[chappa_dog]

Please take a look at this link:
http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer...5171-1259893878

Not sure about N-S, but E-W is a first time partnership, with the only agreement SAYC.

1 spades from East was a tactical bid.

Quote

The Law 40 of a Laws of Contract Bridge
Partnership Agreements
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 practice) without prior announcement, provided that it is not based on a partnership understanding. …

Of course there were no any agreements or special partnership understanding for this bid that make call perfectly legal according the bridge rules.

Immediately after this bid some of opponents clicked the bid asking of explanation. Explanation was “natural, sayc, no special agreements” They were not satisfied by this explanation, clicked in a bid several times, than North asked specific questions about number of spades. Explanation was changed to “4+ spades, 5+ points”.

Now please look at the second bid by South. As you know, if your partner click to ask explanation of any bid you will see it. Would you bid 3 in a suit opponent naturally called with only 4 cards in that suit without additional information from your partner?

Quote

When a player has available to him improper information from his partner’s remark, question, explanation, gesture, mannerism, special emphasis, inflection, haste or hesitation, he should carefully avoid taking any advantage that might accrue to his side. 

I do not think the 3 spades bid is unquestionable according the bridge rules.

Anyway, the final contract was 4 diamonds, West lead the King of spades and NS got 12 tricks. ~43%NS

They reported to director who change results to ave+/ave- without even letting EW know about changing the result.

I know bridge rules are not easy.
I know in free tournaments some of directors have no ideas about rules of the game they directing. A know free directors like to call “psych free” games. I know I need to “blacklist for myself” that director and never play in his tournaments.

The real problem is – those “against Laws of Contract Bridge tournaments” are teaching the new generation of players. They get used to play by wrong rules. Now they think it is OK to use information from the partners question, but it is not OK, to use your judgment to deviate of bidding agreements if you think it is a good idea.
If those players will come to real games they will be disappointed with all negative consequences for directors and other players.

[Tola18]

I agree with you repeated asks do often given away unauthorized information to pard.


There is perhaps additional twists here. N could - should? transfer the 4D into the cold 4Sp. Did he wanted to be correct because of the unauthorized info the repeated questions did oozed? Although this 3sp did gave him an excuse to do so.

W could probably smell the rat (although he didnt saw the questions nor explanations) and play out something neutral, and thus save some overtrick. Yet he lead out the king as he "should". Very possibly in his try to be correct according to the ethics.

[Old York]

Were you aware that this tournament was "No Psyches"?
if so, then why break the tournament rules?

It does not matter if you disagree with these rules, the fact is that your bid was against tournament rules, so the director was within his rights to adjust

I cannot understand your partner's 2♥ bid. This is a reverse bid showing 16+ points and longer clubs than hearts under normal methods (sayc)

You had no reason to explain your bid, it is to your credit that you attempted to, but you should not have changed your original explanation. Any additional information should be given to North using private chat, but North is not entitled to any further explanation. If South used unauthorised info, then shame on him

Tony

Edit
p.s. 4♠ scored 73% so your 40% was actually a good result, perhaps director should adjust to 4♠ making for N/S

[hrothgar]

Old York, on Dec 8 2009, 10:28 PM, said:

I cannot understand your partner's 2♥ bid. This is a reverse bid showing 16+ points and longer clubs than hearts under normal methods (sayc)

This bid is perfectly understandable...

Partner doesn't have a frakking clue
This happens ALL the time in pickup games

[chappa_dog]

2 hrothgar
bingo!

2 Old York:

Quote

Were you aware that this tournament was "No Psyches"?

Of coure I was not. I expected what tournaments on the bridge site goes according to rule of bridge, not some other game and did not check tournaments rule before starting.
Mea culpa.
But from the other hand, there is nothing in the code of bridge to allow tournament director or even sponsoring organization to change that very basic rule. Should I check the tournament rules to see if they decided that Twos can bit Aces or "no dbl" tournaments?

Quote

I cannot understand your partner's 2♥ bid. This is a reverse bid showing 16+ points and longer clubs than hearts under normal methods (sayc)

Spoiler

It should be fun

Very nice catch, Tony. Are you suggesting that even if my bid on the first round would be completely honest, director should agjust the board anyway, because of my partner psyche bid on the second round?
That is very interestin game. How, you said, it called?

[1eyedjack]

I sympathise with OP in principle, as forum regulars will know well enough, although the point is well made that if psychs are specified in the particular conditions of contest as prohibited (contrary to the Laws) then there is no recourse.

All that you can do is chip away at the ignoramuses by a persistent war of attrition. Educate, campain and boycot. They are your only tools.

Another point that really irritates me is when the no psych rule is omitted from the conditions of contest in advance of the competition, but then the TD goes and spouts a whole load of conditions by announcement to the tournament by some pre-set text dump during the course of hand 1, after you have already committed to playing, in the middle of which is some off-the cuff prohibition of psychs.

On the original hand I have some reservations about the behaviour of the N/S pair. Neither has a hand which, in isolation, suggests that the 1S bid was anything less than kosher. It is commonplace to hold AQTx or 5 low in a suit bid by opponents, and the mere possession of one of those holdings is barely sufficient justification for asking for clarification of the meaning once, let alone a repeated badgering for confirmation. What information did North or South have, at the time of asking (over and over again) for the meaning of the bid, to doubt that it was a normal natural bid, and especially to doubt the veracity first response to the question?

[Old York]

1eyedjack, on Dec 9 2009, 09:31 AM, said:

All that you can do is chip away at the ignoramuses by a persistent war of attrition.  Educate, campain and boycot. They are your only tools

I also agree with OP in principal, especially if the tournament lobby description was inadequate. During the first hand, many directors send a list of rules, along with youtube links and greetings to friends. Tournament chat is usually on, and many players are also greeting friends. I usually spend the first 5 minutes of every tournament hitting the F6 key to clear the screen

The only reason that no-psyche tournaments exist on BBO is because there is a demand for "friendly-social" tournaments. We also have Goulash Tournaments, which are contrary to the "rules"
Even in "serious" tournaments, psyches are treated with dread and suspicion, so much so that the bidder is expected to immediately report the psyche to the director.

The sad truth is that the vast majority of players detest psyches. I maintain that this is because most psyches are simply crazy, random bids which cannot serve any logical purpose, unlike OP's 1♠ bid, which actually makes sense (altho I might have prefered 1NT)

I think that this situation was handled badly by the TD, but should the result be allowed to stand?

Tony
p.s. I mentioned the 2♥ bid because it may have been construed by director as an attempt to "field the psych" - which is unlawful

[spwdo]

all you can do is dont play those tr`s. When i still directed i asked the spyche bidder to report to me when a tactical bid was made so i could keep track that tactical bids did not became hidden agreements. Couple times i ruled against the tactical bidders example: after opps 2!1c strong they always bid 2!D with whatever hand. Failure to report this to me(because it slowly became a understanding) made me rule against them after 3 of those bids in a short period. The world was too small for them and me , they claimed i ruled vs a spyche, i claimed it wasn`t a spyche anymore but an understanding.

The rule of selfreport a made spyche isnt found in officials rules either i suppose but it was implemented by me and i expected everyone to follow up on that rule.
My idea was: if you done nothing wrong, why not come forward. + i could keep track of an otherwise difficult area.

Altho i hardly ever spyche myself, the results of my spyche were in favour but often i noticed partners disapproval on the lie and i value partners trust more then a good score here and there.

But in my tr`s people were free to spyche under my rules.

i agree the overflow on tourneychat toghter with the drawings of gods knows what when a tr starts prevents players from reading it all. i always thought : " better a few lines they read then a miljon lines noone ever will read", i posted my rules before tr and except for the" self report your own psyche bids" i tried to follow international bridge rules.

Certain paid organisations banning multi is a breach of bridgelaws as much as " no spyche Tr`s", personaly i rather play without spyches then without multi but thats me.

bottomline is" dont play what you dont like and read info carefully before signing up". It saves a lot of bad feelings.

Marc

[blackshoe]

spwdo, on Dec 9 2009, 07:16 AM, said:

Certain paid organisations banning multi is a breach of bridgelaws as much as " no spyche Tr`s", personaly i rather play without spyches then without multi but thats me.

I'm not sure to what organizations you are referring, but the RA has a right to bar any artificial call. That right may be delegated or assigned to the TO. That someone (who?) "bars the multi" is not a breach of bridge law, although it may breach a higher authority's regulation. An example from my experience would be a club in North America. Generally, the ACBL has delegated the right to ban or approve bidding agreements to clubs, but not in all cases. If a club runs a STaC (Sectional Tournament at Clubs), the ACBL requires that the GCC govern. So if a club normally bans a GCC legal call, and then continues that ban in a STaC, the club is in breach of the laws, because the RA (the ACBL) is the governing authority.

I note that the multi is not legal at the GCC level in the ACBL.

[chappa_dog]

Old York, on Dec 9 2009, 06:06 AM, said:

The sad truth is that the vast majority of players detest psyches. I maintain that this is because most psyches are simply crazy, random bids which cannot serve any logical purpose, unlike OP's 1♠ bid, which actually makes sense (altho I might have prefered 1NT)

Completely agree with it. I personaly dislike the random psyches too. If I am not mistaken we both agreed that 1♠ here was a bridge bid, LA for a reasonable player. By the way, do you think your bid 1NT with 5 points and 6 cards support in partners suit is not a psyche here?

Quote

p.s. I mentioned the 2♥ bid because it may have been construed by director as an attempt to "field the psych" - which is unlawful

Could you give me the example of bid in that position what may not "have been construed by director as an attempt to "field the psych""

Returning to 2♥ bid. It deviates of actual agreement on at least 3 points and 1 club. Why director should not consider it as a psyche and adjust any boards with "no-clue" bids like that?

[bluejak]

An interesting case. If you play in a no psyche tournament, you should not psyche. If you do not like it, you should not play in it. The 1♠ bid is a psyche, not a "tactical" bid. The term "tactical" bid was invented by certain good American players of dubious ethics to try to make a certain practice appear legal, namely to psyche against poor players with a bid that would be recognised as a psyche by another good player but not by a poor player. The most obvious case is a 2NT response to a weak two, done on a weak hand, but not disclosed as can be weak.

This particular case is an out and out psyche, and thus illegal in the actual tournament. Yes, it is illegal to ban psyches, and possibly not good for the long term health of bridge - though that is arguable - but it is silly to worry about it, any more than to worry about clubs where they redeal first round passouts. If you do not like it, do not play in such games.

As to the North-South bidding, it is a straight UI case, and maybe would normally be adjusted. But I am not so sure.

Quote

Now please look at the second bid by South. As you know, if your partner click to ask explanation of any bid you will see it. Would you bid 3 in a suit opponent naturally called with only 4 cards in that suit without additional information from your partner?

First, yes, I might. Why not just develop the hand naturally? But double seems more normal.

Second, if this is not a particularly good player, then some things are certain: with 20 points he is going to bid again: that is certain. What other choice? Double? But poor players do not double on the second round for takeout. I doubt, to be honest, whether there is any reason to adjust.

Incidentally, having now seen the 2♥ bid, is that not a psyche as well?

[Old York]

chappa_dog, on Dec 4 2009, 10:44 PM, said:

Not sure about N-S, but E-W is a first time partnership, with the only agreement SAYC...............They were not satisfied by this explanation, clicked in a bid several times, than North asked specific questions about number of spades. Explanation was changed to “4+ spades, 5+ points”

N/S are not a first time partnership, and are certainly not novices. They have played together frequently, and both have earned masterpoints in ACBL tournaments.... North has a "6" rating with 135MP, South has a "4" rating with 43MP
This tells me that they should know not to ask questions about a natural, sayc 1♠ response, let alone ask repeated questions. North has absolutely no reason to ask any questions with his hand. Looks like obvious UI to me
I think this would have been a good example of "no agreement" explanation

With faults on all sides, Ave= should be given (50/50)

The 1♠ response was a psyche and against tournament rules. My suggestion of 1NT may be borderline, but cannot be seen as a psych bid. A psych is a "gross distortion of the natural meaning of a bid". INT describes the hand well, as it must contain support for clubs and 6-10points and no 4-card major worth bidding.

Many badly trained or untrained directors assume that any dubious bid is a psych. This is 100% wrong. 1♠ could be allowable with ♠Jxx, but not recommended

Tony Hobson (Duke of York tournaments)

[helene_t]

Old York, on Dec 10 2009, 02:57 PM, said:

Many badly trained or untrained directors assume that any dubious bid is a psych. This is 100% wrong. 1♠ could be allowable with ♠Jxx, but not recommended

I think only 99.99% wrong. As many as 0.01% of dubious bids may actually be psyches

[Old York]

helene_t, on Dec 10 2009, 03:08 PM, said:

Old York, on Dec 10 2009, 02:57 PM, said:

Many badly trained or untrained directors assume that any dubious bid is a psych. This is 100% wrong. 1♠ could be allowable with ♠Jxx, but not recommended 

I think only 99.99% wrong. As many as 0.01% of dubious bids may actually be psyches

It has always seemed insane to me that opening 1♣ with ♣xx is seen as a "natural" opening bid (perhaps alertable if agreement exists)

Tony

Edit:
How could you possibly know that N/S scored 43%? This implies that either N/S or Director had deliberately waited to see what the actual score was and only then decided to seek an adjustment.... Very dodgy?

[Tola18]

bluejak, on Dec 10 2009, 06:24 AM, said:

Incidentally, having now seen the 2♥ bid, is that not a psyche as well?

Several post commented on this 2H as non standard, possibly psyche.

But many intermediates do barely knows the reverse! This is my experience having partnered many intermediates.
(some of these intermediates are prob even counting themselves as advanced, as they gets decent practical results in their local club).

If an intermediate, he may even be a decent cardplayer, does bid a "reverse-sequence", the only thing you surely know is he does have 13 cards. He usually has a decent opening. But it is seldom he does have for a reverse. Usually he probably should bid rebid of 1NT...

This is in undisturbed bidding where there is no problem with bids nor rebids.

[helene_t]

Old York, on Dec 10 2009, 03:13 PM, said:

It has always seemed insane to me that opening 1♣ with ♣xx is seen as a "natural" opening bid (perhaps alertable if agreement exists)

Regulators don't usually consider it natural, although it may be part of a system commonly described as "natural". Well, most "natural" systems have some non-natural opening, like for example a strong 1♣ or 2♣ opening.

Anyway, what does this have to do with psyches, or dubious bids? I suppose some pairs announce "Better minor" or "3+ clubs" or whatever, then open 1♣ on xx. Maybe they also had xxx of diamonds and thought that would be even worse. Then it may be bad disclosure. Or maybe they open worst minor once in a blue moon to inhibit the lead. Then it may be a psyche.

[Old York]

helene_t, on Dec 11 2009, 01:00 PM, said:

Old York, on Dec 10 2009, 03:13 PM, said:

It has always seemed insane to me that opening 1♣ with ♣xx is seen as a "natural" opening bid (perhaps alertable if agreement exists)

Regulators don't usually consider it natural, although it may be part of a system commonly described as "natural". Well, most "natural" systems have some non-natural opening, like for example a strong 1♣ or 2♣ opening.

Anyway, what does this have to do with psyches, or dubious bids? I suppose some pairs announce "Better minor" or "3+ clubs" or whatever, then open 1♣ on xx. Maybe they also had xxx of diamonds and thought that would be even worse. Then it may be bad disclosure. Or maybe they open worst minor once in a blue moon to inhibit the lead. Then it may be a psyche.

I was simple comparing the "natural" 1♣ opening bid holding ♣xx with OP's "psyche" bid of 1♠ holding ♠xx
Sayc player often open 1♣ with 4432 hands
Double standards by the rulemakers?

On the subject of Reverse bidding not being understood by many, the main problem is the name. The word "reverse" is confusing to most beginners.
Ron Klinger teaches "The Barrier Principle" so an opening bid of 1♦ (for example) creates a barrier at 2♦. If either player bids above this barrier, then they are showing extra strength.
The only exceptions are when opener supports his partner's suit e.g. 1♦-1♠-2♠ or when responder jumps to game as a pre-emptive measure e.g. 1♠-4♠

Tony

[helene_t]

Old York, on Dec 11 2009, 03:10 PM, said:

I was simple comparing the "natural" 1♣ opening bid holding ♣xx with OP's "psyche" bid of 1♠ holding ♠xx
Sayc player often open 1♣ with 4432 hands
Double standards by the rulemakers?

Well if opps open 1♣ on xx, not alerted, and you were damaged because you defended assuming he had 3+ clubs, just call the director. He may or may not believe it if opps say it was a psyche.

Same with the 1♠ opening.

Of course a 1♠ opening on xx is more likely to be a psyche (few people play a 2-card major system, and if they do they would probably have told you), while the 1♣ opening is more likely to be misinformation. Or a lack of agreement.

I don't see any problem here.

[Old York]

helene_t, on Dec 11 2009, 03:37 PM, said:

Old York, on Dec 11 2009, 03:10 PM, said:

I was simple comparing the "natural" 1♣ opening bid holding ♣xx with OP's "psyche" bid of 1♠ holding ♠xx
Sayc player often open 1♣ with 4432 hands
Double standards by the rulemakers?

Well if opps open 1♣ on xx, not alerted, and you were damaged because you defended assuming he had 3+ clubs, just call the director. He may or may not believe it if opps say it was a psyche.

Same with the 1♠ opening.

Of course a 1♠ opening on xx is more likely to be a psyche (few people play a 2-card major system, and if they do they would probably have told you), while the 1♣ opening is more likely to be misinformation. Or a lack of agreement.

I don't see any problem here.

Sorry if you misunderstood. Even on my worst day, I would never suggest an opening bid of 1♠ holding ♠xx
OP's 1♠ bid was a response, not an opening

But, from the regulator's perspective, what possible difference is there between ♣xx and ♠xx ? [Hypothetical question]

Tony

[helene_t]

Old York, on Dec 11 2009, 03:54 PM, said:

But, from the regulator's perspective, what possible difference is there between ♣xx and ♠xx ?

Oh you mean why short club is allowed at EBU level 3 while short spade isn't?

I think it's just a question of tradition. Like a multi 2♦ is allowed but a multi 1♦ isn't.