[hrothgar]

>The TD has a responsibility to be fair to both sides. Since this
>was a team game there were no hand records he could consult
>to see the hands that Richard actually bid on, so all he could go
>on at the time was their description.

All of the boards were still available.
I offered to bring said boards to the Director to look at.
He replied that he wasn't interested in giving "bidding lessons"...

He's perfectly happy to give lectures regarding ethical responsiblities without every looking at any of the boards, but god forbid that he has to do some work.

>It's my understanding that in the case of the 3-HCP 1/1 bid, the TD was
>called to the table at the time and had already ruled that it wasn't a psyche.

Incorrect. There wasn't a single Director call during the entire course of the match. The opponent's spent 45 minutes pouring over the last 14 boards trying to find examples that they could bring to the Director...

>Richard, I know you dislike the ACBL, and many of your reasons are justified. I >already told you over the weekend that I was happy you put aside your feelings >and rejoined so you could fill out my team. But you come to these things with so >much attitude that you really shouldn't be surprised that it results in >confrontations. That's your style in much of life. If you're going to behave like >this, you have to get used to the backlash that results.

To be clear, I'm not particularly bothered by confrontations. If I were, I wouldn't have told my opponent that I'm even more likely to psyche. What I do find annoying having Directors giving me pro-forma lectures without giving any thought to the matter...

Potentially its wrong to tell Directors that they aren't doing their job. (I will certainly agree that its bad strategy for a team match where you might end up with a future Director call).

I will simply point out a couple points

1. There weren't any problems with any other team that were faced (And my bidding was certainly not different in this match than any other)

2. My behaviour is logically consistent...

My issue with the Director is that he didn't take the opportunity to educate the opponents about proprieties. I can hardly get upset about while commiting the same "offense"...

Admittedly, its not the job for random players to given Directors lessons in directing... However, I get more than a bit annoyed when I spend any entire weekend (essentially) playing straight down the middle - playing 2/1, not weird preempts, no overcalls on 4 card majors... NOTHING - and I still get grief over what I consider quite normal calls.

I readily admit that my decision to tell the opponents that I was much more likely to psyche probably made it more likely that they brought this to the attention of the Director, but it should have never made it past there.

[barmar]

hrothgar, on Jan 14 2008, 01:50 PM, said:

I readily admit that my decision to tell the opponents that I was much more likely to psyche probably made it more likely that they brought this to the attention of the Director, but it should have never made it past there.

Yes, I think that was a big part of it. Their psychometers had full sensitivity enabled.

The TD took your word regarding the actual boards. I thought he was pretty reasonable about it. Maybe he could have been more proactive and looked at the hands first, that may have been his only mistake.

But when your reputation precedes you, don't be surprised when they bias the assumptions.

[hrothgar]

barmar, on Jan 14 2008, 09:11 PM, said:

The TD took your word regarding the actual boards. I thought he was pretty reasonable about it. Maybe he could have been more proactive and looked at the hands first, that may have been his only mistake.

But when your reputation precedes you, don't be surprised when they bias the assumptions.

Barry, Peter didn't have a clue who I was...

There was no reputation effect at play other than some random claims from a disgruntled opponent. I don't see any reason why issues of bias should have entered the picture.

As for your comment "Maybe he could have been more proactive and looked at the hands first"... That's the entire heart of the dispute

The Director should make a modicum of effort to figure out what the actual facts are rather than rattling off a rnadom lecture about destructive bidding...

[barmar]

Your reputation came from two places: First, one of your opponents knew you and your tendencies. Second, Peter asked me about your style, and I admitted that you were somewhat liberal, although because this was a new partnership and that Jan preferred a down-the-middle style that I didn't think you would go overboard. And even if you did psyche, Jan wouldn't have the partnership experience to field it.

[bid_em_up]

david_c, on Jan 14 2008, 09:08 AM, said:

hrothgar, on Jan 14 2008, 02:48 PM, said:

More importantly... I'm not above engaging in a bit of gamesmanship.  If I can (legally) piss of my opponent and make sure that he's going to spend a match nervous and tee-ed off, I'll do so.

Well, you can't. Pissing off opponents is illegal under Law 74A2. If you do it deliberately you should expect a disciplinary penalty.

Oh please.

There is a difference between "pissing off opponents" and what Richard did (even though he did say "piss off my opponent"). All he did was let the opp know that he was now more likely to psyche, and knowing that he never needed to do so because the seed of doubt would be fully planted in the opponents mind. That opp will spend the entire match overanalyzing each of Richards bids.

If this happens to upset the opponent, thats the opponents problem, not Richard's.

[han]

I recently posted a hand from a NY regional where I psyched and the opponents were fuming, called the director three times, asked for a committee meeting and refused to sign the score.

What I didn't write was that the director handled it perfectly all three times he was called, and after the game he came to tell me after the game that he spoke with my opponents and explained to them that I had done nothing wrong and they understood.

[pokerbids]

a fellow called the hog asked me a few posts up whether i knew someone called richard. No hog I dont anyone by this name but do I have to. I certainly wont apologise for any of my comments esp when the capt of the original posters team seems to have agreed with the majority of what I stated. Mr Hog I dont need to know Riochard or take a basic course in english comprehension when I see someone being rude and obnoxious in a post like the poster was. Heaven knows who or what he is in real life. Yes Mr Hog, Mr Richard may be your friend and I appreciate you springing to his defence but read my lips I have no reason to apologise when I see someone posting like that. In addition nowhere in the rules of this forum do I read anything about having to understand basic english or be frightened of anyones reputation when I post. Please keep those rules (and comments) to yourself

[pclayton]

hrothgar, on Jan 14 2008, 09:50 AM, said:

Potentially its wrong to tell Directors that they aren't doing their job. (I will certainly agree that its bad strategy for a team match where you might end up with a future Director call).

Ya think?

Directors deal with malcontents on a daily basis. They have zero tolerance for people instructing them how to do their job.

[jtfanclub]

hrothgar, on Jan 14 2008, 01:18 PM, said:

The Director should make a modicum of effort to figure out what the actual facts are rather than rattling off a rnadom lecture about destructive bidding...

Why?

You played a nasty joke on the opponents, basically telling them that you were going to cheat* when of course you had no intention of doing so. So they played a nasty joke back, accusing you of cheating*. So the director, who knows you didn't cheat* that round (but have history of pushing the envelope), gave you a lecture about how cheating* is wrong. If he'd actually thought you'd been cheating*, I'm sure he'd have looked at the hands. We're not talking about punishment here. You were deeply offended because...he believed you when you said you were going to cheat*?

What if the cheating* didn't have an asterisk? What if you proudly announced that you were using slow-X penalty doubles and fast-X takeout doubles? Then is it OK for him to tell you that hesitation bidding is wrong, even if you didn't happen to use it the previous round?

[matmat]

pokerbids, on Jan 14 2008, 02:14 PM, said:

a fellow called the hog asked me a few posts up whether i knew someone called richard. No hog I dont anyone by this name but do I have to. I certainly wont apologise for any of my comments esp when the capt of the original posters team seems to have agreed with the majority of what I stated. Mr Hog I dont need to know Riochard or take a basic course in english comprehension when I see someone being rude and obnoxious in a post like the poster was. Heaven knows who or what he is in real life. Yes Mr Hog, Mr Richard may be your friend and I appreciate you springing to his defence but read my lips I have no reason to apologise when I see someone posting like that. In addition nowhere in the rules of this forum do I read anything about having to understand basic english or be frightened of anyones reputation when I post. Please keep those rules (and comments) to yourself

i know this is slightly uncool, as it relates to web etiquette etc., but i am having trouble parsing your posts. May i suggest you spend a little more time editing your posts? The spelling, grammar and punctuation errors make it very difficult to understand your point of view, which, from what I *can* gather, is rather ticked off and aggressive. are you, by chance, one of richard's opponents from the weekend?

your post is very much in the spirit of "Mr Kettle; meet Mr Pot"

[matmat]

jtfanclub, on Jan 14 2008, 03:32 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Jan 14 2008, 01:18 PM, said:

The Director should make a modicum of effort to figure out what the actual facts are rather than rattling off a rnadom lecture about destructive bidding...

Why?

You played a nasty joke on the opponents, basically telling them that you were going to cheat*

uh
okay...

what was the purpose of the opponents informing the OP that they think that "psyching is cheating"? I mean, seriously, what reaction were they hoping for? Is it possible that they were fishing to tilt Hrothgar? hmmmm?

A while ago while still playing at the local clubs there was a player who professed that precision/strong club was not real bridge. He took issue with light openings and lots of artificial calls. Would become overly aggressive (bridgewise) and generally agitated when opps were playing strong club. We'd see a pair or two take particular glee in playing that system against him and try to find any excuse to upgrade hands to the 1♣ category. cheating?

frankly, i think the TD probably should have been called the moment the initial comments were made to deliver a lecture to the opps regarding the legality of psychs and that intimidation tactics/comments were not allowed under various ACBL rules (ZT? something else? I runno).

[jtfanclub]

matmat, on Jan 14 2008, 03:43 PM, said:

what was the purpose of the opponents informing the OP that they think that "psyching is cheating"? I mean, seriously, what reaction were they hoping for? Is it possible that they were fishing to tilt Hrothgar? hmmmm?

I'm not condoning anything the opponents did. And I think it was particularly nasty to involve the TD in their little spat, especially since it's obvious that Hrothgar did not in fact go random fielded psyches on them.

I'm saying that what the TD did seems reasonable given what happened prior to the round and what the captain said, regardless of what actually happened during the round.

[blackshoe]

jtfanclub, on Jan 14 2008, 03:32 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Jan 14 2008, 01:18 PM, said:

The Director should make a modicum of effort to figure out what the actual facts are rather than rattling off a rnadom lecture about destructive bidding...

Why?

You played a nasty joke on the opponents, basically telling them that you were going to cheat* when of course you had no intention of doing so. So they played a nasty joke back, accusing you of cheating*. So the director, who knows you didn't cheat* that round (but have history of pushing the envelope), gave you a lecture about how cheating* is wrong. If he'd actually thought you'd been cheating*, I'm sure he'd have looked at the hands. We're not talking about punishment here. You were deeply offended because...he believed you when you said you were going to cheat*?

What if the cheating* didn't have an asterisk? What if you proudly announced that you were using slow-X penalty doubles and fast-X takeout doubles? Then is it OK for him to tell you that hesitation bidding is wrong, even if you didn't happen to use it the previous round?

Hang on a minute. Nothing Richard did can remotely be described as cheating, with or without an asterisk, and in spite of his RHO's opinion. The inappropriate expression of which, btw, is what started this whole mess.

FWIW, I don't think there was much right in the original scenario - the RHO was wrong to say what he did, Richard's reaction was OTT, and the TD could certainly have handled things a little better. That doesn't justify fanning the flames here.

[mycroft]

I agree with matmat. I think that the game was started by the opponents (well, this time; it's clear that there's history, and I'm sure (having a couple of opponents with whom I have history, too, and I'm not all sweetness and light, but from what I can tell, more conciliatory than Hrothgar) there's no completely innocent party), but that everyone was playing.

Yeah, against good players who think psychics are cheating, I look for an excuse. Against people who don't like aggressive openers enough to be obnoxious about it, I push. Against one person who continually bids on crap, given the choice I hit it - and smile.

But instead of retributative gamesmanship, it would at least put everybody on stream to call the TD and mention the pre-bridge conversation...then they get their change to argue their (hopeless) case to the TD, and afterward when they complain, the TD knows the background, rather than getting one side only (which is almost certainly biased). One can do it clearly as gamesmanship, which I don't really agree with, but it happens; one can do it in such a way as to make it clear "that's not going to get you anything" while still being totally "innocent" - which is perfectly legal, and usually all five people at the table get it.

If that doesn't happen, when the TD comes to you afterward, you can't blame him if he doesn't have all the information; it's not like he'll have been given board numbers and exact hands - or any information that isn't to your detriment. And a SJS "on a 12 count" does sound suspicious - a SJS on a [add: selfsupporting] 4.5-loser hand (which happens to be 12 high) doesn't. After all, I've made an Acol 2H bid with a 14-count...Similarly, I happen to think that responding on the balanced 3-count (in standard) is bad bridge; it seems like I always rebid 2NT and go down. But my partnership coach thinks I'm totally wrong in that respect - maybe he plays 2NT better than I do. Doesn't mean it's wrong or anything else, and frankly, in the GNTB zone quals, if they tell me they've never seen that bidding before, I'm going to be suspicious.

But you know, everybody's been conned before, and will be again; some people are very, very good at telling the story their way (and not all of them are lawyers!) When this happens, I try to be cynical, or at least express a view that shows how what they told me could be perfectly fine. I also say that there's not much I can do about it *now*; if they really had a problem, they should have called at the time. If I'm convinced that there's something there, sure, I'll go over and have a word, but it'll be again, investigatory and trying to show both sides. Of course, if I'm met with a persecution complex, oh well. I tried.

Looks like the losers of the match were continuing the gamesmanship that they started the game with (and were enthusiastically joined in by the other side); and it worked. Remember the definition of a good judgment ruling - one that all four players at the table disagree with.

Michael.

[blackshoe]

Adam's post regarding (broadly) TD training provides food for thought.

I think there are two (at least) distinct sets of useful skills for directors: "people" skills are certainly very important, at all levels, but they should not, IMO, override the technical skills involved. "Corporate wisdom" amongst many long time club level directors seems to be that they should - that "keeping the players happy" is much more important than, for example, ruling correctly. Maybe I'm just naive, but it seems to me that a director who is seen to be fair, impartial, consistent, and rigorous in making rulings will, in the long run, be much more popular than one whose sole claim to fame is that he mostly kept everyone happy.

I've long been of the opinion that the ACBL doesn't do enough in regard to TD training. I think that a "continuing education" program, perhaps with periodic re-qualification tests, ought to be established. I think it should cover all levels of directing from the social club to the National Championships, and I think overall control and oversight should be maintained in Memphis (or wherever ACBL moves next). That doesn't mean Memphis should have to do everything, they can certainly delegate the execution of the program down to the District or Unit level. That, after all, is why the ACBL has a hierarchy – to make management of such a huge organization, well, manageable.

Some topics such a program might cover:

• Routine and not-so-routine uses of ACBLScore (and perhaps of other useful software)
  
• Movements, including "unusual" ones, and criteria for choosing a movement
  
• How to add or delete pairs when necessary
  
• Dealing with argumentative players
  
• Dealing with players who basically don't listen
  
• Routine rulings
  
• Not-so-routine rulings
  
• The right to appeal and how to implement it
  
• ACBL's rules for clubs, including the laws' provisions regarding publishing SO regulations
  
• What's different at Sectional, Regional, or National level Tournaments
  
• The online game - similarities and differences

[jtfanclub]

blackshoe, on Jan 14 2008, 04:28 PM, said:

Hang on a minute. Nothing Richard did can remotely be described as cheating, with or without an asterisk, and in spite of his RHO's opinion.

I apologize for not being clear, to both you and Richard.

Of course he didn't cheat, and had no intention of cheating. However, he implied that he was going to do a great deal of psyching this round, and his partner was there to hear it. The ACBL, in its infinite wisdom, has made that illegal, although God only knows what destructive bidding is or how often you can psyche before it gets destructive.

I do not believe that Richard cheats, and I don't think he's an unethical player. I merely meant that when you threaten like that, you should expect mild repercussions, and accept them in good grace. There's very little else the director could do, though I don't know if his words or tone could have been more diplomatic.

[han]

The way I read it Richard never implied that he was going to psyche, and in fact he didn't psyched. If he had and his partner had fielded it now then you might have had a case. As it is, I think your argument that Richards response could be seen as cheating is rather far-fetched.

[the hog]

JT. to the best of my knowledge, and I may well be wrong, the ACBL has NOT outlawed psychic bids. So for you to state that Richard claimed he might cheat* is a very long bow indeed.

[inquiry]

The_Hog, on Jan 14 2008, 08:06 PM, said:

JT. to the best of my knowledge, and I may well be wrong, the ACBL has NOT outlawed psychic bids. So for you to state that Richard claimed he might cheat* is a very long bow indeed.

I think you are over-reacting. I read this as the opponent said psyches was cheating... rather than correct him, richard said he was going to psyche... so the word "psyche" was exchanged for the word cheat* to put this in perspective of the opponents, who heard richard saying he was more likely to psych (which they heard as cheat*).... at least, that is the way I read it.

[jtfanclub]

The_Hog, on Jan 14 2008, 08:06 PM, said:

JT. to the best of my knowledge, and I may well be wrong, the ACBL has NOT outlawed psychic bids. So for you to state that Richard claimed he might cheat* is a very long bow indeed.

Some psyches are allowed, some psyches are not.

It's not really cheating, of course. It's just breaking a rule.

No matter how carefully he parsed it in this post, he was threatening to psyche repeatedly just to piss the opponents off, and I feel confident that's how they heard it.

http://www.acbl.org/...n/psychics.html

Quote

Are there other psychic bids that aren’t allowed?
.
.
.
Even when your psych meets the requirement that your partner doesn’t know what’s going on, there still should always be a good tactical reason for your action. It should never be because you want to get back at so-and-so, or because you’re bored and want to create a little action, or because you’re having a bad game and what difference does one more bottom make?

Is psyching "because you want to get back at so-and-so" not exactly what he was threatening to do?

Quote

4. POSSIBLE EXPULSION. If a player is found to be psyching excessively, frivolously, or in an unsportsmanlike manner, the director should inform this player that if such tactics continue to be used, the player faces suspension from the game.

There are so many ways that announcing "I'm going to psych more this round because I don't like you guys" both the letter and spirit of these rules that I'm waffling on each one. Is it a controlled psyche, because partner knows it's more likely to happen? Is it malicious mischief, because you're trying to get back at somebody you don't like? Is it unsportsmanlike, because he warned his partner (and the rest of the table) ahead of time? As far as I'm concerned, you could print out that link, throw a dart at it, and odds are that Richard would have violated wherever the dart hit. If, of course, he had actually meant the threat seriously and carried it out.

If Richard knew that what he was threatening to do was wrong, then he should expect the lecture, and not take it out on the TD who was just doing his job. If Richard did not know that what he was threatening to do was wrong, then maybe he should have listened to the lecture instead of trying to tell the TD how to do his job.

If he had simply sat down against two LOLs and announced "Oh, little old ladies have so much trouble with psyches, so I'm a lot more likely to psyche against them, partner" I think that most people would have a serious problem with this. Some people don't a have a problem with what he actually did because it was obviously in the context of gamesmanship which the other side started. And, in fact, I don't have a problem with it because of the context either- it should have been clear to his numbskull opponents that if he was really going to psyche a lot he wouldn't warn them beforehand. But the TD doesn't have the context, and looking at some boards isn't going to give him that context. So how can you blame the TD for acting as he did?

Once, when I was considering what to lead, my partner sneezed. I then said "Let's see, sneeze is hearts, right?" and led a heart. We all had a good chuckle. If the TD had lectured me after the round that signals were illegal and cheating wasn't a joking matter, I'd have rolled my eyes a bit but I wouldn't have been offended or claimed that he didn't know how to do his job. You say something goofy like that, you open yourself up to lectures.

I thought everybody knew that.