The (sad) state of the ACBL

[han]

I recently posted a hand from a NY regional where I psyched and the opponents were fuming, called the director three times, asked for a committee meeting and refused to sign the score.

 

What I didn't write was that the director handled it perfectly all three times he was called, and after the game he came to tell me after the game that he spoke with my opponents and explained to them that I had done nothing wrong and they understood.

[pokerbids]

a fellow called the hog asked me a few posts up whether i knew someone called richard. No hog I dont anyone by this name but do I have to. I certainly wont apologise for any of my comments esp when the capt of the original posters team seems to have agreed with the majority of what I stated. Mr Hog I dont need to know Riochard or take a basic course in english comprehension when I see someone being rude and obnoxious in a post like the poster was. Heaven knows who or what he is in real life. Yes Mr Hog, Mr Richard may be your friend and I appreciate you springing to his defence but read my lips I have no reason to apologise when I see someone posting like that. In addition nowhere in the rules of this forum do I read anything about having to understand basic english or be frightened of anyones reputation when I post. Please keep those rules (and comments) to yourself

[pclayton]

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).

Ya think?

 

Directors deal with malcontents on a daily basis. They have zero tolerance for people instructing them how to do their job.

[jtfanclub]

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...

Why?

 

You played a nasty joke on the opponents, basically telling them that you were going to cheat* when of course you had no intention of doing so. So they played a nasty joke back, accusing you of cheating*. So the director, who knows you didn't cheat* that round (but have history of pushing the envelope), gave you a lecture about how cheating* is wrong. If he'd actually thought you'd been cheating*, I'm sure he'd have looked at the hands. We're not talking about punishment here. You were deeply offended because...he believed you when you said you were going to cheat*?

 

What if the cheating* didn't have an asterisk? What if you proudly announced that you were using slow-X penalty doubles and fast-X takeout doubles? Then is it OK for him to tell you that hesitation bidding is wrong, even if you didn't happen to use it the previous round?

[matmat]

a fellow called the hog asked me a few posts up whether i knew someone called richard. No hog I dont anyone by this name but do I have to. I certainly wont apologise for any of my comments esp when the capt of the original posters team seems to have agreed with the majority of what I stated. Mr Hog I dont need to know Riochard or take a basic course in english comprehension when I see someone being rude and obnoxious in a post like the poster was. Heaven knows who or what he is in real life. Yes Mr Hog, Mr Richard may be your friend and I appreciate you springing to his defence but read my lips I have no reason to apologise when I see someone posting like that. In addition nowhere in the rules of this forum do I read anything about having to understand basic english or be frightened of anyones reputation when I post. Please keep those rules (and comments) to yourself

i know this is slightly uncool, as it relates to web etiquette etc., but i am having trouble parsing your posts. May i suggest you spend a little more time editing your posts? The spelling, grammar and punctuation errors make it very difficult to understand your point of view, which, from what I *can* gather, is rather ticked off and aggressive. are you, by chance, one of richard's opponents from the weekend?

 

your post is very much in the spirit of "Mr Kettle; meet Mr Pot"

[matmat]

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...

Why?

 

You played a nasty joke on the opponents, basically telling them that you were going to cheat*

uh

okay...

 

what was the purpose of the opponents informing the OP that they think that "psyching is cheating"? I mean, seriously, what reaction were they hoping for? Is it possible that they were fishing to tilt Hrothgar? hmmmm?

 

A while ago while still playing at the local clubs there was a player who professed that precision/strong club was not real bridge. He took issue with light openings and lots of artificial calls. Would become overly aggressive (bridgewise) and generally agitated when opps were playing strong club. We'd see a pair or two take particular glee in playing that system against him and try to find any excuse to upgrade hands to the 1♣ category. cheating?

 

frankly, i think the TD probably should have been called the moment the initial comments were made to deliver a lecture to the opps regarding the legality of psychs and that intimidation tactics/comments were not allowed under various ACBL rules (ZT? something else? I runno).

[jtfanclub]

what was the purpose of the opponents informing the OP that they think that "psyching is cheating"? I mean, seriously, what reaction were they hoping for? Is it possible that they were fishing to tilt Hrothgar? hmmmm?

I'm not condoning anything the opponents did. And I think it was particularly nasty to involve the TD in their little spat, especially since it's obvious that Hrothgar did not in fact go random fielded psyches on them.

 

I'm saying that what the TD did seems reasonable given what happened prior to the round and what the captain said, regardless of what actually happened during the round.

[blackshoe]

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...

Why?

 

You played a nasty joke on the opponents, basically telling them that you were going to cheat* when of course you had no intention of doing so. So they played a nasty joke back, accusing you of cheating*. So the director, who knows you didn't cheat* that round (but have history of pushing the envelope), gave you a lecture about how cheating* is wrong. If he'd actually thought you'd been cheating*, I'm sure he'd have looked at the hands. We're not talking about punishment here. You were deeply offended because...he believed you when you said you were going to cheat*?

 

What if the cheating* didn't have an asterisk? What if you proudly announced that you were using slow-X penalty doubles and fast-X takeout doubles? Then is it OK for him to tell you that hesitation bidding is wrong, even if you didn't happen to use it the previous round?

Hang on a minute. Nothing Richard did can remotely be described as cheating, with or without an asterisk, and in spite of his RHO's opinion. The inappropriate expression of which, btw, is what started this whole mess.

 

FWIW, I don't think there was much right in the original scenario - the RHO was wrong to say what he did, Richard's reaction was OTT, and the TD could certainly have handled things a little better. That doesn't justify fanning the flames here.

[mycroft]

I agree with matmat. I think that the game was started by the opponents (well, this time; it's clear that there's history, and I'm sure (having a couple of opponents with whom I have history, too, and I'm not all sweetness and light, but from what I can tell, more conciliatory than Hrothgar) there's no completely innocent party), but that everyone was playing.

 

Yeah, against good players who think psychics are cheating, I look for an excuse. Against people who don't like aggressive openers enough to be obnoxious about it, I push. Against one person who continually bids on crap, given the choice I hit it - and smile.

 

But instead of retributative gamesmanship, it would at least put everybody on stream to call the TD and mention the pre-bridge conversation...then they get their change to argue their (hopeless) case to the TD, and afterward when they complain, the TD knows the background, rather than getting one side only (which is almost certainly biased). One can do it clearly as gamesmanship, which I don't really agree with, but it happens; one can do it in such a way as to make it clear "that's not going to get you anything" while still being totally "innocent" - which is perfectly legal, and usually all five people at the table get it.

 

If that doesn't happen, when the TD comes to you afterward, you can't blame him if he doesn't have all the information; it's not like he'll have been given board numbers and exact hands - or any information that isn't to your detriment. And a SJS "on a 12 count" does sound suspicious - a SJS on a [add: selfsupporting] 4.5-loser hand (which happens to be 12 high) doesn't. After all, I've made an Acol 2H bid with a 14-count...Similarly, I happen to think that responding on the balanced 3-count (in standard) is bad bridge; it seems like I always rebid 2NT and go down. But my partnership coach thinks I'm totally wrong in that respect - maybe he plays 2NT better than I do. Doesn't mean it's wrong or anything else, and frankly, in the GNTB zone quals, if they tell me they've never seen that bidding before, I'm going to be suspicious.

 

But you know, everybody's been conned before, and will be again; some people are very, very good at telling the story their way (and not all of them are lawyers!) When this happens, I try to be cynical, or at least express a view that shows how what they told me could be perfectly fine. I also say that there's not much I can do about it *now*; if they really had a problem, they should have called at the time. If I'm convinced that there's something there, sure, I'll go over and have a word, but it'll be again, investigatory and trying to show both sides. Of course, if I'm met with a persecution complex, oh well. I tried.

 

Looks like the losers of the match were continuing the gamesmanship that they started the game with (and were enthusiastically joined in by the other side); and it worked. Remember the definition of a good judgment ruling - one that all four players at the table disagree with.

 

Michael.

[blackshoe]

Adam's post regarding (broadly) TD training provides food for thought.

 

I think there are two (at least) distinct sets of useful skills for directors: "people" skills are certainly very important, at all levels, but they should not, IMO, override the technical skills involved. "Corporate wisdom" amongst many long time club level directors seems to be that they should - that "keeping the players happy" is much more important than, for example, ruling correctly. Maybe I'm just naive, but it seems to me that a director who is seen to be fair, impartial, consistent, and rigorous in making rulings will, in the long run, be much more popular than one whose sole claim to fame is that he mostly kept everyone happy.

 

I've long been of the opinion that the ACBL doesn't do enough in regard to TD training. I think that a "continuing education" program, perhaps with periodic re-qualification tests, ought to be established. I think it should cover all levels of directing from the social club to the National Championships, and I think overall control and oversight should be maintained in Memphis (or wherever ACBL moves next). That doesn't mean Memphis should have to do everything, they can certainly delegate the execution of the program down to the District or Unit level. That, after all, is why the ACBL has a hierarchy – to make management of such a huge organization, well, manageable. B)

 

Some topics such a program might cover:

 

• Routine and not-so-routine uses of ACBLScore (and perhaps of other useful software)
  
• Movements, including "unusual" ones, and criteria for choosing a movement
  
• How to add or delete pairs when necessary
  
• Dealing with argumentative players
  
• Dealing with players who basically don't listen
  
• Routine rulings
  
• Not-so-routine rulings
  
• The right to appeal and how to implement it
  
• ACBL's rules for clubs, including the laws' provisions regarding publishing SO regulations
  
• What's different at Sectional, Regional, or National level Tournaments
  
• The online game - similarities and differences
  

[jtfanclub]

Hang on a minute. Nothing Richard did can remotely be described as cheating, with or without an asterisk, and in spite of his RHO's opinion.

I apologize for not being clear, to both you and Richard.

 

Of course he didn't cheat, and had no intention of cheating. However, he implied that he was going to do a great deal of psyching this round, and his partner was there to hear it. The ACBL, in its infinite wisdom, has made that illegal, although God only knows what destructive bidding is or how often you can psyche before it gets destructive.

 

I do not believe that Richard cheats, and I don't think he's an unethical player. I merely meant that when you threaten like that, you should expect mild repercussions, and accept them in good grace. There's very little else the director could do, though I don't know if his words or tone could have been more diplomatic.

[han]

The way I read it Richard never implied that he was going to psyche, and in fact he didn't psyched. If he had and his partner had fielded it now then you might have had a case. As it is, I think your argument that Richards response could be seen as cheating is rather far-fetched.

[the hog]

JT. to the best of my knowledge, and I may well be wrong, the ACBL has NOT outlawed psychic bids. So for you to state that Richard claimed he might cheat* is a very long bow indeed.

[inquiry]

JT. to the best of my knowledge, and I may well be wrong, the ACBL has NOT outlawed psychic bids. So for you to state that Richard claimed he might cheat* is a very long bow indeed.

I think you are over-reacting. I read this as the opponent said psyches was cheating... rather than correct him, richard said he was going to psyche... so the word "psyche" was exchanged for the word cheat* to put this in perspective of the opponents, who heard richard saying he was more likely to psych (which they heard as cheat*).... at least, that is the way I read it.

[jtfanclub]

JT. to the best of my knowledge, and I may well be wrong, the ACBL has NOT outlawed psychic bids. So for you to state that Richard claimed he might cheat* is a very long bow indeed.

 

 

Some psyches are allowed, some psyches are not.

 

It's not really cheating, of course. It's just breaking a rule.

 

No matter how carefully he parsed it in this post, he was threatening to psyche repeatedly just to piss the opponents off, and I feel confident that's how they heard it.

 

http://www.acbl.org/learn/psychics.html

 

Are there other psychic bids that aren’t allowed?

.

.

.

Even when your psych meets the requirement that your partner doesn’t know what’s going on, there still should always be a good tactical reason for your action. It should never be because you want to get back at so-and-so, or because you’re bored and want to create a little action, or because you’re having a bad game and what difference does one more bottom make?

 

Is psyching "because you want to get back at so-and-so" not exactly what he was threatening to do?

 

4. POSSIBLE EXPULSION. If a player is found to be psyching excessively, frivolously, or in an unsportsmanlike manner, the director should inform this player that if such tactics continue to be used, the player faces suspension from the game.

 

There are so many ways that announcing "I'm going to psych more this round because I don't like you guys" both the letter and spirit of these rules that I'm waffling on each one. Is it a controlled psyche, because partner knows it's more likely to happen? Is it malicious mischief, because you're trying to get back at somebody you don't like? Is it unsportsmanlike, because he warned his partner (and the rest of the table) ahead of time? As far as I'm concerned, you could print out that link, throw a dart at it, and odds are that Richard would have violated wherever the dart hit. If, of course, he had actually meant the threat seriously and carried it out.

 

If Richard knew that what he was threatening to do was wrong, then he should expect the lecture, and not take it out on the TD who was just doing his job. If Richard did not know that what he was threatening to do was wrong, then maybe he should have listened to the lecture instead of trying to tell the TD how to do his job.

 

If he had simply sat down against two LOLs and announced "Oh, little old ladies have so much trouble with psyches, so I'm a lot more likely to psyche against them, partner" I think that most people would have a serious problem with this. Some people don't a have a problem with what he actually did because it was obviously in the context of gamesmanship which the other side started. And, in fact, I don't have a problem with it because of the context either- it should have been clear to his numbskull opponents that if he was really going to psyche a lot he wouldn't warn them beforehand. But the TD doesn't have the context, and looking at some boards isn't going to give him that context. So how can you blame the TD for acting as he did?

 

Once, when I was considering what to lead, my partner sneezed. I then said "Let's see, sneeze is hearts, right?" and led a heart. We all had a good chuckle. If the TD had lectured me after the round that signals were illegal and cheating wasn't a joking matter, I'd have rolled my eyes a bit but I wouldn't have been offended or claimed that he didn't know how to do his job. You say something goofy like that, you open yourself up to lectures.

 

I thought everybody knew that.

[TimG]

JT. to the best of my knowledge, and I may well be wrong, the ACBL has NOT outlawed psychic bids. So for you to state that Richard claimed he might cheat* is a very long bow indeed.

Some psyches are allowed, some psyches are not.

 

No matter how carefully he parsed it in this post, he was threatening to psyche repeatedly just to piss the opponents off, and I feel confident that's how they heard it.

A threat to psyche is often far more effective than an actual psyche. And, if an opponents knows I have psyched from time to time and suggested to me that this means I am a cheat, I am more likely than ever to engage in a little gamesmanship.

[matmat]

If Richard knew that what he was threatening to do was wrong, then he should expect the lecture, and not take it out on the TD who was just doing his job.  If Richard did not know that what he was threatening to do was wrong, then maybe he should have listened to the lecture instead of trying to tell the TD how to do his job. 

 

I thought everybody knew that.

the threat of psyching is not equivalent to the act of psyching, especially when opps try to get under your skin by tacitly implying that you are a cheat for even entertaining the notion of psyching. In fact, wouldn't there be a ZT ruling here?

opp A: "so richard, do you still psych a lot"

opp B: "I think psyching is cheating"

 

conclusion: "richard, do you still cheat a lot?"

 

btw, I expect that he was playing to win, and so whatever psychs would have been perpetrated (had they been) would have been meant to improve his teams' score

 

m

[PassedOut]

Once, when I was considering what to lead, my partner sneezed. I then said "Let's see, sneeze is hearts, right?" and led a heart. We all had a good chuckle.

I used to say things like that once in awhile, but learned that some folks did not appeciate the humor...

[the hog]

"Once, when I was considering what to lead, my partner sneezed. I then said "Let's see, sneeze is hearts, right?" and led a heart. We all had a good chuckle. If the TD had lectured me after the round that signals were illegal and cheating wasn't a joking matter, I'd have rolled my eyes a bit but I wouldn't have been offended or claimed that he didn't know how to do his job. You say something goofy like that, you open yourself up to lectures.

 

I thought everybody knew that. "

 

JT a tournament director is not God. It is clear that this one accepted the opponents statements and then refused to do his job by not looking at the boards in question. (Btw don't you have pre set hands in events in the States?) In any case, it would not have been over onerous to look up the boards rather than make the gratuitous comment that he was not there to give bidding lessons.

[pokerbids]

I find it amazing in this thread that there is any support for the behavior of the original poster. He started gloating from line one. He didn’t just beat his opps – In the round under question he “completely destroyed opps” –He calls his opponent “incompetent” next round he “squashed” the top seeds then he started lecturing the director implying that forget any issue his results speak for themselves. Further he told director not to “coddle such idiots”. When the opps exercised their rights and told the director they “whined”. Even the captain of his team in one of the early posts corrected the gross inaccuracies on reporting the directors behavior. Then in the next round he cant be “bothered” to meet his opps even though he is confident of “taking them” but doesn’t want to “waste” an afternoon doing so.

 

I don’t know if there is a law against gloating (probably not) but certainly I take a moral stand against gloating and other negative behavior attributes that this poster obviously takes pride in and then saying it is the ACBL that is in a sad state. What is wrong if opps report your behavior and actions to the director. Does one have to cry over it. There was no penalty imposed no result was changed and a mere warning (totally justified in my view was given). The director was called, he evaluated the issues and he ruled. Poster is so horrified that someone dares to do this he comes and if you ask me starts “whining” in front of this forum. Read the original post carefully and then you tell me whether you would have fun with an opp like him. This game is social to a considerable extent. Sure it depends upon skill and upon a competitive element but there is a social side to it and players don’t like meeting an “unguided missile” when it comes to etiquette. A lesson I learned early in life – Don’t skirt the boundaries of good behavior and expect to leave without a reprimand. The tone of the original post itself calls the behavior part into question. This game is more than merely applying the laws it’s a game of decent human behavior and in my opinion the poster seems to have walked perilously close to the line. I didn’t call the opp an “ignorant lard ass” he goes on to say– well good but do you think not calling him that and implying that he is that in this post is of relevance to the issue. It speaks volumes about your behavior though. Heaven knows what else you “didn’t” tell him!!

[Guest Jlall]

Read the original post carefully and then you tell me whether you would have fun with an opp like him.

I bet I would. Certainly a whole lot more than against his opponents, or you.

[hrothgar]

I find it amazing in this thread that there is any support for the behavior of the original poster. He started gloating from line one.

For what its worth, I agree with some of your core points.

 

The original posting comes across as boorish.

It's uncalled for and not particular relevant to the core discussion.

 

So be it... All that I can do is note that I was on an adrenaline high as well as being seriously pissed.

[pokerbids]

Dear Mr. Hrothgar,

 

I cannot help but salute your latest post. It isnt often that I feel like a clot and perhaps inadvertently I poked my nose in here - But simply from your latest post I am glad I did so. Many times online we say and do things in the "heat of the moment" led partly by the fact that is a bit annoymous. It is, as you said both a minor point and done with an adrenaline rush. I must confess my posts were made in an abnormal heated moment also and I did myself and you an injustice by picking at those phrase that irritated me. By posting, as you did now, I can only applaud your sentiments. Truly there arent many posters who would bother to do so. I see that there were rights and wrongs on both sides and now out of the immediate heat of the moment both of us are calmer and speaking for myself I feel a bit foolish. Such is life - even though I dont know you it would be both an honour and a privilage to meet someone who has the courage and self confidence to make a post as you did. May I be allowed to retract and apologise for some of the out of context remarks I may have added.

 

With much more respect and a feeling that all is not lost in the human race! I am proud to have encountered a bridge player and a gentleman as yourself

 

regards

[bid_em_up]

(Btw don't you have pre set hands in events in the States?)

At the club level, many games are shuffle & play, and others may have predealt hands along with hand records, this is usually dependent on the size of the club and the director.

 

Sectional Level and higher tournaments will have predealt hands for (almost) all pairs games.

 

Swiss teams and K/O's are usually shuffle & play at the Sectional, Regional, and even National levels. It is only when you get into the more "elite" team events that the boards are duplicated (or at least, that has been my experience), and even in those, the early round robins may still be shuffle & play.

[AlexOgan]

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)

If they withdraw, will you just win by default, or will the team that lost to them in the semis get a shot?