Atrocity

[DrTodd13]

The problem with any "psych free event" is that idiots often view normal bidding as a psych, get a TD to agree, and you get adjusted.  Run from that as quickly as you hide when the JW's ring the doorbell.

The other problem is that many (otherwise) reasonable people cry "psych" when it was just idiotic bidding...

Pair agrees to play SAYC. One opens 1N, the other bids 2H intending it as natural but in SAYC it is a transfer. In a world of legal psyches, we can call this a mistake. In a world of illegal psyches, this hand definitely does not match the requirements for the bid so it is a psyche. If a TD were consistent, he would have to be punishing people for deviating from their stated system even if it were a mistake.

[DrTodd13]

who, exactly, do these "no psych" tournaments cater to?

 

I have no idea. Maybe there should be a limitation to what TDs can set as rules so that at least the game of Bridge is played.

There is. Law 80F says that sponsoring organizations (ie, the person/organization who sets up the tournament) has the duty and power "to publish or announce regulations supplementary to, but not in conflict with, these Laws." A regulation that "Psychs are disallowed" is contrary to Law 40A, and hence to make such a regulation is illegal under Law 80F.

All of this is true but who says tournaments run on BBO have to follow any of laws of duplicate bridge? If they were saying they followed bridge laws and then banned psyches then you have an argument but as it is, nobody states that they follow the laws of duplicate bridge. When you go to an ACBL tournament, you know that they have stated they operate in conjunction with this laws but on BBO there is, unfortunately, no such implication.

[matmat]

The no psych rule is so that a player doing poorly in an indy won't start making crazy bids, either in an attempt to get lucky and win or just to disrupt the game because he has nothing better to do. Having had partners who did this, I like the rule.

I agree that this could potentially be a rationale for banning psychs in a particular tournament, but this beckons another question -- why let the players see the score during the run of the tourney? surely there is added incentive when one knows one is doing poorly than when one is just suspecting that is the case. I think the scores (whether matchpoints or IMPS) should be invisible to players until after the event.

 

personally i hate the rule. it reminds me of little children who change the rules of established games in an attempt to win.

[fred]

Here is a summary of my thoughts in this area:

 

- We want there to be a lot of free tournaments for our members to play in.

 

- In order for this to be possible we rely on volunteer TDs.

 

- We are grateful to these TDs for giving their time and energy so that other BBO members can play in free tournaments. Furthermore, we recognize that some of our members are not only unappreciative of our volunteer TDs, they are sometimes beyond rude to them. The volunteer TDs that put up with this on a daily basis deserve a serious round of applause.

 

- It is not realistic to expect all volunteer TDs to be great TDs.

 

- It is not realistic to expect BBO managment to get involved in training and screening volunteer TDs.

 

- We give our volunteer TDs almost complete latitude with respect to deciding the rules for THEIR tournaments.

 

- We believe that volunteer TDs are in a good position to decide on the rules that will make their players happy and their jobs managable.

 

- If a TD picks rules that a particular subset of BBO members don't like, those people are not being forced to play in the tournaments run by this TD.

 

- If a TD picks rules that result in nobody wanting to play in his tournaments, he will either have to change his rules or give up as a TD.

 

- If a TD wants to use rules that contradict the Laws of Bridge because he thinks that a lot of BBO members want to play in such tournaments, why would be object?

 

- If a given person finds it impossible to find a free tournament with a set of rules that he likes, he may be out of luck.

 

- Sometimes you get what you pay for.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[Gerben42]

Agree with those thoughts, we SHOULD be glad that free TDs are there. It is not always a fun job.

 

Although I find some rules unsuitable, why bother argue with a director when the tourney is free anyway. What counts for me is the practice experience.

[jtfanclub]

personally i hate the rule. it reminds me of little children who change the rules of established games in an attempt to win.

But that's exactly what it's designed to prevent. You have two players playing as partners, one of them can scratch only if they psyche and the other one will scratch as long as they don't psyche.

 

I don't even know the ethics of individual tournaments- is it OK to torpedo your partner's chances for a good tournamentif it gives you a tiny chance?

 

I agree that individual tournaments should never reveal the players' current score until the match is over, and that would probably solve the issue.

[blackshoe]

In a world of illegal psyches, this hand definitely does not match the requirements for the bid so it is a psyche.

 

Sorry, but no. A psych, by definition, is a deliberate departure from agreed meaning. If a player makes a mistake, he has in no way psyched.

[blackshoe]

All of this is true but who says tournaments run on BBO have to follow any of laws of duplicate bridge? If they were saying they followed bridge laws and then banned psyches then you have an argument but as it is, nobody states that they follow the laws of duplicate bridge. When you go to an ACBL tournament, you know that they have stated they operate in conjunction with this laws but on BBO there is, unfortunately, no such implication.

Is there not? From the BBO homepage:

Bridge Base Online is a free service offered to bridge players everywhere by Fred Gitelman, Sheri Winestock, and Uday Ivatury.

 

You need to download and install our program on your PC before you can play bridge online.

 

We offer duplicate matchpoints, duplicate IMPs, rubber bridge, duplicate tournaments and team matches.

 

For those games described as "duplicate bridge" it sure sounds like they're claiming to play by those rules. Granted that BBO doesn't ding "sponsoring organizations" for not following the laws, there is still, it seems to me, an implication that the game being offered is "duplicate contract bridge". Even the ACBL does not explicitly state they folllow the "Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge" in their tournaments. Nor, to the best of my knowledge, does the WBF. Are we then to assume that we can have no expectation that those are the basic rules of the game, when playing in their tournaments? I don't think so. B)

[blackshoe]

Okay, having just read Fred's list of comments, I can find nothing there with which I disagree. The bottom line, it seems to me, is "sometimes, you get what you pay for". B)

[glen]

I blame Fred on this one. We had added jet fuel to the tank of atrocity and this thread was revving up to be a fast and furious classic. Then Fred chimes in with free and volunteer and applause and realistic and happy and St. Valentine and we have no postings for 1/2 day. This thread is so over.

[zasanya]

Fred puts these things in correct perspective so nicely. :)

[fred]

All of this is true but who says tournaments run on BBO have to follow any of laws of duplicate bridge?  If they were saying they followed bridge laws and then banned psyches then you have an argument but as it is, nobody states that they follow the laws of duplicate bridge.  When you go to an ACBL tournament, you know that they have stated they operate in conjunction with this laws but on BBO there is, unfortunately, no such implication.

Is there not? From the BBO homepage:

Bridge Base Online is a free service offered to bridge players everywhere by Fred Gitelman, Sheri Winestock, and Uday Ivatury.

 

You need to download and install our program on your PC before you can play bridge online.

 

We offer duplicate matchpoints, duplicate IMPs, rubber bridge, duplicate tournaments and team matches.

 

For those games described as "duplicate bridge" it sure sounds like they're claiming to play by those rules. Granted that BBO doesn't ding "sponsoring organizations" for not following the laws, there is still, it seems to me, an implication that the game being offered is "duplicate contract bridge". Even the ACBL does not explicitly state they folllow the "Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge" in their tournaments. Nor, to the best of my knowledge, does the WBF. Are we then to assume that we can have no expectation that those are the basic rules of the game, when playing in their tournaments? I don't think so. :)

Maybe it depends on your definition of "is" :)

 

I really think people who treat "The Laws of Bridge" like some kind of sacred text are missing the point.

 

The point is that we are in the entertainment business.

 

Consider "goulash tournaments" that used to be quite popular on BBO. These tournaments violate the Laws of Bridge (specifically those that deal with proper shuffling).

 

But it turns out that there are (or were at least) plenty of BBO members who enjoyed these tournaments enough that they would pay to play in them.

 

Why should it matter if the WBF (or whoever) would recognize such tournaments as legal or not? What matters is offerering tournaments that people want to play in.

 

The same goes for psychs. If substantial numbers of our members want to play in tournaments where psychs are not allowed (and I am 100% sure that this is the case) then I think it is commendable that some volunteer TDs run such tournaments.

 

BBO is responsible for ensuring that our ACBL tournaments conform to the set of rules that ACBL expects us to conform to.

 

But for all other tournaments on BBO we do not get involved. This is not only a practical necessity, it is also a good for our members - "natural selection" works.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[DrTodd13]

In a world of illegal psyches, this hand definitely does not match the requirements for the bid so it is a psyche.

 

Sorry, but no. A psych, by definition, is a deliberate departure from agreed meaning. If a player makes a mistake, he has in no way psyched.

You can't determine whether the person made a mistake or did it deliberately. If they say they made a mistake it is self-serving.

[barmar]

In a world of illegal psyches, this hand definitely does not match the requirements for the bid so it is a psyche.

 

Sorry, but no. A psych, by definition, is a deliberate departure from agreed meaning. If a player makes a mistake, he has in no way psyched.

You can't determine whether the person made a mistake or did it deliberately. If they say they made a mistake it is self-serving.

If they lie in answer to a direct question from the TD, they're cheaters. While they're not likely to get caught, especially in online bridge where there's no opportunity to detect mannerisms characteristic of lying, if they do it frequently enough the pattern should emerge and they'll get punished.

[paulg]

In a world of illegal psyches, this hand definitely does not match the requirements for the bid so it is a psyche.

 

Sorry, but no. A psych, by definition, is a deliberate departure from agreed meaning. If a player makes a mistake, he has in no way psyched.

You can't determine whether the person made a mistake or did it deliberately. If they say they made a mistake it is self-serving.

This is why we have TDs. They are paid, or not, to make this judgement.

 

And then we discuss it when we disagree with their judgement.

 

Strangely, unfairly, I do not recall a thread when we agreed with their decision :)

 

Paul

[inquiry]

Fred is right on this one. Which is why I said to accept the ruling and move on.

 

But while we are at it, the director should make it clear in the description on the tournament or tourmanent rules that psyches are not allowed.

[DrTodd13]

In a world of illegal psyches, this hand definitely does not match the requirements for the bid so it is a psyche.

 

Sorry, but no. A psych, by definition, is a deliberate departure from agreed meaning. If a player makes a mistake, he has in no way psyched.

You can't determine whether the person made a mistake or did it deliberately. If they say they made a mistake it is self-serving.

If they lie in answer to a direct question from the TD, they're cheaters. While they're not likely to get caught, especially in online bridge where there's no opportunity to detect mannerisms characteristic of lying, if they do it frequently enough the pattern should emerge and they'll get punished.

Yes. They would be cheaters if they lied but saying that people will track this stuff, a pattern will emerge and they'll get caught is ridiculous.

[pclayton]

I'm ready to let the director off the hook though.

 

That being said, I'll bet there's a lot of directors that want to be better educated that read these forums.

[KiwiBridge]

Thanks for all the feedback. Let me make one thing clear: I haven't pysched since I was young... and who the hell would psyche in an Individual with an unknown partner anyway? As I saw it at the time, I had one suit that may be worth partner leading, and one and only one chance to bid it.

 

A simple lead directing overcall. Unknown partner, claiming Expert status, unlikely to go mad after already passing, indeed he did pass throughout.

 

At no time did the director contact me, he merely assumed it was a pysche and adjusted accordingly. What I objected to was his reasoning, quote "as you knew the opponents were likely to bid game, therefore it was a psyche!" On that basis, no one could ever make a lead directing overcall with a passed partner, unless they were sure that the opponents did NOT have game on! What madness.

[inquiry]

Actually, psyching in an individual with an unknown partner seems to be the most "legal" time to do it. I mean, there is no question that you have used this psyche before with this partner, so there can be no "undislosed" agreement that allows you partner to have an advantage to catching the psyche. The second reason, in an individual, if you make your partner, let's say, very upset, at least you will get a new partner on the next hand (or two).

 

I find pcyhes with people you play with a lot more of a problem than one like this one.

[blackshoe]

Gonna try to cover several responses to my last here. :)

 

Fred,

 

Sacred text, no. But I do maintain that psychs are an integral part of the game, and that when you ban psychs, you're playing a different game. I would also say that to ban psychs, and then automatically rule any "strange" bid a psych is unfair to your ("your" referring to he who made the ban, not to "bbo") customers. FWIW, I agree with the rest of what you said. In particular, I remember "goulashes" as a lot of fun - and so was "cutthroat", a variant with an interesting rule set:

 

1. If you have 13+ HCP, you must open. (Failure to open is deemed a psych).

2. Once the bidding is opened, any subsequent bid must be at least game, whatever the cards held.

3. After three passes, the last person to have bid is declarer. He may choose from amongst the other three players which is to be dummy. If his chosen dummy is not seated opposite declarer, that dummy changes seats with the player who is seated there.

4. Once declarer has chosen his dummy, that (dummy) player may "accept" or "reject". If he accepts, he gets the same score as declarer. If he rejects, he gets the same score as the defenders.

5. Scoring is aggregate, using a running tally for each player, and standard rubber bridge score elements are divided by ten.

6. Other than the above, rubber bridge rules apply.

 

In this game, psychs are not only legal, they are rampant. This can be a very fun game, but it is not "contract bridge" as defined by the rules promulgated by the WBF.

 

If folks want no-psych tournaments, that's fine with me, but I think the SO of such tournaments has an obligation to be careful what he calls a psych.

 

DrTodd:

 

You can't determine whether the person made a mistake or did it deliberately. If they say they made a mistake it is self-serving.

 

Sometimes you can, if you ask the right questions. In any case a self-serving answer is still evidence. I was taught never to dismiss a self-serving statement out of hand, but to investigate the circumstances, and judge the degree to which such self-serving evidence should influence my ruling. In addition, IME, mistakes happen far more often than deliberate gross distortions, and when the latter do occur, players are far more likely than not to admit it.

 

Kiwi:

 

It struck me when I first read your original post that the director in question is at best mistaken about what constitutes a psych, and probably also about his obligation to investigate rather than assume. <shrug>

[inquiry]

Well, what is a psyche is in the eye of the TD is clear. I once opened 1♥ in third seat with 11 hcp and a four card heart suit. This was in no way meant to be a psyche, it was a tactical bid, despite playing five card major. Yup, the opponents called the director on me, and said I psyhced a 1♥ bid (they did have a 5-3 heart fit). The director agreed and gave me an average minus.

 

I have since tried not to play in "psyche-banned" tourmanents" (other than those of one director who at least has a reasonable view of what is a psyche). I have played in some such tourneys, however, because not until after the tourney starts does the fact that pscyhes are banned become annouced. I guess I don't mnd so much that pyches are banned, but what I dislike is the fact that some one else decides if my bid is a pyche. I open very lightly, and make raises that others will not based upon degree of fit. I would hate to have some of these actions called a pcyhe when I think they are the correct normal bid.

 

As long as the tournament has a decription someplace that "pyches" are not allowed, I see no problems with these events, and should I play in one (not bloodly likely), then I will cerainly follow the rules of the TD..

 

BTW, this topic... is one that reoccurs about once a month.... we have discussed this to death here... Should we pin one topic on this so we don't need to keep opening new threads all the time?

[glen]

If folks want no-psych tournaments, that's fine with me, but I think the SO of such tournaments has an obligation to be careful what he calls a psych.

No psyche-tournaments are like small towns with a large ‘No loitering’ notice where one might expect a Welcome sign. There’s a message there, and it will not help to debate with the Sheriff whether 5 minutes or 10 constitutes loitering.

 

The no-psyche message means that the tournaments will be conducted with the spirit that players cannot fool the opponents in the bidding. You can debate with the Sheriff all you want about what is or is not a psyche, but you will still land in jail in this town if you are a “trouble maker”.

[hotShot]

A psyche is a deliberate gross distortion.

While we might not be able to find out, if a distorted bid was made deliberate or accidental, we should be able to define what a gross distortion is.

 

Kiwi's overcall had 4♦ instead of 5 and 5 HCP instead of 8-16, this is a 1 card and 3+ points deviation. I call that a deviation of 4 (1+3).

 

Inquiry's hand had 4♥ instead of 5 and 11 HCP instead of 12+. I call that a deviation of 2 (1+1).

 

I would call a deviation of 4 a 'gross deviation', while i would think that 2 is just a deviation.

 

How many cards or HCP would you call 'gross'?

[matmat]

A psyche is a deliberate gross distortion.

While we might not be able to find out, if a distorted bid was made deliberate or accidental, we should be able to define what a gross distortion is.

 

Kiwi's overcall had 4♦ instead of 5 and 5 HCP instead of 8-16, this is a 1 card and 3+ points deviation. I call that a deviation of 4 (1+3).

 

Inquiry's hand had 4♥ instead of 5 and 11 HCP instead of 12+. I call that a deviation of 2 (1+1).

 

I would call a deviation of 4 a 'gross deviation', while i would think that 2 is just a deviation.

 

How many cards or HCP would you call 'gross'?

so is a deviation of 3 gross?