play 2 or 3?
West stated that with a hand like this, he would try a psyche of this nature even in an individual tournament. There can be no question of illegal partnership understanding. One partner lives in Paris, the other in Romania. They had met only once in the past 12 years, and the Romanian federation decided to align them in partnership only two weeks before the tournament. Since then, they had played with each other for 50 boards over the Internet, and of course a few hundred boards here.
East stated he did not find it right to raise to Two Hearts when South had made a negative Double and North had made the strong bid of Two Diamonds.
West found the usage of the words "controlled psyche" by opponents inappropriate.

The Committee: Found that the Director had done enough to ascertain that East/West were not guilty of anything untoward.
This was a psyche, as permitted by Law 40A - A player may make any call or play (including an intentionally misleading call - such as a psychic bid - or a call or play that departs from commonly accepted, or previously announced, use of a convention), without prior announcement, provided that such call or play is not based on a partnership understanding.
The Committee was of the opinion that this case should not have been brought to the Committee.

The Committee's decision: Director's decision upheld.

Relevant Laws: Law 40A

Deposit: Forfeited