ACBL BBO now no psyche events?

[glen]

Troll: Stop. Who would cross the Bridge of Psychs must answer me these questions three, ere the other side he see.

Sir Lancelot: Ask me the questions, Troll. I am not afraid.

Troll: What... is your name?

Sir Lancelot: My name is Sir Lancelot of Camelot.

Troll: What... is your quest?

Sir Lancelot: To seek the Holy Grail.

Troll: What... is your favourite colour?

Sir Lancelot: Blue.

Troll: Go on. Off you go.

Sir Lancelot: Oh, thank you. Thank you very much.

Sir Robin: That's easy.

Troll: Stop. Who would cross the Bridge of Psychs must answer me these questions three, ere the other side he see.

Sir Robin: Ask me the questions, Troll. I'm not afraid.

Troll: What... is your name?

Sir Robin: Sir Robin of Camelot.

Troll: What... is your quest?

Sir Robin: To seek the Holy Grail.

Troll: What... is the capital of Assyria?

[pause]

Sir Robin: I don't know that.

[he is thrown over the edge into the volcano]

Sir Robin: Auuuuuuuugh.

Troll: Stop. What... is your name?

Galahad: Sir Galahad of Camelot.

Troll: What... is your quest?

Galahad: I seek the Grail.

Troll: What... is your favourite colour?

Galahad: Blue. No, yel...

[he is also thrown over the edge]

Galahad: auuuuuuuugh.

Troll: Hee hee heh. Stop. What... is your name?

King Arthur: It is 'Arthur', King of the Britons.

Troll: What... is your quest?

King Arthur: To seek the Holy Grail.

Troll: What... is the air-speed velocity of an unladen swallow?

King Arthur: What do you mean? An African or European swallow?

Troll: Huh? I... I don't know that.

[he is thrown over]

Troll: Auuuuuuuugh.

Sir Bedevere: How do know so much about swallows?

King Arthur: Well, you have to know these things when you're a king, you know.

[jdonn]

BBO forums, the leper colony for analogies so bad they have been shunned by civilized society.

[uday]

I fear FG won't be able to resist the troll-bait. Maybe i'll be able to head him off...

 

Glen, I know you have an issue with free-speech (psychs) and not-so-free-speech (psychs). I suspect somehow that the various camps that have expressed opinions won't meet anyplace they consider agreeable to all.

 

Factual things, tho, before we get back to the raving:

 

1. Psychs are legal, to a limited extent. How limited? Fuzzy. Should they be limited? Fuzzy.

2. TDs are human, thus capable of error.

3. ACBL club games (like ours) are owned and operated by independent operators (like us), not "the ACBL" in Memphis.

 

I'll toss in my observations while I'm here

 

a. It is fun to be provocative, in real life as well as at the table

b. Some people are easily bored

c. It is easier to get what you want if you know what you want

d. Flies, honey, vinegar

 

 

U

[barmar]

Can anyone explain to me,

why it's cool to win a poker game psyching

and

uncool to psyche in a bridge game?

Bridge and poker are very different games.

 

Poker is a very simple game, that is really only made interesting by the bluffing possibility.

 

Bridge is a relatively complex game, and is quite interesting and intellectually challenging even without the possibility of psyches. To some psyches make the game too random. Consider all the books and columns that teach inferences in bridge. A player can learn all this, and it seems to fly completely out of the window when bluffs are involved.

 

Because bluffing is so important in poker, it's taught early to players. It only takes a few minutes to teach the basics of the game, so there's not much else to teach but this strategy. Bridge players often have to spend weeks or months just to achieve minimal competency in the basics of the game, and during this time they're usually just taught the normal meanings of everything. The possibility of bids not meaning what they're supposed to never comes up, because there's too much normal stuff to teach.

 

The discovery of psychic bidding in bridge seems to them analogous to a player taking a card from another player's hand in gin rummy.

[Cascade]

Can anyone explain to me,

why it's cool to win a poker game psyching

and

uncool to psyche in a bridge game?

...

The possibility of bids not meaning what they're supposed to never comes up, because there's too much normal stuff to teach.

This seems almost always to come up in my series of learners' lessons at the club.

 

It is not a formal part of the lessons. I don't have it written in somewhere to teach but it seems to be that sometime someone will ask a question about what happens when someone makes the wrong bid and doesn't have what he or she promised in her hand.

 

Now this isn't a psyche it is just a mistake but it only differs from a psyche in that it is not deliberate. It seems natural to me to explain that this can happen and that you are even free to deliberately make the wrong bid. Of course you are likely to confuse your partner if you do this but it is a tactic that is allowed in the game.

[barmar]

Can anyone explain to me,

why it's cool to win a poker game psyching

and

uncool to psyche in a bridge game?

...

The possibility of bids not meaning what they're supposed to never comes up, because there's too much normal stuff to teach.

This seems almost always to come up in my series of learners' lessons at the club.

 

It is not a formal part of the lessons. I don't have it written in somewhere to teach but it seems to be that sometime someone will ask a question about what happens when someone makes the wrong bid and doesn't have what he or she promised in her hand.

 

Now this isn't a psyche it is just a mistake but it only differs from a psyche in that it is not deliberate. It seems natural to me to explain that this can happen and that you are even free to deliberately make the wrong bid. Of course you are likely to confuse your partner if you do this but it is a tactic that is allowed in the game.

Yeah, it probably does come up frequently in that context. But as a parenthetical remark, I wonder whether it sinks in. I'm sure that the first time it comes up in real life, these students will all be totally surprised, and not recall your warning about it.

[glen]

Black Knight: None shall pass.

King Arthur: What?

Black Knight: None shall pass!

King Arthur: I have no quarrel with you, good Sir Knight. But I must cross this bridge.

Black Knight: Then you shall die.

...

King Arthur: Now, stand aside, worthy adversary!

Black Knight: 'Tis but a scratch!

King Arthur: A scratch? Your arm's off!

Black Knight: No, it isn't!

King Arthur: Well, what's that then?

...

Black Knight: Come on, then.

King Arthur: What?

Black Knight: Have at you!

King Arthur: You are indeed brave, Sir Knight, but the fight is mine!

Black Knight: Oh, had enough, eh?

King Arthur: Look, you stupid bastard. You've got no arms left!

[jdonn]

You keep subtly alluding to some secret circumstance or relevant fact that you are unable to tell us. Inquiring minds want to know?

[fred]

Fred, if the intentions of these two "stars" are as noble as you assume, why did they complain to the TD about an utterly normal psych? Just to preemptively protect other players, by teaching glen a lesson not to psych in ACBL games?

 

Well, it's possible, but I don't think it's the most likely version of the story.

Why do you assume I assume *anything* as far as the intentions of the stars is concerned?

 

I have intentionally said nothing about either their behavior or their intentions (because other posters said what I thought needed to be said as far as that subject is concerned).

 

I didn't defend the TD either - the only thing I said about TD is that, based on the facts that Glen presented, it sounds like the TD made a poor ruling.

 

This should come as no surprise since, as I have said before, even the best TDs sometimes make poor rulings. Our ACBL TDs make dozens (if not 100s) of rulings every day, but of course only the questionable rulings get posted in Forums (and some such posts do get the facts wrong).

 

Conclude what you want from such posts, but I have good reasons to stand behind our staff. I believe our ACBL TDs by and large are much stronger than the TDs one is likely to find in a typical real life ACBL duplicate club. Furthermore, we are not afraid to admit when poor rulings are made and we make a serious effort to ensure that similar mistakes are not repeated.

 

As I have said before, we prefer to handle such incidents privately (via e-mail to acbl@bridgebase.com) since there is not much point in publicly embarassing a TD who makes a mistake.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[glen]

?

[fred]

... As I have said before, we prefer to handle such incidents privately (via e-mail to acbl@bridgebase.com) since there is not much point in publicly embarassing a TD who makes a mistake. ...

but this is not what it is about (if it was embarassing a TD we would have names and/or numbers etc.). Also I was not looking for this particular incident to be handled. This is about publicly discussing, sometimes calmly, sometimes not, ACBL BBO policies, as illustrated by an example.

Yes, it was nice of you not to mention the name of the TD, but I doubt that any of our ACBL TD's who read such threads appreciate being called imcompetent, power-hungry, etc. If the TD who made the ruling in question read some of the comments here, I strongly suspect he/she would feel embarassed despite no names being mentioned.

 

Customer feedback can be good - it doesn't all need to be buried - let the stories the customers tell each other help make BBO better by engaging discussion and finding better ways of doing what you are doing.

 

We don't bury anything. Jacki, who you yourself correctly stated is wonderful, also happens to take a great deal of pride in her work. She cares deeply about customer satisfaction and the performance of our ACBL TDs. She is the one who responds to the acbl@bridgebase.com e-mail address and she does not take this responsibility lightly. If she doesn't know how to handle a given situation she will consult with me, Uday, Memphis, or whoever else seems appropriate. If she thinks that one of her TDs made a mistake, she will take steps to ensure that it does not happen again.

 

Of course we value and appreciate customer feedback, but we prefer that it remains private. When our perceived dirty laundry gets aired in public, it is not only embarassing, it also gives people the false impression that we consistently screw up. That can only be bad for business and what is bad for BBO business is bad for all BBO members (even those who have never played in a single ACBL tournament on our site, some of whom never miss the opportunity to make comments in Forums about how bad our ACBL TDs are).

 

Anyways, even if you think we are making a mistake by asking you to keep such discussions private, that is what we are asking you (repeatedly) to do. Is it that big a deal for you to respect our wishes in this area?

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.co,

[matmat]

If the TD who made the ruling in question read some of the comments here, I strongly suspect he/she would feel embarassed despite no names being mentioned.

so? shame and embarrassment are very suitable feelings for when someone screws up. I actually find it a little disturbing that some cultures seem to be turning toward making everyone only feel good about themselves trying to minimize their feelings of guilt.

 

the TD in question should feel embarrassed about making the poor ruling, perhaps reviewing some of the manuals etc., and possibly apologizing to the players involved (in private). the shame should not come from the error being pointed out on a bulletin board.

[hrothgar]

Of course we value and appreciate customer feedback, but we prefer that it remains private. When our perceived dirty laundry gets aired in public, it is not only embarassing, it also gives people the false impression that we consistently screw up. That can only be bad for business ...

Hi Fred

 

Not sure whether I agree with you on this one.

 

I don't think that many people labor under the impression that anything in life is perfect. ***** happens. (Or, to quote a lesser know SF luminary “Ninety percent of everything is crud”)

 

I don't expect that the companies that I deal with will provide me with a crud free experience. I do, however, expect that said companies have open and accountable processes to identify crud and eliminate this from the system.

 

I derive confidence from visibility into the process.

I don't think that in any way, shape, or form unique in this regard.

[qwery_hi]

I personally don't see much upside in debating Fred while the open trials are on. I guess that's where Uday was coming from, and I apologize to Fred if I took something away from the 100% focus that the trials require.

 

I'm rooting for Diamond to be USA2, and when that happens I'll be back with my 'troll-bait'

[Oof Arted]

;)

 

mmm firstly in EBU land competitions ALL psyches are recored as a matter of course and collated at HQ This way the Ardent Psychers are monited and KNOWN to TD's

 

However let us concern ourselves with ONLINE games does anyone think that it is acceptable for people to go around psyching ad - infinitum in OLNINE tournies especially as there is NO way recording psyches thus people who so wish can disrupt tournies if they wish having little or no regard for those who merely want to play Bridge

 

:D

[oojah]

However let us concern ourselves with ONLINE games does anyone think that it is acceptable  for people to go around psyching   ad - infinitum in OLNINE tournies  especially as there is NO way recording psyches thus people who so wish can disrupt tournies if they wish having little or no regard for those who merely want to play Bridge

Obviously not but excessive psyching is not the problem. A growing number of players and TD's believe psyches must be banned completely and will also decide on whim, what a psyche looks like.

[Cascade]

;)

 

mmm firstly in EBU land competitions ALL psyches are recored as a matter of course and collated at HQ This way the Ardent Psychers are monited and KNOWN to TD's

 

However let us concern ourselves with ONLINE games does anyone think that it is acceptable for people to go around psyching ad - infinitum in OLNINE tournies especially as there is NO way recording psyches thus people who so wish can disrupt tournies if they wish having little or no regard for those who merely want to play Bridge

 

:D

I think it is very unlikely that all psyches are recorded in offline games whatever the regulations say. For example some psyches go without notice.

 

In online games there is a record of every psyche.

 

In theory at least it will be much easier to establish an inappropriate pattern online than offline.

 

Psyching is a subset of merely playing bridge.

[david_c]

mmm firstly in EBU land competitions ALL psyches are recored as a matter of course and collated at HQ This way the Ardent Psychers are monited and KNOWN to TD's

Actually that's not true. Certainly the EBU has a procedure for recording psyches, but the TD is not obliged to record every one. The EBU's Orange Book (section 6C1) says:

 

Psychic bids do not have to be reported but a player may request the TD to record them if he wishes. To do so is not to accuse the opponents of malpractice. The TD may record any hand if he thinks fit.

[mr1303]

I used to be david_c's partner, and I used to psyche reasonably frequently. The only hand I've ever had recorded was a misbid/misinformation case. None of my psyches were ever recorded.

[Oof Arted]

I used to be david_c's partner, and I used to psyche reasonably frequently. The only hand I've ever had recorded was a misbid/misinformation case. None of my psyches were ever recorded.

:o

 

Well if they were in a National event and the TD was called then they should have been :(

 

If by your admission you used to psyche regularily then it is no longer a psyche as your partner must have in his mind the possibilty that you HAVE psyched

[1eyedjack]

Eh? Partner will always have in mind the possibility that you have psyched, even if you have never psyched before in your life.

 

Almost everyone psychs with different frequency from the next. It is inevitable that any regular partnership will have a better feel for the likelihood of partner having psyched than as predicted by the opposition. Provided that on any given hand the chance of partner having psyched is negligible (and it will be even for those who psych relatively frequently) and furthermore that you don't field it if you suspect it, that is about the only practical way to proceed and indeed it is difficult to see how the opponents are damaged. You would have a similar advantage over the opponents if from your knowledge of your regular partnership you are aware that partner psychs less frequently than the average player in the event.

[Oof Arted]

Eh? Partner will always have in mind the possibility that you have psyched, even if you have never psyched before in your life.

 

Almost everyone psychs with different frequency from the next.  It is inevitable that any regular partnership will have a better feel for the likelihood of partner having psyched than as predicted by the opposition.  Provided that on any given hand the chance of partner having psyched is negligible (and it will be even for those who psych relatively frequently) and furthermore that you don't field it if you suspect it, that is about the only practical way to proceed and indeed it is difficult to see how the opponents are damaged.  You would have a similar advantage over the opponents if from your knowledge of your regular partnership you are aware that partner psychs less frequently than the average player in the event.

;)

 

My last post was in response to mr1303 who seems to admit that when he played with davidc he regularily psyched thus it becomes a 'partnership' understanding as partner will know that partner has done x y z in this situation before therefore it is a partnership understanding

 

And as a psyche should by law hold the same element of surprise for the other 3 THREE people at the table this is broken

 

;)

[Cascade]

And as a psyche should by law hold the same element of surprise for the other 3 THREE people at the table this is broken

This is at best a distortion of what the law says ...

 

perhaps it is deliberate...

 

and hence a psyche.

[Oof Arted]

And as a psyche should by law hold the same element of surprise for the other 3 THREE people at the table this is broken

This is at best a distortion of what the law says ...

 

perhaps it is deliberate...

 

and hence a psyche.

;)

 

ok wayne law 40 c 1 in full

 

A player may deviate from his side's announced understandings always

provided that his partner has no more reason to be aware of the deviation

than have the opponents. Repeated deviations lead to implicit understandings

which then form part of the partnership's methods and must be disclosed in

accordance with the regulations governing disclosure of system. If the

director judges there is undisclosed knowledge that has damaged the opponents he shall adjust the score and may award a procedural penalty.

 

Or in brief the bid MUST hold the same element of surprise for the other 3 people at the table.

 

Thanks for making me type it out in full :)

 

:)

[Cascade]

And as a psyche should by law hold the same element of surprise for the other 3 THREE people at the table this is broken

This is at best a distortion of what the law says ...

 

perhaps it is deliberate...

 

and hence a psyche.

;)

 

ok wayne law 40 c 1 in full

 

A player may deviate from his side's announced understandings always

provided that his partner has no more reason to be aware of the deviation

than have the opponents. Repeated deviations lead to implicit understandings

which then form part of the partnership's methods and must be disclosed in

accordance with the regulations governing disclosure of system. If the

director judges there is undisclosed knowledge that has damaged the opponents he shall adjust the score and may award a procedural penalty.

 

Or in brief the bid MUST hold the same element of surprise for the other 3 people at the table.

 

Thanks for making me type it out in full :)

 

:)

I still don't see the word "surprise" in the law.

 

I don't think "surprise" is a proper or reasonable paraphrase of the phrase "no more reason to be aware".

 

Sure lack of awareness may lead to surprise but it don't think it necessarily does so.

 

'no more reason to be aware ' is a statement of the situation prior to the event occuring.

 

'surprise' is a reaction to the event having occured.

 

I am never going to be surprised by a 1♠ psyche on the auction 1♥ (Dbl) ? Whoever my partner is. Other players might be.

 

I don't think the law in any way precludes my first time intermediate partner from making this psyche against opponents who might be surprised by it whatever their experience.