[McBruce]

LAW 80 SPONSORING ORGANIZATION

A sponsoring organization 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.



LAW 40 PARTNERSHIP UNDERSTANDINGS

D. Regulation of Conventions

The sponsoring organization may regulate the use of bidding or play conventions...



Under these two Laws, and assuming that the only reasonable definition of sponsoring organization in the case of online tournaments run by a BBO TD is that the TD is the sponsoring organization, it seems that these laws allow a TD to run a tournament under any kind of systemic restrictions, and stay within the bounds of the Laws, provided the rules are published or announced.

Psyches are a different matter, but a TD would be within his rights to assume a concealed partnership agreement if a player opened a disallowed convention and then his partner bid as though the convention was being used.

[uday]

The august 2005 Bridge World editorial talks about the two laws - 40A, 40D.

It is generally against regulation of psychic bids (i think violently against the same) and other bridge actions/conventions.

I will see if i can get permission to quote it in its entirety. Meanwhile, i will post a snippet of Jeff Ruben's prose.

Quote

Banning psychics is not bridge. It is kicking at one of the main supports of a game whose intrigue lies on several delicate balances.  The continuing attempts to interfere with a critical mechanism represents a failure to come to grips with the underlying problem: Where players need protection is not against honest psychics that fool both partner and opponents but against undisclosed partnership knowledge, including implicit understandings that arise from tendencies to violate agreements (as explicitly stated in Law 75B).

As an administrator of this site, I think that we need protection from no-cost (frivolous) psyching as well. In an environment where access is as convenient as the next internet cafe, we can't really impose meaningful sanctions on the bad boys.

It is totally unclear to me that this site should attempt to regulate any of this. My unwillingness to prohibit variants of the game that are not pure bridge stem from an inability to do so, as well as a belief that in the long run, natural selection will weed out the unsuccessful variants.

Where does BBO stand in the hierarchy? Are we a sponsoring organization? We're certainly not a zonal organization. We're not even a bridge club except in the limited sense that we have an ACBL bridge-club-franchise. Are we just a community center where people come in and play cards? Is it our job to supply cards, tables, lights, bathrooms and no more, leaving the details of the games to the people who are playing?


What are the implications of us attempting to enforce the laws of bridge at all our tables? Does it make sense for us to prohibit no-psyche Ts ? I think the answer is in that Bridge World snippet. Maybe we should allow everything and encourage pure behaviour via education of the members.


Dunno

[candybar]

McBruce, on Aug 10 2005, 01:39 PM, said:

4.  Wise TDs who realize that in a short tournament many pairs will try to psyche their way to victory, because nobody wins a short tournament with 60%.

A legal strategy, even if you don't like it, employed at the highest levels of competition, and one that is almost always doomed to abysmal failure.

McBruce, on Aug 10 2005, 01:39 PM, said:

5.  Frustrated TDs who have tried in the past to determine whether the psyching pair has a concealed partnership agreement and gets only angry responses from the pair that 'psyches are legal.'
6.  Suspicious TDs who look at the results of their tournaments and notice that a certain pair's frequent psyches never seem to lead them astray...

Such uses of pseudo-psyches are, of course, unethical, and it is the job of the TD to notice and report abuse, not ban legitimate use. Hence my characterization of these TDs as lazy.

[Walddk]

"Banning psychics is not bridge" - Jeff Rubens.

No one can put it any clearer than that. I agree 100%, as long as those psyches are not based upon a partnership *understanding* (according to Laws of Duplicate Bridge).

If you disallow psychic bids, you actually wave goodbye to the game of bridge, since they are allowed according to the Laws. Feel free to call it ... well, "bridge-ish"?

Roland

[luke warm]

Quote

Wise TDs who realize that in a short tournament many pairs will try to psyche their way to victory, because nobody wins a short tournament with 60%.

so what? and what makes the TD "wise?"

Quote

Frustrated TDs who have tried in the past to determine whether the psyching pair has a concealed partnership agreement and gets only angry responses from the pair that 'psyches are legal.'

other tourneys (abalucy is one) keep records of players/pairs who psych more than once... if the same pair does it, it's an agreement (unless they warn their opps in certain situations)

Quote

Suspicious TDs who look at the results of their tournaments and notice that a certain pair's frequent psyches never seem to lead them astray...

the rules cover that, also... if they don't clue the opps in to their propensity for psychs in certain situations, adjust the board...

as far as uday's view that natural selection will take care of it, i'm not so sure... there are many who play in those tourneys who don't even know that psychs are an accepted and intrinsic part of the game, and there are many more who would know and think they gain an advantage if the opps can't psych

[jillybean]

candybar, on Aug 10 2005, 12:45 PM, said:

Such uses of pseudo-psyches are, of course, unethical, and it is the job of the TD to notice and report abuse, not ban legitimate use.  Hence my characterization of these TDs as lazy.

These "lazy TD's" are giving their time FREE so YOU can play tournaments - if you dont like the way they run a tournament - dont join!

sigh

[hrothgar]

candybar, on Aug 10 2005, 10:45 PM, said:

McBruce, on Aug 10 2005, 01:39 PM, said:

4.  Wise TDs who realize that in a short tournament many pairs will try to psyche their way to victory, because nobody wins a short tournament with 60%.

A legal strategy, even if you don't like it, employed at the highest levels of competition, and one that is almost always doomed to abysmal failure.

McBruce raise a VERY significant point:

The most significant difference between tournaments on BBO and those in the real world is the length of events... In turn, this has enormous impact on the style of play that is required to win.

[Brandal]

candybar, on Aug 10 2005, 12:02 PM, said:

Brandal, on Aug 10 2005, 09:54 AM, said:

candybar, on Aug 10 2005, 08:45 AM, said:

Psyches are legal in the game of Bridge, forbidding them is not bridge, it's some other game.  If the TDs in BBO want to forbid them and the admin allows it, that's their privilege, but don't ever call it Bridge.

This one is getting old.....
What does it mean?
That players who don't psyche don't play bridge?

Although I agree that banning them is wrong, I really can't agree with "don't ever call it Bridge".

No, it doesn't mean you have to psyche, it means that if you want to psyche, you have the right to do so.

By definition, games have rules, and the rules define the game. The essence of gaming is that all players in a game follow the same rules. If the rules are different, then it's a different game.

The game rules for competitive bridge are specified in the Laws of Duplicate Bridge. If you use different rules, then you are playing a different game.

That's what I mean when I say if you are not following the Laws, don't call it Bridge.

My problem with psyches isn't the psyche itself,
but a partner who "knows" enough from previous
occasions to "call the bluff" before the opponents.

I find it unethical,unfair and.....guess what...not bridge

Reason for this is many feel "what's the point in
psyching if we need to tell the opps"?

Not saying everyone,I know there are many who have
strong ethics about this issue,but not everyone.

I think this is why some prohibits psyche,not because
they're lazy or anything.

It is sooooo easy to become an understanding that
one must not speak about ever again then we can
illude ourselves that we don't suspect partner is psyching.

"Yes to fair Bridge!"

[candybar]

jillybean2, on Aug 10 2005, 06:50 PM, said:

These "lazy TD's" are giving their time FREE so YOU can play tournaments - if you dont like the way they run a tournament - dont join!

Let's consider this point of view very carefully. What you are saying is that because people are willing to donate their time to run a tournament, it's ok that they do a half-baked job of it.

That means we are making a choice between having a lot of free tournaments with TDs that don't really want to do the whole TD job, versus having fewer tournaments with good TDs who know the rules and take care of the more difficult aspects like alert failures, monitoring abusive use of psyches, potential cheating, etc.

We certainly have a lot of tournaments with playing TDs, who don't even have the ability to visit a table in answer to a director call, so they are clearly unable to deal with player issues.

We certainly have a lot of TDs who are not certified in any national organization, and who do not know the basics of the Laws or how to apply them.

For example, I've found some TDs that think that psyches are ok as long as they are privately alerted to the opponents(!), if that makes sense to anyone at all. And some who are convinced that out-of-system bids where the partner has no knowledge must still be alerted to the opponents. This lack of understanding on the part of the TD causes even more problems with the players who are trying to play fairly.

And don't forget, this thread was started over an issue in a PAY tournament, so it's not just the free tournament TDs who are part of this problem.

So it seems to come down to a choice between TDs who are certified in some way that demonstrates they understand more than how to sub a missing player, versus TDs who think because they are giving their time free that they should be able to run a tournament in any way they want.

Which do we really want running the tournaments on BBO?

[jillybean]

I agree with your initial concerns over a pay tournament TD. This thread has now become a general TD bashing forum yet again, ask some of the players who play in free tournaments each day if they would prefer only pay tournaments with qualified TD's. I think the answer is obvious.

Why not spend all this time & effort helping to improve the situation.

[McBruce]

To get back to the original point (if I can remember it... ), here is a pertinent question:

If a player in a pay tournament asks to be replaced in round one because of a silly rule that he will not play under, and one that was not publicized, is there a way to get BBO to issue a refund?

Such a procedure might involve some risk on the protester's fault--if an investigation showed that the rule was clearly available before the tourney began, or not contrary to the Laws, the protester might face a short suspension.

The pay-tourney TD might risk losing some of his 'take' if it was found that a rule was not made public, or was contrary to the Laws.

A procedure like this would dissuade pay tournament TDs from making rules that skirt the Laws and keeping them secret until the cash box was locked.

[helene_t]

McBruce, on Aug 11 2005, 09:09 AM, said:

To get back to the original point (if I can remember it...  ), here is a pertinent question:

If a player in a pay tournament asks to be replaced in round one because of a silly rule that he will not play under, and one that was not publicized, is there a way to get BBO to issue a refund?

Such a procedure might involve some risk on the protester's fault--if an investigation showed that the rule was clearly available before the tourney began, or not contrary to the Laws, the protester might face a short suspension.

The pay-tourney TD might risk losing some of his 'take' if it was found that a rule was not made public, or was contrary to the Laws.

A procedure like this would dissuade pay tournament TDs from making rules that skirt the Laws and keeping them secret until the cash box was locked.

What was the entry fee for the tournament? A friend of mine who is a civil attorney of law refuses to take cases that concern less than 4000 Euro if I recall correctly (we're talking about those trivial cases that can be dealt with by her secretary and just requires her signature and a short phone chat). She's not working for Abuse, incidently, but you get my point.

Come on, if somebody is smart enough to fool you for 75 cents, get over it.

[Brandal]

candybar, on Aug 9 2005, 07:45 AM, said:

Today I joined a pay tournament hosted by "sky club". AFTER the tourney started, the TD announced:

!H REMEMBER , for opening 1 or 2 NT ( natural ) in 1st. or in 2nd. seat , WITHOUT BALANCED hand , YOU receive Ave- ! !H

This was not posted anywhere in the tourney description, and if it had been, I would never have played, and certainly never have paid to play in a tournament with a TD who makes new 'rules' for whatever is his favorite hot button.

Can we PLEASE put a stop to these self-appointed bidding policemen TDs who keep making up their own new rules for what is and isn't allowed in tournaments?

Posting (very) detailed tournament rules in pay
tournaments if these rules violate the laws of Bridge
must be a requirement.

"Maybe I'll post them next year" not quite good enough.

[Rain]

I can comment on a few procedures that usually happen in relevant cases.
-------------------

Sometimes you have users who sometimes don't read rules correctly, demand a refund or other compensation when they are really not entitled to it. Does a refund happen then, when they are not entitled to it? (If a $ tourney)

Yes, but they probably will be banned from the tourney for that. If the request is too unreasonable, they may be banned from BBO as well.

-----------------
If a free tourney TD changes rules suddenly and a player is unhappy with that, what happens?

If player leaves in the middle of tourney, failure to complete tournament is logged, but nothing happens from BBO. However, the TD may or may not blacklist this user.
If the player leaves in the middle of tourneys a few times, he will get punished for it (usually with a tourney ban) because its then very likely that he has a major problem with tourneys on BBO and shouldn't be entering them.
If player is rude to TD, he gets punished for being rude to a member of BBO.
If TD is rude to player, he gets punished for being rude to a member of BBO.
If the rule change is some insignificant thing, like "We're adding more time because of a sudden disconnect problem", "Starting from now dummy has to remain silent during play", and a user complains, email is probably ignored.
If there could be a case for the TD not being wholly straightforward or just skewing basic bridge rules (psychics rules excluded), TD probably gets logged as a weird TD and complainer gets a nice reply (imo) that he probably has to join other tournaments, sorry. But if the TD gets reported a few more times for behaving unprofessionally he probably shouldn't be a TD anymore.

To sum it up, users get nothing, because it cost nothing to join the tournament, and because although I don't encourage it, users always have the right to exit the tournament in the middle. If TDs are in the wrong, reports may be logged.

These are free tourneys guys. Its meant to be casual, its meant to be fun. For everyone, TD and players.

-------------
If a pay tourney TD changes rules suddenly, what happens?

I can't remember the last time this happened. Pay tourney rules are pretty straightforward and spelt out right. But if this happens, and player is unhappy, ask pay tourney org for a refund and they will give it if they were in the wrong. No guarantees that you'll get to join the next tourney by them, but probably will be able to.

If still dissatisfied, email abuse who may email uday if you have a case.

Unreasonable requests for refunds may result in us declining to keep this user on as a member of BBO.

To sum, pay tourneys here have their rules stated quite clearly, for the most part. Most organisations and most players are reasonable, and something can usually be worked out with no acrimony on anyone's part. Just decide if your request is reasonable, and ask for a resolution if so. If your request is unreasonable, try not to email anyone, because I don't like my time to be wasted and can't guarantee a pleasant result in that case.

[candybar]

Walddk, on Aug 10 2005, 01:41 PM, said:

It should be pretty clear that you can't charge an entry fee if you don't follow the Laws of Dupicate Bridge. As far as free tourneys on BBO are concerned, however, TDs can do anything they like in my opinion, as long as it is clearly stated in the Tournament Rules.

Quite simple really.

Roland

I called this thread to the attention of the TD in question,[edited ] who is running a PAY tournement with the same threat to adjust scores for opening NT with singletons, right now as I type, under the host name [edited].

His 'rule' is NOT shown in the tournament description and NO tournament rules were posted. I even checked their webpage and there is nothing there either.

He informed me that he would run the tournaments any way he wanted and I could report him if I didn't like it.

Please consider him reported.

[Edited by inquiry. Correct way to report by name is to email Abuse]

This post has been edited by inquiry: 2005-August-11, 15:24

[mycroft]

Hmm - I opened 1NT this week with a bad 17 (playing 14-16), a 2=4=2=5 11-count with all the points in the long suits (playing 10-12), and have been known to open a 12-14 NT with 2=3=6=3s. Do I get A- for "unbalanced" NT openers, under Sky Club rules?

Michael.

[luke warm]

candybar, on Aug 11 2005, 01:49 PM, said:

He informed me that he would run the tournaments any way he wanted and I could report him if I didn't like it.

this is the problem i see over and over... as long as any td has carte blanche to say something like that (and let's be honest, "if you don't like it, don't play" is pretty close), nothing can be done

[spwdo]

hi,

this been an old story for free tourneys, dont play if you dont like the way we do things , however since people are actualy spending money i think rules most be clear before we , people enter a tourney, ok acbl does not allow multi , but are acbl special laws about bridge not well informed>?
if other organisations have special rules, would the bbo world online(the people behind thier keybaord) not be a lot happier if they knew what they were getting into?
Obligate rules, made my first set of rules a long while back, yes its timeconsuming to upload them, is it wurth it?
i do not know, as head organiser, head td of bboworld i see that sky attracts a lot of people, do the majority of players prefer non bridge to bridge as its said a couple times?
is acbl bridge?
i do not know, i know they have their rules welll informed to those who enter.(thats a big big plus imho)
many of my friends are trying to make thier organisations popular, but are afraid to come forward here.
Am i`m hurting my organisations to tell how they/we/i see things? probaly.
Anyways, bboworld tourneys allow spyche in all seats.When a bid is a spyche(in dept explained what falls under a " spyche bid" from previuos posters then its allowed(do we lose customers this way who have no clue about bridge in the first place but like to spend dollars?) probaly.
Do i care?
Not a bit, we try to play bridge and we direct our games best way we can as rules tell us to do so.
As a big sportsfan i seeen rules beeing alterd over the years( in various sports) to try and make a game more popular, will i follow if ever there comes a new set of rules?

YES, off course, im refereeing the tourneys i direct, im not altering rules to get something i feel comfy with, its there(the rules), i try and keep the game going, some like a game with less challenge , to me its not a game that deserves to be called bridge

marc, spwdo on bbo, bboworldorganisation

[Zmey]

Good day

I'm responsible for SKY CLUB organization. My name is Andrey Petrenko.

Let me make more clear this issue:

1st and most important - it's our mistake, to not posted rules in Tournament Rules. We'll try to improve the quality of SKY CLUB and fix this kind of problems

To "candybar"

If you feel, that you don't want to play in tournament like this, or feel, that doesn't like TD and "his rules", i'll be happy to refund you - in case, that you ...
"I did not have an opening 2N hand with a singleton, but if I had, I would have opened 2N and then when he adjusted, filed a complaint."
This mean, that you finish the tournament, and just want to clear the situation, right? But to say for someone "self-appointed bidding policemen TDs" is like to say "stupid player" on table, which will be away from Zero tolerance Rules, agree?

We dont want to create our own rules, we just want players to feel happy when playing in SKY tournaments. As McBruce says...
"4. Wise TDs who realize that in a short tournament many pairs will try to psyche their way to victory, because nobody wins a short tournament with 60%.
5. Frustrated TDs who have tried in the past to determine whether the psyching pair has a concealed partnership agreement and gets only angry responses from the pair that 'psyches are legal.'
6. Suspicious TDs who look at the results of their tournaments and notice that a certain pair's frequent psyches never seem to lead them astray..."

If someone use illegal information (and it's much easy here, than in real bridge tournament) the psyche and opening 1NT with single will allow him to have advantage, just because him partner MAY have an information about his single. But IF you like to open 1NT with single, it's OK, but you need to alert it - after all, it's self-alerting in BBO, so, even if your partner know, that you can have single for your opening bid, your opponents doesn't know, and it's like illegal agreement, agree? The level of players, playing paid tournaments, are little higher than "Andvanced", except few players, so, it's more fair, if we clear the situation for them - all bridge book for novice says, that you should open "1NT" (or even 2NT), with balanced hand, shown max 5c minor in hand - it's not Bermuda Finals here, it's normal "local" bridge club level, which mean, not so high. After all, as McBruce says ...
"LAW 40 PARTNERSHIP UNDERSTANDINGS

D. Regulation of Conventions

The sponsoring organization may regulate the use of bidding or play conventions..."

SKY CLUB looks to be Sponsoring Organization, as long as we give awards for winners - players need to enjoy, playing bridge online, not to suffer just because some Experts want to enjoy, using psyche always just for their own fun.

"Banning psychics is not bridge. It is kicking at one of the main supports of a game whose intrigue lies on several delicate balances. The continuing attempts to interfere with a critical mechanism represents a failure to come to grips with the underlying problem: Where players need protection is not against honest psychics that fool both partner and opponents but against undisclosed partnership knowledge, including implicit understandings that arise from tendencies to violate agreements (as explicitly stated in Law 75B)."

This is the main reason to disallow psych bids in 1st/2nd position in SKY - if you have no security, that this is "undisclosed partnership knowledge", how can you enjoy the game?

And, last of all - seems, candybar, love very much to use psyche, opening 1NT with singleton - why you, after your previous knowledge about 1NT restrictions and disagreement with it, continue to play in same tournaments and have same problems again?

I'll be happy, if we continue to discuss the issues and the problems in BBO and bridge as well, but lets keep good tone, not like "Lazy TDs" and "Ignorant TDs"

P.S. Opening 2NT is different story, but it still be better, if you alert it, just because the same reason of "undisclosed partnership knowledge"

[Walddk]

Zmey, on Aug 12 2005, 11:43 AM, said:

But IF you like to open 1NT with single, it's OK, but you need to alert it - after all, it's self-alerting in BBO

You are wrong! I don't have to self-alert anything if I open 1NT with a singleton. I am not supposed to tell my opponents what my holding actually is. I can open 1NT on a 7600 shape if I want, as long as this is not based upon a partnership understanding.

We have had this discussion ½ million times already, but it won't help the cause if you claim to know better.

If your agreement is that 1NT shows 15-17 hcp balanced, you should not alert it if you are outside the range or unbalanced for that matter. Let's make this clear once and for all. If asked what 1NT shows, you simply tell your opponent(s) this:

"15-17 hcp, balanced". This is true, because this is what your agreement with your partner is. The opponents are not entitled to know anything more than that!

Roland