how do i complain a director?

[chaos2k]

today i play a free tourney and

hold ♠Txx ♥x♣KT9x♦KJ9xx

partner open 1d (we play weak nt) and i decide to bid 1s

after all partner play in 2nt and did well to score 2 over tricks

they call director and the director ,[xxxx - name removed by BBF administrator as director is not here to defend herself ] claim i psyched and adjust this board to A-+(otherwise we win 76%)

that's unfair to us and why one men who bid a suit hope to play it is psyche?

we were playing MPs,play minor would never win any MPs if we can make something else.and the only way to play 43 fit sp is bid 1s by me.no sure why one MP tourney didnt allow people play majors.and our opps why should get an ave+ score?they did nothing righ to deserve it(except call director)

Edited October 6, 2006 by inquiry

[jillybean]

TD's are free to set their own rules, or no rules and make decisions on the fly.

Buyer beware, if you dont like the decisions the only thing you can do is play elsewhere.

[chaos2k]

is that any law support this ruling?

[DrTodd13]

You should be aware that around half of the free tourneys I see the directors explicitly ban psyches. Is this still playing bridge? I don't believe so but they get to make the rules. It is their tourney. You should read the tourneys rules carefully and if they don't say psyches are disallowed and something like this happens then I suggest you contact a "yellow" and have them talk to the person so that they can clarify their tourneys rules in the future.

[Echognome]

I think the argument made was that they didn't bid 1♠ as a psyche. They bid it as a bid in hopes to play in a 4-3. I think the debate should be whether we buy this is just trying to find the best bid at MPs or if it's a psyche.

 

As a completely separate issue, I believe that banning psyches is not bridge. Yet, at the same time, TDs in free tourneys are allowed to set their own rules, I would just hope they were explicit.

[DrTodd13]

I agree to that point as well. 1♠ was not a psyche.

[paulg]

You get what you pay for when you play free tourneys ... although I only run free ones :)

 

This is not a psyche but a tactical bid. I'm not sure it's wise but you are certainly free to do so in my tourneys. However next time I would expect to see an alert (with the same or regular partner) as you now have a partnership understanding that you may bid 1♠ on this type of hand.

 

paulg

[Walddk]

Do I think 1♠ is permitted?

Yes.

 

Do I think 1♠ is a psyche?

No.

 

Do I think 1♠ is alertable?

Yes, if you have a partnership *understanding* that a 1♠ response can be 3; otherwise not.

 

Do I think that 1♠ is a good bid?

No.

 

As others have pointed out, the tournament directors can set their own rules. BBO will not interfere with their decisions, so it's (at best) a waste of time to lodge a complaint.

 

Roland

[jillybean]

I’m interested to hear if others think this bid was a psyche or not – I don’t think it is a clear cut 'no' as others are saying.

 

jb

[inquiry]

It is not unusual to bid 1D over 1C on a three card suit, nor to bid 1H over 1D on a three card suit. It is more unusual to bid 1S over 1m on such a suit. I would not, however, classify any of these bids, even 1S here, as a psyche. The player is stuck for a bid. 1NT with a singleton heart is out of the question. Most would raise diamonds, but 1S seems acceptable, but more than a little silly.

 

Many TD's strictly forbid psyches. The question becomes is this a psyche? Was 1S a gross mis-representation of the hand? It was a one level response with 7HCP, so on overall stregth, the answer is no. How about legnth? I bid 3 card suit frequently. I open with three clubs or three diamonds, over a forcing 1NT I rebid a three card suit. Even after 1H-1S-2C my 2C bid will be on a three card suit a fair amount of time. I have also been known to respond 1D to 1C on a three card suit, and usually try to remember to alert that as maybe 3. The WBF rules state (I beleive) that if 1D-1H "can be three" you are to indicate that. So, I can not see bidding 1S on three small being "a gross exaggeration" of suit legnth. If you had responded 1H on the singleton, we would have had a psyche.

 

But you have a director who outlaws psyches (which is against the rules of bridge, so the tournament is not being played under these rules). Who also then decides what is and is not a psyche. My suggestion is to find a different tournament to play in in the future.. ones that actually follow the rules.

 

The ACBL tournaments use ACBL-certified directors and follow ACBL rules and regulations. The HomeBase club uses WBF (world bridge federation) rules. Those would be two good places to begin (neither are free), or to search out free ones that follow normal bridge laws. Jillybean for instance, whe posted in this thread, runs tourneys that follow bridge laws.

[Walddk]

Let me quote from The ACBL Laws Commission:

 

"The Laws of Duplicate Bridge define a psychic call as "A deliberate and gross misstatement of honor strength or suit length."

 

"The key word is gross. If you forget the meaning of a call, that is not a psyche. If you make a call with 12 points when your partnership agreement calls for a maximum of 11, that is not a psyche -- it is not a gross misstatement.

 

If you are playing five-card majors and open the bidding with one spade on a four-card holding, that is not a psyche. In general your call is a gross misstatement, and therefore is considered a psyche, if the call varies by at least two points in strength or two cards in length from your agreement."

 

....

 

Then there is no ambiguity, is there? The call here, 1♠, doesn't differ two cards in length from your agreement (as responder you promise 4+, and you have 3). Consequently, 1♠ is not a psychic bid. 1♥ on a singleton would have been a psyche.

 

Roland

[david_c]

I would call this 1♠ bid a psyche.

 

Most psyches are made with the hope of deceiving or confusing the opponents. However, that is not part of the definition. A psyche is a "deliberate and gross misstatement"; it does not matter why the player has chosen to make this misstatement. If you choose to misdescribe your hand for some other reason, then you can call it a "tactical bid" if that makes you happy, but it's still a psyche.

 

Here I think we are all agreed that the 1♠ bid was deliberate, and that it did not conform to the partnership agreements. (If you have agreed to play 1♠ as 3+ then you certainly must alert the opponents to this fact.) The only question is whether it is a gross misstatement. That's a matter of judgement, and I can live with the suggestion that it is not a gross misstatement (in which case it would be a deviation). But in my opinion bidding 1♠ on ♠KQ9 would be a deviation, whereas on the actual hand it is a psyche.

 

To put it another way, if you're playing in a "no psyches" tourney I would expect an adjustment. While I do not approve of the idea of a "no psyches" tourney, I think the whole idea would fall apart if the TD did not treat this sort of bid as a psyche. Misguided as it is, the TD has decided that in his tourneys the opponents should always have a correct explanation of the hand. If there is no alert the opponents will be expecting four spades.

[jillybean]

if the call varies by at least two points in strength or two cards in length from your agreement."

Thanks, this very clearly defines a psyche – I have not seen this definition before.

 

Is this the standard definition of psyches across all organizations?

 

ty

jb

[Walddk]

But in my opinion bidding 1♠ on ♠KQ9 would be a deviation, whereas on the actual hand it is a psyche.

Strangely enough, we had that exact issue in the Danish Appeals Committee not so long ago. A player responded 1♥ to a natural 1♣ on ♥832.

 

The AC concluded (unanimously):

 

"This is a deviation because the partnership agreement is that responder should have 4 or more cards in hearts. However, it is not considered as a gross misstatement and therefore not a psychic bid."

 

I am not saying that this is the correct interpretation of the Laws of Duplicate Bridge, but I believe it is, and as you see above it's the same interpretation the ACBL Laws Commission comes up with as a general rule.

 

Roland

[Echognome]

I would call this 1♠ bid a psyche.

 

Most psyches are made with the hope of deceiving or confusing the opponents. However, that is not part of the definition. A psyche is a "deliberate and gross misstatement"; it does not matter why the player has chosen to make this misstatement. If you choose to misdescribe your hand for some other reason, then you can call it a "tactical bid" if that makes you happy, but it's still a psyche.

 

Here I think we are all agreed that the 1♠ bid was deliberate, and that it did not conform to the partnership agreements. (If you have agreed to play 1♠ as 3+ then you certainly must alert the opponents to this fact.) The only question is whether it is a gross misstatement. That's a matter of judgement, and I can live with the suggestion that it is not a gross misstatement (in which case it would be a deviation). But in my opinion bidding 1♠ on ♠KQ9 would be a deviation, whereas on the actual hand it is a psyche.

 

To put it another way, if you're playing in a "no psyches" tourney I would expect an adjustment. While I do not approve of the idea of a "no psyches" tourney, I think the whole idea would fall apart if the TD did not treat this sort of bid as a psyche. Misguided as it is, the TD has decided that in his tourneys the opponents should always have a correct explanation of the hand. If there is no alert the opponents will be expecting four spades.

I think we're all missing one big point here. If you were a director and were called to the table, I believe you should ask the player why he bid 1♠. If he answers as he did above, how can we call it a psyche? That is basically calling the player a liar. Now the direct will have to make a judgment call on the testimony he hears, but prima facia I'd take the player's word.

[helene_t]

If the rules of the tournament disallow psyches, I'm not surprised about this ruling. After all, it seems likely that its purpose was, at least partially, to misdirect the lead.

 

But I think that directors who disallow psyches must state explicitly

- how is a "psyche" defined? I doubt that a simple formal definition (such as Roland's suggestion) would cover what is usually understood as a psyche. It requires judgement from the director to decide if a call deviated from anounced agreements, if it did so intentionaly, if the deviation was "gross", and if the purpose was to mislead opps.

- what is the penalty for psyching? Normally, we only adjust when there is damage. But if you use, say, a BSC in a non-BSC tourney, the penalty is ave- even if there is no damage. I have no idea what penalty to expect for psyching in a non-psyche tourney.

[paulg]

If the rules of the tournament disallow psyches, I'm not surprised about this ruling. After all, it seems likely that its purpose was, at least partially, to misdirect the lead.

As Echognome noted, the player says that this was not the intention, rather it was an attempt to find a seven-card fit. I don't consider this a psyche in any event and it is not even close when the player can explain his reasoning so clearly.

 

But I think that directors who disallow psyches must state explicitly

- how is a "psyche" defined? I doubt that a simple formal definition (such as Roland's suggestion) would cover what is usually understood as a psyche. It requires judgement from the director to decide if a call deviated from anounced agreements, if it did so intentionaly, if the deviation was "gross", and if the purpose was to mislead opps.

 

I believe we should go with the definition in the Laws and use our judgement.

 

- what is the penalty for psyching? Normally, we only adjust when there is damage. But if you use, say, a BSC in a non-BSC tourney, the penalty is ave- even if there is no damage. I have no idea what penalty to expect for psyching in a non-psyche tourney.

The EBU White Book (TD's guide) does not address this specifically even though it does prohibit psyching of strong 2♣ openings at certain levels. Misbidding a strong 2♣ bid (i.e., players believe it is a 2♣ opener but it fails to meet the published criteria) attracts the automatic A- adjustment. I expect a psyche of such a bid attracts the same A- adjustment plus a procedural penalty.

[Finch]

I don't understand the urge to differentiate between a 'psyche' and a 'deviation' here. What difference does it make?

 

If the tournament is being run under the Laws of bridge then both are legal.

 

The only reasons to try and define a 'psyche' in regulation are

- if psyches of particular conventional calls are banned (does not apply here where 1S is natural)

- if the TD has decided, against the laws of bridge, to run a 'no psyches' tourney

 

If they've done the latter, then it's up to the TD to decide what determines a psyche and rule on that basis, and (as appeals aren't possible on BBO) your only recourse if you disagree is to play elsewhere.

 

fwiw, if your agreement (if you have one) is that a 1S response shows a 4-card suit, then I would say that the 1S response a psyche..... but I can't see that I would ever need to _rule_ that it is a psyche...

[Gerben42]

I guess you get what you pay for.

BTW setting Av- is just laziness even if you choose to adjust which is outrageous in itself.

[Walddk]

fwiw, if your agreement (if you have one) is that a 1S response shows a 4-card suit, then I would say that the 1S response a psyche

Everyone's entitled to his/her opinion, but if you think that a deviation of one card is a gross misstatement (which must be the case for it to be a psyche), then you and I interpret "gross" differently. Polarisation is perhaps more appropriate than "different".

 

Pray tell, if this is a gross misstatement in your view, what would it have been if responder had bid 1♥?

 

As far as 1♠ is concerned, I would use "deviation" and lean towards "minor deviation" rather than "gross misstatement".

 

Roland

[blackshoe]

Several questions have been raised in this thread, in addition to the original poster's question whether the TD's ruling was correct. Let me try to address the various points. B)

 

First, did this player psych? His 1 ♠ response was certainly deliberate - he said so himself. However, it is not, IMO, a gross misstatement of values - he has the appropriate strength, and is lacking only one card for the appropriate length. The bid is not a psych.

 

Second, whether bidding 1 ♠ on this hand is a good idea may be an interesting question for bidding theorists, but it is irrelevant to a legal ruling.

 

May a sponsoring organization ban psychs? No, not if the game is "duplicate contract bridge" according to the international laws thereof. It was suggested that TDs are free to make their own rules. They are not. Neither are sponsoring organizations, beyond the authority granted in the laws. The relevant laws are 80F, 81B2 and 82A.

 

What can you do if a sponsor sets rules that aren't in compliance with the laws of the game? Well, I agree with Jillybean. "Vote with your feet" - don't play in that sponsor's games. There seems little else that would be practical.

 

Regarding alerts. These are in the purview of sponsoring organizations - see the aforementioned 80F. IMO, though, it is incumbent on the SO to explicitly state what regulations are in force, particularly since whether this bid is alertable may depend on those regulations. :D Note: if the bid is not a matter of explicit or implicit agreement, it cannot be alertable. See 40A and B.

 

I read through the ACBL LC minutes for the last several years - they're posted on the ACBL web site. I did not find any statement regarding what constitutes a gross misstatement. I would like to know where the ACBL LC said that. :) In any case, I would call this "2 points or 2 cards" thing a guideline, not a hard and fast rule. And it applies only where ACBL regulations apply - other sponsors are free to use other guidelines, and I'm sure some do. B)

 

Echognome is right - when you have the player's own statement that he did not psych, you should probably believe him.

 

The answer to the original poster's "is there any law to support this ruling?" is "no." B)

[uday]

When we can't agree on whether

 

1D-1H

 

shows 3 or 4 hearts, how're we all going to agree on every single ruling by every single director?

 

We're not.

 

Not every ruling will be to your taste. Not every ruling will be rational. This is true here, and this is true at the Bermuda Bowl.

[uday]

btw, is blackshoe the well-respected DS? if so, thats a very official opinion, imo. if not, i'm sure he's a nice guy anyway.

[inquiry]

btw, is blackshoe the well-respected DS? if so, thats a very official opinion, imo. if not, i'm sure he's a nice guy anyway.

DS is in england, yes? blackshoe is not. However, his arguements are correct whether he is or is not.

[paulg]

btw, is blackshoe the well-respected DS? if so, thats a very official opinion, imo.  if not, i'm sure he's a nice guy anyway.

Probably not DWS as he would definitely have the location specified in his profile! :)