I am stunned!

[inquiry]

Richard, are they really keeping a list of problem players. I hope they are not doing that, as I have said many times before.

 

I agree, with your comment about "extending the rounds". This is horrible thing to do, simply because some people only have so much time they play. I factor in when a tournment ends (or team game), before I agree to play. At least is team event, I can play fast at my table and get finished when I am short of time.

 

The main cause of delaying the start of tourments seem to allow other ones to finish so people can play in both. And the main cause of the first one being long is extending its time per round. Solve one problem and both almost go away.

 

Your "harsh sounding" comments were. Life is simple. You thing a director is a clueless idiot, simply note that and don't play in his or her event again. There are quite a few directors I myself avoid, and no, I will not share my list with you... but here is a clue... ones that extend time, ones that outright ban psyches or conventions I like, such as multi 2D.

 

Ben

[hallway]

Perhaps all we do in fact need is a DIRECTOR GENERAL (DG) :o

 

Seriously !!

 

If every aspiring TD (ATD) had to apply first to a DG and have the DG authorise their application then when it landed on Uday's 'desk' he could enable it without a qualm.

 

The Director General would need to be someone totally conversant with the Tournament software as well as being a player of merit and a qualified Director.

 

The aspiring TD applies to the DG who arranges a time to meet in the Tournament Room. The DG enables a by default Tournament (time 2 days out - out of harms way ! ) puts the ATD in as Director and tells he/r to modify it to set it up as they would have it for real.

 

It would only take a minute for the DG to cast an eye over the result and know instantly whether this ATD has done their homework (read the Help files, joined the BBO_TD Club, has a Conditions of Contest uploaded ) .

 

If not - bye come back in a month :angry:

 

If they have then off to a Chat Room - now the DG can put them through some simple set pieces - the sort of things that will happen in practically every tournament. (the BBO_Td Club Admins no doubt have a list of minimum requirements)

 

If they come up to scratch - the DG sends in their ID and we have a new TD :unsure:

 

If not - bye come back in a month :lol:

 

It seems to me that all this controversy comes down to one simple factor - players don't read the descriptions and TD's (with a few exceptions) don't load Conditions of Contest.

 

If EVERY TD loaded a Conditions of Contest then the players would find themselves without a leg to stand on when it came to not liking the way a tournament is run.

 

btw TD's I checked this out before starting to type - most had no rules to read AND !! - 5 tournaments that told me in their tournament description to read the rules did NOT have any rules to read !! :)

[helene_t]

Is it a common attitude of TDs to ban psyches? If not, is this thread about pink elephants? But if it IS a common attitude, what could be the TDs reason to ban psyches?

 

On a Dutch online bridge forum, we had a 100+-postings thread about players who self-alert their calls as excactly a 5-card spades and then happen to have a 6-card. I'm not sure why such behavior is considered a problem, but apparently it is. Maybe it could be argued, from a legal point of view, that the rules are, or should be, different for self-alerts than for partner-alerts. But my impression is that it is more of an emotional thing than of a legal one.

 

Also, it was not very clear what the discussion was all about. Psyches, creative bidding, lack of system knowledge .... it was as if most people just don't like being told things that are not true, and then they don't care what the reason for telling the untruth was. Maybe the TD discussed in this thread thought he could make his task easier by banning all kinds of inaccurate self-alerting, so that he wouldn't have to distinguish between them. And then he was refering to inaccurate self-alerting (i.e., inaccurate relative to the player's actual holding) in general when he used the word "psyche".

 

I may be wrong, I'm just guessing.

[inquiry]

1) No it is not at all common to ban psyches. In fact it is very uncommon to do so, at least I think. But online creates another problem related to psyches that doesn't exisit in the real world. Many people suspect others on line are cheating (logging on from two computers, sharing information with parnter by MSN messenger about their hands, etc). In such an environment of distrust, a psych that works by a pair (where the parnter of the psycher catches it, and the psych picks off the oppositions suit/etc), raises questions of possible cheating. Have the same pair get lucky like this two or three times in a session, or two or three times in a day or two, and these questions of cheating become more common. Some directors would just not what to have to deal with those issues.

 

2) Dutch players like to open Muilderberg (spelling), showing five card major and a minor. Ok, that is fine. If their agreement is that it is a five card suit, that is what they should alert and explain. But let's say a partnership has a history of opening 2M with a six card suit from time to time, but only when vulnerable. If they have done this say twice in the last six months or four times ever, then this becomes an understanding between them that they occassionally (or even more often) do this. Now to alert it as a 5 card suit is wrong. This partnership should alert something like, "5 card suit, occassionally six when vul, plus a minor, weak".

 

3) Inaccurate self-alerting is not a problem. If you make a bid that is different from your partnership agreement, you must alert your AGREEMENT, not what you actually hold. If I leap to 4♣ as a splinter, but intstead happen to hold several clubs (but I know 4♣ was SUPPOSE to be splinter, I will alert it as a splinter. That is what you are suppose to do... ALERT what your agreement is, not what you actually hold. Just make sure you don't have an implicit agreement. For instance, if I get creative with my splinters with the same partner too often, I will have to alert that it is a splinter, but that occassionally, my splinters have more than 1 card in the suit... :-0

 

Ben