LghtnngRod

[hv=pc=n&n=sk8hk4dq96432ca76&d=e&v=b&b=10&a=3cpp]133|200|IMP, game all[/hv]Thanks

Hi - thanks for this idea. Not sure that it is a panacea. I can think of two objections, straight off. For most of us, mis-clicks are very rare events. I expect that it would get irritating to have to confirm each bid or play just on the off-chance that this occasion may be the one in a thousand times when it was a mis-click. Few players would be prepared to suffer the inconvenience of requiring to confirm the other 999 bids or plays just to cater for the odd one in a thousand. OK I made up the one in a thousand statistic, which will in practice vary from player to player, but you get my drift. The second objection, not entirely unrelated to the first, is that when you get in the habit of clicking on the OK confirmation due to the fact that 999 times in a thousand that is the appropriate action, then you get in the habit of clicking on OK without thought. The control then loses its designed intention and effectiveness. I cannot count the number of times that I have deleted a file and in response to the "are you sure" prompt clicked on yes as an automatic conditioned reflex, that being the appropriate response most of the time, only then to regret it a moment later.

Thanks but this is not very helpful. Certainly they bar the use of a huge number of bids in low level competitions. HUMs are banned, for example, but that has nothing to do with psyches. They may also bar the use of artificial psyches under Law 40B2(d). I am out of touch with EBU regs so cannot comment. But *IF* you say that they impose a ban on psyches that is more restrictive than those specified in Law 40B2(d), then it would be helpful if you would confirm (a) that that is the case and (b) if possible highlight the legal authority to support that regulation.

Thanks for these references. I have had a good read of these sections, and I agree with what you say about 40B2(d). However I cannot find anything in these sections to support your second statement, ie the extension beyond the limited conditions of 40B2(d). If you have a spare moment could you elaborate?

There is a large body of rules that governs any Bridge tournament, and they are divided into two groups: 1) What you are allowed or required to do or not to do. 2) Remedies that are provided for breaches of the first type above. The underlying objective of the second set of rules tends to be to attempt where possible to restore equity, where that is possible without damaging the non-offending side. By restoring equity I mean to try to dial back to a position in which the offence had not occurred. There are exceptions, one of which as already mentioned is where the non-offending side cannot be protected. Others are procedural penalties where the offence is culpable, deliberate or wilfully negligent, or where (as in revokes) the benefits of simplicity in the remedy take precedence. So, in the event of a mis-click, you *might* invoke a rule that the hand is not played out, but is simply discarded and the mis-clicker concedes 10 IMPs to the opposing side. This has the benefit of saving time, and brings about approximately the same end as a rule that requires you to notify your opponents but only your opponents of your mis-click. You could argue, at a stretch, that such a rule is not "unfair" provided that it is consistently applied whenever anyone mis-clicks. That may be so, but it certainly does not pay anything close to lipservice to the principle of attempting to restore equity, which is the term that perhaps I should have used. You could live in a society in which the penalty for over-running a parking meter is death by electrocution. That would arguably be a "fair" law provided that everyone who over-runs a meter is sent to the chair. But a level playing field, while a prerequisite for a fair law, may not be the only criteria. There is also the issue of the punishment fitting the crime.

Here is an example that led to my interest in the matter: http://www.bridgebase.com/myhands/hands.php?traveller=6373-1431245817-8380688&username=LghtnngRod During the course of the auction East informed me, under instructions from the TD, that the 1NT bid was a mis-click. At which point I felt uncomfortable about doubling the final contract, being as I was in possession of an unfair advantage. Not that failing to double at that point made a huge impact on the IMP result. In fact looking at the traveller we may have been rather lucky to beat it. Maybe doubling 4H was a tad greedy. If Undos had been allowed, even if only allowed by the TD, then the correct bid would have been substituted for 1NT, and we (N/S) would not have garnered 11 undeserved IMPs against all the other tables where the mis-click did not happen. Anyone at the table who read into the original 1NT mis-click some inference about East's hand would do so at their own risk, and I speculate would almost certainly draw an inaccurate inference.

To be clear, which bridge rules? No need to give them more ammunition, particularly if inaccurate.As I understood it, a particular no-no would be an agreement as to general frequency, even if not directly matched with specific hands, as would be an agreed method of exposing psyches and any conventional follow-up treatments. But subject to those (and perhaps some similar) fringe issues, the pure psyche is by definition not a partnership understanding at all, special or otherwise, and would not therefore be subject to any rules that govern (special) partnership understandings.

I actually had a conversation with a TD during this tourney, about it. The notification rule was in part a derivative of the consequences of the no-psyche and no undo rules, so those (no-psyche/undo) rules have some relevance to the discussion and cannot be swept entirely aside. One of the justifications for the no psyche rule as put to my by the TD is that there is no facility for reporting psyches, as there is in face to face games (I expect that in NBO-sanctioned BBO tourneys there is a reporting mechanism, but I accept that there was not in this tournament), and the purpose of which is to identify undisclosed agreements under the guise of psyches. To be frank that argument does not impress me. The reality is that psyche reports very rarely get filled out in face to face games. No-one can be bothered. That does not lead to a banning of psyches in face to face games. And I believe that the reason why it is tolerated is because despite the lack of formal reports it does not take long for a partnership to accrue a reputation for psyching within their local community of players, from which sanctions can then flow. This particular tournament has a fairly small core of regular contestants, and the same tendency would become apparent.

Referring to notifying the opponents, I think that it is far worse than simply "pointless". I am of the view that it unfairly penalises the mis-clicker, who is already at a major disadvantage due to the no undo rule.Which is what drove me to posting here for opinions. I agree that allowing undos would solve much of the problem. If necessary have the TD present for such a request to be sanctioned. But their concerns about undisclosed agreements seem to border on paranoia, and they are not familiar with the concept of the cure being worse than the disease.

Yes you can. And you may get caught out. You can also "change your mind" and claim that it is a mis-click, which is probably more rife and no doubt led to the "no undos" rule. I suggest that we start with a presumption of honesty unless until indicated otherwise.

Tourney hosts can make up whatever rules they please. As long as they don't award masterpoints or otherwise affiliate themselves with some NBO or other, those rules do not have to conform to the Laws. The banning of psyches being a case in point. "Bridge" is not a protected name. I can imagine. Such players need to be educated, is all. For as long as they are mollycoddled and encouraged to their way of thinking, it is not surprising that they continue in that view. But I did not mean to hijack the thread over the legality nor merits of banning psyches. That battle has already been lost, and with it the game diminished, but move on.

Thank you. In the tournament that I attended today, you were required (immediately) to notify the TD and both opponents, but not partner.

Just wanted to check whether my own opinions are off-kilter here. For better or worse, the regulatory environment within which you are operating comprises: 1) Psyches are disallowed 2) Undos are disallowed The question to be addressed is what is the fairest regulation to govern mis-clicks. I have an opinion of my own but will await the views of others before I state them.

Astute question. Not related to psyches, but some weeks ago I played in an Acol Club tournament and partnered a robot. Apparently robots are normally banned in Acol Club tournaments, but the host set it up wrong and permitted them. Half way through the tournament I entered into a dialog with an opponent who it later transpired is one of the Acol club officers, who informed me of the rules. I asked him why robots were banned, expecting it to be because the robots don't know acol. But he said no, it is because the players do not want to play against robots. I asked him when the members were polled on the matter and received silence in response. Because, I suspect, there was no answer, the members not having been consulted in the matter and the reality being that this official, and perhaps some of his croneys, simply did not want robots present. Well, that is fine, but a bit of honesty would not go amiss.

In robot tourneys the human dummy plays the cards in place of robot declarer. Good. I should like to see this extended to non-robot tourneys where robots are permitted. Ideally the tourney host should have the option in settings to override this. But in my opinion it should default to human declares. My preference regarding the default setting is pretty marginal, and I don't insist on it.

Wow, I go away for a day, and find that I have kicked a hornet's nest. I regret that this has descended into a bit of name calling, and offence taken as a result. That is a shame. I don't regret that the thread has life in it. I have a personal opinion about banning psyches. I think that we should not. Not because they are lawful under the laws (which they are). Not because the game is richer for their inclusion (I think it is), but because of the overriding desire to play on a level playing field, which in turn requires not only that whatever local rule is in force is consistently applied, but also that all players themselves know where the borderline falls, in the eyes of the director. That is never going to happen. If two contestants with the same hand form differing opinions of whether a bid is permitted, it does not matter that the director may always consistently rule one way; the playing field is already uneven. There is a coterie of players who hate them, that is true. But that is down to education. They can be trained out of hating them, but instead we reinforce them. But my personal preference for allowing them is irrelevant to the thread and risks obscuring my point. I absolutely accept that I enter these tourneys with my eyes open, in full knowledge of the ban. Caveat emptor. If I were that averse I would not. It is not as if I even have to pay to play. And I take my hat off to directors who give up their time to run these things, and I don't think it right to criticise them or question their competence or impartiality. If they have to run a tourney that includes a ban on psyches they are already in a bad place from the word go.

Sooo, XX shows the same shape as rebidding own suit, but stronger? Rebidding own suit should show extras, I think, but maybe there is a difference between extras and EXTRAS. Would anyone care to confirm that this is also the robot's style?

Yes, regardless of the legality of banning them, it does create additional headaches. As soon as you decide to ban them you open up the question of where is the borderline between a "gross" psyche (banned) and a "borderline" treatment (allowed). A week or so ago I was playing in a BBO Acol Club tourney (psyches banned, except, interestingly, in team games I believe) and the TD sent a polemic to the club in mid tourney to the effect that 5 card suit weak 2s would be adjusted (presumably prompted by one such a few moments before). Ironically, today that same TD of a week earlier was playing as a contestant in today's Acol Club tourney, under same conditions, and that individual's partner opened 1N (12-14) with ♠Q ♥7432 ♦QJ ♣AKQT54 for an excellent result against us. Now, fair credit, I do not complain because of the result. Well done, I say. Would I have made the same bid in the same situation? Hard to say with hindsight. I like to think that I would at least consider it. But having considered it I would probably have rejected it (in a no psyche contest) as being a psyche and thereby outlawed under the conditions of contest. Is it a psyche? Well that might be open to interpretation. The definition refers to values OR shape. There is no issue with the values. But shape? No-one can hope to cater far all situations, but if a 5 card weak 2 falls the wrong side of the tracks, where is the consistency if this 1N is OK? And that exemplifies the problem. A level playing field is the most important objective. That trumps all other concerns. I could live with a ban on psyches as long as it is the same for all. But it never can be. Anyway, I have stored this up for future use in defence when some of my actions get questioned in future tourneys.

Thanks. Yes sensible. What I was looking for.

Psychs are defined in the laws. Can someone explain to me why? Perhaps I should clarify. In real life there seems to be a distinction drawn between "psychs" and "mere deviations". However generally the consequences seem (to me) to be the same regardless. To recap, to be a psych it must be 1) Deliberate 2) A deviation from the system, whether of strength or distribution 3) A deviation so extreme as to be considered "gross" A "mere deviation" seems to be one which satisfies the first two criteria but not the third. But I remain confused about circumstances where the distinction might be relevant to the players. And if there are no circumstances why enshrine the third condition in the laws? Thanks

I probably should have added another option to the query: Compare and contrast: W - N - E - S 1♠ - P - P - X XX? 1N? 2♠?

You open 1-suit and it goes pass, pass, double on your right. Back to you. How do you distinguish 1N from XX by opener, here? How (if at all) would your answer vary depending on: 1) Type of scoring 2) Vulnerability 3) Position of opener relative to dealer 4) Choice of suit opened 5) Basic (natural) system. Ie strength of 1N opener, whether 1M promises 5, etc etc I am interested in the separate points of view of A) What is standard B) What is optimal C) What would be GIB robot meaning Thanks

I just entered a tourney by registering at the find a partner desk. My name was duly listed there and I was amused to note that I only had 3.5 star compatibility rating with myself. Maybe I psyche too much for my own good.

I could be mistaken (I usually am) but it seems to me that if the TD posts some "Tournament rules" then these are available only to those who log in under the old Windows interface. Not good, if so.

Hi and thanks. I set up the poll so that you can vote for multiple options. IMP . Stated in OP but not easy to spot. I should have included a separate poll option to ask if you agree with North’s pass, independently of whether South should then protect. Never mind, it looks like it would not collect many votes. To the doublers, I take it that you also double with xx of diamonds instead of Qx (hand otherwise the same)?