The (sad) state of the ACBL

[hrothgar]

So... Barmar, JJone30, and Smyk put together a team for the District 25 Flight B GNTs. Unfortunately, Smyk's partner had to cancel at the last minute. Smyk and I had a couple practice sessions on BBO and wandered down to the game.

 

We had our ups and downs, but started to hit our stride after a slow start. This morning, we found ourselves playing the quarter finals... The pair that we were playing with had a guy who knew me from way back. Before we started, Paul asked me if I was still as "creative" with my bidding. I explained that I yesterday was the first time that I had ever played with Jan, so I was being pretty reasonable. I hadn't psyched or taken any real flights of fancy, however, if the mood struck me, I'd make use my best judgment. RHO then chimes in and explains to me that he thought that psyches were cheating. This was "just his opinion", but he thought it needed to be said.

 

I thought that my reaction was more than reasonable. I didn't call the director or call RHO opponent an ignorant lard ass. I merely asked him whether psyches really upset him that much and, when he said yes, explained that this made it much more likely that I'd psyche.

 

In any case, we have a nice boring match and completely destroyed the opponents. They managed to drop 60 odd IMPs over 28 boards. I wander off to decompress before the semi-finals, only to face a lecture from the director when I came back. It seemed tht the opponents had registered a complaint about my bidding and the director want to explain to me that I had the right to psyche, however, my bidding was perilously close to "destructive bidding". Apparantly, the opponents were especially upset about two of the boards.

 

On the first, I had made a "Strong Jump Shift" with a 12 count. Here's the actual board. Playing 2/1, you get dealt the following:

 

♠ Q

♥ AT98762

♦ AKJ8

♣ x

 

I violated one of my core bidding principles and decided to open 1♥ rather than 4♥ (as I said, partner prefers a fairly stodgy style). Partner responded 1♠ and I needed to choose a rebid. I decided that 3♦ was the most descriptive call. The Spade Queen is probably pulling some weight and the hand has a lot of playing strength. We eventually come to rest in 5♥ (which simple goes to confirm that i should have opened 4♥ to begin with). In any case, the opponents apparently found this so horrifying that the needed to go off and whine to the Director.

 

On the second hand, I got dealt the following load of crap

 

♠ 9x

♥ T985

♦ 972

♣ KT72

 

Partner opened 1♦. I decided to respond 1♥ and partner jumped to 3N which made 4. Here once again, the opponents thought that this was dreadfully destructive and that the Director needed to be warned about me...

 

The Director calls me over during the break, explains about the opponent's complaints and tells me that I need to watch myself... I respond that the opponents have just lost a 28 board match by 60 IMPs. Potentially the problem isn't that my bidding is "destructive", but rather that the opponents are incompetent. More over, it might be better if the directorial staff didn't coddle such idiots and pretend to listen to their complaints, but rather, spent a little time/effort trying to educate them regarding the proprieties of the game and what it means to be a sore loser.

 

Regardless, we squashed the number one seed in the semi finals. With luck, the last team might end up withdrawing before the final round. (I'm quite sure that we can take them, but I'd prefer not to actually have to waste an afternoon doing so)

[the hog]

You are an evil man, Richard. Seriously it sounds like the director, (and the opponents) were morons.

[mike777]

Nice!!!!

 

 

It reminds me of my report on my so far first and only tourney back after decades.

I did not..nor my pickup partner, ever called the director despite seemingly blatant talking and sighing at the table...every match against everyone. :P

 

One hand where the opp doubled (takeout, penalty, cards?) and did not alert I did call once and still think the ruling was incorrect(against me) but in anyevent all the other directors I asked..except Jan Martel online, agreed against me so.....

 

 

I asked this before, but I wonder, if mainly online B players, me, are just simply more used to this sort of bidding Richard is talking about than f2f B level players?

 

In any case....it seems, my guess, that the overall state of the ACBL is better than ever compared to the past 20 or 30 years but others may have other thoughts.

 

btw I just wish winning bridge players were not so shy or quiet....

[pclayton]

They had it out for you obviously. Their psyche-detector was going off constantly and they felt the need to keep you in line.

 

The 6-4 hand is a joke and even responding on a 3 count doesn't strike me as out of line, since you aren't an established partnership.

[Winstonm]

As usual, reversion to the mean creates an overly exagerated swing.

 

The ACBL has been trying for so long to increase membership that it has gone to the extremes in coddling and protecting new players. Your description is just another example.

 

Tournament bridge does not have to be a war - ugly and vicious; however, it is also not the kitchen table, and as such it is a competetive environment and only suitable for a certain type of player.

 

It is this attempt to blend kitchen bridge with tournament bridge that has caused neither class of player to be satisfied - and in time will convert the ACBL into the AKBL - cookies anyone?

[blackshoe]

I agree with The Hog. On all counts. :P

[655321]

Agree with the bridge part of the post.

 

As for the rest...

 

http://www.amazon.com/How-Win-Friends-Infl...e/dp/0671723650

 

:P

[pokerbids]

What an opening post to this thread. And the title itself implying that this is reflective of the sad state of ACBL based on some issues that opps raised!!! What nerve to even suggest that!!!!

 

The tone of the note makes me query hrothgars “innocent” remarks. See the upmanship come out – “we completed destroyed the opps” “regardless we squashed the No 1 seeds in the in the next round” (all of which to me is indicative of an attitude that I am invincible – everyone else listen to me). The opps “whined” to the director. My partner prefers a”stodgy” bid style. We reached the correct contract in a hand of 5 H but I wanted to open 4 H and I was right to think like that based on the result. To the director I respond that the opps lost by 60 IMPs so please it isn’t my bidding that is destructive? It would be better if director staff didn’t “coddle” such idiots.

 

See the angst come out even in this note - He destroyed his opps, instead of answering the director he further told him I hammered those guys forget the issues just look at the results and anyway Mr director let me explain you your job and don’t coddle the opps but listen to invincible me.

 

To our readers he informs us that he is very sure of taking care of the opps in the final “but would prefer not to waste his time”

 

No I don’t think the incident was in any way reflective of the sad state of ACBL but may be reflective of the “fire” in Mr. Hrothgar.

 

Why do folks get so hot n bothered if director is called upon them. Do you honestly feel Mr. Hrothgars that your opps did not see your extreme rudeness come out on the table. Do you think they would not be upset at that? I see it come out in your post and cannot but imagine that the same attitude and worse would have got exhibited on the table.

 

There is perhaps no rule that a bridge player must be modest – But is there a rule that he has to be so “superior” to his opps and the director.

 

Bottom line if you ask me the director got called on him and he is angry that directors can be called on “mighty him”. The director never changed anything of a single hand not one result. He merely cautioned him so what. Its difficult for a director to tell a player “change your overly aggressive personality” so he refrained from doing that but I am no director so don’t perhaps have the same limitations.

 

I don’t know the state of health of ACBL but for sure it isn’t a sad state based on this note. Not so sure of the state of health of some of its members (I am just presuming hrothgar is a member).

[the hog]

I notice you made no comment about the opponent's gratuitous comment regarding psyches. Nor did you comment on the provocative comment made when first sitting down at the table.

 

Do you know Richard at all ? I suggest not, and I also suggest that you apologise for this absurd and insulting post and sign up for a course in basic English comprehension.

[Guest Jlall]

Congrats on your result Richard. Sorry that the director was obv clueless. Nothing you can do about idiot opponents like that except try to not strangle them every time they open their mouths.

[matmat]

heh.

i don't have the temper to deal with the situation as well as you did, Richard. wd.

[david_c]

I thought that my reaction was more than reasonable.  I didn't call the director or call RHO opponent and ignorant lard ass.  I merely asked him whether psyches really upset him that much and, when he said yes, explained that this made it much more likely that I'd psyche.

Your reaction is reasonable in a legal sense, but completely tactless. Why on earth do you needlessly antagonise the opponents like this? You know that what you say here is going to annoy them.

 

It's a shame that opps feel this way but they're not likely to change their minds. Much more worrying, I think, is that the TD has got it so badly wrong. It's a shame that you can't "appeal" a lecture like this. But you probably could say that you were unhappy and wanted a second opinion. If there was a more senior TD available I would probably speak to them about it. (But it helps that where I come from, I would be 100% confident that our senior TDs would know what they are talking about.)

[whereagles]

I think I see now why people voted for Bush...

[Codo]

Your opps had been crap. I agree with this part.

 

But your reaction and your tone are so far from perfect that you should not been surprised to meet more of such people then others. A "more then reasonable reaction" had been to ignore your rho and definetly not to tell him that you will psyche even more. In my opinion you both acted like kindergarten kids- but I agree that he was the one to strike first.

 

If these two hands are the only two they complaint about, their case is ridiculous. But they still have the right to complain about it at the director. This is perfect legal.

So, they are whinning? Okay, but why does this bother you? There are non perfect people on this planet. Some use bad language, others complaint about anything, my good, who cares about them?

 

The director ruled that there was no damage, so he ruled in your favour. He just told you that you should be careful about avoiding "destructive bidding"- what ever this is.

 

I had asked him which laws I actually had broken and if he can tell me some, we can discuss it. Without this, it is just a private talk between bridgeplayers, no ruling at all, not even a warning.

[Gerben42]

I am just puzzled by this. For what do you need to "watch yourself"? For making bids that your opponents, who are possibly not capable of evaluating their hand, understand?

 

Tournament bridge does not have to be a war - ugly and vicious; however, it is also not the kitchen table, and as such it is a competetive environment and only suitable for a certain type of player.

 

Seems to me that the opponents were making it into a war - taking any bid that they would have made differently to the director.

[hrothgar]

For what its worth, here's a few quick points...

 

1. From my perspective, I thought that all of our matches were quite pleasant. There were no director calls involving conduct, zero tolerance penalties, or the like. There were a few director calls invovling minor "technical" issues like leads out of turn and the like. (I really missed the fact that BBO stops you from makling bids out of turn). By the end of the weekend I had received severalinvites to play in future events...

 

2. I agree complete that I could have diffused the situation simply by ignoring my opponent's comment. However, that's not my style. More importantly... I'm not above engaging in a bit of gamesmanship. If I can (legally) piss of my opponent and make sure that he's going to spend a match nervous and tee-ed off, I'll do so. Especially if he had just gone out of his way to annoy me.

 

3. I don't have any real issue with the my opponent going to the director. If he wants to complain, he has a right to complain.

 

4. My real issue is with the Tournament Director. I think that he did a miserable job handling the situation. He took the claims of the opponents at face value. He didn't invest a minute of effort in looking at the actual hands or validating their claims in any way and then gave me a ridiculous little lecture how the ACBL doesn't allow destructive bidding and making a Strong Jump Shift on a 12 count comes perilously close being destructive.

 

The TD doesn't seem to know the regulations and seemed to be too lazy to do his job properly.

 

I shouldn't be at all surprised... The TDs rescheduled the evening GNT sessions on the fly so they could go watch football. Worse yet, they invented a novel new way to handle ties in Round Robins (which lead to all sorts of problems when there was a tie for 4th/5th in the SuperFlight). It's probably ridiculous to expect the TDs to invest any time or effort in educating the yahoos playing in Flight B

[david_c]

More importantly... I'm not above engaging in a bit of gamesmanship.  If I can (legally) piss of my opponent and make sure that he's going to spend a match nervous and tee-ed off, I'll do so.

Well, you can't. Pissing off opponents is illegal under Law 74A2. If you do it deliberately you should expect a disciplinary penalty.

[awm]

Club-level directors really are told to prioritize keeping the players happy. There are a lot of cantankerous old kitchen-bridge players who show up regularly at the clubs, and a director's job often involves keeping these people happy while also keeping them from antagonizing new players, making sure that people move for the next round on time instead of continuing to discuss last round's boards, making sure the smoking players get back in time for the next round, keeping people from scoring on the wrong lines, etc.

 

The club environment encourages a certain style of directing, and successful club directors will virtually never issue a zero-tolerance or procedural penalty, and will fairly frequently make rulings that are technically wrong (like giving the offending side an average and non-offending side average plus) just to avoid antagonizing anyone. Some club directors don't even know the laws for things like hesitations and UI -- the vast majority of their calls are straight by the book calls (lead out of turn, etc) and being able to rule correctly on the more complex issues doesn't seem to be a requirement or really make the customer base happier with the director.

 

Okay, this is all well and good at the club level. The problem is, how do we pick directors for local tournaments? We pick the most experienced and/or popular club directors! And for regional tournaments, we try to get the most experienced/popular sectional directors! While I believe there is some additional training required at the regional level, it's not clear that understanding the more subtle rules (like ones dealing with psyches, etc) is ever really a selection criteria. I know several regional-level directors (from my district and elsewhere) who are highly unlikely to ever get a difficult ruling right, but are popular because they're "nice people" or "good at keeping the customers happy."

[barmar]

As captain of Richard's team, I think he is blowing the TD's actions way out of proportion. The TD first spoke to me about this, and I was present while he spoke to Richard, and I think he was about as reasonable as could be expected. And as soon as I told Richard that the TD wanted to talk to him about this, he was rearing for a fight; naturally, he got one.

 

The TD has a responsibility to be fair to both sides. Since this was a team game there were no hand records he could consult to see the hands that Richard actually bid on, so all he could go on at the time was their description. I may have biased him in favor of taking their claims at face value by confirming that Richard is "free-wheeling". But I wouldn't have been surprised if Richard really had psyched a jump shift.

 

It's my understanding that in the case of the 3-HCP 1/1 bid, the TD was called to the table at the time and had already ruled that it wasn't a psyche. They didn't call him about the jump shift until after the session, and they apparently just described it as a "12 point hand" without going into detail about the quality. When Richard described the actual hand to the TD, he again agreed that it wasn't a psyche. But since Richard was known to be "creative" (he'd said as much to the opponents, and I'd also confirmed it), he just wanted him to be careful. What then ensued was Richard trying to teach the TD his job (telling him that he should be educating the opponents, not berating him). This antagonized the situation more. When Richard referred to the opponents as idiots because they complained about this, the TD came close to issuing some kind of disciplinary penalty, and I wouldn't have blamed him.

 

Richard, I know you dislike the ACBL, and many of your reasons are justified. I already told you over the weekend that I was happy you put aside your feelings and rejoined so you could fill out my team. But you come to these things with so much attitude that you really shouldn't be surprised that it results in confrontations. That's your style in much of life. If you're going to behave like this, you have to get used to the backlash that results.

 

But this incident is hardly representative of the "sad state of the ACBL". The ACBL has many problems, but trying to be fair to players, even if they're confused or misinformed, is not one of them IMHO.

[hrothgar]

It's my understanding that in the case of the 3-HCP 1/1 bid, the TD was called to the table at the time and had already ruled that it wasn't a psyche.

Incorrect

[hrothgar]

>The TD has a responsibility to be fair to both sides. Since this

>was a team game there were no hand records he could consult

>to see the hands that Richard actually bid on, so all he could go

>on at the time was their description.

 

All of the boards were still available.

I offered to bring said boards to the Director to look at.

He replied that he wasn't interested in giving "bidding lessons"...

 

He's perfectly happy to give lectures regarding ethical responsiblities without every looking at any of the boards, but god forbid that he has to do some work.

 

>It's my understanding that in the case of the 3-HCP 1/1 bid, the TD was

>called to the table at the time and had already ruled that it wasn't a psyche.

 

Incorrect. There wasn't a single Director call during the entire course of the match. The opponent's spent 45 minutes pouring over the last 14 boards trying to find examples that they could bring to the Director...

 

>Richard, I know you dislike the ACBL, and many of your reasons are justified. I >already told you over the weekend that I was happy you put aside your feelings >and rejoined so you could fill out my team. But you come to these things with so >much attitude that you really shouldn't be surprised that it results in >confrontations. That's your style in much of life. If you're going to behave like >this, you have to get used to the backlash that results.

 

To be clear, I'm not particularly bothered by confrontations. If I were, I wouldn't have told my opponent that I'm even more likely to psyche. What I do find annoying having Directors giving me pro-forma lectures without giving any thought to the matter...

 

Potentially its wrong to tell Directors that they aren't doing their job. (I will certainly agree that its bad strategy for a team match where you might end up with a future Director call).

 

I will simply point out a couple points

 

1. There weren't any problems with any other team that were faced (And my bidding was certainly not different in this match than any other)

 

2. My behaviour is logically consistent...

 

My issue with the Director is that he didn't take the opportunity to educate the opponents about proprieties. I can hardly get upset about while commiting the same "offense"...

 

Admittedly, its not the job for random players to given Directors lessons in directing... However, I get more than a bit annoyed when I spend any entire weekend (essentially) playing straight down the middle - playing 2/1, not weird preempts, no overcalls on 4 card majors... NOTHING - and I still get grief over what I consider quite normal calls.

 

I readily admit that my decision to tell the opponents that I was much more likely to psyche probably made it more likely that they brought this to the attention of the Director, but it should have never made it past there.

[barmar]

I readily admit that my decision to tell the opponents that I was much more likely to psyche probably made it more likely that they brought this to the attention of the Director, but it should have never made it past there.

Yes, I think that was a big part of it. Their psychometers had full sensitivity enabled.

 

The TD took your word regarding the actual boards. I thought he was pretty reasonable about it. Maybe he could have been more proactive and looked at the hands first, that may have been his only mistake.

 

But when your reputation precedes you, don't be surprised when they bias the assumptions.

[hrothgar]

The TD took your word regarding the actual boards. I thought he was pretty reasonable about it. Maybe he could have been more proactive and looked at the hands first, that may have been his only mistake.

 

But when your reputation precedes you, don't be surprised when they bias the assumptions.

Barry, Peter didn't have a clue who I was...

 

There was no reputation effect at play other than some random claims from a disgruntled opponent. I don't see any reason why issues of bias should have entered the picture.

 

As for your comment "Maybe he could have been more proactive and looked at the hands first"... That's the entire heart of the dispute

 

The Director should make a modicum of effort to figure out what the actual facts are rather than rattling off a rnadom lecture about destructive bidding...

[barmar]

Your reputation came from two places: First, one of your opponents knew you and your tendencies. Second, Peter asked me about your style, and I admitted that you were somewhat liberal, although because this was a new partnership and that Jan preferred a down-the-middle style that I didn't think you would go overboard. And even if you did psyche, Jan wouldn't have the partnership experience to field it.

[bid_em_up]

More importantly... I'm not above engaging in a bit of gamesmanship.  If I can (legally) piss of my opponent and make sure that he's going to spend a match nervous and tee-ed off, I'll do so.

Well, you can't. Pissing off opponents is illegal under Law 74A2. If you do it deliberately you should expect a disciplinary penalty.

Oh please.

 

There is a difference between "pissing off opponents" and what Richard did (even though he did say "piss off my opponent"). All he did was let the opp know that he was now more likely to psyche, and knowing that he never needed to do so because the seed of doubt would be fully planted in the opponents mind. That opp will spend the entire match overanalyzing each of Richards bids.

 

If this happens to upset the opponent, thats the opponents problem, not Richard's.