[DrTodd13]

Personally, I'm very happy to review a case and given an opinion based on the laws. However, once a director has essentially broken the laws of bridge by prohibiting psyches then I have no interest in reviewing the case. Maybe we need a forum for those who want to rule according to the laws and those who want to make things up as they go along.

[olegru]

coffee3, on Jul 15 2005, 12:33 PM, said:

Luis - I`ll tell you smth. When any TD here CREATE AND TYPE THE TOURNEY RULES ( and ANY DESCRITPIONS ) - first read them. If you don`t follow them - any TD will punish you. The RULES are for that - TO BE FOLLOWED. As I got it - YOU DIDN`T FOLLOW THE THE TOURNEY RULES!
Hristo Toshev

coffee3 - I`ll show you smth.

Quote

LAW 80 - SPONSORING ORGANISATION
A sponsoring organisation conducting an event under these Laws has the following duties and powers:
....
F. Supplementary Regulations
to publish or announce regulations supplementary to, but not in conflict with, these Laws.

You see? TOURNEY RULES must not be in conflict with Laws of the Contract bridge.
Law 40 is the law of the Contract bridge. When any TD here CREATE AND TYPE THE TOURNEY RULES which is in conflict with Law 40 of the Contract bridge he made something, what he has no rights to do. At least if he is thinking he is directing brigde torney, not another game tourney.

Naturaly, If I am playing in those tornament I will follow rules of tournament I am playing. But I know I am not playing bridge, I am playing some other game in this tournament.
All what I want, I want rest of people playing there to know it too - this is not the bridge tournament, it is siplified bridge, pseudo-bridge, super-puper-bridge, call it as you want, but do not pretent it is the bridge tornament.

[LH2650]

Those who rage against banning psyches should also rage against goulashes, because they are not "bridge", being in violation of Law 6. You don't have to play in them, and their presence doesn't eliminate a "standard" tournament.

By the way, assuming the psyche were allowed, EW were lucky not to be defending 4-of-a-major, undoubled, down 1.

[hotShot]

belladonna, on Jul 15 2005, 05:55 PM, said:

---

this hand was in my goulash tourney.  after 2 passes N open 1nt - no alert,e/w reached 4 D I was called and adjusted to 5 D ,was told 1nt is a normal bid 3ed hand and no need to alert,i should learn my bridge - so here I am to learn,would appriciate your comments.ty

The bid is obviously a psyche, hoping to find a fit in the majors.
Since it is a goulash tourney pointranges will be of no importance, suitlength and fit will be more important. Psyching is most effective with goulash hands.

If you disallowed psyches you should say so in your post.
Knowing that adjusting the board is ok. FrancesHidden gave the procedure for that.

To those who think banning psyches is not bridge, and who have posted that 100 times before, please remember that most of us know that by now.

[asdfg2k]

LH2650, on Jul 15 2005, 01:41 PM, said:

Those who rage against banning psyches should also rage against goulashes, because they are not "bridge", being in violation of Law 6. You don't have to play in them, and their presence doesn't eliminate a "standard" tournament.

By the way, assuming the psyche were allowed, EW were lucky not to be defending 4-of-a-major, undoubled, down 1.

The difference is that a goulash doesn't alter an individual's expectation of the rules when said individual goes on to play "bridge."

So, while I somewhat dislike goulash, I completely and thoroughly disdain the banning of psyches.

George

[uday]

Quote

If the mere fact that people disagree with what BBO allows is defined as rude or not nice, then

Of course that is not what defines rudeness, and I'm startled that my earlier post led even one person to that conclusion. BBO "allows" just about anything except things that are "not nice".

I dont think it matters that a TD runs a T that prohibits this or that, but it does matter that someone is rude and derisive while objecting to this Ts existence. You are free to disagree with the first part of that.

In other words, do what you think best for you and the game, express any opinions, privately or publicly. Disagree with bbo, the acbl, hrothgar, tds who run psyche-free non-bridge-tourneys, whatever, whoever, whenever

Just be polite and friendly when doing so.

[JanTucson]

Although I think I have a pretty fair idea, please elucidate. WHAT, pray tell, is a "goulash?"

[scoob]

JanTucson, on Jul 15 2005, 04:47 PM, said:

Although I think I have a pretty fair idea, please elucidate. WHAT, pray tell, is a "goulash?"

computer generated hands geared towards crazy auctions. games/slams making both ways, voids and 8 card suits, 6-0 trump splits, all the worst parts of the bible.

[pigpenz]

in a goulash tourney almost any bid could be a psyche depending on what your definition of a psyche is So spell it out for them in the tourney reuglations as to what is acceptable and not.

Is opening one spade on six spades and no points in third seat a psyche? Too some yes and others not. So almost anything in third seat is suspicious to start with.

So in your tourney discripton spell out what a definition of a psyce is and what a tactical bid etc is, good luck cause even then it might not be clear to all....in my opinion I think its better to just use what is in the rules of bridge and go by that, then there is no question as to what is allowed and what isnt.

[luke warm]

belladonna's original post didn't mention that he disallowed psychs, all he asked was how the board should be adjusted... the answer is, based on the rules of the game we thought we were playing, not at all...

i think the number of people playing in no psych tourneys isn't so much an indication of favor as it is an indication of being poorly educated as to the rules of the game... if that's true, imo those types tourney do a disservice to the game

as for goulash itself, it's just a diversion, a way to have a little fun... i think

[FrancesHinden]

JanTucson, on Jul 15 2005, 05:47 PM, said:

Although I think I have a pretty fair idea, please elucidate. WHAT, pray tell, is a "goulash?"

Originally a goulash was dealt by not shuffling the cards after the previous hand (at some London rubber bridge clubs this was done after a board was thrown in, or at the more dramatic ones after any undoubled partial). This often leads to wild distributions.

I don't know exactly what is done to the computer to make it deal "goulash" hands.

[helene_t]

This is a psyche of course, but how do you adjust?

If a psyche is an "illegal system", as suggested by Frances, then one procedure applies. If it rates as failure to disclose an agreement, then a different procedure applies.

Some partnerships frequently psyche specific calls (such as short suit trials) in which case they are not psyches anymore but just another convention. So if a short suit trial is psyched in a regular partnership, it's possible that it's a failure to alert rather than a psyche.

One hour ago I fabricated a cuebid on three small cards, primarily because I wanted to know if partner had a control in the suit I bypassed (I wasn't realy concerned about the suit I cued). Was that a psyche?

[luke warm]

helene, your example is why 'no psychs' is a bad way to run a tourney... there's a big difference imo between a psych and a tactical bid, so big that disallowing psychs brings too much subjectivity into the equation

but i'd say yes, your bid was a psych to the no-psych people

[mr1303]

To get the best Goulashes, I discovered that if everyone puts their hands in in a certain order, e.g. spades on top of hearts on top of diamonds on top of clubs etc, then redealt in a 4 3 3 3 method (4 cards to LHO, then 3 to CHO, 3 to RHO, 3 to dealer) and this repeated 4 times with a different player being dealt 4 cards each time, they were as wild as possible.


All doubles became penatly under these systems.

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on Jul 16 2005, 04:05 PM, said:

there's a big difference imo between a psych and a tactical bid, so big that disallowing psychs brings too much subjectivity into the equation

I'd LOVE to see this difference formally defined...

[luke warm]

well we already have the definition of a psych... a gross misstatement, etc etc... but i agree, the lines are blurry (if they even exist)... a tactical bid can be one made to induce the opponents to take or not take certain actions, such as cue bidding a non-existent ace or stopper

[the hog]

belladonna, on Jul 16 2005, 02:21 AM, said:

luis, on Jul 15 2005, 11:18 AM, said:

Horrible ruling, again a TD rules based on his bridge knowledge and not in his knowledge of the rules, when we add that the bridge knowledge is very thin (no offense intended) we get a terrible ruling as a result.
1NT is a psyche, psyches in 3rd position in Goulash tourneys should be almost standard, there's nothing to alert, nothing to complain about and nothing to adjust.

will repeat my tourney DOES NOT ALLOW PSYCH ,is in rules,in tourney page and announced when tourney starts,

What tourney and what game? Tiddleywinks, 500, dominoes? Its sure as hell was not bridge!

[FrancesHinden]

I don't believe there is a technical difference between a psyche (which is defined in the Laws) and a tactical bid (which isn't).

I see two differences in usage:
i) Some people object to psyches when other people do them. When they psyche, they say "but that was an obvious tactical bid, not a psyche at all".

ii) When you psyche you intend to deceive both partner and opponents. You hope that is matters more that opponents are deceived. The phrase "tactical bid" is sometimes used when you are just as happy for partner to be deceived as well e.g. when you make a bid that is ostensibly natural on a void because you want partner to lead them, or when you cue on 3 low because you want partner to bid the next suit up.



p.s. does "no psyches" also mean "no false cards"? If not, why not?

[luke warm]

good points... we've all bid a void in a competitive auction, just in case they buy the hand and partner is on lead, on the way to our final contract... i don't see a problem with that... if an opp asks partner what

1d (1h) 2d (4h) 5c means, he'd probably say "usually clubs, but could be lead directing" or "usually lead directing, but could be clubs"

[epeeist]

I actually had a situation (as a player, not TD) in a normal (psyches allowed) tournament. I think the quickest, fairest answer is, the TD should adjust to what the likely result would have been if the opponents had been informed the bid was a psyche.


My experience was, I misclicked a 2♣ opening. Since I know that psyches of artificial bids like a strong 2♣ opening aren't permitted, I sent private chat to the director to ask if I should alert my opponents to the misclick, or say nothing. The TD told the opponents.

Of course, because of the delay in my making the inquiry the opponents didn't get told until after the opening lead. But generally, I think that the TD's approach was correct in dealing with an illegal psyche (not that I intended it as such, it was a misclick, but the EFFECT was of an illegal psyche).

So similarly, in adjusting in a "no psyche" tournament, I would as TD ask myself "what would the likely result -- both in bidding and play -- have been if the opponents had been informed that the bid was a psyche?" and adjust accordingly.