[1eyedjack]

I was looking at the tourney rules for BBO Hornets free tournaments, in which I had a go today. TD announced after the start of play that psychic openings of multi 2D and polish 1C were banned. No particular gripe about that (it is one of the more benign manifestations of the creeping ban on psychs, to be honest), except that there was no prior notification of this until play started. Well heck, if that is the only criticism of a tourney then it is a good tourney, in my book. Anyway, I ramble, that is not the reason for the post.

I got to checking if I could find any tourney rules for this tourney, and clicking on the tournament rules did actually bring up an entry in this case. It was not of enormous help but it did provide a hyperlink to an external web page, at
http://www.freewebs....rnets/index.htm
Down the left margin of the home page are links to sub-pages, one of which is to a "Director Page", here
http://www.freewebs....irectorpage.htm
Scrolling down this page you get to a section on "Directing High-Quality Tournaments".
Paragraph numbered 3 of this section identifies rules which it recommends should be published in the tournament description or rules page, one of which is
"If psyches are restricted or must be self-reported to the director".

The point that I find of particular interest is that this section on Directing High-Quality Tournaments is "reprinted with BBO permission". I cannot find the original "print" in the BBO help section (but then in my opinion the BBO help section is written with spaghetti in mind, so it doesn't surprise me that I cannot find it).

Anyway, while I fully support the notion that psych restrictions should be included in tourney rules before commencement, there is perhaps an implication that BBO management endorses the idea that psych restrictions are a lawful act by the Directors, and I wonder whether that impression should be corrected, lest directors might otherwise form a reasonable but erroneous conclusion that they are acting within the laws. Perhaps a better wording would be:

"The laws of bridge do not grant to the sponsoring organisation the authority to ban psychic bids. Whilst the management will do nothing to enforce this law on directors who chose to disregard it, we encourage directors (1) to publish such restrictions in the tourney rules and description and (2) positively to acknowledge therein that this comprises a departure from the laws."

[paulg]

Quote

Law 40 - PARTNERSHIP UNDERSTANDINGS

B. Special Partnership Understandings
...
(d) The Regulating Authority may restrict the use of psychic artificial calls.

So the restrictions on psyching multi and Polish Club are lawful.

[blackshoe]

It is, of course, legal to ban psychic artificial calls, as cardsharp points out. Equally so, it is illegal to ban psychic natural calls, and I would not describe any tourney which does so as "a good tourney" whatever else is going on.

[1eyedjack]

Yes my OP was badly worded. Hornets are perfectly legit in banning artificial psychs. Perhaps should be grateful that they restrict it to multi 2D and polish 1C. Just a slight shame that you have to start play to find out, but that is trivial, really.

And I suppose that since the possibilty of certain bans on psychs is legal, there is nothing wrong either in the BBO recommendation that is quoted in the Hornets' web page. Even so, the ban on natural psychs is so prolific that as a service to the directing community the original suggestion might still not be a bad idea.

[1eyedjack]

1eyedjack, on Feb 15 2009, 04:00 PM, said:

Yes my OP was badly worded. Hornets are perfectly legit in banning artificial psychs. Perhaps should be grateful that they restrict it to multi 2D and polish 1C.

Aargh. Have to take that back. In today's Hornets tourney all psychs are banned. Hope that was not in reaction to my post. Nah! I would never have that much influence.