[Fluffy]

mishovnbg, on May 17 2004, 03:11 PM, said:

doofik, on May 17 2004, 03:42 PM, said:

Dear Misho 

Don't know about any other part of the world but as of 200 years ago you get to psych once during a tourney in the US.  I think there is some sanction after the second one.  Actually I'm a bit hazy on the whole thing since I don't psych.  I'm not sure if it's per tournament or per session.  In either case, since there are sanctions, it's normal that US players will tend to report psychs.

♥

Jola

Hi Jola!♥
Now I understand why and remember that read here in forum about such limitations in USA local clubs. Local clubs in any country/state have rights to play what they like, most popular in my club is now game named "TARO".

Some facts:

Bridge can be traced back to the early 16th century when a game called Whist was played in England. Through the centuries, Whist evolved and grew steadily in popularity. Early in the 1890's, bridge appeared on the American scene at about the same time it was introduced in England. The game underwent many changes until Harold S. Vanderbilt perfected a new form of bridge in 1925. It incorporated many of the most popular principles and also produced a scoring table. He succeeded so well that his game of "Contract Bridge" became the staple diet of card players everywhere.

The word "bridge" comes from Russian Whist, called "biritch," meaning announcer or herald. Bridge players announce their contract bids.

1742 - The first book devoted to Whist appeared, Edmond Hoyle's Short Treatise, which became a best seller.

1857 - The first game of duplicate Whist was played in London; this eliminated much of he luck involved in which card each player was dealt. It was the forerunner of modern duplicate bridge.

1903 - British civil servants in remote India developed the practice of bidding for the privilege of calling the trump suit, thus introducing "auction bridge."

1925 - Harold S. Vanderbilt, American multi-millionaire and three-time America's Cup winner, changed the course of bridge while on a cruise. He suggested that only tricks bid and made count toward game, with extra tricks counted as bonuses. These revised rules turned auction bridge into contract bridge.

1931 - The Culbertson Summary and Culbertson's Blue Book topped all book sales for the year, outselling such popular titles as Believe It or Not and Crossword Puzzles! "The Battle of the Century" was held in New York City. The team captained by Ely Culbertson won by 8980 points.

1953 - President Eisenhower played bridge regularly on Saturday night with top experts. He attended national bridge tournaments when possible. He enjoyed bridge as much as golf and he was considered an excellent player.

1958 - Charles Goren appeared on the cover of Time magazine and was dubbed "The King of Aces." The inside story explained the basic rules of bridge and proclaimed it the "United States' No. 1 card game."

1990's - There are millions of bridge players in the United States; most play at home and there are also more than 1000 American tournaments annually and 4200 American bridge clubs.

As you can see Jola, not all 228 years of USA existing as country are together with great game Bridge, it was invented later. About duplicate bridge it is only 75 years old. So if I "get to psych once during a tourney in the US" 200 years ago nobody will understand what I am doing .
I don't know about any differences between WBF rules of duplicate bridge and ACBL rules. Can anybody help if such differences exists? I am not asking here about system limitations, but about Law, book, group of written rules... I am not talking about what I like or what my american friend like, what my local TD like, what your local TD like... I am talking about the Law, which any contestant of duplicate bridge tournament must follow, as well as any TD, as long as it is game named Duplicate Bridge Tournament by this Law.

Misho

Hey Misho, not that I am really sure, but I have been told (and read a book about it) that whist came to england from the arabs, who conquerer Iberian Peninsula some centuries ago. And it traveled north (as many other things did)

It remains to us a game called 'brisca' wich is trick based and is suposed to date from very very long ago (played with spanish deck).

[mishovnbg]

Hi Gonzalo!
Just type in Google "game bridge history" and you receive this and more facts about history of our great game Bridge!
Misho

[doofik]

Dr. Todd:

I've got a suggestion for you. Instead of creating a master list of directors and their level of competence why don't you become a director? That way you could gather together all those who are poor players and poor directors and you could actually teach them.

I resent criticism of volunteers who definitely try their best and without whom you'd not be able to play tourneys in the first place. Perhaps a reality check is in order.

Jola

[inquiry]

doofik, on May 18 2004, 04:52 AM, said:

Dr. Todd:

I've got a suggestion for you. Instead of creating a master list of directors and their level of competence why don't you become a director? That way you could gather together all those who are poor players and poor directors and you could actually teach them.

I resent criticism of volunteers who definitely try their best and without whom you'd not be able to play tourneys in the first place. Perhaps a reality check is in order.

Jola

Hi Jola,

Actually, Todd is a director. He has run "Fish out of water" tournments where you had to play a system not "normal" in your home country, as well as others. He has also been an active poster in areas related to proper decorum in tournments, and he is one of the VERY FEW players who post a convention card in every tournment he plays....

Like many in this thread, he has very firm views on how tournments "should be" run. The way he stated his views (ridiculous tournament regulations) could be improved perhaps, but his point is easy enough to understand. While, for instance, he would look at a list of tournment directors who bar psyches so he could avoid them, others might look for the same list to find TD's who ban psyches so that they could play in them. I think the problem with such a list, is that TD's might have some events in which psyches or specific systems are banned, and others were they are not. For instance, I would love to see tourments where only BBO Advanced is allowed (maybe in the context of individual event), but clearly not every tournment I directed would be run that way.

Anyway, while this thread contains a lot of disagreements, an open sharing of ideas is always useful. One thing for sure, as of today at least, TD's can still allow or ban a lot of things that people particiapating in sponsored events by WBF, or ACBL can not. That is, ACBL rules don't apply to what a TD can do in their own events. And maybe that is the way it should always be here. But I agree with what seems the consensus... the TD should at the very list put this in his condition of contest...because if you join a Tournment, find it not to your liking due to a TD announcement, leaving it could have harmful consequences related to a week ban from all tournment play (at least will add to yor total getting you closer to being banned).

Ben

[doofik]

To Ben and DrTodd:

If the tone of my previous was offensive I apologize. I was not even aware that DrTodd is a director:-) hehehehe I guess I sleep on BBO most of the time.

I think we're heading in the direction of candidates for world leaders - many qualified, none want the job. People who run events put up with a lot and then to have criticism here, it can turn people off. I don't even pretend to want the job.

Perhaps there could be a check list created for TD's so that they can check all that apply? Sometimes people might forget to mention some condition of contest that is important to a player. Be it the level of participants or ban on psyches.

Jola

[DrTodd13]

I don't have a problem with "the person" who runs a tourney in which a particular system is disallowed. If this person hosted a tourney the next day where everything was allowed then I wouldn't have an objection to joining this tourney.

However, I think barring psyches is manifestly different than defining what systems are allowed or disallowed. Sponsoring organizations are given the power to regulate systems but I see nothing about them given the ability to ban psyches. Aside from banning something that the laws of bridge give them no authority to ban, I have a problem with changing the tourney rules in any way once the tourney has begun. The conditions of contest is a contract between the tournament organizer and its participants. One party can't unilaterally change a contract once it has been entered into.

[hrothgar]

From my perspective, Todd has made a very reasonable suggestion. I would very much appreciate the ability to share information regarding the qualification level of various tournament directors.

I will note in passing that this type of feedback mechanism is often a critical enabling factor for successful e-business ventures. For example, there have been several case studies that have analyzed the relative sucess of EBay in validating the online auction market. EBay's decision to implement a rating system by which buyers and sellers could provide direct feedback regarding satisfaction is generally considered tobe one of the most critical sucess factor. These types of rating schemes are now commonly used in a wide variety of e-commerce sites.

If BBO is going to have "commercial" directors who are providing services in exchange for fees, then the site will eventually need to adopt something similar to the EBay rating system...

[inquiry]

If (when), BBO goes to commericial directors and pay-for-play event, I strongly suspect that there will be qualified directors following somebodies or others rules (ACBL? WBF?). So I think that issue, is moot.

The "problem" with the way Todd A presenented his arguement, was to have a site names of directors and their ridiculous tournament regulations. Stated this way, with no positive spin at all, such a site would have a chilling effect on BBO tournments. Who would want to voluteer their time if every decision they make is questioned and their "credentials" ridiculed on line in some web page or the other.

Different organizations have wacky rules, some of which don't even agree with themselves. Let's take our "beloved" ACBL for instance. They say you can not open 1 bid in a suit without 8 hcp. I personally think that is a load of bull, if I have a six or seven hcp hand that I think is worth a legitamate opening bid, why can't I? And what about the ACBL rule that doesn't allow "destructive methods" trying to interfer with your opponents methods. That seems to me to outlaw preempts, or at least recklessly wild ones.

I am more concerned about ACBL rules/regulations or WBF rules and brown card thingee's than I am rather or not some person on BBO when directing their own Tournment, under the influence of whatever drives them to do this thankless job, decides he will or will not allow to be played in his (and his alone) event. I do agree, however, that if a TD is going to have any restrictions whatsoever, he should create a lin file and post those BEFORE the event begins... even if it is something like ACBL-Mid chart, or WBF rules apply, or yes, no psyching allowed.

BTW, I too will avoid psyche free events, unless they are for beginners and mentors only.

Ben

[hrothgar]

>If (when), BBO goes to commericial directors and pay-for-play event, I strongly >suspect that there will be qualified directors following somebodies or others ?>rules (ACBL? WBF?). So I think that issue, is moot.

A rating system for directors is designed to address the question of variance in quality. Believe me when I say that their is enormous variance regarding the calibre of individual directors even within an organization like the ACBL.

ACBL affliation relates to the specific set of rules and regulations that will be followed, along with allocation of matchpoints or other similar "spiffs".

I do not accept the argument that ACBL sponsored tournaments would decrease the need for an outside rating system

>I am more concerned about ACBL rules/regulations or WBF rules and brown card >thingee's

I'm not particularly fond of the ACBL (Ayatolah's Correct Bidding Lessons). I do not participate in ACBL events. With this said and done, the ACBL provides a comfortable environment that many people find enjoyable. I am in no way harmed if other players decide to play in ACBL sanctioned tournaments. More than enough Europeans, Asians and Aussies for me to hang with...

[hrothgar]

>The "problem" with the way Todd A presenented his arguement, was to have a
>site names [sic] of directors and their ridiculous tournament regulations.

Seems only appropriate, given that the director's are maintaining lists of troublesome players...

>Stated this way, with no positive spin at all, such a site would have a chilling
>effect on BBO tournments. Who would want to voluteer their time if every
>decision they make is questioned and their "credentials" ridiculed on line in some
>web page or the other.

The following comment may seem rather harsh, however, I think that it is worth making.

Many individuals seem to believe that they deserve some sort of karmic credit for volunteering their time to run tournaments regardless of whether or not the are qualified to do so. In many cases, these "good samaritins" are actual a dis-service to the community. I've seen some simply hellacious director's rulings, many of which left a sour taste in the mouth of one or more participants.

Be that as it may, my own pet peeve is director's who can't seem to keep a schedule and either

1. Delay the start of a tournament by up to 30 minutes trying to drag in stragglers
2. Continually extend rounds

Rulings are few and far between, however, the scheduling idiocy is all too common.

I see nothing wrong with players rating directors. I readily expect that there will be some harsh comments made. Then again, a director who can't handle controversy isn't going to cut it...

[inquiry]

Richard, are they really keeping a list of problem players. I hope they are not doing that, as I have said many times before.

I agree, with your comment about "extending the rounds". This is horrible thing to do, simply because some people only have so much time they play. I factor in when a tournment ends (or team game), before I agree to play. At least is team event, I can play fast at my table and get finished when I am short of time.

The main cause of delaying the start of tourments seem to allow other ones to finish so people can play in both. And the main cause of the first one being long is extending its time per round. Solve one problem and both almost go away.

Your "harsh sounding" comments were. Life is simple. You thing a director is a clueless idiot, simply note that and don't play in his or her event again. There are quite a few directors I myself avoid, and no, I will not share my list with you... but here is a clue... ones that extend time, ones that outright ban psyches or conventions I like, such as multi 2D.

Ben

[hallway]

Perhaps all we do in fact need is a DIRECTOR GENERAL (DG)

Seriously !!

If every aspiring TD (ATD) had to apply first to a DG and have the DG authorise their application then when it landed on Uday's 'desk' he could enable it without a qualm.

The Director General would need to be someone totally conversant with the Tournament software as well as being a player of merit and a qualified Director.

The aspiring TD applies to the DG who arranges a time to meet in the Tournament Room. The DG enables a by default Tournament (time 2 days out - out of harms way ! ) puts the ATD in as Director and tells he/r to modify it to set it up as they would have it for real.

It would only take a minute for the DG to cast an eye over the result and know instantly whether this ATD has done their homework (read the Help files, joined the BBO_TD Club, has a Conditions of Contest uploaded ) .

If not - bye come back in a month

If they have then off to a Chat Room - now the DG can put them through some simple set pieces - the sort of things that will happen in practically every tournament. (the BBO_Td Club Admins no doubt have a list of minimum requirements)

If they come up to scratch - the DG sends in their ID and we have a new TD

If not - bye come back in a month

It seems to me that all this controversy comes down to one simple factor - players don't read the descriptions and TD's (with a few exceptions) don't load Conditions of Contest.

If EVERY TD loaded a Conditions of Contest then the players would find themselves without a leg to stand on when it came to not liking the way a tournament is run.

btw TD's I checked this out before starting to type - most had no rules to read AND !! - 5 tournaments that told me in their tournament description to read the rules did NOT have any rules to read !!

[helene_t]

Is it a common attitude of TDs to ban psyches? If not, is this thread about pink elephants? But if it IS a common attitude, what could be the TDs reason to ban psyches?

On a Dutch online bridge forum, we had a 100+-postings thread about players who self-alert their calls as excactly a 5-card spades and then happen to have a 6-card. I'm not sure why such behavior is considered a problem, but apparently it is. Maybe it could be argued, from a legal point of view, that the rules are, or should be, different for self-alerts than for partner-alerts. But my impression is that it is more of an emotional thing than of a legal one.

Also, it was not very clear what the discussion was all about. Psyches, creative bidding, lack of system knowledge .... it was as if most people just don't like being told things that are not true, and then they don't care what the reason for telling the untruth was. Maybe the TD discussed in this thread thought he could make his task easier by banning all kinds of inaccurate self-alerting, so that he wouldn't have to distinguish between them. And then he was refering to inaccurate self-alerting (i.e., inaccurate relative to the player's actual holding) in general when he used the word "psyche".

I may be wrong, I'm just guessing.

[inquiry]

1) No it is not at all common to ban psyches. In fact it is very uncommon to do so, at least I think. But online creates another problem related to psyches that doesn't exisit in the real world. Many people suspect others on line are cheating (logging on from two computers, sharing information with parnter by MSN messenger about their hands, etc). In such an environment of distrust, a psych that works by a pair (where the parnter of the psycher catches it, and the psych picks off the oppositions suit/etc), raises questions of possible cheating. Have the same pair get lucky like this two or three times in a session, or two or three times in a day or two, and these questions of cheating become more common. Some directors would just not what to have to deal with those issues.

2) Dutch players like to open Muilderberg (spelling), showing five card major and a minor. Ok, that is fine. If their agreement is that it is a five card suit, that is what they should alert and explain. But let's say a partnership has a history of opening 2M with a six card suit from time to time, but only when vulnerable. If they have done this say twice in the last six months or four times ever, then this becomes an understanding between them that they occassionally (or even more often) do this. Now to alert it as a 5 card suit is wrong. This partnership should alert something like, "5 card suit, occassionally six when vul, plus a minor, weak".

3) Inaccurate self-alerting is not a problem. If you make a bid that is different from your partnership agreement, you must alert your AGREEMENT, not what you actually hold. If I leap to 4♣ as a splinter, but intstead happen to hold several clubs (but I know 4♣ was SUPPOSE to be splinter, I will alert it as a splinter. That is what you are suppose to do... ALERT what your agreement is, not what you actually hold. Just make sure you don't have an implicit agreement. For instance, if I get creative with my splinters with the same partner too often, I will have to alert that it is a splinter, but that occassionally, my splinters have more than 1 card in the suit... :-0

Ben