[mike777]

Walddk, on Aug 12 2005, 06:14 AM, said:

Zmey, your basis seems to be that people cheat in your tourneys. May I kindly suggest that you turn this basis around? People do not cheat until proven guilty.

Martel, Hamman and others have often been quoted as saying at the top levels of bridge partnership understandings and agreements are grossly NOT explained or revealed in full. They both went on to say they have no solution for this problem.

My guess is the situation at the lower levels of bridge is even worse on this issue. Perhaps there is no satisfactory way to solve this issue without turning bridge games into Marathon sessions.

Cheating may not be the best English word for this but a conscious neglect is there.

I just asked a couple of 10,000+pt players about this issue and the issue of hesitations at the table. Their response was they hate to call the director, shrug there shoulders and move to the next table. They choose to believe most of this stuff is innocent.

[luke warm]

not sure of the 'official' definition, but to me a person/pair is cheating when they try to gain a competitive advantage by knowingly breaking the laws... it's true that people have and will be penalized for infringements but for me that wouldn't necessarily constitute 'cheating'

[candybar]

Here's a good example of dealing with a "psyche" problem.

In a tournament I ran today, a player opened 1♦ in first seat holding xxx, x, A10xxxx, KQx.

The opponents found their heart game and made it, then called me because the 1♦ bid "wasn't alerted".

This is not even a psyche in my opinion, just a very light risky opening in a pickup partnership (I know because I had sub'd in the opener the round before), but in any case, it took me about 4 exchanges of messages to explain that it wasn't alertable, and I'm not sure if the opponent really understood or just gave up complaining.

I think there would be some value to a Help file that explains very clearly in non-legalese about alerts being for partnership agreements, not for silly or out-of-system bids, and a few words about psyches in it as well.

I don't mind explaining this to a player who doesn't know, but I suspect cases like this are part of why so many TDs don't want the effort of dealing with psyches.

I don't want to even think what would happen with this bid at a tournament that forbade psyches.

[McBruce]

candybar, on Aug 12 2005, 04:32 PM, said:

Here's a good example of dealing with a "psyche" problem.

In a tournament I ran today, a player opened 1♦ in first seat holding xxx, x, A10xxxx, KQx.

The opponents found their heart game and made it, then called me because the 1♦ bid "wasn't alerted".

This is not even a psyche in my opinion, just a very light risky opening in a pickup partnership (I know because I had sub'd in the opener the round before), but in any case, it took me about 4 exchanges of messages to explain that it wasn't alertable, and I'm not sure if the opponent really understood or just gave up complaining.

I think there would be some value to a Help file that explains very clearly in non-legalese about alerts being for partnership agreements, not for silly or out-of-system bids, and a few words about psyches in it as well.

I don't mind explaining this to a player who doesn't know, but I suspect cases like this are part of why so many TDs don't want the effort of dealing with psyches.

I don't want to even think what would happen with this bid at a tournament that forbade psyches.

Another (this must be request number 6,025 or so) reason that we need to be able to tack on procedural and disciplinary penalties to a pair's score. This pair made their game and then complained about the light opener. Unless they have some reason to believe that the opposing pair had an AGREEMENT that this was a possible opener, this is a frivolous director call, and should be given an immediate warning at least, with a quarter-board penalty for a second similar offense.

If the partner of the opener passed an 8-count, that would be reasonable grounds to suspect that they had agreed on light openers and had not disclosed this. But in this hand the opponents made a game. I doubt the fourth hand had anywhere near 8 HCP.

Anyone whose comments reveal that they are more concerned with the opponents getting a penalty than the TD restoring equity deserves a disciplinary penalty. An exchange of four messages is close to the line. Once you explain that it is legal to violate a partnership agreement, that should be the end of the matter. Sadly, many players will not give up arguing. All TDs have seen this type of harrassment at one time or another, and you have to put your foot down and tell the protesters that the decision has been made and is final, and any more arguing will lead to penalties.

Except that we can't make the penalties stick. The only thing we can do is toss them.

C'mon BBO. It's crystal clear in Law 91A that this is part of the game.

[the hog]

"Unless they have some reason to believe that the opposing pair had an AGREEMENT that this was a possible opener, this is a frivolous director call, and should be given an immediate warning at least, with a quarter-board penalty for a second similar offense."

Surely even IF they had an agreement that this was a possible opener, this is a frivolous call. Its just a light opening bid. wtp? I certainly would not regard this as alertable. I suspect a lot of the complainants do not play ftf competition bridge.

[jillybean]

I really don’t think frivolous calls are a huge problem and I would hate to see people getting penalties for calling the director!
It is a perfect opportunity to advise of the rules or clear up misunderstandings.

Procedural penalities would be very useful for people who fail to alert or who are intent on talking during the hands.

[Walddk]

jillybean2, on Aug 13 2005, 03:58 AM, said:

I really don’t think frivolous calls are a huge problem and I would hate to see people getting penalties for calling the director!

Spot on K! Everyone is entitled to call the director. That must never lead to procedural penalties. It is much better for a player to call the TD than to try solving the issue among themselves.

Roland

[McBruce]

We have seen on this forum the lengths to which players will go in order to defend their ideas that everyone must always have their bid. Some people see a psyche or even a shaded bid, and immediately go psychotic. No TD can stop their arguments by quoting the Laws: they want blood!

I would never penalize a pair for simply calling the TD. But this pair, after getting what I assume was the normal result on the hand, complained for four exchanges of messages -- read the post -- before giving up. That, as I said, is close to the decency line. Once the TD has made a decision, you don't continue arguing. The fact that people do -- frequently -- is partly because BBO TDs have no middle ground -- we have to either boot them or put up with them. A quarter-board for ignoring a warning to stop arguing and get back to playing would go a long way with some of these goons.

A Director call certainly should lead to penalties if the Director's decision is not accepted by an abusive player. You cannot make a blanket rule that says a TD call must never lead to procedural penalties. You're missing my point. It's not the Director call that concerns me. It is the attitude that says "I will report you if you don't bid/play as I think you should", combined with the refusal to accept the TD's decision that you just don't have a case here, that leads me to wish we could whack them with something less than a red card.

[helene_t]

mike777, on Aug 12 2005, 11:10 PM, said:

Martel, Hamman and others have often been quoted as saying at the top levels of bridge partnership understandings and agreements are grossly NOT explained or revealed in full. They both went on to say they have no solution for this problem.

The solution is to play indys. Then you have no problems with partnership understanding.

[candybar]

helene_t, on Aug 13 2005, 04:49 AM, said:

mike777, on Aug 12 2005, 11:10 PM, said:

Martel, Hamman and others have often been quoted as saying at the top levels of bridge partnership understandings and agreements are grossly NOT explained or revealed in full. They both went on to say they have no solution for this problem.

The solution is to play indys. Then you have no problems with partnership understanding.

Bridge is a partnership game. To me, working with a partner to develop a good partnership, learning and adapting to each others' styles, and doing the care and feeding of a partner is an important part of the game. I rarely play Individuals because this important aspect of bridge is absent.

[candybar]

McBruce, on Aug 12 2005, 08:34 PM, said:

Anyone whose comments reveal that they are more concerned with the opponents getting a penalty than the TD restoring equity deserves a disciplinary penalty.  An exchange of four messages is close to the line.  Once you explain that it is legal to violate a partnership agreement, that should be the end of the matter.  Sadly, many players will not give up arguing.  All TDs have seen this type of harrassment at one time or another, and you have to put your foot down and tell the protesters that the decision has been made and is final, and any more arguing will lead to penalties.

Walddk, on Aug 12 2005, 10:36 PM, said:

Everyone is entitled to call the director. That must never lead to procedural penalties. It is much better for a player to call the TD than to try solving the issue among themselves.

I agree with McBruce that procedural penalties are badly needed. I also agree with Walddk that no one should ever be penalized for calling the director and asking about a situation.

It's true that some players will continue arguing because they think they are right, and some (even in f2f) call the director hoping for an adjustment they don't deserve. If you tell them no, explain your reason, and they still become obnoxious, then they deserve a procedural penalty.

In the case I posted, however, the opponent was not harassing me, not even arguing for an adjustment he didn't deserve, but he was simply incensed that someone could open that light and not tell him via an alert. It took me the four exchanges to educate him, and I kept thinking about TDs who might not be willing to take the time to do it.

I'm certain this was not intended to be argumentative, but done in ignorance of how alerts are supposed to work, hence my suggestion of an article, perhaps in the BBO Library, explaining about alerting, psyche bids, and related issues, that a TD could refer a player to.

[Gerben42]

The problem really becomes tricky if they ARE right...

[jillybean]

candybar, on Aug 13 2005, 03:38 AM, said:

I'm certain this was not intended to be argumentative, but done in ignorance of how alerts are supposed to work, hence my suggestion of an article, perhaps in the BBO Library, explaining about alerting, psyche bids, and related issues, that a TD could refer a player to.

Great idea, I have a few Okscripts (thanks Dwingo) containing WBF law 40B,
WBF alert policy etc which I can use to send this information to a player, a table or the entire tournament.

Let me know if you would like a copy.

jb

[candybar]

Gerben42, on Aug 15 2005, 05:54 AM, said:

The problem really becomes tricky if they ARE right...

Not necessarily. TDs don't have to be perfect, and I've seen plenty of mistakes in live bridge, too. The key is being willing to reconsider if a player points out something you missed or forgot. It's easier than you may think to say, "I checked and you are correct, sorry for my mistake, I'm readjusting the board."

[Zmey]

Yesterday i had situation - on 4 card endplay dummy say "WDP". 1 of the defenders start argue with me with more than 20 posts, asking me to adjust AVE- because of dummy's words. Here the link to the game

http://online.bridgebase.com/myhands/fetch...php?id=18618985

[xx1943]

Zmey, on Aug 16 2005, 11:03 AM, said:

Yesterday i had situation - on 4 card endplay dummy say "WDP". 1 of the defenders start argue with me with more than 20 posts, asking me to adjust AVE- because of dummy's words. Here the link to the game

http://online.bridgebase.com/myhands/fetch...php?id=18618985

Hi
Decisions are clearcut:

1) The score stands as it was played.
2) Warning for WEST not to talk as dummy before play is finished
3) Severe warning for N/S for misuse of TD. In a bad mood I had subbed the whiner after the 3. post.

Cheers

Al

[coyot]

Seems to me that there was no endplay to speak of - there are 4 top tricks unless the player on the lead can produce a diamond (in that case you don't get the black winners).

So, the opps whining was out of place as there was no possible "help" from the dummy that could help you make more tricks....

On the other way, opps were quite rightful to call the TD, because a talking dummy is a bad thing. There might be causes where such a "wdp" may really give some UI that will help the declarer, usually in cases where he still has some doubts and might choose a wrong line of play...

[mycroft]

Dummies are impatient - especially when they can see all four hands.

In RL, they don't play this game - partly because they're just guessing about declarer's hand, partly because if they do open their mouth, they get 3, if not 4 dirty looks (4 on the possible TD call).

I don't know what happens online to these people - the "WDP" (= you played diamonds the right way, now it's all coming home") ones, the "Claim P" (= "I've known you had all the tricks three tricks ago, come on, idiot, I'm here to play, not be dummy") ones, the "2♠?????????????????????" ones (= "My 'I need to show I'm superior' gene is more important than getting a good score, because I've just told the opponents they're on to a good thing. But that's okay, I don't care about *you*, pd")...

I've been tempted - but never have - to respond to the premature WDP people with "Yep, he guessed right. WD, indeed. Why don't we just bid the hands and let DF play them?"

Dummy's job is to keep track of tricks, play cards for declarer, and get drinks for the table. BBO does two of those, and the third can only happen at 25% efficiency. So, be "le mort", willya - it's only another 30 seconds or so, and then you can again show your brilliance with a new set of 13 cards.

Michael.

[rona_]

You can't see all four hands in a tournament.

[Gerardo]

Depends on tourney settings, it may be possible.