[blackshoe]

Gerben42, on Feb 14 2007, 05:18 AM, said:

Quote

who, exactly, do these "no psych" tournaments cater to?

I have no idea. Maybe there should be a limitation to what TDs can set as rules so that at least the game of Bridge is played.

There is. Law 80F says that sponsoring organizations (ie, the person/organization who sets up the tournament) has the duty and power "to publish or announce regulations supplementary to, but not in conflict with, these Laws." A regulation that "Psychs are disallowed" is contrary to Law 40A, and hence to make such a regulation is illegal under Law 80F.

[pclayton]

Its easy to get emotional about these issues.

The "subtract a King" rule has been cited around here. Would you overcall in 2nd seat with another outside King?

Psyche-free tourneys are silly. I liken them to events that require a standard SAYC card.

[DrTodd13]

cherdano, on Feb 13 2007, 11:42 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Feb 13 2007, 10:47 PM, said:

The problem with any "psych free event" is that idiots often view normal bidding as a psych, get a TD to agree, and you get adjusted.  Run from that as quickly as you hide when the JW's ring the doorbell.

The other problem is that many (otherwise) reasonable people cry "psych" when it was just idiotic bidding...

Pair agrees to play SAYC. One opens 1N, the other bids 2H intending it as natural but in SAYC it is a transfer. In a world of legal psyches, we can call this a mistake. In a world of illegal psyches, this hand definitely does not match the requirements for the bid so it is a psyche. If a TD were consistent, he would have to be punishing people for deviating from their stated system even if it were a mistake.

[DrTodd13]

blackshoe, on Feb 14 2007, 10:16 AM, said:

Gerben42, on Feb 14 2007, 05:18 AM, said:

Quote

who, exactly, do these "no psych" tournaments cater to?

I have no idea. Maybe there should be a limitation to what TDs can set as rules so that at least the game of Bridge is played.

There is. Law 80F says that sponsoring organizations (ie, the person/organization who sets up the tournament) has the duty and power "to publish or announce regulations supplementary to, but not in conflict with, these Laws." A regulation that "Psychs are disallowed" is contrary to Law 40A, and hence to make such a regulation is illegal under Law 80F.

All of this is true but who says tournaments run on BBO have to follow any of laws of duplicate bridge? If they were saying they followed bridge laws and then banned psyches then you have an argument but as it is, nobody states that they follow the laws of duplicate bridge. When you go to an ACBL tournament, you know that they have stated they operate in conjunction with this laws but on BBO there is, unfortunately, no such implication.

[matmat]

jtfanclub, on Feb 14 2007, 11:25 AM, said:

The no psych rule is so that a player doing poorly in an indy won't start making crazy bids, either in an attempt to get lucky and win or just to disrupt the game because he has nothing better to do. Having had partners who did this, I like the rule.

I agree that this could potentially be a rationale for banning psychs in a particular tournament, but this beckons another question -- why let the players see the score during the run of the tourney? surely there is added incentive when one knows one is doing poorly than when one is just suspecting that is the case. I think the scores (whether matchpoints or IMPS) should be invisible to players until after the event.

personally i hate the rule. it reminds me of little children who change the rules of established games in an attempt to win.

[fred]

Here is a summary of my thoughts in this area:

- We want there to be a lot of free tournaments for our members to play in.

- In order for this to be possible we rely on volunteer TDs.

- We are grateful to these TDs for giving their time and energy so that other BBO members can play in free tournaments. Furthermore, we recognize that some of our members are not only unappreciative of our volunteer TDs, they are sometimes beyond rude to them. The volunteer TDs that put up with this on a daily basis deserve a serious round of applause.

- It is not realistic to expect all volunteer TDs to be great TDs.

- It is not realistic to expect BBO managment to get involved in training and screening volunteer TDs.

- We give our volunteer TDs almost complete latitude with respect to deciding the rules for THEIR tournaments.

- We believe that volunteer TDs are in a good position to decide on the rules that will make their players happy and their jobs managable.

- If a TD picks rules that a particular subset of BBO members don't like, those people are not being forced to play in the tournaments run by this TD.

- If a TD picks rules that result in nobody wanting to play in his tournaments, he will either have to change his rules or give up as a TD.

- If a TD wants to use rules that contradict the Laws of Bridge because he thinks that a lot of BBO members want to play in such tournaments, why would be object?

- If a given person finds it impossible to find a free tournament with a set of rules that he likes, he may be out of luck.

- Sometimes you get what you pay for.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[Gerben42]

Agree with those thoughts, we SHOULD be glad that free TDs are there. It is not always a fun job.

Although I find some rules unsuitable, why bother argue with a director when the tourney is free anyway. What counts for me is the practice experience.

[jtfanclub]

matmat, on Feb 14 2007, 03:53 PM, said:

personally i hate the rule. it reminds me of little children who change the rules of established games in an attempt to win.

But that's exactly what it's designed to prevent. You have two players playing as partners, one of them can scratch only if they psyche and the other one will scratch as long as they don't psyche.

I don't even know the ethics of individual tournaments- is it OK to torpedo your partner's chances for a good tournamentif it gives you a tiny chance?

I agree that individual tournaments should never reveal the players' current score until the match is over, and that would probably solve the issue.

[blackshoe]

DrTodd13 said:

In a world of illegal psyches, this hand definitely does not match the requirements for the bid so it is a psyche.

Sorry, but no. A psych, by definition, is a deliberate departure from agreed meaning. If a player makes a mistake, he has in no way psyched.

[blackshoe]

DrTodd13, on Feb 14 2007, 01:41 PM, said:

All of this is true but who says tournaments run on BBO have to follow any of laws of duplicate bridge? If they were saying they followed bridge laws and then banned psyches then you have an argument but as it is, nobody states that they follow the laws of duplicate bridge. When you go to an ACBL tournament, you know that they have stated they operate in conjunction with this laws but on BBO there is, unfortunately, no such implication.

Is there not? From the BBO homepage:

Quote

Bridge Base Online is a free service offered to bridge players everywhere by Fred Gitelman, Sheri Winestock, and Uday Ivatury.

You need to download and install our program on your PC before you can play bridge online.

We offer duplicate matchpoints, duplicate IMPs, rubber bridge, duplicate tournaments and team matches.

For those games described as "duplicate bridge" it sure sounds like they're claiming to play by those rules. Granted that BBO doesn't ding "sponsoring organizations" for not following the laws, there is still, it seems to me, an implication that the game being offered is "duplicate contract bridge". Even the ACBL does not explicitly state they folllow the "Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge" in their tournaments. Nor, to the best of my knowledge, does the WBF. Are we then to assume that we can have no expectation that those are the basic rules of the game, when playing in their tournaments? I don't think so.

[blackshoe]

Okay, having just read Fred's list of comments, I can find nothing there with which I disagree. The bottom line, it seems to me, is "sometimes, you get what you pay for".

[glen]

I blame Fred on this one. We had added jet fuel to the tank of atrocity and this thread was revving up to be a fast and furious classic. Then Fred chimes in with free and volunteer and applause and realistic and happy and St. Valentine and we have no postings for 1/2 day. This thread is so over.

[zasanya]

Fred puts these things in correct perspective so nicely.

[fred]

blackshoe, on Feb 15 2007, 12:38 AM, said:

DrTodd13, on Feb 14 2007, 01:41 PM, said:

All of this is true but who says tournaments run on BBO have to follow any of laws of duplicate bridge?  If they were saying they followed bridge laws and then banned psyches then you have an argument but as it is, nobody states that they follow the laws of duplicate bridge.  When you go to an ACBL tournament, you know that they have stated they operate in conjunction with this laws but on BBO there is, unfortunately, no such implication.

Is there not? From the BBO homepage:

Quote

Bridge Base Online is a free service offered to bridge players everywhere by Fred Gitelman, Sheri Winestock, and Uday Ivatury.

You need to download and install our program on your PC before you can play bridge online.

We offer duplicate matchpoints, duplicate IMPs, rubber bridge, duplicate tournaments and team matches.

For those games described as "duplicate bridge" it sure sounds like they're claiming to play by those rules. Granted that BBO doesn't ding "sponsoring organizations" for not following the laws, there is still, it seems to me, an implication that the game being offered is "duplicate contract bridge". Even the ACBL does not explicitly state they folllow the "Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge" in their tournaments. Nor, to the best of my knowledge, does the WBF. Are we then to assume that we can have no expectation that those are the basic rules of the game, when playing in their tournaments? I don't think so.

Maybe it depends on your definition of "is"

I really think people who treat "The Laws of Bridge" like some kind of sacred text are missing the point.

The point is that we are in the entertainment business.

Consider "goulash tournaments" that used to be quite popular on BBO. These tournaments violate the Laws of Bridge (specifically those that deal with proper shuffling).

But it turns out that there are (or were at least) plenty of BBO members who enjoyed these tournaments enough that they would pay to play in them.

Why should it matter if the WBF (or whoever) would recognize such tournaments as legal or not? What matters is offerering tournaments that people want to play in.

The same goes for psychs. If substantial numbers of our members want to play in tournaments where psychs are not allowed (and I am 100% sure that this is the case) then I think it is commendable that some volunteer TDs run such tournaments.

BBO is responsible for ensuring that our ACBL tournaments conform to the set of rules that ACBL expects us to conform to.

But for all other tournaments on BBO we do not get involved. This is not only a practical necessity, it is also a good for our members - "natural selection" works.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[DrTodd13]

blackshoe, on Feb 14 2007, 04:28 PM, said:

DrTodd13 said:

In a world of illegal psyches, this hand definitely does not match the requirements for the bid so it is a psyche.

Sorry, but no. A psych, by definition, is a deliberate departure from agreed meaning. If a player makes a mistake, he has in no way psyched.

You can't determine whether the person made a mistake or did it deliberately. If they say they made a mistake it is self-serving.

[barmar]

DrTodd13, on Feb 15 2007, 01:09 PM, said:

blackshoe, on Feb 14 2007, 04:28 PM, said:

DrTodd13 said:

In a world of illegal psyches, this hand definitely does not match the requirements for the bid so it is a psyche.

Sorry, but no. A psych, by definition, is a deliberate departure from agreed meaning. If a player makes a mistake, he has in no way psyched.

You can't determine whether the person made a mistake or did it deliberately. If they say they made a mistake it is self-serving.

If they lie in answer to a direct question from the TD, they're cheaters. While they're not likely to get caught, especially in online bridge where there's no opportunity to detect mannerisms characteristic of lying, if they do it frequently enough the pattern should emerge and they'll get punished.

[paulg]

DrTodd13, on Feb 15 2007, 07:09 PM, said:

blackshoe, on Feb 14 2007, 04:28 PM, said:

DrTodd13 said:

In a world of illegal psyches, this hand definitely does not match the requirements for the bid so it is a psyche.

Sorry, but no. A psych, by definition, is a deliberate departure from agreed meaning. If a player makes a mistake, he has in no way psyched.

You can't determine whether the person made a mistake or did it deliberately. If they say they made a mistake it is self-serving.

This is why we have TDs. They are paid, or not, to make this judgement.

And then we discuss it when we disagree with their judgement.

Strangely, unfairly, I do not recall a thread when we agreed with their decision

Paul

[inquiry]

Fred is right on this one. Which is why I said to accept the ruling and move on.

But while we are at it, the director should make it clear in the description on the tournament or tourmanent rules that psyches are not allowed.

[DrTodd13]

barmar, on Feb 15 2007, 10:38 AM, said:

DrTodd13, on Feb 15 2007, 01:09 PM, said:

blackshoe, on Feb 14 2007, 04:28 PM, said:

DrTodd13 said:

In a world of illegal psyches, this hand definitely does not match the requirements for the bid so it is a psyche.

Sorry, but no. A psych, by definition, is a deliberate departure from agreed meaning. If a player makes a mistake, he has in no way psyched.

You can't determine whether the person made a mistake or did it deliberately. If they say they made a mistake it is self-serving.

If they lie in answer to a direct question from the TD, they're cheaters. While they're not likely to get caught, especially in online bridge where there's no opportunity to detect mannerisms characteristic of lying, if they do it frequently enough the pattern should emerge and they'll get punished.

Yes. They would be cheaters if they lied but saying that people will track this stuff, a pattern will emerge and they'll get caught is ridiculous.

[pclayton]

I'm ready to let the director off the hook though.

That being said, I'll bet there's a lot of directors that want to be better educated that read these forums.