BBO rules...

[jillybean]

And so we chose quantity over quality, the bigger is better mentality.

I doubt anyone is criticizing people for running games on BBO, its when these games are sold as ‘We are playing in a serious bridge club, not in a casino” the die-hards get their backs up. :)

[sceptic]

sorry, Jilly, but I think you run your tourneys quite well and I respect your opinions as you are one of the few that practice what you preach, BUT, at the end of the day, there is a market for these tourneys and I feel, you and some others do not respect other peoples view "on this matter"

 

I would choose different standards rather than equating it to volume

[sceptic]

the die-hards get their backs up. smile.gif

 

Die hards is not how I would like to describe them, BUT, yes

[jillybean]

the die-hards get their backs up. smile.gif

 

Die hards is not how I would like to describe them, BUT, yes

Censorship sucks heh Wayne :)

[barmar]

was kibbing a tournament today, and here is what I saw:

 

PSYCHES not alowed 1st/2nd

   seats. Others allowed but if made without ptn agreement.

   Poker bids will be PUNISHED, and board adjusted.

   We are playing in a serious bridge club, not in a casino.

 

I guess that's one way to have your cake and eat it too?

"Others allowed but if made without ptn agreement" seems like they don't understand what a psyche is. It's defined to be a bid that grossly deviates from partnership agreement. It's like saying "Borrowing is only allowed with the owner's permission" -- if you don't get the owner's permission it's stealing, even if you intend to return it.

 

It sounds like they're using it to mean a bid that deviates from what the opponents expect, either because you failed to alert, you explained differently from what you held, or maybe even made a bid with an unexpected, but not alertable, agreed meaning. The first two fall under the Laws about misinformation, the last is rub of the green, I think.

 

Actually, thinking about it some more, the reference to 1st/2nd seats makes me think they may just be referring to bids that are slightly outside the usual strength or length expectations. Like a 5-card weak 2 or opening at the 1 level with 9 HCP -- these are common in 3rd seat, but he's planning on penalizing it if you do it in 1st/2nd.

[mycroft]

After a few examples, deviations become implicitly understood by partner. At which point, yeah, a psychic call is no longer a psychic call; but people will insist on calling it that, even though partner is going to get it and opponents aren't.

 

So the phrasing is inaccurate, but the intention is correct.

[Old York]

Psyching is not the big problem here. There are good psyches and bad psyches.

Random bidding by loonies is not psyching.

Unfortunately, it is not possible to allow good psyches and ban bad psyches.

 

The biggest problem is "fielding". A regular partnership is under extreme ethical and legal constraints. If one member of the partnership has a history of psyche bidding, then the psycher's partner must always bid normally

 

Tony (Duke of York)

[helene_t]

Unfortunately, it is not possible to allow good psyches and ban bad psyches.

I agree that it is futile to define "bad psyche" objectively, but I am not sure if defining "psyche" is so much less futile. FWIW I would have more sympathy for a TD who anounced that nonsense bidding intended to punish partner or just to have a good laugh would not be tollerated, than for a TD who anounced that psyches are not allowed because allowing psyches would be a slippery-slope towards allowing such nonsense bidding.

[Old York]

FWIW I would have more sympathy for a TD who anounced that nonsense bidding .... would not be tollerated,...

I tried banning sabotage bids (like 7NTxx) and got roasted on this forum.

My Tourney Rules now state:

*Sabotage Bids are unlawful and may be reported to Abuse@ BBO

 

I would love to allow Psyches, but the vast majority of intermediate players hate them, probably because they have never seen a "good" psyche

 

Tony (Duke of York)

[blackshoe]

The "vast majority of intermediate players" need to do one of two things:

 

1. Learn that psychs are a legal and fun part of the game, or

2. Stage a coup, take over the WBF, and change the laws to ban psychs.

 

I don't see either one happening any time soon.

[shintaro]

;)

 

As under the Laws of Bridge (whatever variety) Phsyches are a legitimate ploy;

 

Then there are and should be permitted

 

If however a pair decide to phsyche at each and every occasion then the Laws also cover this.

 

However online I feel for the poor TD when players shout that a phsyche has occured Should the TD LOG them down as EBU do ??

 

All I stipulate is that players are not allowed to Kick, bite, scraTCH OR POKE THEIR PARTNER IN THE EYES :)

[helene_t]

The "vast majority of intermediate players" need to do one of two things:

 

1. Learn that psychs are a legal and fun part of the game, or

2. Stage a coup, take over the WBF, and change the laws to ban psychs.

3. Play in non-WBF-sanctioned events, such as for example a non-psyche tourney at BBO. (This may not be "bridge" but who cares, as long as the players enjoy it).

I would love to allow Psyches, but the vast majority of intermediate players hate them, probably because they have never seen a "good" psyche

I would allow psyches nonetheless. Psyches are very rare and some of the psyches will probably not go away by being banned. The downside of a psyche ban is that some players will call the TD whenever opps make a bid perceived as a psyche. In most cases it will be a misclick, a misbid, or a more or less normal bid which opps found strange.